Re:Microsoft isn't "doing it" for me....
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Interestingly, I have not found an instance where my goal was thwarted so completely by IE's noncompliance of standards that I had to resort to even a hybrid table/CSS solution. Generally, there's a known way to spook IE into doing what you need, you just have to find it. And while I understand how that can be a drag, and it can be tempting to fall back on old practices, my experience (and YMMV, of course) shows that the extra time taken to get it right now results in less time taken later to maintain or update it.
However, I wasn't arguing that tables and CSS don't have a place working together, I was arguing that the poster I was responding to, who essentially stated that CSS will be a passing fad because it "limits [his] design," simply wasn't using it properly.
Re:CSS isn't "doing it" for me....
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Then you don't know how to use CSS.
There are quite a few designs I've created that I couldn't do with the old table-within-table-within-table sludge and morass we used to have to work with. And they're easily changeable if I have to revamps the look of the site without having to mess with the (properly separated and semantically organized) html or the content in the database. CSS is extraordinarily flexible.
You realize that the vast majority of files on Napster were not legal, and did indeed have copyright issues, don't you? It wasn't this free love hippy utopia, it was the grimy streets of Tortuga, and we were all dirty pirates.
Considering I've never heard of the X5, it hardly qualifies as an iPod Killer. It didn't really reduce the iPod's market share in any appreciable sense.
And I've heard none of the supposed noise created from circuitry or hard drive access, so I can't help you there. My 60 gig (and the 5 gig I upgraded from) both work flawlessly.
All of my comments come from the PoV of the reality of the American situation. As large as our country is, and as easy as it is for Joe Schmoe to run down to Tijuana, I don't think restricting guns in America can happen.
Firearms are too ingrained in our culture, and too widespread already, to simply remove them. As long as it is easy for thugs to get guns on the black market, I think it's necessary for us to be able to get them through legitimate means as well.
Of course, if guns weren't available, the number of hunting knife-induced deaths would skyrocket, as would home-made explosives.;P People will always find a way to kill each other.
One night, when I was in German class, two men came into my apartment, tied and beat my fiancee, and stole most of our things.
One of them had a gun. My fiancee was completely defenseless. One man kept the gun trained on her while the other carried things out to their getaway car. Our apartment complex's maintenance man (Brett) scared them off with his personal firearm, before they had finished loading their car, and before they could do anything worse to my fiancee.
They were not intimidated by Brett until he brandished his firearm. I'm quite glad that he had one, and I am eternally grateful to him for risking his life to save my fiancee's.
Self defense and hunting are, IMO, the ONLY valid reasons to own a gun. It would be impossible to regulate firearms in the US, there are too many extant without licenses (my uncle has a collector's license, and he has over two hundred guns in his house alone. Each firearm is not individually licensed. They fall under the umbrella of his collector's license. I can guarantee that he, along with other collectors, would not turn over all of their pieces in the event of wholesale regulation.).
It is illegal to rob a bank, with or without firearms. It is illegal to kill someone. Yet it still happens. I cannot believe that if guns were made illegal, criminals would suddenly get queasy about carrying and using them. The only reduction it would cause is that it would raise the barrier of entry, and the gun-wielding criminals would simply be more likely hardened criminals with the capability of actually using that gun to inflict deadly harm.
Guns don't solve any problem when in the hands of the general public, they cause problems like these.
No.
Unbalanced people with guns cause situations like these.
A gun is a tool. It has no motivation, and no intent. It does not whisper in its owner's ear, and make them scream "blood and souls for my lord, Arioch!" Taking firearms out of the hands of the general populace would simply leave the law-abiding citizens defenseless against the people who break the law and get ahold of guns anyway.
"But guns are illegal," you say.
These people are planning to break the law anyway. What's one more law going to do if they're planning to kill someone, or carjack them, or break into their house?
I don't own a firearm. But I am glad I have the option of buying one.
I plan to be a teacher. I'm in the process of applying to graduate schools. However, I don't think there is a single teacher in the world that can duplicate the feeling of living through an event. Certainly not in American schools.
And while these events are important and have repercussions for years, most people only really notice the aftereffects (specifically, the ones that affect them directly). Most kids growing up today don't care about history classes. They see them as a waste of time. The Russian Revolution means very little to today's kids, and communism doesn't frighten them as it did my generation, growing up in the Cold War. I remember exactly where I was when the Challenger blew up (I was standing outside in my schoolyard with the rest of my class, watching it). I know what I was doing when the Berlin Wall came down (I was actually watching MTV, back when they played music videos).
