Different style of attempt.

Ok so, i have been looking into doing the timed challenges, and i got to thinking, would it be possible to try to do these with php, and frames.

say i had the php search the framed page, do what the challenge ask and have it set the variable and refresh with a meta tag?

If you dont know how to do these challenges (practically, not technically), then you should reconsider if you are ready for these yet. By your post, id say you have some pretty fundamental stuff to learn about how PHP operates first.

I understand that php gets parsed before the page loads but what im asking is is this a feasible way of doing this challenge (with a frame, say is it possible to load the fram before the rest of the other page) , or is this challenge not possible with php because of this?

jjbutler88 wrote: If you dont know how to do these challenges (practically, not technically), then you should reconsider if you are ready for these yet. By your post, id say you have some pretty fundamental stuff to learn about how PHP operates first.

Yeah, the timed challenges are really easy if you know what you are doing. I was reading the php tutorial on a certain function that allows you to open sockets. Using a sniffer, that function, and the data I captured from it (as well as some knowledge of the "HTTP verbs"), I was able to complete 1-3 so far (I will be complete with #4 as soon as I can figure out a regex or substr() length param to capture the string only and not the whole webpage). I frankly think that having the challenge page open is a bad idea, because it could time you out on some of the challenges. It is possible to do it in PHP, as a matter of fact, there are two ways that I know of. Some even used Greasemonkey and Javascript

No, im not saying that, PHP is perfectly capable of competing this (in fact, id guess its the most commonly used language to beat these challs), but frames are not the way to go. Why wait for the page to render? Or the images to load? Your not interested in that, all you need if the source, a regex, and the code to return what is needed.

jjbutler88 wrote: No, im not saying that, PHP is perfectly capable of competing this (in fact, id guess its the most commonly used language to beat these challs), but frames are not the way to go. Why wait for the page to render? Or the images to load? Your not interested in that, all you need is the source, a regex, and the code to return what is needed.

Take notes, that there my friend is a shining beacon of intelligence.

moshbat wrote: If you meant to display the page with the submitted data in the frame, then that is entirely possible…

I know you don't take the time to read shitty posts written by shitty people, but if you read the OPs post carefully the idiocy will reach you.

Beware.

Ok i have learned a little more and found the way i wanted to do it impossible.

but this is what i was talking about

1. load the frame
2. execute the php to a. read the needed info then b. do what needs to be done
3. load the rest of the page with the variable set and refresh

yours31f wrote: Ok i have learned a little more and found the way i wanted to do it impossible.

but this is what i was talking about

1. load the frame
2. execute the php to a. read the needed info then b. do what needs to be done
3. load the rest of the page with the variable set and refresh

Idio-idio-idiooooooooot.

What's this "frame" thing you're talking about?

He want's to see the whole thing done before his eyes!

Sockets… not socks. But sockets are the way you need to go.

The "frame" thing I was referring to is something like an IFRAME - that can load content from another page. I now realize that my question was idiotic, based on an untrue assumptions.. to be honest I don't know what I was thinking. The only way what I said could work is if

1. HTML was server side (the link in the IFRAME would be predownloaded by the server and php would have access to it)
2. PHP was client side (after the client downloads the link in the IFRAME php would continue executing)

Stupid.. I know.

Thanks to everyone who provided constructive comments. I appreciate the suggestions and since I have recently decided to become experienced in PHP I will approach the timed challenges by using PHP, cURL and regex.

yours31f wrote: The only way what I said could work is if blah a) No, no it couldn't b) Saying that if exactly everything would change then you'd be right is like arguing that what you said was somewhat logical because if you would be right you would be right.

If you carefully read my post I acknowledged that it couldn't work (through implication).

I didn't say that if everything would change then I would be right. My intention in giving those false assumptions was to illustrate my understanding that the question was stupid to begin with.. because the knowledge that PHP isn't client side and HTML isn't server side is trivial.. Which in turn - should show that I realize what I said was illogical.. cause it was based on stupid - trivially untrue - assumptions.

yours31f wrote: If you carefully read my post I acknowledged that it couldn't work (through implication).

I didn't say that if everything would change then I would be right. My intention in giving those false assumptions was to illustrate my understanding that the question was stupid to begin with.. because the knowledge that PHP isn't client side and HTML isn't server side is trivial.. Which in turn - should show that I realize what I said was illogical.. cause it was based on stupid - trivially untrue - assumptions.

Blahblah, blahblah, blahblahblahblah, blah? Blah.

In other words; you don't know what the fuck you're doing. This isn't trivial, untrue, an assumption, illogical or false.

It's the truth.

yours31f wrote: If you carefully read my post blahblah, etc. If you carefully read your own post and then very carefully read mine; eat fire, shut up. If you don't know what you're talking about, including, but not limited to: the topic you started, logic and English language, don't bitch back and don't use words and expressions you don't understand and wouldn't normally use to try and make a point. Just because it sounds compelling doesn't mean that it's right.

Admitting that you don't know shit about what you're talking about especially doesn't make you look smarter or more respected when you tell it in a manner that shows that you still don't know shit about what you're talking about and then try to fight back when that is once again pointed out.

yours31f wrote: <snip>If…

1. HTML was server side (the link in the IFRAME would be predownloaded by the server and php would have access to it)
2. PHP was client side (after the client downloads the link in the IFRAME php would continue executing)

Okay… you're still an idiot, but I'm glad to see you rationalizing the logic at some point in your questions. Now, just do it before you ask / speculate.

