I keep playing Roll Away/Kula World. I love that game. It's a 3d platform puzzle game for the PSX where you're a beach ball that can jump and/or roll forward, but when you reach the end of a platform, which are constructed by cubes, you roll off the edge and roll down the platform since gravity shifts forward 90 degrees.
So, the levels are complicated because you have to figure out which of the six sides you have to be on to reach the nest platform or exit or whatever. Oh, and all of this takes place high up in the sky, so when you jump or slide off the edge to your death, and even when you simply roll over the edge, it's visceral.
How do I accomplish that without using a br tag after each letter?
I'd guess surrounding the name in a div and then with CSS making that div width equal to 1em and positioning it on the left of your avatar picture.
Oh, and good luck getting it to work in all browsers. Gee whiz! What is the logic behind this? You have to wrap everything in DIVs and spans, then write a bunch of ridiculous code, for what reason, so we can hold up to an irrationally strict, un intuitive, standard.
This is the opposite of accessibility. It's simply a waste of time for the author...
Though, now that I think of it, this is not the best example of BR use, since screen readers would spell everyones name out.. Oh, so I'd have to say go with the 1em CSS box, maybe try a monospace font.
And please, please try to use an existing box and try to avoid using DIV and SPAN, if you can.
Oh, wouldn't the text just flow out, or under the box? I think you can't do this?
I simply think some of the extreme concepts about how we should deprecate everything are failing to view the logic behind future potential uses, and forget how long it takes to actually get any tags to work universally, so let's just keep the tags we have, thank you. The same thing happened with italic, they said it should be deprecated and never used, then they came up with a few examples where it's needed.
If you people want to crusade against something, maybe go after the people who use DIV class=heading. That annoys me when I try to make my user stylesheets. Oh, and since we're on the topic, slashdot is using.block for the slashboxes, and it's on that list of most used classes, so pleas put a unique ID in the body element, like #slashdot-front #slashdot-games. Something that I could put it into context: #slashdot.block{display:none;}. If I block.block, then my userCSS messes up the rest of the web. I worked around this by blocking each box individually.
Except for the blind that need to browse the web with screenreaders. HTML 3 doesn't have the semantic tags that later versions of HTML brought.
Oh yes. Won't you think of the blind? And won't you think of the children?
I call shenanigans! Please tell me how using BR is going to mess things up for the blind, because I'm reading all of this with a screen reader, and it's working for me. Please don't simply chant the mantra, try and prove your point.
Yes, we all know that you're 1337 because you read the spec and you're quoting from it, but we're on a messageboard, it's not like a personal webpage. It's sort of idiotic to have to nest everything in verbose BLOCKQUOTE that requires paragraph nesting, just for a few sentences on/.. I mean, some of these quotes are actually smaller than the tags required to nest them.
Oh, and then there's the box bugs in old browsers when you try to use DIV for layouts. So now you have all these boxes nested and they're going to create lots of weird gaps.
I love web development and CSS to death, but it seems like people just don't get when it's ok to break the rules, or they think it's semantic when their page validates.
Think of semantics like this: There needs to be a contrast between different elements. Maybe it would be best suited with BLOCKQUOTE (I wish we had HTML3's BQ), but as long as there's contrast between the elements, then it's not the end of the world. [DIV class=heading] is and example of little contrast, or rather, the contrast is not in the document.
Arguing about whether we should use BLOCKQUOTE or I is like arguing whether someone should have used a comma, or semicolon. Or should we say 32 semicolons vs 7 commas? Heck, you could accomplish the same thing by simply saying, "CRCulver said:" and "crabpeople said:", and I might do that if it was a small sentence.
An aural browser, presumably would read italic differently, just as my user CSS files are written to display italic differently. Any aural browser developer who doesn't do it that way is just stupid.
..the anti-circumvention statute would apply, it's unclear whether the MPAA would have violated it; it depends on whether or not they defeated CSS, or just copied the DVD with CSS intact.
The CSS key can't be written to DVDRs because they don't have a CSS area, so it has to be descrambled first before copying, otherwise you have garbage. I don't think garbage would be considered a copy. And, this may have been a DVDR to begin with, so there wasn't any CSS. They keep calling it a "digital version" whatever that means?
The only thing I can see is that they'll have to admit guilt and apologize. But I only see them making a stink about it being a publicity stunt. Kind of like all their law suits. Call it what you like, it's time to pay.
I have the abridged audio book, read by the author, and I thought it was stupid. He just went on and on about the same things again and again, things I didn't find very insightful in my opinion. Also, not the best reading voice.
I say encourage kids to do what they want (within reason:)) and if they try and fail then so be it. Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
Anyone have any jobs that you can sit at home all day and read slash?
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." --Homer Simpson
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman." --Homer Simpson
Right, I think the point is that people are prejudice, but it has lots to do with the fundamental attribution error type of self confidence.
People generally don't think that they're wrong. Sometimes they'll say they're wrong just to be nice, but they don't always think it. This is no different from yourself, except that you find it necessary to constantly prove to everyone. You've so far suggested that you've been always right.
I do say that it sounds like you're having a bit of an ego thing going on. That just puts people off to begin with. Dr. Phil covered this in an episode. He said people want to be valued. Every run of the apprentice they have someone like Omarosa telling everyone how jealous everyone is of them.
I had an Indian boss one time, and I was an awkward shy nerdy type around then, and I aced this test, and he insisted that I cheated, but I didn't. I don't know if it was anything racial, but he just didn't want to believe. I think it's more of how I presented myself, as shy and incompetent.
But it's very easy to just presume that it was racism, but how do you really know unless they come out and say it? How do you know you're not just projecting?
I've seen these type of photos before in photography mags. One was in Time magazine, it was kids in Halloween costumes all distorted.
It was done with a camera and a black cardboard with a slit over the lense. The film is exposed and wound during exposure, as the kids walked in front of the camera.
Education and culture are not neurological pathologies... It's definition by social contract rather than by objective analysis.
Of course beliefs can be pathological. People join cults and do all sorts of strange things, either because they believe, or because they've been taught to believe. They send chain letters that bring down the net, they believe in auto toxic memes. I'm only talking about things that are by objective, rational analysis. I don't agree that we should never, ever judge a belief as pathological. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope.
I'm ok with people being racist, if they want, on their own, in fact, they may have a sound reason to be racist. I just don't know? The point is that sometimes, it may be pathological. It's very hard to determine this. Maybe if it's someone who became racist after a random act of violence, where racism is the result of a sort of PTSD.
