Yea. I don't get this whole tipping thing either. I live in New Zealand, we don't tip here (not if your a New Zealander anyway), and I don't understand why other nations do, I mean, the person is paid to do thier job, you should not have to, in effect, bribe them to provide good service. Being helpful and doing your job well should be, natural, it is here anyway.
If I ever has to go to a nation where tipping is required, I would be forever worrying - am I supposed to tip this person, how much is appropriate, am I giving too much, too little, what if I don't have change or cash, or...
Tips are wierd, m'kay. You get paid to do your job, no further reward should be necessary.
Big difference between documentaries like Forgotten Silver or the one you mentioned and a live broadcast news "hoax" like War of the Worlds.
The latter is simply not possible any more without some extreme cooperation between news networks -- who would believe the news story on Channel 1 when Channel 2 is running it's regularly scheduled programming. You might wonder for 5 minutes what is going on, but you'd pretty quickly "click" to the joke.
A mockumentary (or hoax documentary) is easier because we don't expect other channels to cover it.
Of course, it would be great if the networks could all come togethor to play one big joke like WotW on the viewers. I'd love to see thatg just to find out what the general public's reaction would be, infact, just to find out what my reaction would be. But it won't happen because it would just cause panic and other bad things to happen. There's no fun when people die.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't imagine what you would do if you turned on the TV in an hour to find that a fleet of UFO's has positioned itself over the capital of every country.
Amazon : Hey Mr Publisher, I'm setting up this database of book texts so the mort..err.customers can search for books. Publisher : Cool, I'll email the [postscript/tex/...other source] right over.
Every one of those books has to have a electronic version somewhere, most likely in a machine-readable (rather than vector/bitmap) format.
I've thught about that too, if we say for an instant that the christian god exists, then it seems more convincing that said christian god is not all good as the christian folk would believe, but actually all bad.
There is much more bad stuff that happens in the world without reason or cause intentional or otherwise by the object of the badness or those around them - freak accidents, cancer etc.. but it's much harder to find good things that happen with no intentional action to cause the good thing. Bad things can just happen to you, but good things usually require initiative.
So it would seem that the christian god is really just all bad, everything he does is to make something bad happen, and when those rare good things happen it's just because they misunderstand in what way it was bad (perhaps winning lotto causes you to take a cruise where you get swept overboard never to see your loved ones again, and god, on high, laughs at the good old fashioned evil he just did).
My point is a simple one. Pornography is a medium designed to allow us to take pleasure from an act without true concern for the affect it may have on the other people involved. It fosters an attitude of gratification without consequence at the expense of others. That is wrong
The same thing can be said about many things that I don't think you'd consider immoral.
For example, your typical action movie with some "big stunts" - people take pleasure in the stunt, but they have zero concern for the affect that jumping over a clff face and having a parachute snap open gave the (poor, taken advantage of) stunt man a broken collar-bone.
Q.E.D, gratification (watching the stunt) without consequence, at the expense of others.
But do you consider it immoral, no, of course not, how can you, the stunt man knew the risks, he got paid, he likes doing stunts, and he likes that people get enjoyment out of doing stunts.
I'm not saying that pr0n is all good, there is a seediness to (parts of) the industry, mixed with good helpings of crime and brutality - but you can't legitimately call all porn immoral, just because it's gratification without consequence at the expense of others - because that's a perfectly normal thing, unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.
This all depends on what you mean by "cut off". If you are one of these developers that thinks that thier site absolutly must look & function identically no matter what browser, O/S or device is being used to look at it, then yes, you are going to have problems.
If you are the more enlightened designer that thankfully the world is seeing more of now, and design using CSS for what it is intended, not using tables for layout, and focusing on having a site accessible for everybody rather than having it look "the same" then i's no sweat.
In short.. use CSS for layout & formatting information (make use of float !), use HTML for STRUCTURAL MARKUP, use tables only for tabular data - NOT LAYOUT, and learn to accept that your site will NOT look the same for everybody.
I just put togethor a design for a friend (not my forte', I'm a programmer), it looks great in the recent web browsers all graphicy and styly, and sweet.. and guess what.. it also looks & works (usability ways) great in lynx. Sure, the font-sizes are different in the browsers, sure lynx isn't going to display the graphics, sure the boxes might be a pixel or two bigger or smaller in IE5, but I don't care, the site still looks good, the site still works well, and that's all that matters.
