Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Homer Simpson Drawn With Web 2.0-Style ASCII Art

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the should-be-an-online-convertor-for-this dept.

Graphics 160

boogi78 writes "Remember ASCII art? This is the Web 2.0 CSS version of ASCII art featuring Homer Simpson. Here is a CSS G.W. Bush. There's also an program that automatically converts jpegs into 'CSS images,' but it's a Windows executable. I found no sources for it, but I got it to work with WINE."

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WOO! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296514)

FIRST!

-CROJDOR!

Woop! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296520)

First!

-Crojdor

art? (5, Funny)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296544)

"Remember ASCII art?"
If you're asking, you must be new here.

Re:art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297554)

Hey, at least it's not back in pog form.

Re:art? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23298220)

if you're asciing, you must be old here.

Re:art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23298776)

Imagine this used for captchas!

Original Thread (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296548)

Original pouet thread which this spawned:
http://pouet.net/topic.php?which=5204&page=1 [pouet.net]

Yes, but this is not new technology (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296564)

I fucked Ann Coulter. Hard. I fucked her in her tight slutty asshole and then I pulled my cock out and she sucked on it. She loves sucking on my cock once it's been in her tight asshole. I rammed her hard and fast as my throbbing meatpole stretched her butthole apart. Then I shoved my cock in her cunt and fucked her dumb brains out. The stupid slut kept screaming and telling me how much she loved being treated like a dirt fuckslave, a fucking cumslut, a whorish little fuckbunny. Then she begged me to let her lick my asshole. How could I refuse? I let her suck on my asshole as she flicked her tongue on it while jacking my throbbing cock. She wrapped her lips around my asshole and sucked it hard, flicking her tongue it, kissing it and licking it and moaning like the dirty cumslut whore she is. Then she reached back and took her cunt juices and rub it all around my asshole and proceeded to lick her love juices off my tight asshole. I bent her over and fucked her in her slutty butthole again, and then shoved my cock down her throat and facefucked her. I slapped her face with my cock and then shoved my dick back in her butthole. After a few minutes of buttfucking the bitch, I pulled me cock out. She sucked me clean and then proceeded to lick my asshole some more while jacking me off. The dirty filthy cumbunny fuckslave sure knew how to give a good rusty trombone. After a few minutes of expert rimming, I was ready to blow my load. I blew spurts of thick, hot, white, sticky cum all over her face. Thick sticky wads straight into her mouth. Cumming over and over. Thick ropes of cum arcing up high, streaming out and splattering all over her slutty face. She sucked out all my cum as I emptied my balls all over her. She then used my cock to rub my cum all over her face. It was an amazing fuck-session. Ann Coulter is an amazingly filthy slut and I encourage everyone to fuck her. Right now I have to slut so horny that I can ram that bitch anytime I want. Ann Coulter really is a spectacular cunt.

forget that skinny bitch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296588)

oprah is pussy extraordinare. you haven't had a real pussy till you try some chocolate sugar

Re:Yes, but this is not new technology (-1, Offtopic)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297956)

-1, Redundant [blogspot.com] (and the original was better).

works with wine? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296574)

who'd care anyway? who wants to run that faggot linux shit? fags, that's who. fucking dick smoking fags getting pounded in the ass by other faggots.

Re:works with wine? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296998)

as opposed to windows users who love taking it in the ass from micro$oft or mac users who worship jobs' pole?

Re:works with wine? (0, Redundant)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298072)

It's funny, how the guy trolling at the windows users didn't get modded down.

Re:works with wine? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297190)

It's four thirty a.m. and the house is asleep.

I. . . am not asleep.

I am crouched in the bathtub in a frog-like stance, small puddles of urine and liquid shit at my feet. I'm leaning forward, gripping the side of the tub and biting my knee, overwhelmed by a mixture of pain and pleasure as I piston a dildo in and out of my ass.

You see, I really love anal masturbation.

Ever try it? No? You should.