Seeing or hearing blacks can evoke a discomfort that can turn into hatred in such sensitive individuals. Anger and hatred are elements of discomfort, due to the inability to control the outcome of something. Something unexpected happens, as with anything that angers us, and people can get angry, or go into a rage or a fight. It may be too much for someone to expect to never see or hear blacks, gays or whoever. This is sort of like what you see with allergic reactions, which can become pathological. But in this case, the immune system is the brain, and its adrenalin and chemical response; while the allergens are memes.
I'm not suggesting that we put a disease entry into the DSM for racism. We don't have to. We can just realize that someone can have pathological hatred and discomfort around, regular everyday people, or innocuous memes. Or however you want to put that.
Yes, our brain changes, but how on earth do you change someone into being free of shyness, anxiety, or depression. It's not as easy as you suggest. Most people are rather static in their personality and disposition.
I'm not totally sure that racism or prejudice is never a pathology? There are people who get raped and beaten or watch their whole family get murdered by some black guys, and they turn racist. And there are blacks that become racist after their church gets burned down.
This is setting up a strong memory, probably in the same way as PTSD, where a car accident initializes adrenalin, which creates a strong memory, to illicit harm avoidance. This is great for avoiding alligators, or predators, but what happens when it's over activated in an individual. This could create overly anxious and paranoid individuals.
Also, this can be set up via education and culture, which teaches you that blacks are stupid, or that you shouldn't read because that's acting white, or that gays are depraved or whatever the popular opinion is.
Some of these scenarios are social pathology, especially where people find themselves unable to cope with life due to extreme anxiety, shyness, depression, or whatever. However it was initialized.
I don't agree with your position, or your links. The brain is not a hardrive that can be erased and reprogrammed, it's a solid object that is relatively static in it's construction.
you're putting all the burden of mental illness on them by calling them problem solvers. Mental illnesses generally require the help of others.
Who says you can't get help in solving a problem?
Who says you can't be a problem solver simply because we call mental problems, mental illnesses?
Is that page definition wrong though? Because I thought that "Two Wrongs Make a Right" applies here because the poster said "This is what they do to us so it should also be done to them." and I thought that sounds like a two wrongs, because he does suggest that it's wrong.
After all, if this private info is so benign, then why don't they volunteer this info. He may be saying that it's the only fair way, to wrong everyone equally.
The problem I see in the "If [you] are doing nothing wrong, then [you] have nothing to worry about." is that we do have something to worry about. Like abuse of this information. I think it's far better to point out this hole.
I don't agree and I think that it does not logically follow that by calling mental problems illnesses, or diseases, that it becomes the same thing as Diabetes. And conversely, I also think that by changing the name into some euphemistic nonsense, you do not fix the problems associated with treatment, or diagnosis.
And by the way, you're not special. Doctors will throw Prozac at just about anything, they recommend Zoloft to prevent heart attacks because there's a correlation between happiness and less heart attacks. It's easier for a Dr to prescribe a pill then to listen to your complaints, however "real" they may be.
Some people will hear the words treatment, illness and disease, and interpret it all sorts of ways. Such as an excuse to do nothing, a belief that, as they suspected, they are messed up.. Some people are obsessed with getting help from others. And still, some will pretend that these words don't exist and ignore the doctors, to try and think their way out of there problem. Maybe they'll climb a mountain or something like that, to prove how un-disabled they are, to prove the doctors wrong, and to distract themselves; or maybe they'll become a fanatic like you. But it doesn't change the facts.
Also, where is your evidence that mental illness is not illness? Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Animals that are injured will curl up and stop eating and die. This state could be what many people are caught in who are depressed. It could be difficult to reverse this state. Many injured animals are caught and not reintroduced to the wild because they don't make it.
Depressed people have depressed activity in the frontal lobes, but if that's not enough for you, let's say that tomorrow, they find a chemical diagnostic criteria for depression. If that happened, then yes, that would make you less sympathetic towards people with mental illnesses because you're treating these conditions as things the individual needs to fix themselves.
Maybe you fixed yourself, because you're such a kick ass genius, but the majority of people can't program their VCR, and you're putting all the burden of mental illness on them by calling them problem solvers. Mental illnesses generally require the help of others. I don't see anything wrong with calling mental illnesses diseases. Adding the word Mental is quite good at narrowing the definition for those who get confused.
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should use the word "illness" to describe these states... The question is whether it's useful to label problematic states of consciousness, ideas, and behaviors as "diseases" or "illnesses", or whether other ways of thinking of them may be more useful.
And why shouldn't we? We have to label it something. What should we call it, "happy happy fun fun"? Sounds like you're suggesting that labeling depression "depression" gives people a victim-hood mentality and an excuse to complain, and so we shouldn't call it that.
What about schizophrenia, or diabetes, or other conditions that people would maybe have more sympathy for. Labeling those conditions can have the negative consequence of bringing people down, but would you disagree with labeling them an illness because of that?
I agree that the drug companies are trying to sell drugs and maybe some people buy into it, maybe because they're stupid or don't know any better, but I think that your disdain and lack of sympathy for those people arises simply because you have your own problems, yet had to take care of someone else's, and no one helped you out of it and you didn't have to take drugs.
Oh, boo hoo! Where's my sympathy! This is the classic non sequitur of changing the subject from the problems of others, to the problems of you and everybody, to diminish the fact that some people have problems.
However small these problems may be, compared to a quadraplegic, or someone with a "real" illness, these conditions are problems, nonetheless.
By the way. I don't know one way or the other, but how would you know the drugs don't work if you never took any?
Your position is emotional and biased and it doesn't make any sense. We have little choice but to label these conditions something.
Opera is better than IE but still renders CSS poorly.
What makes you think that? You're obviously confusing the current opera with an older version because you don't use Opera. Opera has better acid2 support and better CSS support. You're misinformed.
In this age of data mining, persons afflicted with a seizure at the supermarket will quickly receive a coupon for a free shake from Baskin Robbins.
Ah, but can you cut out this newfangled electric coupon? I can see it now. People will hack all their boxes into coupons and cash them in for merchandise.
"I disagree with the Arial/Helvetica crowd: Serifs make large quantities of text more readable. Sans-serifs such as Arial are readable at a distance, and good for grabbing the eye."
I do believe this opinion is relative. A time ago I believed Times New Roman was the only thing I could tolerate on the screen, but I've been using Verdana because it's much more suited to the screen, and now I can't stand anything but Verdana. I use Tahoma (a squshed verdana) when I want to fit lots of text on one page with my laser printer.
