Strip all tags, force all elements to inline, and render the text as a plain text document would. No margins, monospace black text at 12 point, white background. This is SOME styling, I admit, but what I am asking for is the simplest baseline possible. Do you know how much simpler this would make developing CSS?
I am so informed it would blow your mind. Setting font properties at the body doesn't cascade for all elements that result in a font onscreen. Try it. With regards to the default stylesheet, that is different than "unstyled." Without using CSS at all you still have margins, there is still a default font size for different elements, there is spacing, things like links have colors, underlines, and hover/selected attributes specified. I am saying there should be a way to tell the browser to disable ALL styling so that there are no margins, no spacing, no default font family, size or weight. ALL of this would have to be specified in your stylesheet at that point.
Basically, there is a reason that CSS RESET stylsheets have been created, and it is to get the browser back to a simulated "unstyled" state. It is stupid and should be unnecessary. It's a workaround for a deficiency in current browser tech. I say fix the tech. Part of the problem with CSS is that your selectors have to assume that each browser has a different baseline, when the baseline should itself be a stylesheet that can be turned off (I am not talking about user-specified stylesheets, which should still override. Not the same as a browser baseline.)
We've got a couple of studios here in Iowa that pretty much service only local bands. If anything, the collapse of the record industry would HELP them by removing the political impediments to getting local bands' CDs in stores.
I was actually wondering the same thing. His suggestion makes the syntax of HTML more ambiguous, and correspondingly harder to parse. there are plenty of whiners about closed and empty tags in XML and html, but it was never supposed to be a human-readable format, it should be as easy to machine-parse as possible.
Are you seriously offering CSS Reset as a solution? It's a workaround, look at the code, it's a joke. Web developers need a way to explicitly TURN OFF the default style and start from scratch. and I don't blame you for misunderstanding the point of the full width block element. the point is, why is it such a giant, unintuitive pain in the ass to manage layout boxes in CSS? I don't disagree that strictly speaking these are not HTML issues, however.
With regards to modules, I only brushed over that but he seems to be advocating pseudo-frames built from the ground up with security in mind, which is a good idea if I understand him correctly.
The two problems are that setting font attributes are done independently for things like table elements, labels, headers than from paras or spans, and also that there is no explicit way to get the browser to start from a default "unstyled" state before you start adding you own style. Implementation differences themselves make styling using CSS that much more miserable.
The content is still delivered in XHTML, so you can (or should be able to) style it with your own stylesheet (either XSLT or CSS or whatever you want.) This can be done today, XML can be delivered with an XSLT and the browser will render it. The problem is that the only choices you really get in the browser for output is plain text, HTML, HTML+CSS, or SVG.
What I am arguing for is a styling language that doesn't suck balls. I've been doing CSS since forever, and I'm finally completely fed up with it. It solves a few important-to-solve problems, but causes multitudes of problems of every degree of severity.
I respectfully disagree when it comes to CSS. Items like consistent default styling for CSS are a real problem. Simple tasks like setting a few margins and setting the default font takes ugly CSS that eats up significant processing power doing matching on items. In fact, CSS is junk and should be replaced with something that is actually useful to graphic designers. Something like XHTL-strict plus a separate XSLT and a REAL layout language.
You are talking about the Kennewick Man, which is believed to be of an ethnic group that modern Native Americans descended from over the past several thousand years. The controversy was regarding its alleged caucasoid features combined with its dating before the Bering migration. IIRC the forensic artist reconstructing the face was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, noticed some resemblance in bone structure to Capt. Picard, and more or less made the model look like that.
It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans; and Native American groups attempting to prevent research on the skull by asserting tribal affiliation despite the fact that it doesn't look like any modern Indian, and could not possibly be a former member of any existing tribe. They object to research possibly in part in fright of an invalidation of their origination claim to the continent, but also because of a general (and somewhat justified, based on Native American history) distrust of the impartiality of white man science. I am going to go out on a trollish limb here, but their passed-down "history" is unfalsifiable mythological fiction, and just because science has screwed over Indians doesn't mean they have the right to have their fake history uncritically accepted by the scientific community when it comes to Native American origins. they don't know where the skull came from, but at least scientists have the tools to find out, unlike someone just waving their hands and saying "discussion over, it's a Blackfoot and we were still here first" (or whatever.) By all accounts it was NOT a white man, but it wasn't a modern Indian either, it seems.