Doesn't matter who you are. God gave all of us, male and female, an abundance of nerve endings in our rectum - and one life to live. So why don't you go ahead and test out the equipment? Have some fun. No point in having a gun sitting on your shelf your entire life and never killing anyone, right?

But I realize there's a fairly persistent misconception among guys that I'm gonna have to dispel before we go any further:

Stimulating your own ass is not "gay."

That notion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, how could anything you do to your own body be gay? Nobody ever freaks out in the middle of jerking off like "Holy fuck, I've got a fistful of cock! I've gotta cut this gay shit out!" Well, what's the philosophical difference between playing with your dick and playing with your ass?

There is none.

Look fellas, here's the scoop:

If you have a girl wearing a foot long strap-on, smacking your face and screaming "WHO'S MY BITCH?!?" while she pounds your asshole until it bleeds, that would be a *heterosexual* act. Girl on guy. Simple.

Now if it's a guy that's fucking you, that would be homosexual. And if you're doing it to yourself, well, that's plain old masturbation.

But listen - if you're still sitting there being stubborn, all macho and uptight going "My ass. . . is EXIT ONLY!!!" then lemme just ask you a question.

You know that feeling you get when you take a really big shit?

You know what I'm talking about. You're sitting on the couch, eating Cheez-Its and watching Larry King, when all of the sudden you feel that familiar burning. . . so you get up and bound off to the bathroom all bow legged, clenching your sphincter real tight, and then you furiously rip off your boxer briefs and plop down on the seat just in time to let a huuuuuuge thick turd come sliding out of your ass?

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!

That feeling.

That tingling, chills up your spine, this-is-absolutely-the-pinnacle-of-human-existence feeling.

Well guess what. That's the feeling of a massive rod moving through your rectum, tickling those wonderfully abundant nerve endings. You love it. It's okay. We all do. It doesn't make you a fag. Or at the very least, we're ALL fags. So indulge yourself.

(Yes, I understand that said feeling is partially due to the sensory experience of toxins leaving the body, which is unique to defecation - but the operative word here is "partially." You like the log movement, too. Don't try to argue.)

So anyway, now that you've decided to be bold, and not a homophobic pussy, and poke around the cornhole a little bit - good for you. But there's something you should remember. Anal masturbation is just like playing the accordion, or shooting a jumper, or really anything else that's worth doing. That is, it requires practice.

You see, back when I was a kid I would get curious and stick a finger or a toothbrush up there, but I wasn't fucking around with anywhere near the kind of pleasure I'm achieving now. It was uncomfortable even. So I worked on it.

And conversely, I know I'm still far from expertise in this particular discipline. I don't claim to be an ass master. There's a whole world of lengths, girths, textures, and vibrations that my eager browneye has yet to inhale.

But since I have honed my skills to a pretty decent level, I'll share with you my current technique. Without further ado:

SpunkyBrewster's Anal Masturbation Technique

What You Need:

1. Lubricant of your choice
2. Fake cock (eight inches, approx.)
3. Ridged anal wand (seven inches, approx.)

Procedure:

1. Apply a generous amount of lube to your index finger, and swirl the lubricated finger lightly around your butthole. Add another drop or two of lube, and then simultaneously push your finger into your butthole while pushing back with your anus muscles.

2. Slide your finger into your ass up to the knuckle and feel around for turds. Unless you're an anorexic, you probably will come across one.

3. Circle your finger around your anal walls pressing outward, as if you were an umpire signaling a home run. You should be near the toilet, because this is intended to stimulate a bowel movement. Once you've shit, and your rectum is empty, then you're ready for some heavy duty fun.

4. Lube up a second finger and slip them both into your poopchute. Let your asshole get comfortable with the new mass, and then begin to pump a little. Repeat with a third finger if you so desire.