Conclusion: the font you read frequently is the font your brain will learn how to identify quickly. Any new font will be harder to read, weather or not it is.
That being said, I do think that sans fonts are probably more legible, regardless of your preference, because they hold up better under halation. The highway font has been designed for this. Trebuchet is designed after the highway font, only it doesn't have the halation reducing letter spacing that you see with the highway font and verdana, but it does have the open lips.
Therefor I think Verdana is the best font, but you have to shrink it because it's too big by default. Helvetica has too may closed lips.
I don't remember anyone saying to panic over this. Most of the over reacting is being done by the people who think that because we have an immune system it means that we should sleep on a bed of fungus.
This information could be useful for people with allergies or weakened immune systems. Regular people can simply clean their pillow with bleach periodically, or replace it occasionally.
Just because we have an immune system doesn't mean we should overload it. From what I understand, animals in sterol environments live longer.
...clicked on links and got "bookmarklets" (whatever the hell that is - either it's a bookmark or it isn't) and it's just made Slashdot look worse!
Well, the bookmarklets are java scripts that you bookmark, then when you're on the page, you go to your bookmarks and click Zap Styles, then go to your bookmarks again and Click the NeoSlash style bookmarklet and it will apply the style to the page, presuming you've went to the links and bookmarked the scripts I mentioned. Sorry if I'm redundant. Just trying to be clear.
I've only tested the styles and font-sizes on Windows, but I'm guessing that you're seeing the long list of links when you remove the styles. That's not my doing, that's simply the new tradition. It's 1337 to put all your links as UL lists, then inline them with CSS. Never mind that it's an accessibility hazard. I'm currently using the light mode and there's no list-item junk before the content. You could make a complaint stating that you would prefer the content first.
Many CSS web pages today suffer from this problem of too many UL lists of links before the content, and with user CSS, there is really no way of getting around it, unless you're willing to design a layout for each page you visit, and since that's unreasonable, the best you can do is complain about it. Ask them to change them to inline elements or to at least move them to the bottom of the document source.
Slashdot, news sites etc to supply a program that's designed to view whatever their server spews out so it looks 100% as intended...
Since CSS support in browsers is sketchy, changing tables to DIVs is a huge headache, and pointless if they're not going to do it right so that it degrades in all browsers. They should have upgraded to HTML 4.01 Transitional, switched to Light mode (with tables) as standard and simply added a few class and ID attributes and added styles to that, and it would be smaller than it is now. I was dreading this move. Slash is currently a mess.
Now, I've went through and tried to display:none on many of the boxes, and inline the ones that are needed, like login. I hope this helps you.
I tried tt and ecode, but they both didn't work, so I had to add spaces here and there to avoid slashdot braking the declarations. You can reformat it if you like.
(you need an extension to use a different CSS in Firefox? Unbelievable!)
I guess Mozilla thinks that it's complying with the spec because you can add styles to userContent.css and it will cascade them, but this is inadequate. There should be a way to override the authors styles according to the accessibility guidelines. Most people don't recognize the power of User CSS unless they're long time Opera users, so might not have occurred to Mozilla.
I tried one of your.css files using one of the extensions you nicely linked to... the site look even worse!
The first two were geared towards the Original Light slash that used Tables. NeoSlash is the new one. I'm probably not going to do advanced layout because all the current HTML needs adjusting, so it would be a waste of time when they fix it.
The first few pages are now a column on the left containing what should be evenly distributed along the full width of the page!
Are you talking about how the side bars turn into list items? That's because people think it's semantic and accessible to put groups of links inside UL and LI, then use styles to change them from block to in-line elements that flow. Interesting theory, but ultimately it causes more problems when the style is removed, disabled, or unsupported.
CSS lets you put things anywhere, so those links should be at the bottom of the source, but I think that makes it hard to position in IE.
I just want a sort of light, text only display with no little columns of space wasted on either side of the screen.
Then use my stylesheet and ask slash to move the slash-box code to the bottom of the source... Or hide them.. Well, my sheet does add colors, but they're not too high contrast so they don't hurt my eyes.
I'm updating my NeoSlash Stylesheet to.block{display:none;} and that should get rid of most of the slashboxes, but login is in a.block, and some other sites use.block so it may interfere if you use it at other sites, and I try to design my sheets universal. If there was just a body class=slashdot I could make it apply only to.slashdot.block{display:none;}.
If you Open without clearing, you will just cascade (Join) all the styles together. I tried to make my CSS work cascaded, but it's too much work to undo everything. Therefor, you should clear the styles in order to remove slash's layout.
3. With Web Developer extension it's more involved:
Disable, Styles, All Styles. CSS, Add Style Sheet...
1. Bookmarklets are the faster way:
First go to squarefree.com...#zap_style_sheets and bookmark zap styles And then paste the styles at the User Style make-bookmarklet page and it immediately creates a bookmarklet from the stylesheet, so simply bookmark the link that it creates. The link is the text with the border that says zap colors. You should change the text to NeoSlash or what ever you want.
I will put another style up in my journal since posting CSS in comments gives errors. This time I removed all the '!important' from the declarations because It was hurting, not helping much, so you're going to have to clear the styles first or you might get author
This method simply cascades or adds the styles with the existing styles, so the sidebars are still going to be there, along with any existing browser unfriendly code. If your browser just plain fails with the new slashdot, try to strip the styles using zap style sheets bookmarklet.
If you want to get rid of some of those side bars, some of them are in.block so you can.block{display:none;} and if you want to get rid of all of them, just look up the class= that they are inside and.whatever,.foobar{display:none} them.
Someone does profit from keeping open source up to date: the users. In every case, the developers of open source software ARE the users; therefore the developers profit (in a non-monetary sense) from making the software better.
Didn't you mean financial profit when you first said it? If not, then all that applies to Opera too. The developers eat their own dog food, i.e. they use Opera too, but most importantly, if they don't make a good browser, no one would buy it or use it.
Opera has so many brilliant features. It supports User CSS the way the Accessibility specifications suggests, it has User JavaScript, and lots of other features. You just admitted to have downloaded it, run it and said I don't like it never to try it again. You don't sound really qualified to put it down as you have. Meanwhile, most Opera users also have FireFox installed, and they use both. I can tell you that FireFox is slow and bloated. Previous pages are refreshed, Opera can be run on old hardware, but we covered that...