Why is the idea of not existing a horrifying one (to you)? You are atheist, so you (nor I) have anything to fear in the way of eternal punishment or eternal life.
Your body just shuts down, you cease to be. Nothing frightening or horrifying in that, just like being in a dreamless sleep, infact, when my time comes I expect I'll be looking forward to it.
Atheists should not fear death, for we have nothing to fear after it.
Yes, that is true, however extensive investigations show that Pearse was either mistaken, or more likely he did not consider his first experiments as flying, for him, flying meant being able to take off, fly down to the nearest town, and fly back, anything less wasn't worth considering.
Eyewitness, and historical weather records indicate that the first (powered controlled) flight by a definition that we would accept today was March 31st 1903.
But modern aviation is a direct evolution of the Wright Flyer
Mostly incorrect. The Wrights were only two of very many people working on flight at the time, non-powered heavier than air gliding was already possible. They came up with a hodge-podge control system, a light enough engine, and a efficient enough propellor.
They never refined there designs. They never took the aircraft to the next logical step.
Neither did the Wrights very much, other parties, notably Curtiss under Alexander Graham Bell's guidence that got things on the right track in the states.
Infact, you won't find anything directly attributable to the Wright's in modern aircraft, not even ailerons because in the US they came from Curtiss (although as I mentioned eariler Pearse invented & used them locally much earlier).
The Wrights may be commended for thier business prowess, and the fact that they did infact construct a powered, heavier than air, flying machine, without knowing how to do so. They probably were not first, thier design was not very good (but it did work for the limted sense they required it to), and others (earlier and later) had much better designs that have progressed aviation.
You may not like it, you may be happier in a State owned society, or a society where people have convinced themselves that the government makes life worth living.
Ehm, New Zealand is every bit as capitalistic as the next person.
While the case can be made that a couple of people (an Englishman and an Austrialian I believe) could have achieved controled powered flight before the Wright Brothers, the case CANNOT be made that modern aviation evolved from those people.
New Zealander actually, Richard Pearse, who's design was far and away superior to the Wright bro's efforts, monoplane, ailerons (no wing warping), all his own design including the engine, and commonly thought to have flown some months earlier than the Wrights.
Modern day aircraft are much closer to the Pearse aircraft than the Wright's, in look, design and flight characteristics.
Unfortunatly he was a reclusive, modest fellow who was not recognised until some time after his death.
More likely broadcast ARP requests ("give me hardware address for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx"), the more machines on your section of the network, the more "background" traffic of this type you'll see.
Any time you have the ability to access a shell on the box from the outside world, you have the potential for calamity.
It's a necessary evil, SSH is hopefully the lesser of the evils.
Like a house, if you didn't have doors or windows your house would be pretty secure, but you can't really do that, so we put doors and windows in even though it makes it easier for the bad guys to get in.
Konq is very good, but it's let down in a couple of important regards.
Most imortantly it doesn't have a javascript console, if a javascript error occurs you have no idea what, where or when it went wrong, it just doesn't work.
And secondly, while close it doesn't support a few important CSS things, like overflow:scroll for one.
As a few others have mentioned, get away from computers, get away from code, get away from showing them how you program. It will go in one ear and out the other, if that is they can stay awake long enough while you drone on.
You want to do something physical, that will capture the kids attention, teach them something fundamental about what you as a programmer do, and most of all let them have fun and laugh.
A couple of ideas..
have a kid be the computer, give them some cut out shapes and ask the other kids to get the computer to assemble the shapes into some object, say a house. But you make sure that the computer can only do exactly what the program says.
you be the computer and do some cooking, show them how a recipie is just like a program, and you have to follow it exactly or something won't go right. Of course, the kids get to eat the results:-)
have the children tell you how to perform a task, while you are performing it, make it funny by making exagerated mistakes because the children didn't tell you exactly what to do.
Logic and process are the fundamentals of programming, and a surprising number of people don't *know* that (amazing how often you hear "but the computer should know that" from adults), instilling this is the best way you can show what you do, and what you do is to tell a computer how to logically follow a process to the letter.
it will not perform validation checking on dates correctly, inserting 29/02/2003 works! It allows you to insert 00/00/0000 when that doesn't even EXIST!
