SiteExperts.com Logo Home | Community | Developer's Paradise
User Groups | Site Tools | Site Information | Search
 Main Menu
 Forums
SiteExperts.com Forums
All Discussions

SiteExperts Feedback
The Lounge
Dynamic HTML
Site Design/ Critiques
HTML and CSS
XML Technologies
The Wireless Internet
Internet Explorer
Microsoft .NET
The Server
Technical Support

Sponsored Links

User Groups : Forums : SiteExperts : The Lounge :

Previous DiscussionNext Discussion
 Hiding HTML/SCRIPT... I think it IS possible!

I have only been programming for about six months now, but I put in about 40 hours a week’s worth.  Let’s call it my new hobby.  Anyways, I remember reading posts in the past by individuals who requested a certain feature that seemed very ridiculous at the time.

 

They wanted to hide their code from the user!

 

Now, one of the first questions that popped up in my head was why on earth would someone wish to ‘hide’ their code.  After all, the internet is all about trading technologies (right?).  Anyways, every now and then I gave the subject a little more thought and I eventually came to a conclusion.

 

Internet Applications are the wave of the future.  They don’t need to be installed and they will work on any computer (for the most part).  So, if anyone would want their code hidden from the user, it would seem that it would be the application developer community.  I am currently working on a web application and I have been working on it for almost six months now, I certainly would be very upset if someone acquired my code, copied my product and just changed a few headings and made money off my hard work.

 

 Anyways, back to the topic of ‘hiding’ code.  Does everyone out there still think it’s impossible?   I think it’s possible.

 

Actually, I believe I have found a way to do it (accidentally).  Who knows, maybe the late night programming and the double espresso’s have paid off.  I believe that I found a way to set up a site so that all the user ever sees is about 10 lines of code and that’s it.  I am not talking about disabling the right button; I am just talking about using a different style.

 

Who’s interested in pushing this conversation further?

 

  

Started By sparkrulez on Mar 9, 2003 at 2:10:50 AM

4629 Response(s) | Reply

artberry on Jun 17, 2003 at 7:18:12 PM (# 255)

But if you want to view anything on the web that isn't compiled or encrypted in otherwords in HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc you just download the whole site with webstripper or WinHTTrack (they even offer the option of downloading all the files on a server in the raw) and if there is any script on the pages which trys to prevent you from viewing the code in a browser you just drag the files into something that won't execute it e.g a simple text editor, or you could just browse a site in the raw with something like Sam Spade. It's a total waste of time and effort trying to protect code or even images by disabling the left click about the only thing that can be made reasonably secure is Flash and perhaps MS word documents 

I suppose it is possible to put off novice users, but novice users don't usually nick or copy code Web designers/developers do and normally know all the dirty tricks, so such things serve no real purpose.

 


susanob on Jun 17, 2003 at 8:53:32 PM (# 256)
This message has been edited.

Holophrastic spewed:

There is a reason why the English language has no future tense whatsoever. You never know what the future holds, so the English language doesn't support it.


I agree with hobbes_78, and I think we can all agree that:

Holophrastic *was* an a s s h o l e in the *past*.

Holophrastic *is* an a s s h o l e in the *present*.

Holophrastic *will* always *be* an a s s h o l e in the *future*.


Holophrastic also spewed:

you're a programmer? language is language. if you want it to work for you, you have to use it properly.


A s s h o l e heal thyself. (And that’s present tense imperative.)

While you’re at it, you need to see a psychiatrist with your attitude. My rates are $150/hour.

As zuckera noted, you must hate your job.

At least mjzalewski was on-topic.

If you don't know, then just say so. This is a place to learn and there’s absolutely no need for the ad hominem attacks and going on and on and on about your pathetic life, food, home, health care, mortgage, troubles with your wife/male companion, etc.
mszlazak on Jun 17, 2003 at 10:50:40 PM (# 257)

There IS a 100% sure-fire way the hide script when a someone is compliant. Ask them to please not look at.


Holophrastic on Jun 17, 2003 at 11:10:15 PM (# 258)

last time I checked, *be* is present tense, and *will* is a noun.