If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But I highly recommend reading the book "Skull Wars" regarding this skull and the historical reasons for Native American distrust of scientific method with regards to Native American anthropology and history. It will likely make you angry, but you will understand more the Native American position on this even if you don't entirely agree with it. This is the position I am in now.
The last few places I have worked, people have been fired by having their "position removed." This is what happened to him. Then less than a year later there is a restructuring and the position comes back under a different name. Now you know. Those laws might help if you have money or time, or you still might lose. However, you are trying to make it look like there is a power balance between employer and employee, and there is not. There is redress, but it is extremely hard to make it stick, and even harder to not come out looking like a pariah to other employers.
You're wrong because while you as an employee can be fired at the drop of a hat with no notice, it is generally impossible to be hired instantly for an equivalent position. That's because the employer has all the power.
Let me tell you what happened in one place a friend of mine worked. He's not even a computer person, he's a graphic artist. But because he uses a computer, he's the computer guy. He was told to put the new version of Photoshop on all the machines. He says I can't use the same copy, it's not legal. He is ordered to do it and the owner will buy the extra licenses in the meantime, putting them into compliance. My friend doesn't like the idea, but he does it anyway to keep his job. Owner never actually buys the extra copies of Photoshop, because he never had any intention of doing so. To demonstrate what kind of place this was, he eventually got fired because he started refusing to do things like that and was replace with two non-paid interns. I don't care if the law says you are a criminal for doing that, because he had a wife and two kids and COULD NOT afford to lose that job. We are an at-will employment state, which effectively means that the employer has all the power in the relationship. He was fired for "budget reasons" and then got the privilege of upsetting his family while looking for another job because he wouldn't do something illegal.
Let me make a distinction here. I am talking about small privately owned businesses (15 employees) that are habitually pirating software. There is no doubt in my mind that individual IT people will pirate software on their machines, as you have said. I have seen this, and in a past life I was responsible for installing some of that auditing software you are talking about. But in a small business, there is no bureaucratic barrier between the employee and the owner, and it usually comes down to the owner not wanting to spend the money if he doesn't think he's going to get caught. I've seen it over and over again and I wish these places would actually get fined instead of just getting pressured into legalizing.
I do realize at this point we are just dueling anecdotes, but I wanted to share my story. On five separate occasions I have seen a small business habitually, intentionally pirate software and get caught, and I haven't seen anyone fined yet.
The person reporting the violation is eligible for the reward, it's not tied to position. The reason these small businesses are LYING is to cover their own butts. The IT guy said "you need X licenses" and the owner said "just install the same copy on every machine." The reason this happens ALL THE TIME is because the same owner who bullies his computer guy into pirating Photoshop on all their machines is a jerk about a LOT of things, which gets him reported in retaliation after he alienates his staff into quitting. I have seen it numerous times, and they were always reported by a disgruntled ex-employee. Instead of whining about it, they should BUY their software like the rest of us.
I have seen this happen on numerous occasions, and I should note that I have never seen a business get fined or sued. They get sent a nastygram, requiring X number of days to prove compliance. The business hurriedly buys the required licenses, proves they are in compliance, and nothing more happens. Ultimately, they just want people to pay for their software.
At the very least it is a fact that kids will imitate violent behavior they see. This is the reason that you don't see cartoons anymore with Daffy Duck being shot in the face, Porky getting his head snapped in a suitcase, or Sylvester getting hit in the head with a frying pan by Tweetie Bird: Because kids did these things to their siblings after seeing it on television. Obviously a kid isn't going to have a laser gun or a katana or something like in a video game, but instead he's just going to whip a cup or rock at his brother and yell ZAP.
the game doesn't even have to be culturally unacceptable violence. Studies have shown that even things like watching a football game on television has the same effect. I'm not saying it's turning them into little killbots, but there is evidence that onscreen violence does increase aggressiveness.
I've heard Murray isn't interested, and this is the a strong reason it hasn't happened yet. they are all actually pretty old now, and I don't know if the movie would have the same feel.
I'd die for your right to vote. As for the economic interests, we were being taxed into oblivion and had no representation in Parliament, so I don't see how you can separate the economic from the political. So money is worth more to most people than their vote, no duh. That's why it's not for sale, it is a responsibility and not an asset. I bet if I worked at a nuke plant I could get more money from a terrorist dumping my responsibility and letting the plant go into meltdown than I got in salary.
