I agree with you, that this is great for writers & readers of sites that already mark their content as not safe for work.
However, I haven't seen anyone point out this problem, which lends itself to other complaints slashdotters have had: Currently, some page writers put "NSFW" next to objectionable links. If NSFW moves to an HTML relationship value, then you won't have a visual cue that the author marks stuff as NSFW or not.
Even if the browser alerts you when you mouse-over an objectionable link, when you mouse-over a non-NSFW link, you won't see a cue to tell you if it's safe or if the author failed to mark it as NSFW. If you're at work and worried about these things, then you'll have to do the same as you do now: judge based on the rep of the site and such, and assume that any unmarked link might lead to racy content.
If you're forced to make that assumption, perhaps you should make it official. Make an HTML relationship value "ISFW" (Is Safe For Work). Then readers can assume that unmarked links are dangerous, that marked links are safe according to the author. The browser can report that the link is marked safe (say, through the pointer icon or through a tooltip).
Just a proposal, but I think it's important to point out that an absence of NSFW tags doesn't tell you if they've been used or not. You lose the visual info that you occasionally get now.
Along the lines of speaking in Esperanto, the universally-ignored language, but easier to implement:
speak in Technical Manual. I speak this language and find that it is TRULY universally ignored. Even my Esperanto-loving friend frequently ignores it. For example:
Commerce 1: Please follow these directions. Please do not begin parsing my meaning until you have finished following these directions.
Go to the conference, like I did.
Think that Director Moneeski is a big fat idiot.
Think that only bigger, fatter idiots are in intellgence division
photograph sensitive documents Moneeski leaves around
Commerce 2: Excellent, Commerece 1. Please use the options in dialog box 1, as described in figure 1 shown below.
Image of man running
If you have any further question on how to use these options, please do not hesitate to call our Ambassador at this number... We thank you for providing our company with sample data.
voila!
Dammit, it gives better contrast & readability than using Millions of colors, but the images in my Word document don't appear. The images do appear when using Millions of colors, but then I have a hard time reading the text.
For better contrast, switch to Millions of colors and then switch back to 256 colors.
This results in an inversed color screen that is much more readable. I think using 256 colors will be more helpful to the visually impared user; I was having lots of trouble reading text on the inverted screen under Millions of colors.
Thanks for the tips! I didn't know you could do this! I'll see how much work I can get done before I've gotta switch the screen back.
Thogard seems to be looking for a radiation-delivery system that doesn't harm the tissue between the source and the tumor. The moving-beam solution that everyone else mentions seems great, but sounds like it still causes some damage to the intervening tissue.
What Thogard asks for sounds like a Two Photon Microscopy technique currently in use. From what I can gather from the web, this technique is also in use for cancer treatment. (Unfortunately, that info comes from more --sigh-- science reporting.)
Normally, microscopy (often) causes damage to the sample (or the fluorescent dye) because all of the molecules soak up the energy and break. By the time you're done looking at the close stuff in the sample, the far stuff has soaked up so much light it's already damaged (and isn't fluorescing).
Two Photon Microscopy means focusing two lasers on a single point. Each laser uses a wavelength that does not cause damage to the sample. At the focal point, the fluorescent dye soaks up energy from both lasers and fluoresces and ultimately breaks. Thus you can focus the lasers on a plane within the sample and only damage that plane. Damn cool!
Please see: http://www.cbit.uchc.edu/microscopy_nv/two_photon. html: "Two-photon excitation of fluorescence is based on the principle that two photons of longer wavelength light are simultaneously absorbed by a fluorochrome which would normally be excited by a single photon, with a shorter wavelength. The nonlinear optical absorption property, of two-photon excitation, limits the fluorochrome excitation to the point of focus."
This appears to be in use (or development) for cancer treatment: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1996-12/ORN L-OMMT-031296.php: "The beam of light, two photons at a time, is absorbed by the targeted tumor tissue, activating an ingested pharmaceutical agent that is taken up by rapidly proliferating cells like those found in tumors. The activated agent disables the DNA of the cancer cells, halting their reproduction. Activation of the pharmaceutical agent is limited to the focus of the beam as a result of the unique physics of the photoactivation process called simultaneous two-photon excitation."
Since they're activating a pharm agent, I dunno if this actually counts as radiation treatment. However, none of this counts as "on topic" for backwards-propagating materials, anyway!:-)
"A Left-handed material is a material whose permeability and permittivity are simultaneously negative. Our present materials (shown in the photographs) are structures composed of copper elements, some in the shape of rings, some ordinary posts or wires, that appear as a continuous material to electromagnetic waves over a certain range of frequencies. These composite materials, or metamaterials, exhibit a simultaneously negative permittivity and permeability, and can thus be thought of as examples of Left-handed materials."
Nit-pick away! Upside down tabs break the metaphor! The whole idea is that the tab is supposed to be connected to the page, and grabbing the tab should activate the page.
If I wanted upside down tabs, I'd put them on the bottom of the window. They'd still be attached to the page.
