They could leave the tables and still benefit from CSS. Even if they just add the style sheet to the light option and encourage users to enable the light option or make light the default. The light option also uses tables, but little formatting.
And Can you tell me what screen reader you use, and if this is on Linux?
Re:What about Slashdot? Try This...
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
As a logged in user, you can select a [lighter] version of/. made specifically for cases such as yours.
Oh, it gets even better. If you use my personal StyleSheet you can make the lighter slashdot taste delicious. For Opera users, this is a very simple task of clicking an icon, but IE and Mozilla have managed to make using/overriding with user Styles cumbersome. That's why most people don't realize the power they offer./* Slashdot.org */ body{font-family:arial narrow,arial,sans-serif;}
wouldn't you rather get "targeted marketing" that could save you money, instead of random marketing for crap you don't use?
I'd rather get NO marketing. If I feel like shopping, I'll go to the store. My experience with Targeted marketing is that it never really guesses what I actually want when I want it. I find store fliers are more effective because I can brows for what I need. They can also spark my interest in things that I don't need. All this AI predictions as to what I will buy next are always wrong so far. At best I get offers on things I've purchased already and hence don't need, moreover, the discounts are not very good. Therefore, Targeted ads are obnoxious.
Given the sheer crappiness of Real's product, I'm amazed anyone could even try to say their death might be Microsoft's fault, with a straight face.
Easily. MS can be a factor independent of the quality. Your excuse seems to be "All of those products deserved to die," blame on others, and denial that MS is even a factor.
What would it take for you to be convinced that MS was a monopoly or has committed crimes? Is there any scenario that MS would be doing something as charged, and can you please describe it to me? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you. This would help all of us in determining if it's worth arguing with you at length.
I've never met anyone - even amongst clueless newbies - who actually enjoys using Real's player, or uses it for any reason except absolute necessity.
Yes, the windows-bundling effect on a product is interesting. It increases the market share of a product even when it's crap. Just like with AOL. The cost for this bundling was that AOL had to drop Netscape and use IE as their browser. What was the cost to Real? I forget.
IIRC the only difference between Navigator and Navigator gold was the HTML editing tools of the latter. IE has never had such tools and I'm pretty sure Microsoft have never distributed any such tools for "free".
Not true. MS bundled FrontPage Express into win98 along with other little IE tools. Personal Web Server, Web Publishing Wizard, Web-Based Enterprise Mgmt...
Most (if not all) of the "bundled" applications in Windows are basic and don't provide advanced functionality. Microsoft can't win, of course - they either get blasted for leaving out functionality (no tabbed browsing ! no popup blocking !) or they get blasted for putting it in (anti competitive ! abusing monopoly power !)
They should be blasted for both. MS only bundles MS products and locks out other vendors at the OEM level, and almost every other level.
Another thing MS bundled was DOS and Windows into win95 to block DRDOS and kill the DOS competition.
Your sig is neither funny nor important. It's likely false and patently misleading. Einstein used the word God and Devil poetically as a metaphor, as do lots of people. With that same logic, I could claim that Einstein was a Devil worshiper.
Moreover, since you believe in the Christian God, and Einstein clearly stated that he does not believe in such a God, your claim depends on the shifting meaning of an ambiguous expression "God" and is therefore a fallacious equivocation.
The way you are using Einstein's name to bolster your cause is questionable, hence the responses you get.
I'd feel much more comfortable if people would realize that they are themselves imposing a way of thought on others when they say "keep your way of thought out of my life".
I think they do realize that. And what's wrong with that. You make it sound impossible to not inject religion into other peoples' lives and every conversation. Someone who can only talk about one thing, and is constantly dictating to everyone about that one thing is someone who is very obnoxious and has a problem. People have every right to discriminate against you. And naturally, since everyone has so many differing opinions, it is only fair to leave religion at the church and not in schools, court rooms and other public places.
And if you think that gayness is horrendous, than don't be gay. Gay people will continue being gay regardless of your beliefs. It does more harm to not let them have equal rights and is the least fair.
Belief in god is about the only thing you and those scientists have in common, and even then I'm not so sure about that, because you haven't really done much research to even see if your statement is true, never mind that it's not very persuasive as anything other than flame bate. Consider how you would respond to: "Hitler believed in God. That's why I don't!"