I understand what you're saying about Open Source, but clearly it's not the only way because how do you explain Opera. I think it's better to have more than one browser in a Darwinian way. Competition, less universal exploits. Diversity stops attacks. If you have one browser, all bugs/exploits effect everyone.
I'm not fond of ad supported software, but opera is so good that I've overlooked it. I do have like each version of opera installed on my computer, and I've always been suspicious as to how extensive the spy features are, and I never use the search bars, but then FireFox gets revenue from quick search too, and it tries to connect to the net as soon as you open it.
Anyway, I don't see why we can't use both. That's what I do. I mostly use Opera. Maybe you don't, but I love it.
The reason people are attacking you is because your "we can only have one browser." and "open source only" and "Opera sucks" attitude is a bit extreme. You've used opera twice in your life, yet you appear to be on a passionate crusade against it.
If Opera can only change the keyboard shortcuts to the standards then I may even consider using it. That is the only reason I find it garbage. For instance, press ctrl-u in Mozilla, Konqueror, Galeon, Firefox, Epiphany or any other Linux browser except for Opera and you are viewing the source code. Press ctrl-t in any of them and you get a new tab. Press ctrl-l and you are in the URL bar. None of those work in Opera...
Aren't all those browsers Mozilla based?
I sympathize because it took me a week to realize Ctrl + G is now Shift + G for User CSS mode. It can be frustrating, but ultimately you're lazy and you're taking it out on Opera. So basically you don't like Opera because you're lazy. That's the same thing that keeps people using IE.
When I use Mozilla, I get confused too, but it doesn't stop me from using it. I use Opera more because it's faster and lots of useful features.
Anyway, Ctrl + N for new is the standard for MDI, as for the rest, It's not like they said "Let's make our shortcuts unmozilla like." Opera was here before Mozilla, they're keys are just different.
Opera has been changing some of their keys to be like Mozilla, e.g.
Ctrl + F and Ctrl + G for Find
but they do so at the expense of alienating their user base.
Some Shortcuts you're too lazy to look up: Ctrl + F3 For View Source Alt + P, Advanced, Source Viewer... ALT + F3 View frame document source F8 Jump To URL Field Ctrl + N New
Shift + G User CSS Mode Alt + P, Content, Style options... to add user css
Shift + P Print Rendering mode Shift + F11 Small Screen rendering CTRL + F7 Toggle scrollbar Shift + Tab Form Elements F9 Focus off form
Yeah, you really can't make a stylesheet for one webpage and have it apply automatically, you can make a style and then apply it, but it effects all webpages that you visit until you turn it off, or switch sheets. Shift + G in Opera 8 turns on/off User style mode. Alt + P, Advanced, Content, Style options... to point to your stylesheet.
You can, however, put all your special styles class and id attributes for every page you visit in one style sheet, but I don't recommend it. It would probably slow down browsing.
You can add your styles to a drop-down list by editing the OperaDef6.ini under the [Local CSS Files] section. But you still have to switch manually.
See my other comments and try it yourself.
Wait, you know, I think some sites put a unique id in the body, but I still think it would slow down browsing if you have too many sites.
Generally, if a page is done right, you can make a generic stylesheet that works for every page, so long as div or span are not replacing everything.
As for the <b>/<strong> comment, I don't think has been depreciated. My understanding of <b> vs. <strong> is that <strong> is used for semantic markup, whereas <b> is used for visual display clues only. While they have the same effect in your everyday browser (Firefox/IE/Opera), they could make a difference to alternate browsers/renderers such as text only, Braille, etc.
I'm Puzzled. I know I read somewhere that B was deprecated in favor of STRONG, but I can't find it?
Bold could in theory make a difference to text/braille browsers, assuming the browser developer is an idiot, but in reality Bold and Strong have no difference whatsoever, and probably never will, except for the 10 character difference:
<B></B> <STRONG></STRONG>
This whole myth was based on a "what if" and is simply not true. Won't you think of the blind people!
Anyway, Bold could also be defined as Clear and distinct, or brave, or loud. On a message board, I see nothing wrong with it, or anywhere else, Just as long as it's not used for headings. Though, it's nice to have two bolds, when we have 5 italics; i, dfn, cite, em, var.
And now, I'm sure you and others like you are distraught that css is here to put more separation between content and presentation, and to provide accessibility to a wider range of devices and browsers with the same html, and your outdated revision of your browser is unable to cope.
Don't give me that accessibility crap, it's just hype. As it stands now, accessibility has been decreased dramatically, which is the exact opposite of what you claim in sentence 8. Shoving everything into a DIV and loading eight pages of list items because someone said it was good for the blind and that it was accessible was obviously mistaken. CSS solves some problems, but at the same time, it creates accessibility problems.
A blind user can not be expected to reauthor every badly designed page they come to, nor should each user. A single user stylesheet should be all that's needed. I'm not getting into this.
The main benefit of CSS is to reduce bandwidth and simplify sight redesign. Slashdot only switched because of the hype and possibly the sight redesign benefits, after all, tables are going nowhere.
I was enamored when I discovered the power of CSS, and I started replacing all my table layouts. unfortunately I discovered that div layouts are not robust, appearance is unpredictable, and is a poor replacement for tables. I also discovered that people can be quite fanatical about standards that at times are counter intuitive.
You can blame the browser, or whoever. The fact is that/. is messed up in many browsers. Those people are just going to stop using/. instead of upgrading their hand held 'whatever'. There has always been a light version, how is it sooo unreasonable to still have a trim version, or an option to disable styles in preferences?!? No one has to hold back technology by providing a site that degrades well, or an option to turn off styles.
When people talk about progress, they generally mean forward, not backward. Alienating your user base is not a positive goal.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep playing Roll Away/Kula World. I love that game. It's a 3d platform puzzle game for the PSX where you're a beach ball that can jump and/or roll forward, but when you reach the end of a platform, which are constructed by cubes, you roll off the edge and roll down the platform since gravity shifts forward 90 degrees.
So, the levels are complicated because you have to figure out which of the six sides you have to be on to reach the nest platform or exit or whatever. Oh, and all of this takes place high up in the sky, so when you jump or slide off the edge to your death, and even when you simply roll over the edge, it's visceral.
How do I accomplish that without using a br tag after each letter?
.block for the slashboxes, and it's on that list of most used classes, so pleas put a unique ID in the body element, like #slashdot-front #slashdot-games. Something that I could put it into context: #slashdot .block{display:none;}. If I block .block, then my userCSS messes up the rest of the web. I worked around this by blocking each box individually.