*will be* is not an actual future tense because *will* is not part of the main verb, it is simply a helper, and *be* is the verb and is present tense.

what I'm saying is not new.  English has no future tense.  You can keep looking for it, but you won't find it.

will means want
going indicates present travel or transport

stop looking.  about the only thing you'll discover is that laymen drop small words from proper grammar, which, when returned, make the syntax obvious.  Words such as that, to, about, on, within, and such.


chipple on Jun 18, 2003 at 12:59:56 AM (# 259)
This message has been edited.

"will" certainly isn't a noun unless you're talking about someone's "will" (pick your favorite definition).

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 1will
Pronunciation: w&l, (&)l, &l, 'wil
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past would /w&d, (&)d, 'wud/; present singular & plural will
Etymology: Middle English (1st & 3d sing. present indic.), from Old English wille (infinitive wyllan); akin to Old High German wili (3d singular present indicative) wills, Latin velle to wish, will
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses : DESIRE, WISH <call it what you will>
verbal auxiliary
1 -- used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job> <if we will all do our best> <will you please stop that racket>
2 -- used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <will get angry over nothing> <will work one day and loaf the next>
3 -- used to express futurity <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite -- Tennessee Williams>
4 -- used to express capability or sufficiency <the back seat will hold three passengers>
5 -- used to express probability and often equivalent to the simple verb <that will be the milkman>
6 a -- used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will> b -- used to express inevitability <accidents will happen>
7 -- used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction <you will do as I say, at once>
intransitive senses : to have a wish or desire <whether we will or no>
usage see SHALL
- if you will : if you wish to call it that <a kind of preoccupation, or obsession if you will -- Louis Auchincloss>


Holophrastic on Jun 18, 2003 at 1:08:09 AM (# 260)

welcome to the concept of a word's origin versus its common usage.  look at its etymology and look at its original usage.  you will find that it always relates to will.

besides, how can it have any verbial meaning when it's used with any verb?  I will run and I will fall -- *will* obviously has no verbial distinction.

ever study shakespeare?  welcome to past common usage, i.e. closer to original.  You will not find many example of will used the way we use it today.  You will find it used within the wishful context.  You will also find the additional article(?) *to* as in "I will to see you" and *I will to fall".  The same word is used as "would" as in *I would the presence of your company*

English actually does not have a future tense.  You can ignore common schooling.  After-all, common schooling has destroyed the adverbial suffix, the hyphen, the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, and an m-dash, the ellipsis, much of proper grammar, and, lest we forget, while February is properly written with two r's, it is now acceptably pronounced with only one.


bod1467 on Jun 18, 2003 at 1:17:10 AM (# 261)

So, in effect, will is an adverb as well as a noun, but not a verb (in common usage) and hence there is no true future tense in English?


Earlier Replies | Replies 255 to 261 of 4629 | Later Replies
Goto Page: 662 661 660 659 658 657 656 655 654 653 652 651 650 649 648 647 646 645 644 643 642 641 640 639 638 637 636 635 634 633 632 631 630 629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 529 528 527 526 525 524 523 522 521 520 519 518 517 516 515 514 513 512 511 510 509 508 507 506 505 504 503 502 501 500 499 498 497 496 495 494 493 492 491 490 489 488 487 486 485 484 483 482 481 480 479 478 477 476 475 474 473 472 471 470 469 468 467 466 465 464 463 462 461 460 459 458 457 456 455 454 453 452 451 450 449 448 447 446 445 444 443 442 441 440 439 438 437 436 435 434 433 432 431 430 429 428 427 426 425 424 423 422 421 420 419 418 417 416 415 414 413 412 411 410 409 408 407 406 405 404 403 402 401 400 399 398 397 396 395 394 393 392 391 390 389 388 387 386 385 384 383 382 381 380 379 378 377 376 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364 363 362 361 360 359 358 357 356 355 354 353 352 351 350 349 348 347 346 345 344 343 342 341 340 339 338 337 336 335 334 333 332 331 330 329 328 327 326 325 324 323 322 321 320 319 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 310 309 308 307 306 305 304 303 302 301 300 299 298 297 296 295 294 293 292 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284 283 282 281 280 279 278 277 276 275 274 273 272 271 270 269 268 267 266 265 264 263 262 261 260 259 258 257 256 255 254 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To respond to a discussion, you must first logon.

If you are not registered, please register yourself to become a member of the SiteExperts.community.

User Name
Password
Copyright 1997-2004 InsideDHTML.com, LLC. All rights reserved.