Another of many reasons you get so many off topic replies, and should change it, is that it's very weak logically. You could simply have said that you believe in god, but instead, you make a very large claim that is difficult to prove without researching each individual scientists.
And what is the point of all that research, anyway? All of those scientists could simply be wrong, and some of them have admitted being wrong in the past. Please don't argue this point any farther.
I've already quoted Einstein in his own words calling you a liar, and saying that there is really nothing religious about him, except maybe his "admiration for the structure of the world". Comparing worldly fascination to Christianity is like comparing fat peoples reverence of butter as pious. It's a stretch.
This final Einstein quote makes it more obvious that he should be removed from your list until further proof on your part:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
--Einstein 1945
Next time you want to dispute someone else's sig (as you cited earlier as the reason for your sig), please take your offense to them, and not pick a fight with the entire world by putting flame bate in your sig. Otherwise you're just arguing about religion pathologically. Though, I think that was your subconscious intention all along. To inject.
As I recall, what Einstein actually said was that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". Christian fanatics have been quoting it ever since as some sort of proof that God exists and that Einstein said so, even though Einstein was Jewish. This is actually an error. In fact, Einstein wrote a letter in protest about this very thing:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
--Einstein 24 March 1954
I think Einstein would have been bothered by your sig, possibly in the same way Darwin would have been if he ever heard the lies about how he denounced evolution and became a Christian on his deathbed.
:as you call it for no other reason than that you're a fanatic,
I think the discussion just ended.
Look at your reply to me, you wasted 36 bytes just so you could be strict. Why? The page is not even strict.
The W3C is trying to make an idiot proof spec, presuming that everyone is an idiot because only an idiot would use UL for nesting, <BR>, <I> or <B> and that's wrong because it's inaccessible. But is it really inaccessible? Show me one true instance, today, where forgetting to use <Blockquote> as a container for <P> causes a problem. Sure, we could code for the future, but the W3C has been wrong before, creating a potential waste of effort, and browsers are not dropping support for <BR> just yet.
And consider this, even though it's not the best way to do things, lack of alternatives, clean degradation, and smaller tags may occasionally lead people to violate the spec. If one is sufficiently good at coding webpages, one can decide when it is appropriate to violate the spec, because you can violate the spec and produce a working, accessible webpage.
Oh yeah, and is it your argument that starting an ordered list at something other than 1 is a crap thing to do? Because you said anything you can't do is crap?
And lastly, I meant to say <a href="http://www.dillo.org/">Dillo</a>, not Dillio. We can still use CSS with transitional, but we can also let people forgo the <P> tags in <blockquote> or use <B> instead of <strong> when posting comments.
::Using XHTML strict is not practical and would create non-backward compatible pages. HTML 4.01 transitional is practical because these unreasonable expectations are absent.
I must respectfully disagree. I think that the only things that are hard to do backwards-compatible with Strict are crap anyway.
What's crap about using <UL> for nested view? <UL> is widely supported, and I'm not talking exclusively about old browsers like netscape 3. Dillio and other new browsers that don't support CSS render "compliant" pages as garbage.
For those who want to use and old browser, a black-on-grey page will meet their need perfectly well.
Compliant != Accessibility. When did this term accessibility get bastardized into meaning inaccessible? Putting blockquotes inside <BLOCKQUOTE> makes it accessible. Putting paragraphs inside those blockquotes is not accessibility, you're just being pedantic because the W3C frowns upon <BR>. And providing web pages to people in one huge chunk of black and gray is not accessibility. It's monotonous and un easy to read. Coding anal-retentively simply so that someone browsing in Dillio can view garbage is not advantageous, it's stupidity. Otherwise we'd be browsing in NotePad.
Besides, Transitional was termed Transitional in 1997. It is time to move on now. Six years with no evolution is far too long.
Yes, lets move on to the latest technology before it's even supported just so we can be pretentious. In the mean time, we can cross our fingers in the hopes that someday in the future someone will actually make a browser that will read slashdot, making our efforts fruitful.