This makes no difference if you write your application correctly and check your data going in for VALIDITY. It shouldn't be the DB server's job to enforce this (a DB server CAN check integrity, which dates could (grey area) fall into but should have no part in validity), if you say 2003-2-29 is a date, well the DB server checks integrity ("Looks like a date to me"), but wether the dte is valid or not it leaves to the application (perhaps in your application 2003-2-29 is exactly what you want).
insert 100.00 into a numeric(4,2) field but no -100
Again, your application should be checking validity of the data you are feeding to the db server, if you feed it 100 then don't complain if the server accepts it, garbage in - garbage out y'know.
db app server - thats what it is - an application server,
OMFG ! No, it's not, it's an RDBMS - Relational Database Management Server, nothing to do with applications, applications might USE the RDBMS, but the RDBMS does not serve applications to you, it's not a place to build or run applications.
Your logic goes in your application, the database shouldn't know that such and such is not a valid doohicky because the wotsit is set to foo.
What if you want to change RDBMS, putting logic in the DB server is totally unportable, you have to rewrite all that crap.
The only stuff that goes in your RDBMS is stuff for MANAGING DATA, that is storing, retrieving, and deleteing the stuff, no checks apart from basic integrity, and that's not the same as validity, validity checks belong in your application.
You can also use percentage specifications.. span.note { font-size:90% } body { font-size:100% } h3 { font-size:105% } h2 { font-size:110% } h1 { font-size:115% }
and "smaller"/"larger".. em { font-size:larger } address { font-size:smaller}
It's also worth pointing out that you shouldn't make the "base" font size (i.e the size of normal text on your site) anything different than the default -- if somebody in thier browser settings says they want thier normal text to be 17pt, we shouldn't then go and say body { font-size:xx-small } !
I don't think it's necessary for the same reasons as your wife. People who have visual impairments will already have thier browser, and computer in general, setup in a way that aids them for use with sites/software that is not designed with them in mind. If you then provide them with larger graphics, they are gonna see something hella-huge!
As long as you design your site so that it doesn't force the user into something (i.e don't force the user to use a specific font size, just leave it at the default for ordinary text, and use CSS to provide relative font-sizes for smaller/larger text) with regard to text, have alt tags on images, and don't rely on graphics, flash, java etc for navigation - you should be fine.
*sigh*, have you never thought people might like privacy, for the sake of privacy, most people don't like others "standing over your shoulder" and a cube-farm induces just this (the feeling, not necessarily people doing it).
It's like that feeling that you're being watched. Nobody likes that feeling wether you're doing something you shouldn't or not.
And believe it or not, a person's private life does not only exist outside of the workplace, you can't just check it at the door, sometimes your personal matters intrude into your workday, that's just the way it is, and when they do, you'd like a little respect and privacy.
So, if I read that summary right the game consists of space invaders with a twist, that beng that you are "part of" a 3d room, looking at a virtual 2-d display.
So you are actually sitting in a real-world 3-d room, looking into your 2-d display, which is showing a virtual 3-d room with in which you are looking at a virtual 2-d display ? Seems kinda crappy to me.
Maybe I should read the article, might make more sense.
As far as I understand center and centre are different words not different spellings. Centre is like "The Medical Centre" - a building, while Center is "The Center of Town" - a location.
It removes ambiguity, i.e "The Town Centre" means a building called the "Town Centre" not the Center of Town.
Companies are no longer interested in training people to do a job, you only have to look at job postings in your local newspaper to see that - 'must have x years experience in some obscure system' (one I saw recently was funny, "must have 5 years commercial experience with ASP.Net").
I wanted to move from writing web applications to more traditional C/C++/Java stuff a year ago - I'm a BSc. in Computer Science, had been working several years in the web. While my CV was good enough to get me on the short list for more or less all I applied for, I would always be dropped because I was not "current" in C, C++ or Java - seems because I didn't have the "right" experience (not in those languages) I was no good to them.
Non tech people (the ones who do the hiring) don't understand that being a Comp Sci. grad means that I CAN do it, it's all the same, just syntax, and that my commercial experience IS relevant. And so they take someone straight from Uni who while being "current" in the language-de-jour has no experience, over the developer with valuable experience who happens to be not current in the language-de-jour but could be within a week or two.
... the XForms spec outlines some support for, for instance, dynamically adding controls to a form. No more re-submitting because those 3 file upload controls weren't enough for you, extend the form offline via javascript!
