>>6
A quick survey of the other threads on the front page should answer that question.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-24 23:19
>>9
Because then it can be hosted on pastebin and simply kopipe'd to one's address bar, rather than saved to disk and opened.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-24 23:22
>>9
To make it easier to open it without having to save it as a file.
If it bothers you, here's a copy that's not a data: url: http://pastebin.com/X0nPJTRn
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-24 23:24
>>12 no prob, quick python base64 decode solves everything
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-24 23:38
So, how long until somebody makes a CPU in CSS?
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-25 0:08
You could have done this in >20 lines of Javascript
>>15-16
How exactly could I implement binary addition that works in browsers that support CSS but not Javascript, in Javascript?
I don't think any number of lines of Javascript can solve that problem.
>>20
Every one of the mainstream ones with JS disabled.
Now we'll have to disable these questionable "features" too if we don't want huge selector sets (from either stupid designers or malice) wasting resources. The way it is right now, it's easy to create a page where mousing over anything triggers a disturbingly long chain of animations and repaints.
>>24
The web is now an application platform. Deal with it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-25 11:48
>>26
Disassembly is easy, you just have to have an array of function pointers where the opcode is the index into the array, like void nop(void)
{
printf("nop");
}
dildo_table[NOP_OPCODE] = nop;[/code]
Then just do a loop like this (pseudocode): while (num_dildos --> 0) {
dildo_table[current_dildo]();
}