Until then, I'll continue using blockquotes without <P>, and where paragraphs needed, I'll use <BR> because blockquote already has a margin. <P> only complicates the box margin of the blockquote and its adjacent boxes, is redundant, and just plain stupid.
This so called crap, (as you call it for no other reason than that you're a fanatic,) was invented by the W3C. Now they're trying to fix their mistakes by building crap on top of crap. Suddenly blockquote is no longer for text, but rather it's just a container for <P> tags. End result: Crap! In ten years from now you'll call it crap too. But that crap, like <BR>, <UL>, <I> and <B> are widely supported and always will be. They still serve a deserving place in message boards and forums. The W3C should have got these self-proclaimed mistakes right the first time, but they didn't so everyone has to live with their so-called mistakes.
<BR>, <B>, and <I> are also old, but they're practical on a message board and supported by all browsers. Coding web pages is one thing, coding messages is another. Slashdot is not a sophisticated HTML architect for your comments, nor need it be. Transitional gives the most flexibility for the types of comments that people will be posting here. Slashdot can still be enhanced with CSS, updated, and streamlined, and it would be smaller than if converted entirely to XHTML strict.
But there is another challenge, and that's the posts people write. Anybody care about their code? For example, to do [quoting] properly, one should write: <blockquote><p>blah, blah</p></blockquote>. That's an awful lot of typing. A page is not going to validate unless the posts are correct.
The probable reason blockquote requires nested paragraphs in strict mode is because<BR> is frowned upon. However, Blockquote and DIV nested Paragraphs create margin problems in many browsers. Additionally, <UL> is not permitted for indentation of content as seen in/.'s current nested comment mode.
Using XHTML strict is not practical and would create non-backward compatible pages. HTML 4.01 transitional is practical because these unreasonable expectations are absent. The #1 priority is not that a page validate, but that it's usable.
I've converted slashdot pages to CSS a few times in the past, and would love to help in this project, but have no idea how templates or slashcode works. Very little need be done to create slimmer pages on slashdot. By simply adding a linked stylesheet to the head of the "Light" version of slashdot found under preferences, one can make slashdot look really sleek without even touching slashcode templates. See my earlier comment for a user stylesheet to do this now.
You can already do this on the client side with user CSS. Go into your/. preferences and enable the Light version, then use the following user stylesheet to skin the page: body{font-family:arial narrow,arial,sans-serif;} h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{color :white;background:#006666;m argin:0%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;} h1 a,h2 a,h3 a,h4 a,h5 a,h6 a{color: #CCCCCC;} ul,ol{border:thin solid gray} li{margin:0;} i,em,cite,dfn,var{color:maro on;} b,strong{color:navy;font-family:arial,sans-s erif;} tt{font-family: "Andale Mono", monospace;}
I don't think that slashdot should switch to XML. They should switch to HTML transitional because they use UL for nested indentation. Also, the content should be at the top. They should remove all the tab characters as well.
Run knoppix testcd at the SYSLINUX bootprompt to verify the integrity of the cd. Hit F2 for short list of other
options. E.g., knoppix dma will enable DMA, and knoppix fluxbox will use the fluxbox wm.
Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.
Yes, the presumption is that we have nothing to fear and it's wrong. We always have something to fear. When a cop pulls you over, will he plant drugs in your car? Will you go to jail for a crime you didn't commit? In this case, perhaps this technology would be used against people for the wrong reasons. Perhaps people will be discriminated against, controlled, or even eliminated. In the UK this technology is used to spy on girls and minorities, so basically it's a toy for sensation-seeking voyeurs.
Slashdot has a slim version that you can enable in your preferences. I have it enabled, and I apply my various user style sheets to the page, and it looks much better than slashdot alone, and downloads faster.
You can even make a style sheet that looks like slashdot:
"This includes gays, infact, if AIDS was for gays, they may be the first to develop resistance."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to survive an ailment before you develop immunity?
No, you can have immunity before you survive an ailment. That's the point of genetic diversity, that some gene variant will confer resistance to some ailment. I imagine the reverse is true as well, that you well develop immunity by exposure to HIV. Many of the examples of those who are resistant thus far have been gay.
Add to that the homosexual community, by default, just doesn't reproduce.