He was born of recent emigres in a large immigrant community. He obviously kept strong cultural ties back to the Soviet Union, considering he spied for them. the reason it was brought up was because it distinguished him as having potential to be an excellent spy.
There's been a Martin Luther King day graphic. there's also been one for Eid rather than Ramadan, there's also been American Thanksgiving, election day, Bastille day, and a bunch of others that are specific to a region. that's your one good reason, it's already being done.
Because in the studies he is talking about, one of those values for example is support for suicide bombing. It's not about values per se, it's about "Islamist" values. By contrast, Muslims in the USA are overwhelmingly moderate.
FYI, I sorta don't even believe in God, let alone being a Muslim, where did you get that I don't know. The part where you said you learned Arabic, the language of Islam, and then progressed to describe in detail your interpretation of the Islamic meaning of Jihad based on what you were and were not taught. A fair assumption.
Kinda like Christian fundamentalists then? Nope.
I realize you were trying to make a joke. But the reality is that Muslims in the USA tend to be extremely moderate compared to Muslims worldwide, roughly in parity to practicing Christians in the USA. Muslims are not a threat to the United States of America. Islamic Fundamentalists are. Several of the 9/11 attackers were attending a particular mosque in the United States that promoted a fundamentalist philosophy that was not in line with most mosques here. The goal is to find the outliers, and the reality is that they are not going to isolate themselves completely from the Islamic community at large.
Afghanistan was not made what it is by Afghans, it was a result of British, Russian and lastly American interference in the country's business. Afghans never got a chance to build their country the way they want. Actually, its state prior to the US invastion was the result of the Taliban, who believed they had created the perfect Muslim state. So now we know what one looks like: Afghanistan, 1999.
You remember who created Al-Qaeda in the first place, right? That would be Osama bin Laden, unless you are one of those people who conflate giving arms to Afhgan tribes to fight the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan "creating Al Qaeda."
I don't know how the world "Jihad" came to be what it means to western world today, but I know some Arabic (being an Iranian, we had to learn the language of Islam in school) 'Jihad' mean 'Effort'. Now 'Jihad fi sabil allah' means 'effort in the way of God'. It is not explicitly about waging war though; building a school, a road, a mosque, etc. is mentioned as an effort in the way of God, helping the needy, teaching someone something useful, not eating too much and doing exercise to keep your body healthy and even brushing your teeth are all known examples of Jihad and of course war is included among them. No mention of killing innocent people though. (note: if you are not Muslim, Muslim fundamentalists don't consider you "innocent.")
Apparently, there are many other concepts in Islam that are only known to Americans, such as the whole 72 virgins case which during 20+ years of living in Iran I never ever heard of or read in any religious text. I guess it's more of a western creation. Congratulations! You're Muslim, but not an Islamic Fundamentalist. I never said you were a threat to anyone. Look up Memri TV some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Strip all tags, force all elements to inline, and render the text as a plain text document would. No margins, monospace black text at 12 point, white background. This is SOME styling, I admit, but what I am asking for is the simplest baseline possible. Do you know how much simpler this would make developing CSS?
I am so informed it would blow your mind. Setting font properties at the body doesn't cascade for all elements that result in a font onscreen. Try it. With regards to the default stylesheet, that is different than "unstyled." Without using CSS at all you still have margins, there is still a default font size for different elements, there is spacing, things like links have colors, underlines, and hover/selected attributes specified. I am saying there should be a way to tell the browser to disable ALL styling so that there are no margins, no spacing, no default font family, size or weight. ALL of this would have to be specified in your stylesheet at that point.
Basically, there is a reason that CSS RESET stylsheets have been created, and it is to get the browser back to a simulated "unstyled" state. It is stupid and should be unnecessary. It's a workaround for a deficiency in current browser tech. I say fix the tech. Part of the problem with CSS is that your selectors have to assume that each browser has a different baseline, when the baseline should itself be a stylesheet that can be turned off (I am not talking about user-specified stylesheets, which should still override. Not the same as a browser baseline.)
We've got a couple of studios here in Iowa that pretty much service only local bands. If anything, the collapse of the record industry would HELP them by removing the political impediments to getting local bands' CDs in stores.
I was actually wondering the same thing. His suggestion makes the syntax of HTML more ambiguous, and correspondingly harder to parse. there are plenty of whiners about closed and empty tags in XML and html, but it was never supposed to be a human-readable format, it should be as easy to machine-parse as possible.