I'd guess surrounding the name in a div and then with CSS making that div width equal to 1em and positioning it on the left of your avatar picture.
Oh, and good luck getting it to work in all browsers. Gee whiz! What is the logic behind this? You have to wrap everything in DIVs and spans, then write a bunch of ridiculous code, for what reason, so we can hold up to an irrationally strict, un intuitive, standard.
This is the opposite of accessibility. It's simply a waste of time for the author...
Though, now that I think of it, this is not the best example of BR use, since screen readers would spell everyones name out.. Oh, so I'd have to say go with the 1em CSS box, maybe try a monospace font.
And please, please try to use an existing box and try to avoid using DIV and SPAN, if you can.
Oh, wouldn't the text just flow out, or under the box? I think you can't do this?
I simply think some of the extreme concepts about how we should deprecate everything are failing to view the logic behind future potential uses, and forget how long it takes to actually get any tags to work universally, so let's just keep the tags we have, thank you. The same thing happened with italic, they said it should be deprecated and never used, then they came up with a few examples where it's needed.
If you people want to crusade against something, maybe go after the people who use DIV class=heading. That annoys me when I try to make my user stylesheets. Oh, and since we're on the topic, slashdot is using
Except for the blind that need to browse the web with screenreaders. HTML 3 doesn't have the semantic tags that later versions of HTML brought.
/.. I mean, some of these quotes are actually smaller than the tags required to nest them.
Oh yes. Won't you think of the blind? And won't you think of the children?
I call shenanigans! Please tell me how using BR is going to mess things up for the blind, because I'm reading all of this with a screen reader, and it's working for me. Please don't simply chant the mantra, try and prove your point.
Yes, we all know that you're 1337 because you read the spec and you're quoting from it, but we're on a messageboard, it's not like a personal webpage. It's sort of idiotic to have to nest everything in verbose BLOCKQUOTE that requires paragraph nesting, just for a few sentences on
Oh, and then there's the box bugs in old browsers when you try to use DIV for layouts. So now you have all these boxes nested and they're going to create lots of weird gaps.
I love web development and CSS to death, but it seems like people just don't get when it's ok to break the rules, or they think it's semantic when their page validates.
Think of semantics like this: There needs to be a contrast between different elements. Maybe it would be best suited with BLOCKQUOTE (I wish we had HTML3's BQ), but as long as there's contrast between the elements, then it's not the end of the world. [DIV class=heading] is and example of little contrast, or rather, the contrast is not in the document.
Arguing about whether we should use BLOCKQUOTE or I is like arguing whether someone should have used a comma, or semicolon. Or should we say 32 semicolons vs 7 commas? Heck, you could accomplish the same thing by simply saying, "CRCulver said:" and "crabpeople said:", and I might do that if it was a small sentence.
An aural browser, presumably would read italic differently, just as my user CSS files are written to display italic differently. Any aural browser developer who doesn't do it that way is just stupid.
The CSS key can't be written to DVDRs because they don't have a CSS area, so it has to be descrambled first before copying, otherwise you have garbage. I don't think garbage would be considered a copy. And, this may have been a DVDR to begin with, so there wasn't any CSS. They keep calling it a "digital version" whatever that means?
The only thing I can see is that they'll have to admit guilt and apologize. But I only see them making a stink about it being a publicity stunt. Kind of like all their law suits. Call it what you like, it's time to pay.
from: "the 7 habbits of highly effctive people"
http://www.stephencovey.com/
This book has helped me a lot.
I have the abridged audio book, read by the author, and I thought it was stupid. He just went on and on about the same things again and again, things I didn't find very insightful in my opinion. Also, not the best reading voice.
I say encourage kids to do what they want (within reason :)) and if they try and fail then so be it.
Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
Anyone have any jobs that you can sit at home all day and read slash?
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
--Homer Simpson
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman."
--Homer Simpson
Right, I think the point is that people are prejudice, but it has lots to do with the fundamental attribution error type of self confidence.
People generally don't think that they're wrong. Sometimes they'll say they're wrong just to be nice, but they don't always think it. This is no different from yourself, except that you find it necessary to constantly prove to everyone. You've so far suggested that you've been always right.
I do say that it sounds like you're having a bit of an ego thing going on. That just puts people off to begin with. Dr. Phil covered this in an episode. He said people want to be valued. Every run of the apprentice they have someone like Omarosa telling everyone how jealous everyone is of them.
I had an Indian boss one time, and I was an awkward shy nerdy type around then, and I aced this test, and he insisted that I cheated, but I didn't. I don't know if it was anything racial, but he just didn't want to believe. I think it's more of how I presented myself, as shy and incompetent.
But it's very easy to just presume that it was racism, but how do you really know unless they come out and say it? How do you know you're not just projecting?
Now let's see the genius at work?
I've seen these type of photos before in photography mags. One was in Time magazine, it was kids in Halloween costumes all distorted.
It was done with a camera and a black cardboard with a slit over the lense. The film is exposed and wound during exposure, as the kids walked in front of the camera.
Education and culture are not neurological pathologies... It's definition by social contract rather than by objective analysis.
Of course beliefs can be pathological. People join cults and do all sorts of strange things, either because they believe, or because they've been taught to believe. They send chain letters that bring down the net, they believe in auto toxic memes. I'm only talking about things that are by objective, rational analysis. I don't agree that we should never, ever judge a belief as pathological. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope.
I'm ok with people being racist, if they want, on their own, in fact, they may have a sound reason to be racist. I just don't know? The point is that sometimes, it may be pathological. It's very hard to determine this. Maybe if it's someone who became racist after a random act of violence, where racism is the result of a sort of PTSD.
Seeing or hearing blacks can evoke a discomfort that can turn into hatred in such sensitive individuals. Anger and hatred are elements of discomfort, due to the inability to control the outcome of something. Something unexpected happens, as with anything that angers us, and people can get angry, or go into a rage or a fight. It may be too much for someone to expect to never see or hear blacks, gays or whoever. This is sort of like what you see with allergic reactions, which can become pathological. But in this case, the immune system is the brain, and its adrenalin and chemical response; while the allergens are memes.
I'm not suggesting that we put a disease entry into the DSM for racism. We don't have to. We can just realize that someone can have pathological hatred and discomfort around, regular everyday people, or innocuous memes. Or however you want to put that.
Yes, our brain changes, but how on earth do you change someone into being free of shyness, anxiety, or depression. It's not as easy as you suggest. Most people are rather static in their personality and disposition.