COM wrote: a) No, no it couldn't b) Saying that if exactly everything would change then you'd be right is like arguing that what you said was somewhat logical because if you would be right you would be right. Everyone loves a good puppy-kicking show but, when it comes down to it… that's all you seem to do. None of your posts seem to contain any knowledge to contribute anything to the thread whatsoever.

… Which makes you really annoying.

COM wrote:

1. If you don't know what you're talking about…
2. Just because it sounds compelling doesn't mean that it's right.
3. Admitting that you don't know shit about what you're talking about…
4. when you tell it in a manner that shows that you still don't know shit about what you're talking about… Read and learn from 1, 2, and 4. Do #3 more, and flame without reason less. I hate to even represent that douche in any way in my posts, but he obviously has something that's at least on topic in the post you were criticizing. Your crap is just generic bashing.

So, if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, shut up.

First of all, I don't tend to flame for no reason, I don't like it anymore than you do. He has already been given all the help needed regarding the original question and repeating anything previously said would be unnecessary. Secondly, my first post wasn't anywhere near a flame, I was merely pointing out the fact that he, instead of just accepting the help and moving on starts talking about how dumb it was and then makes a trivial statement in a manner as to justify the fact that it was indeed stupid of him to say what he said in the first place. There's no reason for him to be trying to show that he was somehow thinking right when he himself has admitted to being wrong and everyone else has shown it too. Afer that he not only states that I can't read his post properly, but states that the initial defense that he used to somehow, as you said, rationalize what he was thinking is trivial and thus admitting that it was completely unnecessary for him to say it, yet his entire post is about defending what he said. However we see it it's a contradiction and I replied, that's all.

However, neither of us is contributing anything useful by arguing about this in this thread, so if you wish to continue, pm me instead.

COM wrote: First of all, I don't tend to flame for no reason, I don't like it anymore than you do.

Really? I've noticed and commented on plenty of your posts of this very sort and, yet, you've neglected to respond until now. In fact, in the time that I've been back here… the only posts I have seen from you have been derogatory.

Secondly, my first post wasn't anywhere near a flame, I was merely pointing out the fact that he, instead of just accepting the help and moving on starts talking about how dumb it was and then makes a trivial statement in a manner as to justify the fact that it was indeed stupid of him to say what he said in the first place. There's no reason for him to be trying to show that he was somehow thinking right when he himself has admitted to being wrong and everyone else has shown it too.

There is such a thing as being courteous enough to post more information in a thread so that others do not make the same mistake. In fact, in established forums, it's almost an unspoken rule… when you solve the problem, give as much info as you can to prevent others from making the same mistake.

He wasn't trying to show that he was "thinking right"… he was vocalizing his mistakes. I agree that he could've provided the correct line of thinking in doing so, but it is a start.

However, neither of us is contributing anything useful by arguing about this in this thread, so if you wish to continue, pm me instead. Oh, no… he's done with this thread. It's an open forum… I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of your arguments in favor of your tactless and non-constructive posts. It's not an argument that I seek… because there is nothing to argue.

Be constructive, no matter how you respond, or I will continue to point out the fact that you are not contributing… as I have been pointing out previously. This community already has enough dead weight.

Zephyr_Pure, if you don't call it arguing, then I don't know what, obviously we see his post in two different manners and speak for each of our view, that makes it arguing.

The main issue seems to be that I don't see it as him vocalizing his mistakes while you do. If he'd been vocalizing his mistakes he wouldn't have done so in a manner where he's trying to show us that he "would've been right if". Stating that he "would've been right if" shows that he's trying to justify his original statement, if he'd have been trying to just vocalize his mistakes he'd have thoroughly explained his thought and why it was wrong instead of stating something trivial and starting it with "it would've worked if". A more thorough, coherent explanation of his initial thoughts would've indeed helped prevent people from making the same mistake as he did, instead it just makes him look arrogant.

If he somehow did just express it badly, then I apologize for what I've posted, however, that doesn't change the fact that it was badly written and that it would be easily misunderstood.

COM wrote: Zephyr_Pure, if you don't call it arguing, then I don't know what, obviously we see his post in two different manners and speak for each of our view, that makes it arguing.

It's not arguing… we're agreeing on the essentials. It's the conclusions that need some work.

If he'd been vocalizing his mistakes he wouldn't have done so in a manner where he's trying to show us that he "would've been right if". Stating that he "would've been right if" shows that he's trying to justify his original statement, if he'd have been trying to just vocalize his mistakes he'd have thoroughly explained his thought and why it was wrong instead of stating something trivial and starting it with "it would've worked if". A more thorough, coherent explanation of his initial thoughts would've indeed helped prevent people from making the same mistake as he did, instead it just makes him look arrogant.

We already agreed that he could've done it in a better way. Effort should be encouraged, though… even if with a bit of brutal honesty.

The main issue seems to be that I don't see it as him vocalizing his mistakes while you do. If he somehow did just express it badly, then I apologize for what I've posted, however, that doesn't change the fact that it was badly written and that it would be easily misunderstood. He did, no apology needed, and it is easily misunderstood. The ultimate goal is to set two paths in front of those that are not "up to speed":

1. Learn from your mistakes and become a more proficient member of the community.
2. Leave.

For that reason, it is sometimes necessary to interpret the undertones of an inadequate post in order to justify a response with that goal listed above. I have nothing against you… I just respond according to that goal.

wow what a dumbass. lol sorry i had to speak the truth here…

frames. Iframes? dude those are the most silly thing I have ever heard in my life when it comes to php.. doing this mission has nothing to do with html or frames.. I code it straight out using cURL..

Blast from the past.