However, most kids don't know much about World War II aside from the attack of the evil Nazis. I made a friend of mine watch Enemy at the Gates, and his little brother (17 at the time) said "The Russians fought on our side?" They don't know the root cause of WWII (The Treaty of Versailles made another war pretty much inevitable, and put the German people in a position where they were desparate enough to vote the Nazi party into power.)
Regardless of whether later generations know (even the broad) details of history, there are aspects -- and feelings -- that can't be reproduced. V for Vendetta is as much a product of a certain place, time, and political climate that no longer exists as the Cyberpunk genre of science fiction. Cyberpunk has lost most of its bite over the years, simply because of shifting political, fashion and technological reality. It doesn't have the impact it once did.
That's why the movie version of V for Vendetta was updated to a terrorist threat, and the Voice of England was upgraded from a radio DJ to Bill O'Reilly.
There's a difference between "understanding" and being affected by. I understand that JFK was assassinated, but it doesn't really affect me. In 10 years, there will be adults who don't really get why 9/11 was such a big deal.
Academic knowledge that something happened is not the same as living through it.
Somewhat related, when we digest a work of fiction (or anything else, really), we bring every life experience we've had with us. Those experiences are a large part of what ultimately decides how the fiction affects us. That's called intertextualism. It is impossible for us to truly take an item as an independent entity. Everything we have read and experienced before goes into our interpretation of it.
I don't think that much of V for Vendetta (the comic) can be viewed by today's audiences without a (to use your word) substantial amount of intertextualization. We don't live in the cold war, and so much of V's themes were straight-up criticism of the current political regime that the comic isn't quite as resonant today.
I don't think you can say one is necessarily "substantially better" than the other, though. Both of them are perfectly aimed at the period when they were written and released.
Except that I'm trying to find how that differs from the book's portrayal?
All of that can be found in the comic. The lesbian "war criminal," the farcical portrayal of the "evil muslim," and the corrupt Christian religious figure... Nothing new in the film version.
Also, I would dispute that any of those actually fit into current (or at least recent) "political" correctness. According to recent American politics, all of those are actually presented as the reverse.
Generally, the major differences between the movie and the comic are simply because Thatcher's England and the Red Scare no longer play.
They had to update the story for the new millennium. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the Voice of England and his doll collection, but at least they had the dolls in the background of one of his scenes. I actually liked the everyone-in-Guy-Fawkes-costumes deal at the end.
And if "the Zune has feature #17, which the iPod lacks" were the reason the poster I was responding to gave for getting a Zune, that would be great! Good for him. But it wasn't. His entire criteria for choosing the Zune was that it kept him from being one of the "sheep." And that kind of reactionary anti-image is just silly. Define yourself by what you are, not what you aren't.
And as for the Zune being superior... I would say that all of the "extra" features the Zune has are more bloat than actually useful to me. WMA is the only extra filetype supported, which is less than useful. I can guarantee the only songs that will be shareable are the ones that are in WMA format that have been purchased from the Zune branded store. I don't listen to the radio, so an FM tuner is useless. And it's actually more expensive than the comparable iPod, so I have no incentive to pay extra for the features I won't use.
On the other hand, the third-party iPod accessory market, from boomboxes and dj mixers to car inputs and memory card readers, trumps the Zune's FM tuner and extra format, and I don't foresee my friends and acquaintances picking up the Zune (much less purchasing enough songs from the store) to make the WiFi useful.
But see, it might be different for you. When weighing the Zune's overall usefulness, I simply find it wanting.
Because, in many cases, it only serves to make your life less convenient.
And I'm a goth, for crissakes, so I know all about people choosing to look/act different from mainstream society simply to be cool. But I'm also not a very good goth, because I don't stop liking bands after more than 12 people know who they are, and I know when to clean myself up and take my piercings out so that I can function in society with a job a bit more lucrative than working as a Hot Topic clerk.
Here's my thing, in a nutshell. If product A does everything you need, and does it well, but is popular, why choose product B, which is inferior simply because it ISN'T popular?
I've never met anyone who thought that owning an iPod made them different, or bragged about their uniqueness because they had an iPod.
I'd rather choose [insert object here] based on how well it performs the functions I require than whether or not "everyone else has one."
It amazes me how image conscious geeks can be. A large subsection of geek culture will go to such extreme lengths just so that they can brag that they don't fit in. And then they complain because nobody understands them...
Slashdot Mirror
Never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) with a tongue piercing, huh?
There's more to them than shock value. Really.
The "rather delayed" 4 Core/Processor using an unannounced and commercially as-yet-unavailable CPU?
That thinks Antoinette Tease sounds like a porn star name...
Uh, Peter Adkinson FOUNDED Wizards of the Coast. He didn't take GenCon away from them.
It's in Leopard.
