>>Using stylesheets people specific font sizes, >>specific spacings etc.
>If you're a bad coder (mark-upper?). If you do >px specifications, yes, you're making a mistake. >If you're using medium, x-large, xx-small, etc. >then compliant browsers will scale everything up >and down properly.
Since nobody does that, how would I know. (And given your tone, I'm not prepare to just take your word for it)
>>except this only works for the font tag and not >>for text using style sheets, since the by using >>style sheets one specifically specify a specify >>font size (or 99% of web people do).
>So, they're bad authors.
Oh yeah, while http://www.wilwheaton.net/ might be excused what's the excuse of http://cnn.com ? To single out two of many (forgive me for not compiling a list for someone who obviously doesn't give a damn)
> Don't blame the technology.
While its certainly right the people who design web pages SHOULD know better.. they don't - I used to own an Amiga and it was a loosing battle on the net, because 99% of all webdesigners didn't know shit about standards and didn't care - and the PC browsers didn't enforce it. So we were stuck with COMPLIANT browsers who broke left right and center, simply because people don't know how to make pages and don't really care. Precisely because of this I blame the technology - they should damn well have known that 90% of the people using it would get it wrong. They should not have included it in the standard from the beginning.
>>So from where I sit: Don't use the damn things on webpages, they make them >>unreadable!
>Blaming the technology for the content author's faults is like telling every audio >producer out there that reverb sucks and makes music unlistenable, just because a >few people out there overuse it and/or use it incorrectly.
There are two things to this. First your analogy is complete nonsense, and the "a few people" points to why, you are totally oblivious to the fact its lots of sites who do this, not a few. Perhaps you are one of those Jakob Nielsen talks about when he wonders why webpages are getting harder to read: "Most web designers are young, and so have perfect vision. Tiny text doesn't bother them as much as it bothers people on the other side of 40. Designers also tend to own expensive, high-quality monitors that are easier on the eyes. " - He is so polite - I call them arrogant self-centred assholes who don't give a damn about other people.
When you switch OFF stylesheets most sites have the same font size, if you switch them ON, the damn font sizes go up and down from site site, even if you can adjust them manually, but then you HAVE to adjust them manually from site to site, from Slashdot to Bluesnews, to Jakob Nielsen.. no wait, web guru and usability designer Jakob Nielsen, called "the guru of Web page usability" (by The New York Times) , (read the Slashdot interview here: )
"Another example of harmful Web technology comes with the increasing use of style sheets, which let web designers specify the exact size of text down to the pixel. Unfortunately, many designers are using this ability, leading to reduced readability of an increasing number of websites. "
>One of the dimmer sigs that I've seen on Slashdot, to be sure.
While you overlook the fact that sig length is very limited on Slashdot, the main problem is that you ARE one of the self-centered assholes who don't give a damn about others and their problems.
> Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages unreadable.
>Um, what? CSS is designed to make pages MORE readable and save bandwidth.
That may have been their wet dream, but that is not how it works on the net today for the wast majority of people. (Don't know about the bandwidth, thats probably true)
> And when you are familiar with them, you'll >find that CSS is much nicer to use than the old > tags and other such nonsense
I'm sure they are wonderful to who ever hacks the pages, but they suck big time for people who use Internet Explorer (I don't know about Netscape, Opera or what ever it is the that the tiny minority of people who do not use MSIE use):
Using style sheets gets us back to the bad old days where people tried to design WYSIWYG web pages. Using stylesheets people specific font sizes, specific spacings etc. I don't know what the people designing webpages are thinking, but apparently they believe that all their viewers have 20/20 vision and use the same screen resolution as they do. I don't have 20/20, and too damn many webpages using stylesheets also use too damn small letters, making the page UNREADABLE, or harder to read. MSIE has a font setting, and you can change font size, small, large - very nice... except this only works for s and not for text using style sheets, since the by using style sheets one specifically specify a specify font size (or 99% of web people do). But then MSIE has an option to "disable stylesheets", this works for font sizes... but not for not for line spacing... which means that even though one can now make the fonts larger, they all stack on top of each other and become unreadable... (this behavior has been consistent through many major versions of MSIE, so its probably by design)
So from where I sit: Don't use the damn things on webpages, they make them unreadable!
