You know...is anyone *REALLY* that surprised by this? I mean, you do realize that Obama's received TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from corporate donations, right? So why should we be surprised when he bows down to them? ---- I decided long ago (right after his pro-FISA vote) to switch over to Nader; He's at least consistent in his platform and doesn't go waffling around bigwigs like McCain and Obama do. ((votenader.org/issues)
I took Organic I AND II back in college and I wasn't even a pre-med student -- loved it. Organic is a *LOT* more than simple memorization / number-crunching. You have to learn how to problem-solve, and intimately understand how different functional groups behave. Surely Doctors can benefit from getting practice in predicting behaviors and problem solving, right?
Science doesn't need to be proven wrong for IDiots to think that it is.
And for what it's worth -- Scientists don't use Carbon dating for identifying organic material older than ~50,000 years. The quantities are too small to be conclusive beyond that -- they use larger elements (K/Ar, U/Th, etc.) to date things in the millions / billions of years old.
The article was a little misleading as it implied we were using C-Dating for things 150-million years old in the first place.
5% of users using 50% of bandwidth?
Isn't that like 10% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth?
I figured the Suits would probably laud the "industriousness" of the filesharing users for being the pioneers in this Tragedy of the Commons.
How about this:
I'll use less bandwidth when the millionaire C-levels re-distribute a reasonable portion of their salaries to the mail-room clerks and entry-level positions.
Hear, hear!
that's EXACTLY why I support it -- it shows accountability. Bush 43 talked a big game about accountability when he was campaigning back in 2000, so it seems only fair that he should be held accountable.
I've personally email Nancy Pelosi asking her to reconsider her position on not bringing it to the floor. Even if it *doesn't* accomplish anything, these points need to be brought out into the open so that Bush can be held publicly accountable (and historically accountable) for his fraud.
If all you're wanting is an easy to use flat-file -- just use excel and learn how to use their VLOOKUP / HLOOKUP functions. It's about as lightweight as you can get (assuming you own excel already).
I disagree -- and if you've ever used a screen reader you'd understand how nearsighted (no pun intended) that comment is.
= Alt tags, yes. But also:
= Long desc on images that are content-heavy or pertinent to the content
= Using a proper hierarchy of header tags (H1/2/3/4/5)
= Using lists (UL, OL, DL, etc.) properly
= Placing the content BEFORE the navigation, or at least providing an internally linked "skipnav" link (use CSS to hide it)
= using title properties on links
= Creating non-flash versions of key items
= Using Javascript as an additional convenience, but not a key element. (I *still* see sites that use window.href onclick events instead of just using an "A" tag.)
That's just the beginning. Not using alt tags doesn't "break the web" for screen readers, it's just less helpful. But not using semantically accurate tags can make it nearly impossible to read or navigate a page. The screen reader JAWS (what I was trained on) can jump through a page by header tags, so having a proper hierarchy is crucial to them being able to quickly locate the information they need.
If your site breaks with all plugins, javascript, and CSS turned off, then blind people will effectively NOT be able to use it.
I totally agree.
It is VERY easy to design website content semantically, using proper tags (header tags, list tags, etc.) that are easily navigable by screen readers. If you know your HTML and you know your CSS (or work with someone that does) you can have a semantically accurate website and have it look however you want!
Some people are still stuck on table-based layouts (I notice this a lot with Microsofties) or get DIV-itis, using DIVs when they should be using lists, or blockquotes, or paragraph blocks, etc.
Best way to check on the semantic accuracy of your website is to turn off the stylesheet -- you should be able to easily understand the content (it should resemble what websites looked like in the mid-90s, before the Frame Craze); If that looks right then you can do whatever the heck you want with CSS -- screen readers don't care about that.
You DO remember that recently, Creation Science Evangelic Ministries (Kent Hovind et al) had filed DMCA complaints against the Rational Response Squad (a militant atheism group) for using CSE videos on their youtube accounts and deriving works from them?
However, in that case, RRS had a clincher: Kent Hovind specifically said, on video, that all CSE videos were copyright free and could be used by anyone. I guess he never thought they'd be used to debunk the CSE's claims!