This is setting up a strong memory, probably in the same way as PTSD, where a car accident initializes adrenalin, which creates a strong memory, to illicit harm avoidance. This is great for avoiding alligators, or predators, but what happens when it's over activated in an individual. This could create overly anxious and paranoid individuals.
Also, this can be set up via education and culture, which teaches you that blacks are stupid, or that you shouldn't read because that's acting white, or that gays are depraved or whatever the popular opinion is.
Some of these scenarios are social pathology, especially where people find themselves unable to cope with life due to extreme anxiety, shyness, depression, or whatever. However it was initialized.
I don't agree with your position, or your links. The brain is not a hardrive that can be erased and reprogrammed, it's a solid object that is relatively static in it's construction.
Who says you can't be a problem solver simply because we call mental problems, mental illnesses?
Is that page definition wrong though? Because I thought that "Two Wrongs Make a Right" applies here because the poster said "This is what they do to us so it should also be done to them." and I thought that sounds like a two wrongs, because he does suggest that it's wrong.
After all, if this private info is so benign, then why don't they volunteer this info. He may be saying that it's the only fair way, to wrong everyone equally.
The problem I see in the "If [you] are doing nothing wrong, then [you] have nothing to worry about." is that we do have something to worry about. Like abuse of this information. I think it's far better to point out this hole.
I don't agree and I think that it does not logically follow that by calling mental problems illnesses, or diseases, that it becomes the same thing as Diabetes. And conversely, I also think that by changing the name into some euphemistic nonsense, you do not fix the problems associated with treatment, or diagnosis.
And by the way, you're not special. Doctors will throw Prozac at just about anything, they recommend Zoloft to prevent heart attacks because there's a correlation between happiness and less heart attacks. It's easier for a Dr to prescribe a pill then to listen to your complaints, however "real" they may be.
Some people will hear the words treatment, illness and disease, and interpret it all sorts of ways. Such as an excuse to do nothing, a belief that, as they suspected, they are messed up.. Some people are obsessed with getting help from others. And still, some will pretend that these words don't exist and ignore the doctors, to try and think their way out of there problem. Maybe they'll climb a mountain or something like that, to prove how un-disabled they are, to prove the doctors wrong, and to distract themselves; or maybe they'll become a fanatic like you. But it doesn't change the facts.
Also, where is your evidence that mental illness is not illness? Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Animals that are injured will curl up and stop eating and die. This state could be what many people are caught in who are depressed. It could be difficult to reverse this state. Many injured animals are caught and not reintroduced to the wild because they don't make it.
Depressed people have depressed activity in the frontal lobes, but if that's not enough for you, let's say that tomorrow, they find a chemical diagnostic criteria for depression. If that happened, then yes, that would make you less sympathetic towards people with mental illnesses because you're treating these conditions as things the individual needs to fix themselves.
Maybe you fixed yourself, because you're such a kick ass genius, but the majority of people can't program their VCR, and you're putting all the burden of mental illness on them by calling them problem solvers. Mental illnesses generally require the help of others. I don't see anything wrong with calling mental illnesses diseases. Adding the word Mental is quite good at narrowing the definition for those who get confused.
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should use the word "illness" to describe these states... The question is whether it's useful to label problematic states of consciousness, ideas, and behaviors as "diseases" or "illnesses", or whether other ways of thinking of them may be more useful.
And why shouldn't we? We have to label it something. What should we call it, "happy happy fun fun"? Sounds like you're suggesting that labeling depression "depression" gives people a victim-hood mentality and an excuse to complain, and so we shouldn't call it that.
What about schizophrenia, or diabetes, or other conditions that people would maybe have more sympathy for. Labeling those conditions can have the negative consequence of bringing people down, but would you disagree with labeling them an illness because of that?
I agree that the drug companies are trying to sell drugs and maybe some people buy into it, maybe because they're stupid or don't know any better, but I think that your disdain and lack of sympathy for those people arises simply because you have your own problems, yet had to take care of someone else's, and no one helped you out of it and you didn't have to take drugs.
Oh, boo hoo! Where's my sympathy! This is the classic non sequitur of changing the subject from the problems of others, to the problems of you and everybody, to diminish the fact that some people have problems.
However small these problems may be, compared to a quadraplegic, or someone with a "real" illness, these conditions are problems, nonetheless.
By the way. I don't know one way or the other, but how would you know the drugs don't work if you never took any?
Your position is emotional and biased and it doesn't make any sense. We have little choice but to label these conditions something.
Opera is better than IE but still renders CSS poorly.
What makes you think that? You're obviously confusing the current opera with an older version because you don't use Opera. Opera has better acid2 support and better CSS support. You're misinformed.
In this age of data mining, persons afflicted with a seizure at the supermarket will quickly receive a coupon for a free shake from Baskin Robbins.
Ah, but can you cut out this newfangled electric coupon? I can see it now. People will hack all their boxes into coupons and cash them in for merchandise.
"I disagree with the Arial/Helvetica crowd: Serifs make large quantities of text more readable. Sans-serifs such as Arial are readable at a distance, and good for grabbing the eye."
I do believe this opinion is relative. A time ago I believed Times New Roman was the only thing I could tolerate on the screen, but I've been using Verdana because it's much more suited to the screen, and now I can't stand anything but Verdana. I use Tahoma (a squshed verdana) when I want to fit lots of text on one page with my laser printer.
Conclusion: the font you read frequently is the font your brain will learn how to identify quickly. Any new font will be harder to read, weather or not it is.
That being said, I do think that sans fonts are probably more legible, regardless of your preference, because they hold up better under halation. The highway font has been designed for this. Trebuchet is designed after the highway font, only it doesn't have the halation reducing letter spacing that you see with the highway font and verdana, but it does have the open lips.
Therefor I think Verdana is the best font, but you have to shrink it because it's too big by default. Helvetica has too may closed lips.
I don't remember anyone saying to panic over this. Most of the over reacting is being done by the people who think that because we have an immune system it means that we should sleep on a bed of fungus.
This information could be useful for people with allergies or weakened immune systems. Regular people can simply clean their pillow with bleach periodically, or replace it occasionally.
Just because we have an immune system doesn't mean we should overload it. From what I understand, animals in sterol environments live longer.
Well, the bookmarklets are java scripts that you bookmark, then when you're on the page, you go to your bookmarks and click Zap Styles, then go to your bookmarks again and Click the NeoSlash style bookmarklet and it will apply the style to the page, presuming you've went to the links and bookmarked the scripts I mentioned. Sorry if I'm redundant. Just trying to be clear.
