You know, I really doubt this Hoagland guy believes half the junk that comes out of his mouth. He has a radio show and has probably made tons of money. He's taking the yokels for a ride and making cash off of people's ignorance. I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing.
There was an interesting article in Discover magazine several years ago about why humans always think they see faces in random patterns (such as the Martian surface, or the smoke rising out of the World Trade Center ruins).
Basically, our brain is hard-wired to quickly recognize human faces. This is for survival purposes, of course. But when you stare at these non-human shapes - such as the Martian rock - it is obvious these are NOT faces. The brows are wrong, the nose is fitting only for Michael Jackson, and the mouth is horribly formed.
3. What happens if your girlfriend, God forbid, breaks up with you? Can you handle seeing her at work, knowing she's not your girlfriend anymore? The reverse is also true, she could resent you. Have a reasonable employment agreement for this. Be generous up front and you'll save legal fees down the road.
I think this is the biggest risk. Not only will you have to remain on good terms with your girlfriend, but other employees will resent your relationship with her.
Re:Google-centric web design
on
In Google We Trust
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't think [b] has anything to do with the page-rank score, I was just using it as an example.
"Symantically correct" html means the tags have meaning. [b] (bold) doesn't *mean* anything. Neither does [i] (italic) or [font]. The preferred tags to use are [strong], [em] (emphasis), and [h1-6]. This idea is that HTML should describe content, and stylesheets should determine how the content looks.
If you surround something with [b] tags, you're coupling the content and the presentation. It's better practice to surround content with [strong] tags and then define how [strong] looks via a stylesheet.
Google-centric web design
on
In Google We Trust
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, Google has certainly affected web design. It's not uncommon for designers to arrange their site architecture in order to optimize their page rank.
The good thing is that it's encouraged symantically correct HTML (ie. using [h1] and [em] tags, instead of [font size="30"] or [b]). The downside is that some people still don't understand what it takes to rise in the rankings: quality content and getting linked to. The more shady web designers set up link farms and share links like a heroin addict shares needles.
What an idiotic observation. By declaring war, Bush polarised people around that issue and his ratings done the same.
Wrong. If you looked at the graph I (conveniently) linked to, you would have seen Bush's approval ratings soar at the start of the Iraqi war. Did you live in the US during this time period? If so, you would know that it was hardly a "polarizing" issue at the time. A year ago, ~ 70% of Americans thought Saddaam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks
The Washington Post has the best illustration of Bush's approval ratings.
What's interesting is that, short of declaring war, Bush is utterly incapable of improving his image on his own. Left to his own devices, his numbers do nothing but go down.
The Approve/Disapprove numbers are dangerously close to crossing on WaPo's graph. With the recent MediCare cost coverup, controversy over politcal ads, and the Administration's complete tone-deafness on outsourcing, I see no reason for the numbers to go up.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I really doubt this Hoagland guy believes half the junk that comes out of his mouth. He has a radio show and has probably made tons of money. He's taking the yokels for a ride and making cash off of people's ignorance. I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing.
There was an interesting article in Discover magazine several years ago about why humans always think they see faces in random patterns (such as the Martian surface, or the smoke rising out of the World Trade Center ruins).
Basically, our brain is hard-wired to quickly recognize human faces. This is for survival purposes, of course. But when you stare at these non-human shapes - such as the Martian rock - it is obvious these are NOT faces. The brows are wrong, the nose is fitting only for Michael Jackson, and the mouth is horribly formed.
Headline in Slashdot 2012: "More E-voting Problems Everywhere
2012? Try November, 2004.
"Threats of legal action for non-compliance are issued, albeit with friendly overtones."
Well it's time to add Samsung to the anticorporate do not buy shitlist.
I wish I was a regular consumer of Samsung products so that I could stop buying them now.
3. What happens if your girlfriend, God forbid, breaks up with you? Can you handle seeing her at work, knowing she's not your girlfriend anymore? The reverse is also true, she could resent you. Have a reasonable employment agreement for this. Be generous up front and you'll save legal fees down the road.
I think this is the biggest risk. Not only will you have to remain on good terms with your girlfriend, but other employees will resent your relationship with her.
I don't think [b] has anything to do with the page-rank score, I was just using it as an example.
"Symantically correct" html means the tags have meaning. [b] (bold) doesn't *mean* anything. Neither does [i] (italic) or [font]. The preferred tags to use are [strong], [em] (emphasis), and [h1-6]. This idea is that HTML should describe content, and stylesheets should determine how the content looks.
If you surround something with [b] tags, you're coupling the content and the presentation. It's better practice to surround content with [strong] tags and then define how [strong] looks via a stylesheet.
Well, Google has certainly affected web design. It's not uncommon for designers to arrange their site architecture in order to optimize their page rank.
The good thing is that it's encouraged symantically correct HTML (ie. using [h1] and [em] tags, instead of [font size="30"] or [b]). The downside is that some people still don't understand what it takes to rise in the rankings: quality content and getting linked to. The more shady web designers set up link farms and share links like a heroin addict shares needles.
What an idiotic observation. By declaring war, Bush polarised people around that issue and his ratings done the same.
Wrong. If you looked at the graph I (conveniently) linked to, you would have seen Bush's approval ratings soar at the start of the Iraqi war. Did you live in the US during this time period? If so, you would know that it was hardly a "polarizing" issue at the time. A year ago, ~ 70% of Americans thought Saddaam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks
The Washington Post has the best illustration of Bush's approval ratings.
What's interesting is that, short of declaring war, Bush is utterly incapable of improving his image on his own. Left to his own devices, his numbers do nothing but go down.
The Approve/Disapprove numbers are dangerously close to crossing on WaPo's graph. With the recent MediCare cost coverup, controversy over politcal ads, and the Administration's complete tone-deafness on outsourcing, I see no reason for the numbers to go up.
The obvious browser choice is Firefox. The only downside is that you have to reload Slashdot 5 times until it looks right.