So no -- it's not an issue of bigotry. Creationists try to do the same thing, except they do it wrong.
I think the real root of the problem is that Creationists (and their ilk) don't believe in the myth of "observable reality" and so they frequently get things that are within said reality totally cockeyed.
Slashdot Mirror
You know...is anyone *REALLY* that surprised by this? I mean, you do realize that Obama's received TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from corporate donations, right? So why should we be surprised when he bows down to them? ---- I decided long ago (right after his pro-FISA vote) to switch over to Nader; He's at least consistent in his platform and doesn't go waffling around bigwigs like McCain and Obama do. ((votenader.org/issues)
I took Organic I AND II back in college and I wasn't even a pre-med student -- loved it. Organic is a *LOT* more than simple memorization / number-crunching. You have to learn how to problem-solve, and intimately understand how different functional groups behave. Surely Doctors can benefit from getting practice in predicting behaviors and problem solving, right?
Science doesn't need to be proven wrong for IDiots to think that it is. And for what it's worth -- Scientists don't use Carbon dating for identifying organic material older than ~50,000 years. The quantities are too small to be conclusive beyond that -- they use larger elements (K/Ar, U/Th, etc.) to date things in the millions / billions of years old. The article was a little misleading as it implied we were using C-Dating for things 150-million years old in the first place.
5% of users using 50% of bandwidth? Isn't that like 10% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth? I figured the Suits would probably laud the "industriousness" of the filesharing users for being the pioneers in this Tragedy of the Commons. How about this: I'll use less bandwidth when the millionaire C-levels re-distribute a reasonable portion of their salaries to the mail-room clerks and entry-level positions.
Is anyone else irked by the apparent misspelling? Steven != Stephen
Hear, hear! that's EXACTLY why I support it -- it shows accountability. Bush 43 talked a big game about accountability when he was campaigning back in 2000, so it seems only fair that he should be held accountable. I've personally email Nancy Pelosi asking her to reconsider her position on not bringing it to the floor. Even if it *doesn't* accomplish anything, these points need to be brought out into the open so that Bush can be held publicly accountable (and historically accountable) for his fraud.
If all you're wanting is an easy to use flat-file -- just use excel and learn how to use their VLOOKUP / HLOOKUP functions. It's about as lightweight as you can get (assuming you own excel already).
I disagree -- and if you've ever used a screen reader you'd understand how nearsighted (no pun intended) that comment is.
That's just the beginning. Not using alt tags doesn't "break the web" for screen readers, it's just less helpful. But not using semantically accurate tags can make it nearly impossible to read or navigate a page. The screen reader JAWS (what I was trained on) can jump through a page by header tags, so having a proper hierarchy is crucial to them being able to quickly locate the information they need.
If your site breaks with all plugins, javascript, and CSS turned off, then blind people will effectively NOT be able to use it.
I totally agree. It is VERY easy to design website content semantically, using proper tags (header tags, list tags, etc.) that are easily navigable by screen readers. If you know your HTML and you know your CSS (or work with someone that does) you can have a semantically accurate website and have it look however you want! Some people are still stuck on table-based layouts (I notice this a lot with Microsofties) or get DIV-itis, using DIVs when they should be using lists, or blockquotes, or paragraph blocks, etc. Best way to check on the semantic accuracy of your website is to turn off the stylesheet -- you should be able to easily understand the content (it should resemble what websites looked like in the mid-90s, before the Frame Craze); If that looks right then you can do whatever the heck you want with CSS -- screen readers don't care about that.
You DO remember that recently, Creation Science Evangelic Ministries (Kent Hovind et al) had filed DMCA complaints against the Rational Response Squad (a militant atheism group) for using CSE videos on their youtube accounts and deriving works from them? However, in that case, RRS had a clincher: Kent Hovind specifically said, on video, that all CSE videos were copyright free and could be used by anyone. I guess he never thought they'd be used to debunk the CSE's claims! So no -- it's not an issue of bigotry. Creationists try to do the same thing, except they do it wrong. I think the real root of the problem is that Creationists (and their ilk) don't believe in the myth of "observable reality" and so they frequently get things that are within said reality totally cockeyed.