5. Slather lube all over the ridged anal wand. Squat over your tool and press the tip to your now greasy anus. Just as you've done with your fingers, ease the dildo into your cornhole as you push back onto it with your ass muscles. Go slowly, stopping at each ridge and letting your ass adjust to the increase in width, until you have it in as far as it will go.

6. Now it's time to start pounding. I'm not gonna get more specific than that. Do it your own way. Experiment with different positions and rhythms until you find what you like.

7. Once your ass has been thoroughly fucked by the anal wand, it's time to move up to the larger dildo. Again, you're going to repeat the process that you've done twice already, with your fingers and the wand. Entering slowly, pushing back on it, letting yourself adjust, and then starting to pump.

8. At this point your asshole is really loose, gaping even, and it's time to move on to my favorite part. Crouch down, or get into whatever position you feel comfortable with, and hold the fake cock in one hand and the wand in the other. Work the fake cock in and out, building the pace until you are doing a high intensity rectal plundering. Slide it in really deep, pause, then pull it out all the way - quickly jamming in the anal wand to fill its place. The rapid transition from smooth to ridged textures will send waves out of pleasure rippling through your entire body. Then give yourself a nice hard fuck with the anal wand, and repeat as many times as you'd like.

*In carrying out these steps - even if you take the dump at the beginning - you still might at some point fuck the shit out of yourself. This is why I recommend doing it in a bathtub, or on some other surface that is easy to clean. Now at first you might be squeamish about the poo, but I think that as you get hardcore into the pleasure of all this, you'll just naturally get desensitized. Kind of like a heroin addict quickly gets over his fear of needles.

In fact, I've found that the right kind of poo can easily be incorporated into the festivities. Sometimes while I'm pounding away I will feel a sudden rush of heat travel through my ass, and I'll know that I'm coating the dildo with a somewhat viscous liquid shit. At this point in the ass ramming, my pain tolerance is rather high, so I'll simply jam the shitty dildo back up my ass, and let the sudden decrease in lubrication create an effect similar to the aforementioned smooth-to-ridged transition. As a matter of fact, this is probably the most intense sensation that I've come across in my entire anal masturbatory experience.*

So that's how it's done. Quite the activity, I must say. Maybe next time you're feeling bored and restless, you can give it a shot. Unless you're a fucking prude, in which case I'd recommend suicide. Or do a goddamn crossword puzzle, I don't really care.

One more thing I want to say on the subject: I really think anal penetration should be an Olympic sport. Wouldn't that be neat? I mean for Christ sakes, we've all seen how much those little Japanese bastards can eat - can you imagine how much they could stuff up the other end? It could even be a team sport where one of them has to take their partner's entire head up their ass.

Well. . . I don't really know how much support I'm gonna get for my petition to add competitive rectal insertion to the Olympic Games, we'll have to see - but seriously, speed walking? FUCKING CURLING?!? It would be far from the dumbest event on the schedule.

Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (1, Informative)

aarku (151823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296578)

Sameish idea: DeImg [thedailygrind.net] from The Daily Grind Network.

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296638)

Sameish idea: DeImg [thedailygrind.net] from The Daily Grind Network.
AKA how to turn a 30k image into a 6 meg browser killing table.

Seen it longer ago (4, Informative)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296692)

pngtopnm | ppmtopgm | pgmnorm | pnmscale -width 80 | ppmtopgm | pgmtopbm | pbmtoascii

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (5, Funny)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297400)

But of course! That's what Web 2.0 is all about: turning simple applications with a bit of necessary networking into unmanageably complex monstrosities requiring a full data-center and a plugged-up, memory-gobbling web browser to support one measly user and brought to life by the power of Great Cthulhu.

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297844)

And to make matters worse, they did a picture of George Bush to demonstrate their technology! Talk about a joke!

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297610)

In its defense, I've seen stuff like this used to get around firewall or web filtering limitations. ;)

Gestapo blocking jpegs? Get someone to convert it to an ascii format and render it in the browser.