Interestingly, I have not found an instance where my goal was thwarted so completely by IE's noncompliance of standards that I had to resort to even a hybrid table/CSS solution. Generally, there's a known way to spook IE into doing what you need, you just have to find it. And while I understand how that can be a drag, and it can be tempting to fall back on old practices, my experience (and YMMV, of course) shows that the extra time taken to get it right now results in less time taken later to maintain or update it.
However, I wasn't arguing that tables and CSS don't have a place working together, I was arguing that the poster I was responding to, who essentially stated that CSS will be a passing fad because it "limits [his] design," simply wasn't using it properly.
Then you don't know how to use CSS.
There are quite a few designs I've created that I couldn't do with the old table-within-table-within-table sludge and morass we used to have to work with. And they're easily changeable if I have to revamps the look of the site without having to mess with the (properly separated and semantically organized) html or the content in the database. CSS is extraordinarily flexible.
Oh lord, deliver us from yet another "wherefore art thou" joke that ignores the meaning of the word "wherefore." ;P
You, uh, realize you could put that bittorrented Beck album on an iPod, too, yes?
You realize that the vast majority of files on Napster were not legal, and did indeed have copyright issues, don't you? It wasn't this free love hippy utopia, it was the grimy streets of Tortuga, and we were all dirty pirates.
Arr.
I don't think you understand the term " killer."
Considering I've never heard of the X5, it hardly qualifies as an iPod Killer. It didn't really reduce the iPod's market share in any appreciable sense.
And I've heard none of the supposed noise created from circuitry or hard drive access, so I can't help you there. My 60 gig (and the 5 gig I upgraded from) both work flawlessly.
All of my comments come from the PoV of the reality of the American situation. As large as our country is, and as easy as it is for Joe Schmoe to run down to Tijuana, I don't think restricting guns in America can happen.
;P People will always find a way to kill each other.
Firearms are too ingrained in our culture, and too widespread already, to simply remove them. As long as it is easy for thugs to get guns on the black market, I think it's necessary for us to be able to get them through legitimate means as well.
Of course, if guns weren't available, the number of hunting knife-induced deaths would skyrocket, as would home-made explosives.
You know that Charlie Chaplin wasn't Jewish, right?
When asked if he was a Jew by a Nazi officer (at a party in Hollywood), Chaplin replied: "No, I do not have that honor."
One night, when I was in German class, two men came into my apartment, tied and beat my fiancee, and stole most of our things.
One of them had a gun. My fiancee was completely defenseless. One man kept the gun trained on her while the other carried things out to their getaway car. Our apartment complex's maintenance man (Brett) scared them off with his personal firearm, before they had finished loading their car, and before they could do anything worse to my fiancee.
They were not intimidated by Brett until he brandished his firearm. I'm quite glad that he had one, and I am eternally grateful to him for risking his life to save my fiancee's.
Self defense and hunting are, IMO, the ONLY valid reasons to own a gun. It would be impossible to regulate firearms in the US, there are too many extant without licenses (my uncle has a collector's license, and he has over two hundred guns in his house alone. Each firearm is not individually licensed. They fall under the umbrella of his collector's license. I can guarantee that he, along with other collectors, would not turn over all of their pieces in the event of wholesale regulation.).
It is illegal to rob a bank, with or without firearms. It is illegal to kill someone. Yet it still happens. I cannot believe that if guns were made illegal, criminals would suddenly get queasy about carrying and using them. The only reduction it would cause is that it would raise the barrier of entry, and the gun-wielding criminals would simply be more likely hardened criminals with the capability of actually using that gun to inflict deadly harm.
No.
Unbalanced people with guns cause situations like these.
A gun is a tool. It has no motivation, and no intent. It does not whisper in its owner's ear, and make them scream "blood and souls for my lord, Arioch!" Taking firearms out of the hands of the general populace would simply leave the law-abiding citizens defenseless against the people who break the law and get ahold of guns anyway.
"But guns are illegal," you say.
These people are planning to break the law anyway. What's one more law going to do if they're planning to kill someone, or carjack them, or break into their house?
I don't own a firearm. But I am glad I have the option of buying one.
I can't believe you made a Shock Treatment reference.
What's more, I can't decide if that counts for positive or negative geek points.
I plan to be a teacher. I'm in the process of applying to graduate schools. However, I don't think there is a single teacher in the world that can duplicate the feeling of living through an event. Certainly not in American schools.
And while these events are important and have repercussions for years, most people only really notice the aftereffects (specifically, the ones that affect them directly). Most kids growing up today don't care about history classes. They see them as a waste of time. The Russian Revolution means very little to today's kids, and communism doesn't frighten them as it did my generation, growing up in the Cold War. I remember exactly where I was when the Challenger blew up (I was standing outside in my schoolyard with the rest of my class, watching it). I know what I was doing when the Berlin Wall came down (I was actually watching MTV, back when they played music videos).