Nothing to stop you from doing this now.
document.getElementById('some_form').innerHTML += '<input type="file" name="file_' + n + '"/>';
using innerHTML cause I'm lazy, but you could use the DOM functions of course.
What I want to see though is the ability to STYLE file inputs, specifically the Browse button associate with said input. It is SOOOOOOOOOO annoying if you're designing a nice interface with iconic buttons or whatever floats yer boat to be landed with the crappy default Browse button on a fscking file upload !
Slashdot Mirror
Yea. I don't get this whole tipping thing either. I live in New Zealand, we don't tip here (not if your a New Zealander anyway), and I don't understand why other nations do, I mean, the person is paid to do thier job, you should not have to, in effect, bribe them to provide good service. Being helpful and doing your job well should be, natural, it is here anyway.
If I ever has to go to a nation where tipping is required, I would be forever worrying - am I supposed to tip this person, how much is appropriate, am I giving too much, too little, what if I don't have change or cash, or...
Tips are wierd, m'kay. You get paid to do your job, no further reward should be necessary.
The latter is simply not possible any more without some extreme cooperation between news networks -- who would believe the news story on Channel 1 when Channel 2 is running it's regularly scheduled programming. You might wonder for 5 minutes what is going on, but you'd pretty quickly "click" to the joke.
A mockumentary (or hoax documentary) is easier because we don't expect other channels to cover it.
Of course, it would be great if the networks could all come togethor to play one big joke like WotW on the viewers. I'd love to see thatg just to find out what the general public's reaction would be, infact, just to find out what my reaction would be. But it won't happen because it would just cause panic and other bad things to happen. There's no fun when people die.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't imagine what you would do if you turned on the TV in an hour to find that a fleet of UFO's has positioned itself over the capital of every country.
It might happen one day, it just might happen.
I'd imagine it's a simple matter of...
Amazon : Hey Mr Publisher, I'm setting up this database of book texts so the mort..err.customers can search for books.
Publisher : Cool, I'll email the [postscript/tex/...other source] right over.
Every one of those books has to have a electronic version somewhere, most likely in a machine-readable (rather than vector/bitmap) format.
I've thught about that too, if we say for an instant that the christian god exists, then it seems more convincing that said christian god is not all good as the christian folk would believe, but actually all bad.
There is much more bad stuff that happens in the world without reason or cause intentional or otherwise by the object of the badness or those around them - freak accidents, cancer etc.. but it's much harder to find good things that happen with no intentional action to cause the good thing. Bad things can just happen to you, but good things usually require initiative.
So it would seem that the christian god is really just all bad, everything he does is to make something bad happen, and when those rare good things happen it's just because they misunderstand in what way it was bad (perhaps winning lotto causes you to take a cruise where you get swept overboard never to see your loved ones again, and god, on high, laughs at the good old fashioned evil he just did).
For example, your typical action movie with some "big stunts" - people take pleasure in the stunt, but they have zero concern for the affect that jumping over a clff face and having a parachute snap open gave the (poor, taken advantage of) stunt man a broken collar-bone.
Q.E.D, gratification (watching the stunt) without consequence, at the expense of others.
But do you consider it immoral, no, of course not, how can you, the stunt man knew the risks, he got paid, he likes doing stunts, and he likes that people get enjoyment out of doing stunts.
I'm not saying that pr0n is all good, there is a seediness to (parts of) the industry, mixed with good helpings of crime and brutality - but you can't legitimately call all porn immoral, just because it's gratification without consequence at the expense of others - because that's a perfectly normal thing, unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.
If you are the more enlightened designer that thankfully the world is seeing more of now, and design using CSS for what it is intended, not using tables for layout, and focusing on having a site accessible for everybody rather than having it look "the same" then i's no sweat.
In short.. use CSS for layout & formatting information (make use of float !), use HTML for STRUCTURAL MARKUP, use tables only for tabular data - NOT LAYOUT, and learn to accept that your site will NOT look the same for everybody.
I just put togethor a design for a friend (not my forte', I'm a programmer), it looks great in the recent web browsers all graphicy and styly, and sweet.. and guess what .. it also looks & works (usability ways) great in lynx. Sure, the font-sizes are different in the browsers, sure lynx isn't going to display the graphics, sure the boxes might be a pixel or two bigger or smaller in IE5, but I don't care, the site still looks good, the site still works well, and that's all that matters.