What are you talking about, they reproduce all the time. Maybe less than heterosexuals, but it only takes one. The argument doesn't matter anyway since gayness is not a single gene and HIV doesn't target gays exclusively. So AIDS is not for fags. Moreover, anyone can have gay children.
How can you pass on a gene when your activities dictate that you don't reproduce?
Activities don't dictate anything, you dictate what you want to do. You might want to have sex with your own, but you can always find someone willing to make babies, even artificially like Michael Jackson. Just because someone calls themselves gay or straight does not mean they never deviate from that mold. I think about 50% of heterosexuals have had a homosexual experience at least once, and I would guess the figures for gays was higher since most gays try being straight for a while because society tells them being gay is wrong.
In Africa, I'm not really sure if Education is the problem, since many poor people have learning disabilities, making many of them only so educable. Poorness might contribute to their learning disabilities as well as nutritional deficits, so I don't think we should focus simply on education. I'm not too confident about Africa or helping them.
OK, I don't know if it was hepatitis, maybe it was the polio vaccine or something? I can't remember, but there is evidence that other viruses have entered humans in this way, and remember the Marburg incident in 1967. Just imagine what would have happened if Marburg/Ebola was not discovered until vaccination programs were initiated. I think many human viruses were introduced this way, like CMV and stealth virus. Even possibly HIV.
The Bubonic plague was probably the cause of the black death. The black death is the link to this immunity to HIV in white Europeans. The remaining white Europeans after the black death for some reason have a genetic mutation causing immunity to HIV. This was spoken of in the documentary Evolution on PBS.
I do think the US released it, but not knowingly. I think AIDS was introduced into humans through the vaccination programs in Africa and the US. Vaccines are made from primate livers, and they often have other viral contaminants in them. Gay promiscuous men were vaccinated for hepatitis or something, and that might have introduced SIV into the gay community.
And to the theory that AIDS is for fags, it's not. To know this one must know the intent of HIV, and it's only intent is to spread itself, it does not care if you're gay or not. AIDS infects everyone. Genetic markers of HIV are present in many animals like felines, and most of them have FIV, they just don't die from FIV because they've adapted a resistance to it years ago. It does not discriminate between the unsavory.
Moreover, once AIDS eliminates all the "unsavory," you are left with the 10% of white Europeans that are resistant and others that will have developed a resistance. This includes gays, infact, if AIDS was for gays, they may be the first to develop resistance. HIV does not leave behind straight people and non drug users. You'll still have poverty, drug use, and gays. And if the government invented HIV, why the hell would they make it mutate so fast? Unless it did that by accident.
How about this. I continue to work there and I sabotage the system. If you don't like it, you can go out of business.
Imagine that every time the boss checked up on you, you were notified. Would the boss be as willing to spy on you? I don't think anyone would stand the boss physically looking over your shoulder every 5 seconds. That's because it's rude, voyeuristic and obnoxious.
Slashdot Mirror
They could leave the tables and still benefit from CSS. Even if they just add the style sheet to the light option and encourage users to enable the light option or make light the default. The light option also uses tables, but little formatting.
And Can you tell me what screen reader you use, and if this is on Linux?
As a logged in user, you can select a [lighter] version of /. made specifically for cases such as yours.
/* Slashdot.org */
;
/* headings. Formerly H2,H3 */
Oh, it gets even better. If you use my personal StyleSheet you can make the lighter slashdot taste delicious. For Opera users, this is a very simple task of clicking an icon, but IE and Mozilla have managed to make using/overriding with user Styles cumbersome. That's why most people don't realize the power they offer.
body{font-family:arial narrow,arial,sans-serif;}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
color:white;
background:#006666;
margin:0%;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
h1 a,h2 a,h3 a,h4 a,h5 a,h6 a{
color:#CCCCCC;}
ul,ol{border:thin solid gray}
li{margin:0;}
i,em,cite,dfn,var{
color:maroon;}
b,strong{color:navy;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
tt{font-family:"Andale Mono",monospace;}
/* Small fonts */
blockquote{color:#300;
background:#cdc;
font-family:verdana,tahoma,"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;
font-size:10px;
margin:1em 3em;
padding:3px}
img{font-family:verdana,sans-serif
font-size:9px;
border:thin solid #933;}
a[name] b{display:block;
color:white;
background:#006666;
margin:0%;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
a{text-decoration:none;
border-bottom:thin solid blue;}
a:hover{color:navy;
border-bottom:thin solid navy;}
td{background:#aaa;}
td + td{background:#bbb;}
dt{background:#CCCC99;}
wouldn't you rather get "targeted marketing" that could save you money, instead of random marketing for crap you don't use?
