YourNameHere Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 We have a flex board but how about an AIR board. There is just not enough help out there for AIR aside from the actual docs (which are confusing as heck). I think that it would bring a LOT of new visitors to the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YourNameHere Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 My mistake, no Flex board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 We're a PHP website. We are not going to cater for everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YourNameHere Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 We're a PHP website. We are not going to cater for everything. Understood, php can be used in conjunction with AIR (JavaScript), so I would think it would bring lots of unique visitors. But, I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Creating a separate board will not bring any visitors, if there's no activity in it. How many topics regarding FLEX or AIR do we have each month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Understood, php can be used in conjunction with AIR (JavaScript), [...] So can computability theory. We don't have a board for that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 As Mchl pointed out, creating a forum for something doesn't magically make people flock to it. You have to promote it, and seeing as how we are, as Dan pointed out, a php community, that's not going to happen. If we actually started seeing a lot of threads about AIR show up on their own (and consistently), I would support creating a (sub) forum for it. But as it stands right now, there's not enough activity to support that. That's how virtually all of the non-php forums are, in principle. Every single one of them, even the javascript and mysql ones, are there because there is enough activity, not because we are a mysql or javascript community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salathe Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 We have a flex board but how about an AIR board. There is just not enough help out there for AIR aside from the actual docs (which are confusing as heck). If you want help, there's no harm asking in the most relevant forum here: if people have the knowledge (or time/inclination to seek it out for you) then you'll get replies. If you don't get replies, there are plenty of AIR-centric communities elsewhere to ask for help. I've no idea how many PHPFreaks have played with AIR in whatever form. I think that it would bring a LOT of new visitors to the site. As would giving away kittens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think that it would bring a LOT of new visitors to the site. As would giving away kittens. And exceptionally good grade quality hardcore p0rn.. lots and lots of it (slowly turns head, wide-eyed and looks at CV - Your stash! Offer it! And they WILL come!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salathe Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 … And they WILL come! *salathe likes the double-entendre Back on topic, maybe I missed it but I've seen no AIR posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 you can't see air because it's invisible. and I am NOT sharing my pr0n stash. It's mine, hot dammit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 you can't see air because it's invisible. Air is not invisible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 you can't see air because it's invisible. Air is not invisible. Air isn't a constant and varies, but generally the 3 major components of air are Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon, all are color-less gases at STP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think John's air is probably just heavily polluted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Only nothing is truly invisible. The rest is just hard to see, e.g. not visible to the naked eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Only nothing is truly invisible. The rest is just hard to see, e.g. not visible to the naked eye. 'Invisible' by definition, refers what to what is undetectable by the human eye. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invisible 1. not visible; not perceptible by the eye: invisible fluid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Invisible pink unicorn is also invisible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 'Invisible' by definition, refers what to what is undetectable by the human eye. Invisible simply means "not visible". It does not say anything about the preconditions. By the dictionary definition, I can be invisible by hiding behind something. In that state, I am invisible. Visibility involves a perceiver and the perceived. Air, in it's common state is not visible to the average un-aided eye. That does not make it incapable of being visible, hence, not absolutely "invisible". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I don't know anyone who walk around with microscopes powerful enough to view things at molecular or atomic level (or just any type of microscope really), so I think it's reasonable to say that air by "default" is invisible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
448191 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Usually air isn't visible to a human. But "invisible" (without context), suggests that it is not capable of being visible, which is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Not that any type of microscope powerful enough to view atoms even exists in the first place. The only way that we can actually generate images of atoms is through STMs, whose images aren't actually images of the atoms themselves but computer generated depictions based on data acquired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg_alpha Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 That's what I absolutely ♥ about these discussions... it gets all pedantic, and things just spiral downhill from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Not that any type of microscope powerful enough to view atoms even exists in the first place. The only way that we can actually generate images of atoms is through STMs, whose images aren't actually images of the atoms themselves but computer generated depictions based on data acquired. Given sufficient magnification you would be able to see anything regardless of size. Just because a piece of technology doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot exist. Usually air isn't visible to a human. But "invisible" (without context), suggests that it is not capable of being visible, which is false. No such thing exists, so when talking about non-fictitious things it must be implicitly understood that there is a context. Therefore, when someone says "air is invisible" it's logical to assume the person means "to me". Natural languages cannot be correctly interpreted if everything is taken literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Not that any type of microscope powerful enough to view atoms even exists in the first place. The only way that we can actually generate images of atoms is through STMs, whose images aren't actually images of the atoms themselves but computer generated depictions based on data acquired. Given sufficient magnification you would be able to see anything regardless of size. Just because a piece of technology doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot exist. Yes, of course, and I wasn't stating otherwise. I was just saying that at current we don't posses the the technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Given sufficient magnification you would be able to see anything regardless of size. Just because a piece of technology doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot exist. Unless your eyes are sensitive to ultra short wavelength electromagnetic waves, there actually is a limit of what details can be seen in visible light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.