>I mean come ON now, who here hasn't actually read the books by Tolkein?... I haven't:)
I think all this nonsens about ring to be vastly inflated, I was dragged along to see number 1 and wasn't impressed. I'll be dragged a long to see number 2 and i suspect I won't be to impressed there either.
And whats with this supposed power of that ring? I haven't seen any special powers, ok it makes Bilbo invisible, but that's it apparently! Does it shoot laser beams! Does it move mountains! Can it make them fly (hell no, they have to walk!) - face it, its just a cheap trinket Sauron had crafted to impress the chicks down at Ye Olde Drunken Dragon Cafe.
Its too expensive you say, we neeed so and so much money...... actually the CURRENT system needs that money. It may die. And be replaced by a new system which requires less.
People are getting payed WAY TO MUCH as it is.
Martin Sheen in the West Wing... getting 300000 dollars pr episode?! Ok, he's a good actor, but i find that obscene. Now if all got proper decent vages, the expenses for everything would come down. Obvously most of the people involved today wouldn't give that up voluentarily. But mark my words, in a not too distance future we'll get not new tvstations, but webstations- who not broadcast, but stream (multicast) original programming made for much less money that what is used today.
>Here's what bugs me: Enterprise has a wonderful >opportunity to explore some of the events that >were alluded to in the other series. Not only >that, but we get it from the perspective of >people fresh into deep space. This is really >exciting, but these stupid 'purists' think that >the show is better if they adhere to it >literally.
Those stupid purists being Berman and company?
>It's a TV show!
That doesn't mean it has to be stupid.
> It's ENTERTAINMENT!
That doesn't mean it has to be stupid.
>Enjoy it,
Enjoyment is what you enjoy, and some people can't enjoy what they find stupid.
>... don't sit there and act like you could make it better...
You don't know that they couldn't. Infact these days it seems it wouldn't be that hard.
>...because you remember details that were only >intended to pad out the drama.
You don't know what those details were for. And Michael Okuda sneaked in a lot of those details on TNG, that didn't hurt or harm anyone and arguably improved on the flavour.
Just because you are content to settle for less, don't vilify those who want more.
>- The writers can't keep track of 10 movies and >24 seasons of episodes! Why can't they dedicate >their lives to memorizing the Star Trek timeline >like I have?
This is a legitimate claim, those people WORK there, they get payed. Its noat as if it would take that long to ensure some continuity.
>The technocrats argue that "making fonts can't >be that hard" and "just whip some out in the >Gimp", betraying their ignorance.
Most people don't give a damn about all that. They don't want thousands of fonts all of whom have been lovingly hand crafted by gifted people who spend many years slaving over the curliques of every little nook and cranny on the letters.
>These fonts are still available from the >Corefonts project [sourceforge.net]. This is >perfectly legal and in accordance with the EULA...assuming EULA's are legal!
There is no "explanation" - they were always supposed to look like that, but they didn't have the makeup ability (or budget) when the original series was made. When they made the movie they had budget and ability and so did it.
Its doubtfull you could retcon this in any sensible and plausible way
>Perhaps because you don't want to download all
>the software just to discover that you can't
>accept the EULA terms?
Yeah, it must be a real bother downloading a lot of software and then finding you can't accept the EULA;)
Slashdot Mirror
... or The Art of getting paid over and over for a job done once.
>If you're a bad coder (mark-upper?). If you do
>px specifications, yes, you're making a mistake.
>If you're using medium, x-large, xx-small, etc.
>then compliant browsers will scale everything up
>and down properly.