I've only tested the styles and font-sizes on Windows, but I'm guessing that you're seeing the long list of links when you remove the styles. That's not my doing, that's simply the new tradition. It's 1337 to put all your links as UL lists, then inline them with CSS. Never mind that it's an accessibility hazard. I'm currently using the light mode and there's no list-item junk before the content. You could make a complaint stating that you would prefer the content first.
Many CSS web pages today suffer from this problem of too many UL lists of links before the content, and with user CSS, there is really no way of getting around it, unless you're willing to design a layout for each page you visit, and since that's unreasonable, the best you can do is complain about it. Ask them to change them to inline elements or to at least move them to the bottom of the document source.
Slashdot, news sites etc to supply a program that's designed to view whatever their server spews out so it looks 100% as intended...
Since CSS support in browsers is sketchy, changing tables to DIVs is a huge headache, and pointless if they're not going to do it right so that it degrades in all browsers. They should have upgraded to HTML 4.01 Transitional, switched to Light mode (with tables) as standard and simply added a few class and ID attributes and added styles to that, and it would be smaller than it is now. I was dreading this move. Slash is currently a mess.
Now, I've went through and tried to display:none on many of the boxes, and inline the ones that are needed, like login. I hope this helps you.
/* removes all images */
img {display: none}
/* linlines some slashboxes */ .block * {display : inline; margin : 0; padding : 0; color:#603; background :#AAA; font:10px verdana;} .block li + li:before {content:" | "} .storylinks { background : #aba;} .storylinks * {display : inline; margin:0; padding:0;} .storylinks li + li:before {content:" | "} .storylinks:after {content:"[Make Bug Report: Storylinks should not be LI]"; font:9px verdana,sans-serif;} .btmnav * {display:inline; margin:0; padding:0; color:#603; background:#AAA; font:10px verdana;} .btmnav li + li:before {content:" | "} #jump, #jump * {display:inline; margin:0; padding:0; font:10px verdana;}
/* Removes some slash boxes */ :none;}
#topnav, #ostgnavbar, #advertisement-title, #advertisement-content, #slogan, #links-sections-content, #links-login-title, #links-login-content, #links-help-title, #links-help-content, #links-sections-title, #userlogin-title, #links-services-title, #links-services-content, #links-about-title, #links-about-content, #srandblock-title, #srandblock-content, #books-title, #books-content {display
body,td {font-family:verdana, sans-serif; font-size:12px; background:#aaa;} h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6, .title, a[name] b {color:#134; background:#889; font-family:XGeorgia, trebuchet MS; margin:0;} h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6, .title, a[name] b {padding:1px 2px; color:#bbc; background:#678;} a[name] b {display:block;} H1{font-size:2.4em; color:#800; background:#887;} H2 {font-size:2.2em; color:#9c0; background:#788;} H3 {font-size : 1.8em; color: #9CF; background: #969;} H4 {font-size:1.6em;} H5 {font-size:1.4em;} H6 {font-size:1.2em;
it's not working when I post it here.
.css files using one of the extensions you nicely linked to... the site look even worse!
.block{display:none;} and that should get rid of most of the slashboxes, but login is in a .block, and some other sites use .block so it may interfere if you use it at other sites, and I try to design my sheets universal. If there was just a body class=slashdot I could make it apply only to .slashdot .block{display:none;}.
I tried tt and ecode, but they both didn't work, so I had to add spaces here and there to avoid slashdot braking the declarations. You can reformat it if you like.
(you need an extension to use a different CSS in Firefox? Unbelievable!)
I guess Mozilla thinks that it's complying with the spec because you can add styles to userContent.css and it will cascade them, but this is inadequate. There should be a way to override the authors styles according to the accessibility guidelines. Most people don't recognize the power of User CSS unless they're long time Opera users, so might not have occurred to Mozilla.
I tried one of your
The first two were geared towards the Original Light slash that used Tables. NeoSlash is the new one. I'm probably not going to do advanced layout because all the current HTML needs adjusting, so it would be a waste of time when they fix it.
The first few pages are now a column on the left containing what should be evenly distributed along the full width of the page!
Are you talking about how the side bars turn into list items? That's because people think it's semantic and accessible to put groups of links inside UL and LI, then use styles to change them from block to in-line elements that flow. Interesting theory, but ultimately it causes more problems when the style is removed, disabled, or unsupported.
CSS lets you put things anywhere, so those links should be at the bottom of the source, but I think that makes it hard to position in IE.
I just want a sort of light, text only display with no little columns of space wasted on either side of the screen.
Then use my stylesheet and ask slash to move the slash-box code to the bottom of the source... Or hide them.. Well, my sheet does add colors, but they're not too high contrast so they don't hurt my eyes.
I'm updating my NeoSlash Stylesheet to
Fine details again:
If you're using EditCSS, you have to:
Action, Clear.
File, Open...
If you Open without clearing, you will just cascade (Join) all the styles together. I tried to make my CSS work cascaded, but it's too much work to undo everything. Therefor, you should clear the styles in order to remove slash's layout.
3. With Web Developer extension it's more involved:
Disable, Styles, All Styles.
CSS, Add Style Sheet...
1. Bookmarklets are the faster way:
First go to squarefree.com...#zap_style_sheets and bookmark zap styles And then paste the styles at the User Style make-bookmarklet page and it immediately creates a bookmarklet from the stylesheet, so simply bookmark the link that it creates. The link is the text with the border that says zap colors. You should change the text to NeoSlash or what ever you want.
I will put another style up in my journal since posting CSS in comments gives errors. This time I removed all the '!important' from the declarations because It was hurting, not helping much, so you're going to have to clear the styles first or you might get author
A quicker way to apply a style with FireFox is to use bookmarklets.
.block so you can .block{display:none;} and if you want to get rid of all of them, just look up the class= that they are inside and .whatever, .foobar{display:none} them.
Copy and paste at squarefree's make-bookmarklet.
This method simply cascades or adds the styles with the existing styles, so the sidebars are still going to be there, along with any existing browser unfriendly code. If your browser just plain fails with the new slashdot, try to strip the styles using zap style sheets bookmarklet.
If you want to get rid of some of those side bars, some of them are in
Check my journal for a new stylesheet, it's not working when I post it here.
Someone does profit from keeping open source up to date: the users. In every case, the developers of open source software ARE the users; therefore the developers profit (in a non-monetary sense) from making the software better.