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (5, Informative)

jasonjacks0n (762945) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296934)

Sameish idea: DeImg [thedailygrind.net] from The Daily Grind Network.

Actually, this is a bit different - and much more unique and impressive, IMHO. I can't get to the first link (slashdotted already), but the Bush portrait and this Homer [romancortes.com] are both made using overlapping bits of various font characters, sized and colored using CSS, to make the curves and lines of the picture.

View source on that Homer "image" to see what I mean - the artist basically used font characters as a palette of vectors, and clipped out just the partial shape of each character that he wanted, using CSS properties.

As a result, instead of bloating to many MB, that Homer picture is only ~16KB. Bush is only ~32KB.

Translating pixels into an HTML table is not that interesting now.. I mean, I was excited when my brother wrote an app to do that about 8 years ago, and I even wrote a little companion app that parsed ANSI escape sequences and turned ANSI art into HTML tables too, but that was back then. :)

This, on the other hand, is really original and unique. I'm pretty impressed by it.

Scales up really well (4, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297324)

The big advantage of this kind of graphic is that it scales up to a nice sharp anti-aliased image as the user increases the text size. Well, at least Homer did when I tried it.

But of course, properly implemented SVG would do that just as well. It just lacks the super-geekiness of using something in an unintended way to get a useful result. And, of course, this way might have better support in some browsers than SVG.

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298810)

Watch him grow a character at a time:

http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200805/css_homer_animated.html [nedbatchelder.com]

(apparently the site is down, someone must have already linked it from somewhere that drives traffic)

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (1)

ramk13 (570633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297166)

I think my browser (Firefox) cried while it was trying to render that table. And my computer isn't that slow (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.0 GhZ). That was ridiculous.

Re:Seen this long ago for Mac OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297250)

I remember doing something similar as well. There was this one program (can't remember what it's called) that would turn a .png file into an easily parsable format, something like: Num rows: X Num cols: Y #CCCCCC #CCCCCC #CCCCCC etc. I then created a script to read this file, and to turn each pixel into a css element and display it in the proper position on the page. It was pretty neat, but it was painfully slow and made it impossible to save the image (short of print screen). It looked just like a real image though.

Nothing like having my portrait done in CSS (4, Funny)

HomerJ (11142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296584)

That's the most beautiful thing these eyes have ever seen....well except for Marge, when she wears that blue thing with the things.

Web 2.0? (4, Insightful)

Chris Burkhardt (613953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296614)

So now using CSS and JavaScript is a criterion for "Web 2.0"? When will it end?

Re:Web 2.0? (5, Informative)

brucifer (12972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296674)

So now using CSS and JavaScript is a criterion for "Web 2.0"? When will it end?
When "Web 3.0" hits

Re:Web 2.0? (3, Funny)

Chris Burkhardt (613953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296772)

When "Web 3.0" hits
Ah. Can't wait.

Re:Web 2.0? (5, Funny)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297342)

If we're really lucky, after that we'll get Web 3.1, Web 3.14, Web 3.141, ...
But don't hold your breath waiting...

Re:Web 2.0? (5, Funny)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297376)

Are you sure that's the progression? I thought Web 3.1 would be followed by Web 3.11, and then by Web for Workgroups.

Re:Web 2.0? (2, Funny)

KinkyClown (574788) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298580)

These are all obsolete when Web NT will come out...

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298698)

Don't forget Web 95, Web 98, Web 2000, Web ME, Web XP, and Web Vista.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298100)

TeX has been written in Web, hasn't it? (:

Re:Web 2.0? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296892)

Ah, if Web 2.0 entails the use of CSS and JavaScript, that must mean Web 3.0 will be coming out with something truly fantastic... perhaps they'll introduce something called HTML? On a more serious note, people who use the terms "Web 2.0" and "AJAX"** should not have jobs. Nor should their bosses if they are actually impressed by "buzz words" that are anything but.