Doesn't do find/replace but it's well written and a snap to modify if you know a little J/S.
Why is the idea of not existing a horrifying one (to you)? You are atheist, so you (nor I) have anything to fear in the way of eternal punishment or eternal life.
Your body just shuts down, you cease to be. Nothing frightening or horrifying in that, just like being in a dreamless sleep, infact, when my time comes I expect I'll be looking forward to it.
Atheists should not fear death, for we have nothing to fear after it.
Yes, that is true, however extensive investigations show that Pearse was either mistaken, or more likely he did not consider his first experiments as flying, for him, flying meant being able to take off, fly down to the nearest town, and fly back, anything less wasn't worth considering.
Eyewitness, and historical weather records indicate that the first (powered controlled) flight by a definition that we would accept today was March 31st 1903.
Mostly incorrect. The Wrights were only two of very many people working on flight at the time, non-powered heavier than air gliding was already possible. They came up with a hodge-podge control system, a light enough engine, and a efficient enough propellor.
Neither did the Wrights very much, other parties, notably Curtiss under Alexander Graham Bell's guidence that got things on the right track in the states.
Infact, you won't find anything directly attributable to the Wright's in modern aircraft, not even ailerons because in the US they came from Curtiss (although as I mentioned eariler Pearse invented & used them locally much earlier).
The Wrights may be commended for thier business prowess, and the fact that they did infact construct a powered, heavier than air, flying machine, without knowing how to do so. They probably were not first, thier design was not very good (but it did work for the limted sense they required it to), and others (earlier and later) had much better designs that have progressed aviation.
Ehm, New Zealand is every bit as capitalistic as the next person.
New Zealander actually, Richard Pearse, who's design was far and away superior to the Wright bro's efforts, monoplane, ailerons (no wing warping), all his own design including the engine, and commonly thought to have flown some months earlier than the Wrights.
Modern day aircraft are much closer to the Pearse aircraft than the Wright's, in look, design and flight characteristics.
Unfortunatly he was a reclusive, modest fellow who was not recognised until some time after his death.
More likely broadcast ARP requests ("give me hardware address for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx"), the more machines on your section of the network, the more "background" traffic of this type you'll see.
Any time you have the ability to access a shell on the box from the outside world, you have the potential for calamity.
It's a necessary evil, SSH is hopefully the lesser of the evils.
Like a house, if you didn't have doors or windows your house would be pretty secure, but you can't really do that, so we put doors and windows in even though it makes it easier for the bad guys to get in.
Why the use of the word Geek (Mainline Geek Culture, Bathing Geeks...) ?
Slashdot is news for NERDS not GEEKS, where I grew up a GEEK is a very different thing to a NERD.
I'm proud to be a Nerd, but I'm not going to call myself a Geek.
Konq is very good, but it's let down in a couple of important regards.
Most imortantly it doesn't have a javascript console, if a javascript error occurs you have no idea what, where or when it went wrong, it just doesn't work.
And secondly, while close it doesn't support a few important CSS things, like overflow:scroll for one.
As a few others have mentioned, get away from computers, get away from code, get away from showing them how you program. It will go in one ear and out the other, if that is they can stay awake long enough while you drone on.
:-)
You want to do something physical, that will capture the kids attention, teach them something fundamental about what you as a programmer do, and most of all let them have fun and laugh.
A couple of ideas..
have a kid be the computer, give them some cut out shapes and ask the other kids to get the computer to assemble the shapes into some object, say a house. But you make sure that the computer can only do exactly what the program says.
you be the computer and do some cooking, show them how a recipie is just like a program, and you have to follow it exactly or something won't go right. Of course, the kids get to eat the results
have the children tell you how to perform a task, while you are performing it, make it funny by making exagerated mistakes because the children didn't tell you exactly what to do.
Logic and process are the fundamentals of programming, and a surprising number of people don't *know* that (amazing how often you hear "but the computer should know that" from adults), instilling this is the best way you can show what you do, and what you do is to tell a computer how to logically follow a process to the letter.