I'd rather get NO marketing. If I feel like shopping, I'll go to the store. My experience with Targeted marketing is that it never really guesses what I actually want when I want it. I find store fliers are more effective because I can brows for what I need. They can also spark my interest in things that I don't need. All this AI predictions as to what I will buy next are always wrong so far. At best I get offers on things I've purchased already and hence don't need, moreover, the discounts are not very good. Therefore, Targeted ads are obnoxious.
Given the sheer crappiness of Real's product, I'm amazed anyone could even try to say their death might be Microsoft's fault, with a straight face.
Easily. MS can be a factor independent of the quality. Your excuse seems to be "All of those products deserved to die," blame on others, and denial that MS is even a factor.
What would it take for you to be convinced that MS was a monopoly or has committed crimes? Is there any scenario that MS would be doing something as charged, and can you please describe it to me? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you. This would help all of us in determining if it's worth arguing with you at length.
I've never met anyone - even amongst clueless newbies - who actually enjoys using Real's player, or uses it for any reason except absolute necessity.
Yes, the windows-bundling effect on a product is interesting. It increases the market share of a product even when it's crap. Just like with AOL. The cost for this bundling was that AOL had to drop Netscape and use IE as their browser. What was the cost to Real? I forget.
IIRC the only difference between Navigator and Navigator gold was the HTML editing tools of the latter. IE has never had such tools and I'm pretty sure Microsoft have never distributed any such tools for "free".
Not true. MS bundled FrontPage Express into win98 along with other little IE tools. Personal Web Server, Web Publishing Wizard, Web-Based Enterprise Mgmt...
Most (if not all) of the "bundled" applications in Windows are basic and don't provide advanced functionality. Microsoft can't win, of course - they either get blasted for leaving out functionality (no tabbed browsing ! no popup blocking !) or they get blasted for putting it in (anti competitive ! abusing monopoly power !)
They should be blasted for both. MS only bundles MS products and locks out other vendors at the OEM level, and almost every other level.
Another thing MS bundled was DOS and Windows into win95 to block DRDOS and kill the DOS competition.
Your sig is neither funny nor important. It's likely false and patently misleading. Einstein used the word God and Devil poetically as a metaphor, as do lots of people. With that same logic, I could claim that Einstein was a Devil worshiper.
Moreover, since you believe in the Christian God, and Einstein clearly stated that he does not believe in such a God, your claim depends on the shifting meaning of an ambiguous expression "God" and is therefore a fallacious equivocation.
The way you are using Einstein's name to bolster your cause is questionable, hence the responses you get.
And if you think that gayness is horrendous, than don't be gay. Gay people will continue being gay regardless of your beliefs. It does more harm to not let them have equal rights and is the least fair.
Another of many reasons you get so many off topic replies, and should change it, is that it's very weak logically. You could simply have said that you believe in god, but instead, you make a very large claim that is difficult to prove without researching each individual scientists.
And what is the point of all that research, anyway? All of those scientists could simply be wrong, and some of them have admitted being wrong in the past. Please don't argue this point any farther.
I've already quoted Einstein in his own words calling you a liar, and saying that there is really nothing religious about him, except maybe his "admiration for the structure of the world". Comparing worldly fascination to Christianity is like comparing fat peoples reverence of butter as pious. It's a stretch.
This final Einstein quote makes it more obvious that he should be removed from your list until further proof on your part:Next time you want to dispute someone else's sig (as you cited earlier as the reason for your sig), please take your offense to them, and not pick a fight with the entire world by putting flame bate in your sig. Otherwise you're just arguing about religion pathologically. Though, I think that was your subconscious intention all along. To inject.