** Yes, "AJAX", not "Ajax". It's an acronym, and no amount of "omg let's make it sound more amazing than it really is by making it a normal-looking word" is going to change that.

Re:Web 2.0? (4, Interesting)

pbhj (607776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297128)

Web 3.0 will be coming out with something truly fantastic... perhaps they'll introduce something called HTML?
I know that was a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question but ... I'm hoping "web 3.0" will have wide use of SVG. When I can design webpages like I design the previews in a vector editor ... no hang on, that might put me out of a job - please stick to the current mess.

Carry on.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297162)

"Web 2.0" is clearly just a meaningless buzz-word, but "AJAX" has a relatively distinct and understandable meaning. The use of the XMLHttpRequest to alter portions of a page without reloading the whole page seems like it should have _some_ name, especially since we all remember a time when it was basically impossible to do. AJAX is as good a name as any other.

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297208)

Shouldn't this be "Funny" not "Insightful"? Now I'm scared...

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296700)

If web 2.0 is dynamic interactive application like content, web 1.0 is all those "boring" sites which came before.

What was .0 the mid 90s web of sliced to hell images, frames, and animated gif based technologies.

Re:Web 2.0? (3, Insightful)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297846)

What was .0 the mid 90s web of sliced to hell images, frames, and animated gif based technologies.

mid-90s? I swear I saw all that in MySpace just the other day

Re:Web 2.0? (4, Informative)

BBrown (70466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296902)

Agree. Using CSS is NOT a Web 2.0 application. I would expect better from /.ers.

Recommend those curious read O'Reilly's definition here:
  http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [oreillynet.com] .
 
Since he coined it, he's probably pretty accurate. A lot of it generally includes user-generated content and the transition from single publisher sites (NYTimes) to community driven sites (blogs, Yelp!, etc.)

Here's a table he uses to explain the difference:
 

Web 1.0 -> Web 2.0
DoubleClick -> Google AdSense
Ofoto -> Flickr
Akamai -> BitTorrent
mp3.com -> Napster
Britannica Online -> Wikipedia
personal websites -> blogging
evite -> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation -> search engine optimization
page views -> cost per click
screen scraping -> web services
publishing -> participation
content management systems -> wikis
directories (taxonomy) -> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness -> syndication

Re:Web 2.0? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297024)

Web 2.0 can't really be defined as anything, it's merely a buzzword. It just happens to be associated with ajax 99% of the time and someone made the link with javascript.

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297042)

except napster had fuck-all to do with the web.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297046)

about half of these are right, not to knock your post. but napster was before mp3.com and then redux. so i guess napster is web 2.1

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297090)

about half of these are right, not to knock your post. but napster was before mp3.com and then redux. so i guess napster is web 2.1
Agreed. People who never used the original Napster (such as O'Reilly) probably shouldn't talk about Napster. Meaning over 99% of all people on the web today.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297098)

Agree. Using CSS is NOT a Web 2.0 application. I would expect better from /.ers.

However, if you add some XML in there somewhere, it should qualify.

Since he coined it, he's probably pretty accurate.

I find it unlikely that anyone counting BitTorrent as a Web application is particularly accurate. Unless, of course, he meant the BitTorrent sites, but how are those principally different from a forum where you could post links to ?

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297350)

The cynical part of me wants to say that he made that entire list up just for page hits. The intelligent side assures me he did. It just sounds that contrived!

Re:Web 2.0? (2, Insightful)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297690)

Recommend those curious read O'Reilly's definition

That definition is 5 pages long. No wonder no one knows what it is. Or perhaps "definition" is not really the word you're looking. "Description" would perhaps be a better word.



From the O'Reilly article:

"Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core."


Sounds kinda fuzzy to me. At any rate it's kind of like the words "gay" and "hacker." They don't mean what they used to mean and you can't really do much about that. Use different wording if you want to be understood.



The term "Web 2.0" has been pwnt.

Re:Web 2.0? (2)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297216)

I'm sick of the whole "Web 2.0" buzz word that those media asshats keep spreading all over the place.