This makes no difference if you write your application correctly and check your data going in for VALIDITY. It shouldn't be the DB server's job to enforce this (a DB server CAN check integrity, which dates could (grey area) fall into but should have no part in validity), if you say 2003-2-29 is a date, well the DB server checks integrity ("Looks like a date to me"), but wether the dte is valid or not it leaves to the application (perhaps in your application 2003-2-29 is exactly what you want).
Again, your application should be checking validity of the data you are feeding to the db server, if you feed it 100 then don't complain if the server accepts it, garbage in - garbage out y'know.
OMFG ! No, it's not, it's an RDBMS - Relational Database Management Server, nothing to do with applications, applications might USE the RDBMS, but the RDBMS does not serve applications to you, it's not a place to build or run applications.
Your logic goes in your application, the database shouldn't know that such and such is not a valid doohicky because the wotsit is set to foo.
What if you want to change RDBMS, putting logic in the DB server is totally unportable, you have to rewrite all that crap.
The only stuff that goes in your RDBMS is stuff for MANAGING DATA, that is storing, retrieving, and deleteing the stuff, no checks apart from basic integrity, and that's not the same as validity, validity checks belong in your application.
You can also use percentage specifications..
span.note { font-size:90% }
body { font-size:100% }
h3 { font-size:105% }
h2 { font-size:110% }
h1 { font-size:115% }
and "smaller"/"larger"..
em { font-size:larger }
address { font-size:smaller}
It's also worth pointing out that you shouldn't make the "base" font size (i.e the size of normal text on your site) anything different than the default -- if somebody in thier browser settings says they want thier normal text to be 17pt, we shouldn't then go and say body { font-size:xx-small } !
I don't think it's necessary for the same reasons as your wife. People who have visual impairments will already have thier browser, and computer in general, setup in a way that aids them for use with sites/software that is not designed with them in mind. If you then provide them with larger graphics, they are gonna see something hella-huge!
As long as you design your site so that it doesn't force the user into something (i.e don't force the user to use a specific font size, just leave it at the default for ordinary text, and use CSS to provide relative font-sizes for smaller/larger text) with regard to text, have alt tags on images, and don't rely on graphics, flash, java etc for navigation - you should be fine.
*sigh*, have you never thought people might like privacy, for the sake of privacy, most people don't like others "standing over your shoulder" and a cube-farm induces just this (the feeling, not necessarily people doing it).
It's like that feeling that you're being watched. Nobody likes that feeling wether you're doing something you shouldn't or not.
And believe it or not, a person's private life does not only exist outside of the workplace, you can't just check it at the door, sometimes your personal matters intrude into your workday, that's just the way it is, and when they do, you'd like a little respect and privacy.
So, if I read that summary right the game consists of space invaders with a twist, that beng that you are "part of" a 3d room, looking at a virtual 2-d display.
So you are actually sitting in a real-world 3-d room, looking into your 2-d display, which is showing a virtual 3-d room with in which you are looking at a virtual 2-d display ? Seems kinda crappy to me.
Maybe I should read the article, might make more sense.
As far as I understand center and centre are different words not different spellings. Centre is like "The Medical Centre" - a building, while Center is "The Center of Town" - a location.
It removes ambiguity, i.e "The Town Centre" means a building called the "Town Centre" not the Center of Town.
There is no such thing any more, well, not enough to cover demand for them.
You are right.
Companies are no longer interested in training people to do a job, you only have to look at job postings in your local newspaper to see that - 'must have x years experience in some obscure system' (one I saw recently was funny, "must have 5 years commercial experience with ASP.Net").
I wanted to move from writing web applications to more traditional C/C++/Java stuff a year ago - I'm a BSc. in Computer Science, had been working several years in the web. While my CV was good enough to get me on the short list for more or less all I applied for, I would always be dropped because I was not "current" in C, C++ or Java - seems because I didn't have the "right" experience (not in those languages) I was no good to them.
Non tech people (the ones who do the hiring) don't understand that being a Comp Sci. grad means that I CAN do it, it's all the same, just syntax, and that my commercial experience IS relevant. And so they take someone straight from Uni who while being "current" in the language-de-jour has no experience, over the developer with valuable experience who happens to be not current in the language-de-jour but could be within a week or two.
*sigh*
What I want to see though is the ability to STYLE file inputs, specifically the Browse button associate with said input. It is SOOOOOOOOOO annoying if you're designing a nice interface with iconic buttons or whatever floats yer boat to be landed with the crappy default Browse button on a fscking file upload !