However, most kids don't know much about World War II aside from the attack of the evil Nazis. I made a friend of mine watch Enemy at the Gates, and his little brother (17 at the time) said "The Russians fought on our side?" They don't know the root cause of WWII (The Treaty of Versailles made another war pretty much inevitable, and put the German people in a position where they were desparate enough to vote the Nazi party into power.)
Regardless of whether later generations know (even the broad) details of history, there are aspects -- and feelings -- that can't be reproduced. V for Vendetta is as much a product of a certain place, time, and political climate that no longer exists as the Cyberpunk genre of science fiction. Cyberpunk has lost most of its bite over the years, simply because of shifting political, fashion and technological reality. It doesn't have the impact it once did.
That's why the movie version of V for Vendetta was updated to a terrorist threat, and the Voice of England was upgraded from a radio DJ to Bill O'Reilly.
There's a difference between "understanding" and being affected by. I understand that JFK was assassinated, but it doesn't really affect me. In 10 years, there will be adults who don't really get why 9/11 was such a big deal.
Academic knowledge that something happened is not the same as living through it.
Somewhat related, when we digest a work of fiction (or anything else, really), we bring every life experience we've had with us. Those experiences are a large part of what ultimately decides how the fiction affects us. That's called intertextualism. It is impossible for us to truly take an item as an independent entity. Everything we have read and experienced before goes into our interpretation of it.
I don't think that much of V for Vendetta (the comic) can be viewed by today's audiences without a (to use your word) substantial amount of intertextualization. We don't live in the cold war, and so much of V's themes were straight-up criticism of the current political regime that the comic isn't quite as resonant today.
I don't think you can say one is necessarily "substantially better" than the other, though. Both of them are perfectly aimed at the period when they were written and released.
Except that I'm trying to find how that differs from the book's portrayal?
All of that can be found in the comic. The lesbian "war criminal," the farcical portrayal of the "evil muslim," and the corrupt Christian religious figure... Nothing new in the film version.
Also, I would dispute that any of those actually fit into current (or at least recent) "political" correctness. According to recent American politics, all of those are actually presented as the reverse.
Generally, the major differences between the movie and the comic are simply because Thatcher's England and the Red Scare no longer play.
They had to update the story for the new millennium. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the Voice of England and his doll collection, but at least they had the dolls in the background of one of his scenes. I actually liked the everyone-in-Guy-Fawkes-costumes deal at the end.
How would you call it political correctness?
And if "the Zune has feature #17, which the iPod lacks" were the reason the poster I was responding to gave for getting a Zune, that would be great! Good for him. But it wasn't. His entire criteria for choosing the Zune was that it kept him from being one of the "sheep." And that kind of reactionary anti-image is just silly. Define yourself by what you are, not what you aren't.
And as for the Zune being superior... I would say that all of the "extra" features the Zune has are more bloat than actually useful to me. WMA is the only extra filetype supported, which is less than useful. I can guarantee the only songs that will be shareable are the ones that are in WMA format that have been purchased from the Zune branded store. I don't listen to the radio, so an FM tuner is useless. And it's actually more expensive than the comparable iPod, so I have no incentive to pay extra for the features I won't use.
On the other hand, the third-party iPod accessory market, from boomboxes and dj mixers to car inputs and memory card readers, trumps the Zune's FM tuner and extra format, and I don't foresee my friends and acquaintances picking up the Zune (much less purchasing enough songs from the store) to make the WiFi useful.
But see, it might be different for you. When weighing the Zune's overall usefulness, I simply find it wanting.
I counted at least 5. But then, I have Flash turned on.
Because, in many cases, it only serves to make your life less convenient.
And I'm a goth, for crissakes, so I know all about people choosing to look/act different from mainstream society simply to be cool. But I'm also not a very good goth, because I don't stop liking bands after more than 12 people know who they are, and I know when to clean myself up and take my piercings out so that I can function in society with a job a bit more lucrative than working as a Hot Topic clerk.
Here's my thing, in a nutshell. If product A does everything you need, and does it well, but is popular, why choose product B, which is inferior simply because it ISN'T popular?
I've never met anyone who thought that owning an iPod made them different, or bragged about their uniqueness because they had an iPod.
I'd rather choose [insert object here] based on how well it performs the functions I require than whether or not "everyone else has one."
It amazes me how image conscious geeks can be. A large subsection of geek culture will go to such extreme lengths just so that they can brag that they don't fit in. And then they complain because nobody understands them...
It's ridiculous.