Are you seriously offering CSS Reset as a solution? It's a workaround, look at the code, it's a joke. Web developers need a way to explicitly TURN OFF the default style and start from scratch. and I don't blame you for misunderstanding the point of the full width block element. the point is, why is it such a giant, unintuitive pain in the ass to manage layout boxes in CSS? I don't disagree that strictly speaking these are not HTML issues, however.
With regards to modules, I only brushed over that but he seems to be advocating pseudo-frames built from the ground up with security in mind, which is a good idea if I understand him correctly.
The two problems are that setting font attributes are done independently for things like table elements, labels, headers than from paras or spans, and also that there is no explicit way to get the browser to start from a default "unstyled" state before you start adding you own style. Implementation differences themselves make styling using CSS that much more miserable.
The content is still delivered in XHTML, so you can (or should be able to) style it with your own stylesheet (either XSLT or CSS or whatever you want.) This can be done today, XML can be delivered with an XSLT and the browser will render it. The problem is that the only choices you really get in the browser for output is plain text, HTML, HTML+CSS, or SVG.
What I am arguing for is a styling language that doesn't suck balls. I've been doing CSS since forever, and I'm finally completely fed up with it. It solves a few important-to-solve problems, but causes multitudes of problems of every degree of severity.
I respectfully disagree when it comes to CSS. Items like consistent default styling for CSS are a real problem. Simple tasks like setting a few margins and setting the default font takes ugly CSS that eats up significant processing power doing matching on items. In fact, CSS is junk and should be replaced with something that is actually useful to graphic designers. Something like XHTL-strict plus a separate XSLT and a REAL layout language.
You are talking about the Kennewick Man, which is believed to be of an ethnic group that modern Native Americans descended from over the past several thousand years. The controversy was regarding its alleged caucasoid features combined with its dating before the Bering migration. IIRC the forensic artist reconstructing the face was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, noticed some resemblance in bone structure to Capt. Picard, and more or less made the model look like that.
It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans; and Native American groups attempting to prevent research on the skull by asserting tribal affiliation despite the fact that it doesn't look like any modern Indian, and could not possibly be a former member of any existing tribe. They object to research possibly in part in fright of an invalidation of their origination claim to the continent, but also because of a general (and somewhat justified, based on Native American history) distrust of the impartiality of white man science. I am going to go out on a trollish limb here, but their passed-down "history" is unfalsifiable mythological fiction, and just because science has screwed over Indians doesn't mean they have the right to have their fake history uncritically accepted by the scientific community when it comes to Native American origins. they don't know where the skull came from, but at least scientists have the tools to find out, unlike someone just waving their hands and saying "discussion over, it's a Blackfoot and we were still here first" (or whatever.) By all accounts it was NOT a white man, but it wasn't a modern Indian either, it seems.
If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But I highly recommend reading the book "Skull Wars" regarding this skull and the historical reasons for Native American distrust of scientific method with regards to Native American anthropology and history. It will likely make you angry, but you will understand more the Native American position on this even if you don't entirely agree with it. This is the position I am in now.
The last few places I have worked, people have been fired by having their "position removed." This is what happened to him. Then less than a year later there is a restructuring and the position comes back under a different name. Now you know. Those laws might help if you have money or time, or you still might lose. However, you are trying to make it look like there is a power balance between employer and employee, and there is not. There is redress, but it is extremely hard to make it stick, and even harder to not come out looking like a pariah to other employers.
You're wrong because while you as an employee can be fired at the drop of a hat with no notice, it is generally impossible to be hired instantly for an equivalent position. That's because the employer has all the power.
Let me tell you what happened in one place a friend of mine worked. He's not even a computer person, he's a graphic artist. But because he uses a computer, he's the computer guy. He was told to put the new version of Photoshop on all the machines. He says I can't use the same copy, it's not legal. He is ordered to do it and the owner will buy the extra licenses in the meantime, putting them into compliance. My friend doesn't like the idea, but he does it anyway to keep his job. Owner never actually buys the extra copies of Photoshop, because he never had any intention of doing so. To demonstrate what kind of place this was, he eventually got fired because he started refusing to do things like that and was replace with two non-paid interns. I don't care if the law says you are a criminal for doing that, because he had a wife and two kids and COULD NOT afford to lose that job. We are an at-will employment state, which effectively means that the employer has all the power in the relationship. He was fired for "budget reasons" and then got the privilege of upsetting his family while looking for another job because he wouldn't do something illegal.