Hopefully Apple will change this in the final release.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, that this is great for writers & readers of sites that already mark their content as not safe for work.
However, I haven't seen anyone point out this problem, which lends itself to other complaints slashdotters have had: Currently, some page writers put "NSFW" next to objectionable links. If NSFW moves to an HTML relationship value, then you won't have a visual cue that the author marks stuff as NSFW or not.
Even if the browser alerts you when you mouse-over an objectionable link, when you mouse-over a non-NSFW link, you won't see a cue to tell you if it's safe or if the author failed to mark it as NSFW. If you're at work and worried about these things, then you'll have to do the same as you do now: judge based on the rep of the site and such, and assume that any unmarked link might lead to racy content.
If you're forced to make that assumption, perhaps you should make it official. Make an HTML relationship value "ISFW" (Is Safe For Work). Then readers can assume that unmarked links are dangerous, that marked links are safe according to the author. The browser can report that the link is marked safe (say, through the pointer icon or through a tooltip).
Just a proposal, but I think it's important to point out that an absence of NSFW tags doesn't tell you if they've been used or not. You lose the visual info that you occasionally get now.
Heck, my toast case mod has finally become reality!!
Along the lines of speaking in Esperanto, the universally-ignored language, but easier to implement:
speak in Technical Manual. I speak this language and find that it is TRULY universally ignored. Even my Esperanto-loving friend frequently ignores it. For example:
Commerce 1: Please follow these directions. Please do not begin parsing my meaning until you have finished following these directions.
Commerce 2: Excellent, Commerece 1. Please use the options in dialog box 1, as described in figure 1 shown below.
If you have any further question on how to use these options, please do not hesitate to call our Ambassador at this number... We thank you for providing our company with sample data. voila!
Dammit, it gives better contrast & readability than using Millions of colors, but the images in my Word document don't appear. The images do appear when using Millions of colors, but then I have a hard time reading the text.
I know this sounds stupid, but:
For better contrast, switch to Millions of colors and then switch back to 256 colors.
This results in an inversed color screen that is much more readable. I think using 256 colors will be more helpful to the visually impared user; I was having lots of trouble reading text on the inverted screen under Millions of colors.
Thanks for the tips! I didn't know you could do this! I'll see how much work I can get done before I've gotta switch the screen back.
Thogard seems to be looking for a radiation-delivery system that doesn't harm the tissue between the source and the tumor. The moving-beam solution that everyone else mentions seems great, but sounds like it still causes some damage to the intervening tissue.
. html:
N L-OMMT-031296.php:
:-)
What Thogard asks for sounds like a Two Photon Microscopy technique currently in use. From what I can gather from the web, this technique is also in use for cancer treatment. (Unfortunately, that info comes from more --sigh-- science reporting.)
Normally, microscopy (often) causes damage to the sample (or the fluorescent dye) because all of the molecules soak up the energy and break. By the time you're done looking at the close stuff in the sample, the far stuff has soaked up so much light it's already damaged (and isn't fluorescing).
Two Photon Microscopy means focusing two lasers on a single point. Each laser uses a wavelength that does not cause damage to the sample. At the focal point, the fluorescent dye soaks up energy from both lasers and fluoresces and ultimately breaks. Thus you can focus the lasers on a plane within the sample and only damage that plane. Damn cool!
Please see: http://www.cbit.uchc.edu/microscopy_nv/two_photon
"Two-photon excitation of fluorescence is based on the principle that two photons of longer wavelength light are simultaneously absorbed by a fluorochrome which would normally be excited by a single photon, with a shorter wavelength. The nonlinear optical absorption property, of two-photon excitation, limits the fluorochrome excitation to the point of focus."
This appears to be in use (or development) for cancer treatment:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1996-12/OR
"The beam of light, two photons at a time, is absorbed by the targeted tumor tissue, activating an ingested pharmaceutical agent that is taken up by rapidly proliferating cells like those found in tumors. The activated agent disables the DNA of the cancer cells, halting their reproduction. Activation of the pharmaceutical agent is limited to the focus of the beam as a result of the unique physics of the photoactivation process called simultaneous two-photon excitation."
Since they're activating a pharm agent, I dunno if this actually counts as radiation treatment. However, none of this counts as "on topic" for backwards-propagating materials, anyway!
hth
Thank you!
Trying to learn the truth behind that awful "news" article's BS, I landed at this site:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~drs/left_home.htm:
"A Left-handed material is a material whose permeability and permittivity are simultaneously negative. Our present materials (shown in the photographs) are structures composed of copper elements, some in the shape of rings, some ordinary posts or wires, that appear as a continuous material to electromagnetic waves over a certain range of frequencies. These composite materials, or metamaterials, exhibit a simultaneously negative permittivity and permeability, and can thus be thought of as examples of Left-handed materials."
Nit-pick away! Upside down tabs break the metaphor! The whole idea is that the tab is supposed to be connected to the page, and grabbing the tab should activate the page. If I wanted upside down tabs, I'd put them on the bottom of the window. They'd still be attached to the page. Hopefully Apple will change this in the final release.