Ask him instead about wine - which from what I gather from what he says on Shark Tank, is where he real passion is. 20 cent coffee maybe, but he probably follows that with a $$$ wine come evening.
Tables are fine for layout on small sites, save yourself time/money and don't shackle yourself to CSS which was never made for how it is used today (just wait for CSS tables when they are finally supported to make the jump)
Flash is also fine as long as it is used in a complimentary manor and not the basis for the entire site. Flash is a tool, it's not evil or good, just a tool, use it.
Java blows.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I guess that doesn't cover John Seigenthaler's right to try to sue the pants off of you.;)
But seriously, moving on to "libel" (which is the crux of his "case"), John has to prove malice in order to win this case, which I assume he's determined is not possible due to the fact there's not mention of a lawsuit in his article (but curiously he thinks he can still report this as "abuse" to an ISP even though he hasn't proven a thing). I would imagine that proving malice would be difficult if you take into account the author potentially had "no special expertise or knowledge". They could easily claim ignorance or a faulty source.
Furthermore, who says that authors of "real" bound and printed Encyclopedia's have an special knowledge or expertise, who is checking up on their work?
And even furthermore, who says that the statement was false? I haven't see any evidence that it is true, but I also haven't seen any evidence that it was not. We do know that the FBI attempted to screw poor John, but do we know that no one, anywhere EVER suspected him? The statement only says that "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Thought by whom? The author? If this is true then the statement is not false, it's only false if you assume that the author implied that some authoritative source claimed this.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask him instead about wine - which from what I gather from what he says on Shark Tank, is where he real passion is. 20 cent coffee maybe, but he probably follows that with a $$$ wine come evening.
Tables are fine for layout on small sites, save yourself time/money and don't shackle yourself to CSS which was never made for how it is used today (just wait for CSS tables when they are finally supported to make the jump) Flash is also fine as long as it is used in a complimentary manor and not the basis for the entire site. Flash is a tool, it's not evil or good, just a tool, use it. Java blows.
butbutbut But Clinton! Ah the old "but Clinton" defense, a classic. Maybe you can get a spot hosting a cable network "news" show on say....FOX News?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
;)
I guess that doesn't cover John Seigenthaler's right to try to sue the pants off of you.
But seriously, moving on to "libel" (which is the crux of his "case"), John has to prove malice in order to win this case, which I assume he's determined is not possible due to the fact there's not mention of a lawsuit in his article (but curiously he thinks he can still report this as "abuse" to an ISP even though he hasn't proven a thing). I would imagine that proving malice would be difficult if you take into account the author potentially had "no special expertise or knowledge". They could easily claim ignorance or a faulty source.
Furthermore, who says that authors of "real" bound and printed Encyclopedia's have an special knowledge or expertise, who is checking up on their work?
And even furthermore, who says that the statement was false? I haven't see any evidence that it is true, but I also haven't seen any evidence that it was not. We do know that the FBI attempted to screw poor John, but do we know that no one, anywhere EVER suspected him? The statement only says that "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Thought by whom? The author? If this is true then the statement is not false, it's only false if you assume that the author implied that some authoritative source claimed this.