:as you call it for no other reason than that you're a fanatic,
I think the discussion just ended.
Look at your reply to me, you wasted 36 bytes just so you could be strict. Why? The page is not even strict.
The W3C is trying to make an idiot proof spec, presuming that everyone is an idiot because only an idiot would use UL for nesting, <BR>, <I> or <B> and that's wrong because it's inaccessible. But is it really inaccessible? Show me one true instance, today, where forgetting to use <Blockquote> as a container for <P> causes a problem. Sure, we could code for the future, but the W3C has been wrong before, creating a potential waste of effort, and browsers are not dropping support for <BR> just yet.
And consider this, even though it's not the best way to do things, lack of alternatives, clean degradation, and smaller tags may occasionally lead people to violate the spec. If one is sufficiently good at coding webpages, one can decide when it is appropriate to violate the spec, because you can violate the spec and produce a working, accessible webpage.
Oh yeah, and is it your argument that starting an ordered list at something other than 1 is a crap thing to do? Because you said anything you can't do is crap?
And lastly, I meant to say <a href="http://www.dillo.org/">Dillo</a>, not Dillio. We can still use CSS with transitional, but we can also let people forgo the <P> tags in <blockquote> or use <B> instead of <strong> when posting comments.
::Using XHTML strict is not practical and would create non-backward compatible pages. HTML 4.01 transitional is practical because these unreasonable expectations are absent.
I must respectfully disagree. I think that the only things that are hard to do backwards-compatible with Strict are crap anyway.
What's crap about using <UL> for nested view? <UL> is widely supported, and I'm not talking exclusively about old browsers like netscape 3. Dillio and other new browsers that don't support CSS render "compliant" pages as garbage.
For those who want to use and old browser, a black-on-grey page will meet their need perfectly well.
Compliant != Accessibility. When did this term accessibility get bastardized into meaning inaccessible? Putting blockquotes inside <BLOCKQUOTE> makes it accessible. Putting paragraphs inside those blockquotes is not accessibility, you're just being pedantic because the W3C frowns upon <BR>. And providing web pages to people in one huge chunk of black and gray is not accessibility. It's monotonous and un easy to read. Coding anal-retentively simply so that someone browsing in Dillio can view garbage is not advantageous, it's stupidity. Otherwise we'd be browsing in NotePad.
Besides, Transitional was termed Transitional in 1997. It is time to move on now. Six years with no evolution is far too long.
Yes, lets move on to the latest technology before it's even supported just so we can be pretentious. In the mean time, we can cross our fingers in the hopes that someday in the future someone will actually make a browser that will read slashdot, making our efforts fruitful.
Until then, I'll continue using blockquotes without <P>, and where paragraphs needed, I'll use <BR> because blockquote already has a margin. <P> only complicates the box margin of the blockquote and its adjacent boxes, is redundant, and just plain stupid.
This so called crap, (as you call it for no other reason than that you're a fanatic,) was invented by the W3C. Now they're trying to fix their mistakes by building crap on top of crap. Suddenly blockquote is no longer for text, but rather it's just a container for <P> tags. End result: Crap! In ten years from now you'll call it crap too. But that crap, like <BR>, <UL>, <I> and <B> are widely supported and always will be. They still serve a deserving place in message boards and forums. The W3C should have got these self-proclaimed mistakes right the first time, but they didn't so everyone has to live with their so-called mistakes.
<BR>, <B>, and <I> are also old, but they're practical on a message board and supported by all browsers. Coding web pages is one thing, coding messages is another. Slashdot is not a sophisticated HTML architect for your comments, nor need it be. Transitional gives the most flexibility for the types of comments that people will be posting here. Slashdot can still be enhanced with CSS, updated, and streamlined, and it would be smaller than if converted entirely to XHTML strict.
But there is another challenge, and that's the posts people write. Anybody care about their code? For example, to do [quoting] properly, one should write: <blockquote><p>blah, blah</p></blockquote>. That's an awful lot of typing. A page is not going to validate unless the posts are correct.
/.'s current nested comment mode.