Didn't you mean financial profit when you first said it? If not, then all that applies to Opera too. The developers eat their own dog food, i.e. they use Opera too, but most importantly, if they don't make a good browser, no one would buy it or use it.
Opera has so many brilliant features. It supports User CSS the way the Accessibility specifications suggests, it has User JavaScript, and lots of other features. You just admitted to have downloaded it, run it and said I don't like it never to try it again. You don't sound really qualified to put it down as you have. Meanwhile, most Opera users also have FireFox installed, and they use both. I can tell you that FireFox is slow and bloated. Previous pages are refreshed, Opera can be run on old hardware, but we covered that...
I understand what you're saying about Open Source, but clearly it's not the only way because how do you explain Opera. I think it's better to have more than one browser in a Darwinian way. Competition, less universal exploits. Diversity stops attacks. If you have one browser, all bugs/exploits effect everyone.
I'm not fond of ad supported software, but opera is so good that I've overlooked it. I do have like each version of opera installed on my computer, and I've always been suspicious as to how extensive the spy features are, and I never use the search bars, but then FireFox gets revenue from quick search too, and it tries to connect to the net as soon as you open it.
Anyway, I don't see why we can't use both. That's what I do. I mostly use Opera. Maybe you don't, but I love it.
The reason people are attacking you is because your "we can only have one browser." and "open source only" and "Opera sucks" attitude is a bit extreme. You've used opera twice in your life, yet you appear to be on a passionate crusade against it.
If Opera can only change the keyboard shortcuts to the standards then I may even consider using it. That is the only reason I find it garbage. For instance, press ctrl-u in Mozilla, Konqueror, Galeon, Firefox, Epiphany or any other Linux browser except for Opera and you are viewing the source code. Press ctrl-t in any of them and you get a new tab. Press ctrl-l and you are in the URL bar. None of those work in Opera...
Aren't all those browsers Mozilla based?
I sympathize because it took me a week to realize Ctrl + G is now Shift + G for User CSS mode. It can be frustrating, but ultimately you're lazy and you're taking it out on Opera. So basically you don't like Opera because you're lazy. That's the same thing that keeps people using IE.
When I use Mozilla, I get confused too, but it doesn't stop me from using it. I use Opera more because it's faster and lots of useful features.
Anyway, Ctrl + N for new is the standard for MDI, as for the rest, It's not like they said "Let's make our shortcuts unmozilla like." Opera was here before Mozilla, they're keys are just different.
Opera has been changing some of their keys to be like Mozilla, e.g.
Ctrl + F and Ctrl + G for Find
but they do so at the expense of alienating their user base.
Some Shortcuts you're too lazy to look up:
Ctrl + F3 For View Source
Alt + P, Advanced, Source Viewer...
ALT + F3 View frame document source
F8 Jump To URL Field
Ctrl + N New
Shift + G User CSS Mode
Alt + P, Content, Style options... to add user css
Shift + P Print Rendering mode
Shift + F11 Small Screen rendering
CTRL + F7 Toggle scrollbar
Shift + Tab Form Elements
F9 Focus off form
CTRL + Tab switch tab
CTRL + Shift + Tab reverse
Yeah, you really can't make a stylesheet for one webpage and have it apply automatically, you can make a style and then apply it, but it effects all webpages that you visit until you turn it off, or switch sheets. Shift + G in Opera 8 turns on/off User style mode. Alt + P, Advanced, Content, Style options... to point to your stylesheet.
You can, however, put all your special styles class and id attributes for every page you visit in one style sheet, but I don't recommend it. It would probably slow down browsing.
You can add your styles to a drop-down list by editing the OperaDef6.ini under the [Local CSS Files] section. But you still have to switch manually.
See my other comments and try it yourself.
Wait, you know, I think some sites put a unique id in the body, but I still think it would slow down browsing if you have too many sites.
Generally, if a page is done right, you can make a generic stylesheet that works for every page, so long as div or span are not replacing everything.
As for the <b>/<strong> comment, I don't think has been depreciated. My understanding of <b> vs. <strong> is that <strong> is used for semantic markup, whereas <b> is used for visual display clues only. While they have the same effect in your everyday browser (Firefox/IE/Opera), they could make a difference to alternate browsers/renderers such as text only, Braille, etc.
I'm Puzzled. I know I read somewhere that B was deprecated in favor of STRONG, but I can't find it?
Bold could in theory make a difference to text/braille browsers, assuming the browser developer is an idiot, but in reality Bold and Strong have no difference whatsoever, and probably never will, except for the 10 character difference:
<B></B>
<STRONG></STRONG>
This whole myth was based on a "what if" and is simply not true. Won't you think of the blind people!
Anyway, Bold could also be defined as Clear and distinct, or brave, or loud. On a message board, I see nothing wrong with it, or anywhere else, Just as long as it's not used for headings. Though, it's nice to have two bolds, when we have 5 italics; i, dfn, cite, em, var.
And now, I'm sure you and others like you are distraught that css is here to put more separation between content and presentation, and to provide accessibility to a wider range of devices and browsers with the same html, and your outdated revision of your browser is unable to cope.
/. is messed up in many browsers. Those people are just going to stop using /. instead of upgrading their hand held 'whatever'. There has always been a light version, how is it sooo unreasonable to still have a trim version, or an option to disable styles in preferences?!? No one has to hold back technology by providing a site that degrades well, or an option to turn off styles.
Don't give me that accessibility crap, it's just hype. As it stands now, accessibility has been decreased dramatically, which is the exact opposite of what you claim in sentence 8. Shoving everything into a DIV and loading eight pages of list items because someone said it was good for the blind and that it was accessible was obviously mistaken. CSS solves some problems, but at the same time, it creates accessibility problems.
A blind user can not be expected to reauthor every badly designed page they come to, nor should each user. A single user stylesheet should be all that's needed. I'm not getting into this.
The main benefit of CSS is to reduce bandwidth and simplify sight redesign. Slashdot only switched because of the hype and possibly the sight redesign benefits, after all, tables are going nowhere.
I was enamored when I discovered the power of CSS, and I started replacing all my table layouts. unfortunately I discovered that div layouts are not robust, appearance is unpredictable, and is a poor replacement for tables. I also discovered that people can be quite fanatical about standards that at times are counter intuitive.
You can blame the browser, or whoever. The fact is that
When people talk about progress, they generally mean forward, not backward. Alienating your user base is not a positive goal.