It almost as bad as "Information super highway"

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297406)

I'm sick of web-applications. Why can't someone just write a damned native program anymore?

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

tacocat (527354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298436)

It's an information tube...

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298552)

Or sewer clogged with garbage depends which way you look it it.

Only one thing to say about this rubbish... (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296718)

DOH!!!

Bored? (2, Insightful)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296728)

Clearly this is the result of having FAR too much free time.

Re:Bored? (5, Funny)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296762)

Clearly this is the result of having FAR too much free time.
...says the guy reading and posting on Slashdot :)

Re:Bored? (3, Insightful)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296778)

Speaking as someone with far too much free time, I've never done anything /. worthy. I imagine the same is true of many of us, so lets give the guy some credit.

Re:Bored? (1)

Dersaidin (954402) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297134)

You could spend some time reviewing what is or is not /. worthy.

Re:Bored? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296914)

Maybe they should start employing computer people to keep them out of trouble.

Re:Bored? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297656)

Clearly this is the result of having FAR too much free time.
Maybe. But it's far more respectable than the hordes of people trying to rehash a Balmer-throwing-chair joke, then the rush for people with mod points to mod it up.

heh, slashdotted already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296760)

looks like the site FTA is down.

Re:heh, slashdotted already... (1)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296820)

I mean really, you'd think a little bit of css wouldn't create _that_ much bandwidth...

Re:heh, slashdotted already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23298808)

Psst. Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Re:heh, slashdotted already... (4, Informative)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296832)

Google cache. [209.85.207.104] It doesn't animate, but the text-image is somewhat impressive.

Looks like Prodigy art (4, Interesting)

jmauro (32523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296842)

Looks just like the block art from Prodigy [wikipedia.org] from back in 1990's. All this tech and we're back to the same place as 1995.

Re:Looks like Prodigy art (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296860)

I *liked* Prodigy! Mad Maze, the TI-85 programming board, the Metheglyn Writers' Society... (If anyone by any freak chance recognizes that last one, I would be very surprised).

NTCA38A... Sad that I remember that.

Re:Looks like Prodigy art (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296884)

I loved Prodigy. I do remember the Mad Maze specifically.

Re:Looks like Prodigy art (1)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296996)

Mad Maze was awesome.

Re:Looks like Prodigy art (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296966)

Or like RIP [wikipedia.org] .

Original homer link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296872)

link in summary to some blog doesn't work already.. here's the original link:

http://www.romancortes.com/blog/homer-css/ [romancortes.com]

Slashdotted (2, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296882)

And only after 25 comments. :O(

Re:Slashdotted (1)

Nalk (978426) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297040)

Homer still available on the original author's site without the animation here: http://www.romancortes.com/blog/homer-css/ [romancortes.com]

Nothing to see... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296946)

The site you are attempting to access is temporarily unavailable.
If you are the site owner please contact your system administrator.


Yeah, those are ASCII characters.

Coming Soon: Cmdr Taco's Son's Fingerpaintings (0)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296952)

It's a yellow blur that looks like something a five year old would make upon being first introduced to PaintShop.

But it's Web2.0, so it must be kewl.

Re:Coming Soon: Cmdr Taco's Son's Fingerpaintings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297668)

Try checking his blog http://www.romancortes.com/blog/homer-css/ [romancortes.com] and rescind your foul commentary, cur!

Slashdotted..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296970)

but not forgotten.

Great, now I'm gonna have nightmares. (4, Funny)

Perseid (660451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296984)

If you think the blocky ASCII Dubya is bad, highlight his text. Holy crap.

Re:Great, now I'm gonna have nightmares. (1)

vsage3 (718267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297082)

If you think the blocky ASCII Dubya is bad, highlight his text. Holy crap.
Just wow

I really expected teh bush one to be (2, Funny)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296988)

goatse

and I would have felt it was a good likeness.

