I agree with you, but I think their "Don't be evil" mantra is working and will continue to work. When they provide everything they make for free, it attracts users. The more users they have, the more people they have to click on AdWords ads. They're doing exactly what they need to be doing to keep users.. besides good search results of course.
I suspected it only because what you said was so absurd. Obviously, though, from the other replies, you can see that there are people that buy into that nonsense. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in the obsessive compulsive standardist group. Ever since I started coding like this, I've found myself eating more and more organic food...
Lol, drinkypoo, you and I are really going at it. I would have posted this earlier but my comment cap had reached its limit.
Here's a screenshot showing you how to do it. No negative margins, completely valid. In fact, the code is quite sleek and sexy. Very simple. And in CSS3, I think there's going to be even more options for doing things like this so the CSS won't have to emulate the behavior of a table cell. I forgot to put in a width attribute for the first div, but doing so won't change anything except for its width. I understand that CSS is not perfect, but you need to remember that it's quite new and is just starting to catch on for use with layout. We will see huge improvements with CSS3 and also much better support in browsers as it gains popularity.
The green div on the right will fill up the remaining space between the red div and the edge of the page, no matter how wide the red div is. Notice in the code how there are no funky margins or padding. The green div starts where the red div ends - no overlapping. If the picture is too small and you don't believe me because you can't tell what's going on in there, say so and I'll take another screenshot.
Same screenshots, hosted in two different places in case of bandwidth problems:
I'm sorry, but I really need to disagree with you. The only browser I've needed to use hacks on is IE. I agree that the concept of CSS layout is not complicated. What I meant was that it's hard to grasp after using tables for many years. They are worlds apart and it can be difficult to think about layout in a different way than you're used to. I also need to disagree with your point that making CSS do what you want it to do is hard. If you really understand it and know it really well, it's incredibly easy. The only real restrictions are one's knowledge of it. People don't give CSS enough credit.
Dvorak is an idiot. He said it doesn't work because he couldn't figure out how to use it. He tried to redesign his blog with it and failed, prompting him to write about how it doesn't work. Just because he can't figure it out doesn't mean it's no good. It's actually quite easy and works far better than tables for layout.
In practice, it definitely does not blow. If you know how to code properly and comply with standards set by w3c, IE has minimal problems. I have to say that IE does suck and doesn't have enough CSS support, but it's not bad enough for you to fairly say that CSS is not worth implementing. If you are having major problems with getting your CSS to work the same in all browsers, the problem is you. The problems IE has are fairly easy to work around. Again, if you are having major problems, your code must not be up to par with w3c's standards. Semantics are also very important. Do you code with semantics in mind?
Books:
The Zen of CSS Design, Eric Meyer on CSS. Two excellent books to get you started. The concept of CSS layout design is the big hurdle, once you figure it out, it's a breeze and quite fun.
Websites
www.w3schools.com - Excellent for html too. Read up here about semantics.
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/ - Something else from W3C. This shows you some stuff you will need once you start getting the concepts of CSS down.
Here's some advice from me: Start with healthy HTML. If your HTML is not valid AND semantic, CSS will be very difficult to learn. If you are not familiar with xhtml semantics, I recommend you spend some time here: http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/default.asp . If your code is not neat and organized, if you are not closing all your tags, CSS will not be nice to you.
Semantics
Using tags for their intended use only, following the rules of the code strictly, etc. You get the idea.
I learned CSS by myself with several books and constant visits to w3schools.com (wonderful site. I 3 W3C!!!!). Assuming this book is what it is advertised as being, it would be a great tool for people new to CSS. I am a web designer and will not touch tables for layout purposes. It is sometimes a pain to deal with how shitty IE is, but it's worth it. Also, if you comply strictly to W3C standards and write your HTML and CSS semantically (if code was food, I'd be an organic health nut), you will have VERY few problems with different browsers displaying things differently. Let's just hope that IE 7 will like CSS more than IE 6! CSS is a wonderful thing that everybody should be using.
The fact of the matter is, profiling works. I'm 17 and I know that kids my age steal all the time. I don't and don't befriend those who do. However, if I was stopped because somebody was suspicious of me stealing something, I might be slightly offended, but certainly not mad because I understand that kids my age tend to steal more than older adults and would be happy to prove my innocence. People are too busy being offended. They need to realize that sometimes they just happen to fit into a group of people that, on average, act differently than others (in this case shoplift more).
You mean to tell me that when a polar bear sits down, the snow/ice beneath him doesn't melt at all? Nothing at all happens to it? We're talking about many MANY years here and many MANY layers of ice. So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing has happened to ALL of that ice? I don't think so.
Thank you. I was surprised to see a comment like this... Intelligent and not just accepting everthing as fact because it was determined with a scientific "study".
There is no possible way that they can extract statistics like that from 800,000 years worth of ice. Ice doesn't stay static - it melts, moves around, freezes again, etc. Besides, how can they accurately determine the age of the ice? Carbon dating? Pff. Carbon dating isn't accurate enought to extract accurate numbers. This is bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Genius. Pure genius.