The probable reason blockquote requires nested paragraphs in strict mode is because<BR> is frowned upon. However, Blockquote and DIV nested Paragraphs create margin problems in many browsers. Additionally, <UL> is not permitted for indentation of content as seen in
Using XHTML strict is not practical and would create non-backward compatible pages. HTML 4.01 transitional is practical because these unreasonable expectations are absent. The #1 priority is not that a page validate, but that it's usable.
I've converted slashdot pages to CSS a few times in the past, and would love to help in this project, but have no idea how templates or slashcode works. Very little need be done to create slimmer pages on slashdot. By simply adding a linked stylesheet to the head of the "Light" version of slashdot found under preferences, one can make slashdot look really sleek without even touching slashcode templates. See my earlier comment for a user stylesheet to do this now.
/* Slashdot.org */
;
/* headings. Formerly H2,H3 */
body{font-family:arial narrow,arial,sans-serif;}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
color:white;
background:#006666;
margin:0%;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
h1 a,h2 a,h3 a,h4 a,h5 a,h6 a{
color:#CCCCCC;}
ul,ol{border:thin solid gray}
li{margin:0;}
i,em,cite,dfn,var{
color:maroon;}
b,strong{color:navy;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
tt{font-family:" Andale Mono",monospace;}
/* Small fonts */
blockquote{color:#300;
background:#cdc;
font-family:verdana,tahoma,"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;
font-size:10px;
margin:1em 3em;
padding:3px}
img{font-family:verdana,sans-serif
font-size:9px;
border:thin solid #933;}
a[name] b{display:block;
color:white;
background:#006666;
margin:0%;
font-family:arial,sans-serif;}
a{text-decoration:none;
border-bottom:thin solid blue;}
a:hover{color:navy;
border-bottom:thin solid navy;}
td{background:#aaa;}
td + td{background:#bbb;}
dt{background:#CCCC99;}
You can already do this on the client side with user CSS. Go into your /. preferences and enable the Light version, then use the following user stylesheet to skin the page:
r :white;background:#006666;m argin:0%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;}o on;}s erif;}
m ily: verdana,tahoma,"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;font-size:10px;margin:1em 3em;padding:3px}r if;font-size:9px;b order:thin solid #933;}
r gin:0%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;} /* headings. Formerly H2,H3 */
body{font-family:arial narrow,arial,sans-serif;}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{colo
h1 a,h2 a,h3 a,h4 a,h5 a,h6 a{color: #CCCCCC;}
ul,ol{border:thin solid gray}
li{margin:0;}
i,em,cite,dfn,var{color:mar
b,strong{color:navy;font-family:arial,sans-
tt{font-family: "Andale Mono", monospace;}
/* Small fonts */
blockquote{color:#300;background:#cdc;font-fa
img{font-family:verdana,sans-se
a[name] b{display:block;color:white;background:#006666;ma
a{text-decoration:none;border-bottom: thin solid blue;}
a:hover{color: navy;border-bottom: thin solid navy;}
td{background:#aaa;}
td + td{background:#bbb;}
dt{background: #CCCC99;}
I don't think that slashdot should switch to XML. They should switch to HTML transitional because they use UL for nested indentation. Also, the content should be at the top. They should remove all the tab characters as well.
Run knoppix testcd at the SYSLINUX bootprompt to verify the integrity of the cd. Hit F2 for short list of other options. E.g., knoppix dma will enable DMA, and knoppix fluxbox will use the fluxbox wm.
Obviously there is only one solution to this. He must change his last name to Skylarov.
He should change his name to Adobe Acrobat Reader. I'm sure Adobe would love that.
Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.
Yes, the presumption is that we have nothing to fear and it's wrong. We always have something to fear. When a cop pulls you over, will he plant drugs in your car? Will you go to jail for a crime you didn't commit? In this case, perhaps this technology would be used against people for the wrong reasons. Perhaps people will be discriminated against, controlled, or even eliminated. In the UK this technology is used to spy on girls and minorities, so basically it's a toy for sensation-seeking voyeurs.
Not to mention the fear of stupid laws.
Slashdot has a slim version that you can enable in your preferences. I have it enabled, and I apply my various user style sheets to the page, and it looks much better than slashdot alone, and downloads faster.