Remember the printer art? (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297028)

Those line printers could be coaxed to kick out some interesting pictures. I found some on a cassette tape once while clearing out a cupboard, suitable for a Datapoint machine. I seem to remember I taught myself enough Datapoint assembler to be able to print them out.

I must have been desperate back then...

This has to be the lamest /. story ever. (-1, Troll)

Pengo (28814) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297064)


Serious, I've been here for a LONG time and I think I'll rack this into my noodle as being one of the lamest postings that have managed to slip through in a while.

At least the spam-link-bot posters are giving content that's interesting. This is just stupid.

Can't get it to work (1)

mmortal03 (607958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297092)

I tried it on a 512x512 black and white jpeg, and it stops before it completes the image. What gives?

Stupid Human Trick <eom> (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297262)

I SAID, <eom>!

Nothing to see here, move along (5, Informative)

hee gozer (1261036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297344)

It needs Verdana from MS TrueType core fonts, so it doesn't work across multiple platforms. The link is slashdotted anyway. Here's a version that's still available: http://www.romancortes.com/blog/homer-css/ [romancortes.com]

Here's how i see it: http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9183/homeraz4.png [imageshack.us]

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297420)

It needs Verdana from MS TrueType core fonts, so it doesn't work across multiple platforms.

o.O

It does work across multiple platforms. Any platform that supports TrueType fonts, which is more than one, hence "multiple".

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297630)

Also, many platforms do not support true type fonts. Any platform that does not support TrueType fonts, which is more than one, hence "multiple"

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (2, Interesting)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297496)

This is the first time I have ever seen the Homer rendered that bad.

What ugly browser do you use?

Homer (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297592)

See, you're using Web 1.0, so it's rendering Homer more like he was drawn in the early Simpsons cartoons.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297792)

Yep looks like the guy did not do a cross platform, cross browser check .... move along

http://hotimg10.fotki.com/p/a/91_46/240_205/duhhhhhhhh.jpg [fotki.com]

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298074)

It does work across multiple platforms. The problem (for me) is that it uses Verdana, which is broken w.r.t. Unicode combining accents. It's so bad I just remove Verdana from my Linux machines (I do install MS corefonts).

The return of RIPscript? (1)

TheKnightShift (1102767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297558)

It's a comfort to know that when the Internet collapses, old-fashioned bulletin board systems will be ready.

Front page perfection (2, Funny)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297572)

Ahhh, posts about the Simpsons AND MacGyver on the front page at the same time. I can die now; order has been restored.

zooming - change text size in browser (1)

ayeco (301053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297590)

Interesting. In Firefox crtl+mouse wheel or ctrl++ to zoom text, as well as css image. Page zoom is different in IE7 (it has always zoomed an entire page, text and images).

But can I block it? (5, Insightful)

DJ Manning (824830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297672)

I fear that our advertising overlords will use this to display advertising that I'd otherwise block. The next step in fighting advertising on the web? Block all ASCII charaters from being displayed!!! That'll fix those advertisers.

D is for dolphin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297688)

Along similar lines (but not as cool), D is for dolphin [micksam7.com] .

I think I know what Homer would say (1)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298046)

Woo hoo!!

ASCII art is still so great, especially on forums and such where it's too much hassle [or you aren't allowed] to post images.

SVG is dead! (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298296)

If SVN was working in common browsers, that news would be boring.

Web 2.0 same old turd but with a new hat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23298368)

Because the basic fact is no matter what you do to a turd - polish it, paint it, give it bling - it's still a turd, and there is nothing you can do about that underlying fact.

C'mon people Web 2.0 is just Web 1.0, its still just scripts, images and text.

How can that be Web 2.0 and Windows? (1)

tacocat (527354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23298424)

How is it possible for something that is WEB 2.0 be only available under Windows or WINE? Seems like a contradiction in terms. I thought Web 2.0 was a new thing that was even more platform independent than ever before.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>