Let me make a distinction here. I am talking about small privately owned businesses (15 employees) that are habitually pirating software. There is no doubt in my mind that individual IT people will pirate software on their machines, as you have said. I have seen this, and in a past life I was responsible for installing some of that auditing software you are talking about. But in a small business, there is no bureaucratic barrier between the employee and the owner, and it usually comes down to the owner not wanting to spend the money if he doesn't think he's going to get caught. I've seen it over and over again and I wish these places would actually get fined instead of just getting pressured into legalizing.
I do realize at this point we are just dueling anecdotes, but I wanted to share my story. On five separate occasions I have seen a small business habitually, intentionally pirate software and get caught, and I haven't seen anyone fined yet.
The person reporting the violation is eligible for the reward, it's not tied to position. The reason these small businesses are LYING is to cover their own butts. The IT guy said "you need X licenses" and the owner said "just install the same copy on every machine." The reason this happens ALL THE TIME is because the same owner who bullies his computer guy into pirating Photoshop on all their machines is a jerk about a LOT of things, which gets him reported in retaliation after he alienates his staff into quitting. I have seen it numerous times, and they were always reported by a disgruntled ex-employee. Instead of whining about it, they should BUY their software like the rest of us. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions, and I should note that I have never seen a business get fined or sued. They get sent a nastygram, requiring X number of days to prove compliance. The business hurriedly buys the required licenses, proves they are in compliance, and nothing more happens. Ultimately, they just want people to pay for their software.
In the discussion forums on Amazon.com for the Kindle, someone mentions that the PDF to .mobi conversion destroys the PDF layout.
There have been media studies that have shown that watching violence on television increases aggressiveness in the short and long term. This is not directly a study about video games, but it is counterintuitive to think that video games where you actually participate in onscreen violence would have a lesser effect than television.
At the very least it is a fact that kids will imitate violent behavior they see. This is the reason that you don't see cartoons anymore with Daffy Duck being shot in the face, Porky getting his head snapped in a suitcase, or Sylvester getting hit in the head with a frying pan by Tweetie Bird: Because kids did these things to their siblings after seeing it on television. Obviously a kid isn't going to have a laser gun or a katana or something like in a video game, but instead he's just going to whip a cup or rock at his brother and yell ZAP.
the game doesn't even have to be culturally unacceptable violence. Studies have shown that even things like watching a football game on television has the same effect. I'm not saying it's turning them into little killbots, but there is evidence that onscreen violence does increase aggressiveness.
I've heard Murray isn't interested, and this is the a strong reason it hasn't happened yet. they are all actually pretty old now, and I don't know if the movie would have the same feel.
I'd die for your right to vote. As for the economic interests, we were being taxed into oblivion and had no representation in Parliament, so I don't see how you can separate the economic from the political. So money is worth more to most people than their vote, no duh. That's why it's not for sale, it is a responsibility and not an asset. I bet if I worked at a nuke plant I could get more money from a terrorist dumping my responsibility and letting the plant go into meltdown than I got in salary.
No they are not. Humans continue to evolve. Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
He was born of recent emigres in a large immigrant community. He obviously kept strong cultural ties back to the Soviet Union, considering he spied for them. the reason it was brought up was because it distinguished him as having potential to be an excellent spy.
There's been a Martin Luther King day graphic. there's also been one for Eid rather than Ramadan, there's also been American Thanksgiving, election day, Bastille day, and a bunch of others that are specific to a region. that's your one good reason, it's already being done.
Yeah, the Kaiser is gonna be pissed.
Because in the studies he is talking about, one of those values for example is support for suicide bombing. It's not about values per se, it's about "Islamist" values. By contrast, Muslims in the USA are overwhelmingly moderate.
I realize you were trying to make a joke. But the reality is that Muslims in the USA tend to be extremely moderate compared to Muslims worldwide, roughly in parity to practicing Christians in the USA. Muslims are not a threat to the United States of America. Islamic Fundamentalists are. Several of the 9/11 attackers were attending a particular mosque in the United States that promoted a fundamentalist philosophy that was not in line with most mosques here. The goal is to find the outliers, and the reality is that they are not going to isolate themselves completely from the Islamic community at large.