I agree with you, but I think their "Don't be evil" mantra is working and will continue to work. When they provide everything they make for free, it attracts users. The more users they have, the more people they have to click on AdWords ads. They're doing exactly what they need to be doing to keep users.. besides good search results of course.
I suspected it only because what you said was so absurd. Obviously, though, from the other replies, you can see that there are people that buy into that nonsense. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in the obsessive compulsive standardist group. Ever since I started coding like this, I've found myself eating more and more organic food...
Lol, drinkypoo, you and I are really going at it. I would have posted this earlier but my comment cap had reached its limit.
w c4.png
Here's a screenshot showing you how to do it. No negative margins, completely valid. In fact, the code is quite sleek and sexy. Very simple. And in CSS3, I think there's going to be even more options for doing things like this so the CSS won't have to emulate the behavior of a table cell. I forgot to put in a width attribute for the first div, but doing so won't change anything except for its width. I understand that CSS is not perfect, but you need to remember that it's quite new and is just starting to catch on for use with layout. We will see huge improvements with CSS3 and also much better support in browsers as it gains popularity.
The green div on the right will fill up the remaining space between the red div and the edge of the page, no matter how wide the red div is. Notice in the code how there are no funky margins or padding. The green div starts where the red div ends - no overlapping. If the picture is too small and you don't believe me because you can't tell what's going on in there, say so and I'll take another screenshot.
Same screenshots, hosted in two different places in case of bandwidth problems:
http://i4.tinypic.com/2cqjnd0.png
http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/6103/csspwnage
Are you aware that the new slashdot design was made using CSS? Looks fine to me...
I'm sorry, but I really need to disagree with you. The only browser I've needed to use hacks on is IE. I agree that the concept of CSS layout is not complicated. What I meant was that it's hard to grasp after using tables for many years. They are worlds apart and it can be difficult to think about layout in a different way than you're used to. I also need to disagree with your point that making CSS do what you want it to do is hard. If you really understand it and know it really well, it's incredibly easy. The only real restrictions are one's knowledge of it. People don't give CSS enough credit.
Dvorak is an idiot. He said it doesn't work because he couldn't figure out how to use it. He tried to redesign his blog with it and failed, prompting him to write about how it doesn't work. Just because he can't figure it out doesn't mean it's no good. It's actually quite easy and works far better than tables for layout.
In practice, it definitely does not blow. If you know how to code properly and comply with standards set by w3c, IE has minimal problems. I have to say that IE does suck and doesn't have enough CSS support, but it's not bad enough for you to fairly say that CSS is not worth implementing. If you are having major problems with getting your CSS to work the same in all browsers, the problem is you. The problems IE has are fairly easy to work around. Again, if you are having major problems, your code must not be up to par with w3c's standards. Semantics are also very important. Do you code with semantics in mind?
Books:
The Zen of CSS Design, Eric Meyer on CSS. Two excellent books to get you started. The concept of CSS layout design is the big hurdle, once you figure it out, it's a breeze and quite fun.
Websites
www.w3schools.com - Excellent for html too. Read up here about semantics. http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/ - Something else from W3C. This shows you some stuff you will need once you start getting the concepts of CSS down.
Here's some advice from me: Start with healthy HTML. If your HTML is not valid AND semantic, CSS will be very difficult to learn. If you are not familiar with xhtml semantics, I recommend you spend some time here: http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/default.asp . If your code is not neat and organized, if you are not closing all your tags, CSS will not be nice to you.
Semantics Using tags for their intended use only, following the rules of the code strictly, etc. You get the idea.I hope this points you in the right direction!
I learned CSS by myself with several books and constant visits to w3schools.com (wonderful site. I 3 W3C!!!!). Assuming this book is what it is advertised as being, it would be a great tool for people new to CSS. I am a web designer and will not touch tables for layout purposes. It is sometimes a pain to deal with how shitty IE is, but it's worth it. Also, if you comply strictly to W3C standards and write your HTML and CSS semantically (if code was food, I'd be an organic health nut), you will have VERY few problems with different browsers displaying things differently. Let's just hope that IE 7 will like CSS more than IE 6! CSS is a wonderful thing that everybody should be using.
GG n00b.
The fact of the matter is, profiling works. I'm 17 and I know that kids my age steal all the time. I don't and don't befriend those who do. However, if I was stopped because somebody was suspicious of me stealing something, I might be slightly offended, but certainly not mad because I understand that kids my age tend to steal more than older adults and would be happy to prove my innocence. People are too busy being offended. They need to realize that sometimes they just happen to fit into a group of people that, on average, act differently than others (in this case shoplift more).
You mean to tell me that when a polar bear sits down, the snow/ice beneath him doesn't melt at all? Nothing at all happens to it? We're talking about many MANY years here and many MANY layers of ice. So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing has happened to ALL of that ice? I don't think so.
Thank you. I was surprised to see a comment like this... Intelligent and not just accepting everthing as fact because it was determined with a scientific "study".
There is no possible way that they can extract statistics like that from 800,000 years worth of ice. Ice doesn't stay static - it melts, moves around, freezes again, etc. Besides, how can they accurately determine the age of the ice? Carbon dating? Pff. Carbon dating isn't accurate enought to extract accurate numbers. This is bullshit.