6 ;m argin:0%;font-family:arial}# ccc}
r gin:0%;font-family:arial}
You can even make a style sheet that looks like slashdot:
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{color:white;background:#00666
ul,ol{border:thin solid gray}
i,em,cite,dfn,var{color:maroon;background:
b,strong{color:navy;background:#ccc}
Though, recently, the headings of each post have been changed from H4 tags to Bold tags. Why was this done? This is a bad move. Please switch it back!
I guess I can solve this with the following hack:
a[name] b{display:block;color:white;background:#006666;ma
It would not require much to add a check box for slim version with a style sheet. @import could hide the css from netscape4.
In the case of books this is easily understood: author writes book; ... 30 years later author dies and original book falls into public domain.
That would make an incentive for people to kill you so they can steal your work.
"This includes gays, infact, if AIDS was for gays, they may be the first to develop resistance."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to survive an ailment before you develop immunity?
No, you can have immunity before you survive an ailment. That's the point of genetic diversity, that some gene variant will confer resistance to some ailment. I imagine the reverse is true as well, that you well develop immunity by exposure to HIV. Many of the examples of those who are resistant thus far have been gay.
Add to that the homosexual community, by default, just doesn't reproduce.
What are you talking about, they reproduce all the time. Maybe less than heterosexuals, but it only takes one. The argument doesn't matter anyway since gayness is not a single gene and HIV doesn't target gays exclusively. So AIDS is not for fags. Moreover, anyone can have gay children.
How can you pass on a gene when your activities dictate that you don't reproduce?
Activities don't dictate anything, you dictate what you want to do. You might want to have sex with your own, but you can always find someone willing to make babies, even artificially like Michael Jackson. Just because someone calls themselves gay or straight does not mean they never deviate from that mold. I think about 50% of heterosexuals have had a homosexual experience at least once, and I would guess the figures for gays was higher since most gays try being straight for a while because society tells them being gay is wrong.
In Africa, I'm not really sure if Education is the problem, since many poor people have learning disabilities, making many of them only so educable. Poorness might contribute to their learning disabilities as well as nutritional deficits, so I don't think we should focus simply on education. I'm not too confident about Africa or helping them.
OK, I don't know if it was hepatitis, maybe it was the polio vaccine or something? I can't remember, but there is evidence that other viruses have entered humans in this way, and remember the Marburg incident in 1967. Just imagine what would have happened if Marburg/Ebola was not discovered until vaccination programs were initiated. I think many human viruses were introduced this way, like CMV and stealth virus. Even possibly HIV.
The Bubonic plague was probably the cause of the black death. The black death is the link to this immunity to HIV in white Europeans. The remaining white Europeans after the black death for some reason have a genetic mutation causing immunity to HIV. This was spoken of in the documentary Evolution on PBS.
I do think the US released it, but not knowingly. I think AIDS was introduced into humans through the vaccination programs in Africa and the US. Vaccines are made from primate livers, and they often have other viral contaminants in them. Gay promiscuous men were vaccinated for hepatitis or something, and that might have introduced SIV into the gay community.
And to the theory that AIDS is for fags, it's not. To know this one must know the intent of HIV, and it's only intent is to spread itself, it does not care if you're gay or not. AIDS infects everyone. Genetic markers of HIV are present in many animals like felines, and most of them have FIV, they just don't die from FIV because they've adapted a resistance to it years ago. It does not discriminate between the unsavory.
Moreover, once AIDS eliminates all the "unsavory," you are left with the 10% of white Europeans that are resistant and others that will have developed a resistance. This includes gays, infact, if AIDS was for gays, they may be the first to develop resistance. HIV does not leave behind straight people and non drug users. You'll still have poverty, drug use, and gays. And if the government invented HIV, why the hell would they make it mutate so fast? Unless it did that by accident.
Just like with every moral, ethical, and legal issue: if you feel guilty doing it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
With all this spying at work, I feel guilty doing everything.
How about this. I continue to work there and I sabotage the system. If you don't like it, you can go out of business.
Imagine that every time the boss checked up on you, you were notified. Would the boss be as willing to spy on you? I don't think anyone would stand the boss physically looking over your shoulder every 5 seconds. That's because it's rude, voyeuristic and obnoxious.