Since nobody does that, how would I know. (And given your tone, I'm not prepare to just take your word for it)
>>except this only works for the font tag and not
>>for text using style sheets, since the by using
>>style sheets one specifically specify a specify
>>font size (or 99% of web people do).
>So, they're bad authors.
Oh yeah, while http://www.wilwheaton.net/ might be excused what's the excuse of http://cnn.com ? To single out two of many (forgive me for not compiling a list for someone who obviously doesn't give a damn)
> Don't blame the technology.
While its certainly right the people who design web pages SHOULD know better.. they don't - I used to own an Amiga and it was a loosing battle on the net, because 99% of all webdesigners didn't know shit about standards and didn't care - and the PC browsers didn't enforce it. So we were stuck with COMPLIANT browsers who broke left right and center, simply because people don't know how to make pages and don't really care. Precisely because of this I blame the technology - they should damn well have known that 90% of the people using it would get it wrong. They should not have included it in the standard from the beginning.
>>So from where I sit: Don't use the damn things on webpages, they make them
>>unreadable!
>Blaming the technology for the content author's faults is like telling every audio
>producer out there that reverb sucks and makes music unlistenable, just because a
>few people out there overuse it and/or use it incorrectly.
There are two things to this. First your analogy is complete nonsense, and the "a few people" points to why, you are totally oblivious to the fact its lots of sites who do this, not a few. Perhaps you are one of those Jakob Nielsen talks about when he wonders why webpages are getting harder to read: "Most web designers are young, and so have perfect vision. Tiny text doesn't bother them as much as it bothers people on the other side of 40. Designers also tend to own expensive, high-quality monitors that are easier on the eyes. " - He is so polite - I call them arrogant self-centred assholes who don't give a damn about other people.
When you switch OFF stylesheets most sites have the same font size, if you switch them ON, the damn font sizes go up and down from site site, even if you can adjust them manually, but then you HAVE to adjust them manually from site to site, from Slashdot to Bluesnews, to Jakob Nielsen
designer Jakob Nielsen, called "the guru of Web page usability" (by The New York Times) , (read the Slashdot interview here: )
He will tell you that, this is:
>One of the dimmer sigs that I've seen on Slashdot, to be sure.
While you overlook the fact that sig length is very limited on Slashdot, the main problem is that you ARE one of the self-centered assholes who don't give a damn about others and their problems.
> Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages unreadable.
:
>Um, what? CSS is designed to make pages MORE readable and save bandwidth.
That may have been their wet dream, but that is not how it works on the net today for the wast majority of people. (Don't know about the bandwidth, thats probably true)
> And when you are familiar with them, you'll
>find that CSS is much nicer to use than the old
> tags and other such nonsense
I'm sure they are wonderful to who ever hacks the pages, but they suck big time for people who use Internet Explorer (I don't know about Netscape, Opera or what ever it is the that the tiny minority of people who do not use MSIE use)
Using style sheets gets us back to the bad old days where people tried to design WYSIWYG web pages. Using stylesheets people specific font sizes, specific spacings etc. I don't know what the people designing webpages are thinking, but apparently they believe that all their viewers have 20/20 vision and use the same screen resolution as they do. I don't have 20/20, and too damn many webpages using stylesheets also use too damn small letters, making the page UNREADABLE, or harder to read. MSIE has a font setting, and you can change font size, small, large - very nice... except this only works for s and not for text using style sheets, since the by using style sheets one specifically specify a specify font size (or 99% of web people do).
But then MSIE has an option to "disable stylesheets", this works for font sizes... but not for not for line spacing... which means that even though one can now make the fonts larger, they all stack on top of each other and become unreadable... (this behavior has been consistent through many major versions of MSIE, so its probably by design)
So from where I sit: Don't use the damn things on webpages, they make them unreadable!
Enough with the Cowboy Neal stuff already!
>I mean come ON now, who here hasn't actually read the books by Tolkein? ... I haven't :)
I think all this nonsens about ring to be vastly inflated, I was dragged along to see number 1 and wasn't impressed. I'll be dragged a long to see number 2 and i suspect I won't be to impressed there either.
And whats with this supposed power of that ring? I haven't seen any special powers, ok it makes Bilbo invisible, but that's it apparently! Does it shoot laser beams! Does it move mountains! Can it make them fly (hell no, they have to walk!) - face it, its just a cheap trinket Sauron had crafted to impress the chicks down at Ye Olde Drunken Dragon Cafe.
Oh, and want a real spoiler? The ring did it!
Except license agreements of that sort are not legally valid...
Its too expensive you say, we neeed so and so much money...
People are getting payed WAY TO MUCH as it is.
Martin Sheen in the West Wing
Now if all got proper decent vages, the expenses for everything would come down.
Obvously most of the people involved today wouldn't give that up voluentarily.
But mark my words, in a not too distance future we'll get not new tvstations, but webstations- who not broadcast, but stream (multicast) original programming made for much less money that what is used today.
Americans have to PAY to RECIEVE an SMS???
No wonder it never took of over there...
>Here's what bugs me: Enterprise has a wonderful
...
>opportunity to explore some of the events that
>were alluded to in the other series. Not only
>that, but we get it from the perspective of
>people fresh into deep space. This is really
>exciting, but these stupid 'purists' think that
>the show is better if they adhere to it
>literally.
Those stupid purists being Berman and company?
>It's a TV show!
That doesn't mean it has to be stupid.
> It's ENTERTAINMENT!
That doesn't mean it has to be stupid.
>Enjoy it,
Enjoyment is what you enjoy, and some people can't enjoy what they find stupid.
>... don't sit there and act like you could make it better
You don't know that they couldn't. Infact these days it seems it wouldn't be that hard.
>...because you remember details that were only
>intended to pad out the drama.
You don't know what those details were for. And Michael Okuda sneaked in a lot of those details on TNG, that didn't hurt or harm anyone and arguably improved on the flavour.
Just because you are content to settle for less, don't vilify those who want more.
>- The writers can't keep track of 10 movies and
>24 seasons of episodes! Why can't they dedicate
>their lives to memorizing the Star Trek timeline
>like I have?
This is a legitimate claim, those people WORK there, they get payed. Its noat as if it would take that long to ensure some continuity.
nt
Its fact.
... your ignorance.
;)
>The technocrats argue that "making fonts can't
>be that hard" and "just whip some out in the
>Gimp", betraying their ignorance.
Most people don't give a damn about all that. They don't want thousands of fonts all of whom have been lovingly hand crafted by gifted people who spend many years slaving over the curliques of every little nook and cranny on the letters.
One font is enough - and how hard can that be
>These fonts are still available from the ...assuming EULA's are legal!
>Corefonts project [sourceforge.net]. This is
>perfectly legal and in accordance with the EULA
...is actually 196!
Damn! I've been worshipping the wrong number all this time!
.... erm ... yeah... but why? Do they expect to find a message from God... or?
... and that's not a good thing!
Oh well, perhaps he'll give him a role on Enterprise
...copy CD's with Windows Media Player???
Zis Guy Wrote:
>I have been collecting music using Windows Media
>Player to copy from CDs.
... a scifi novel for you? *G*
Thats not even funny.
... a good action film perhaps - but not reall a good trek film...
There is no "explanation" - they were always supposed to look like that, but they didn't have the makeup ability (or budget) when the original series was made. When they made the movie they had budget and ability and so did it.
Its doubtfull you could retcon this in any sensible and plausible way
Did he? Seems there have been enough revealed to suggest that he is making it up as he goes...
>Perhaps because you don't want to download all ;)
>the software just to discover that you can't
>accept the EULA terms?
Yeah, it must be a real bother downloading a lot of software and then finding you can't accept the EULA
That Quake 1 had a hidden level called Ziggurat, which had 'moon gravity' ie, very low gravity. :)