View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:33 pm



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
New website layout; long, ranty political reflections 
Author Message
Rookie

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 23
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
My fault? Geez. Their fault for not using "border-radius" -- experimental or not. Like I'm supposed to know every last -foo-border-radius property >_>

I knew that would hit a nerve, but you implemented browser-specific properties for Gecko and WebKit, so I knew KHTML's omission was accidental. The new code doesn't work in Konqueror 3.5 and I've been waiting an hour on Browser Shots without getting a Konqueror 4.1 result, so I'll edit this if it ever responds. It's probably not working in Konqueror 3.5 because of the older version of KHTML, but I want to check.

Edit: Wouldn't you know? After an hour and 20 minutes of waiting, it responded FIVE FUCKING MINUTES after I gave up and posted. Doesn't get rounded borders in Konqueror 4.1 either it seems, go figure.


Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:34 pm
Profile
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 3901
Location: Solar powered park bench
Reply with quote
Post 
You can get border radius on all browsers very easily.

See this page, it works in all browsers: http://verens.com/demos/border-radius/b ... adius.html

Howto:
Include this file on your site, remove the s at the end of the extension: http://verens.com/demos/border-radius/b ... adius.phps

Then include in your file <script type="text/javascript" src="border-radius.php"></script>, of course set the proper path to border-radius.php as needed.

You now get border-radius and border-top-right-radius and friends for IE, Opera, Mozilla, Safari, Konqueror, and everything else, using normal CSS, with no funny -moz or whatever prefixes.

Edit:
Example CSS:
Code:
p.colouredradius{
 border:none;
 border-radius:10px;
 background:#ff0
}

p.bordered{
 border:2px solid #000;
 border-radius:10px
}

p.pointycorners{
 border:2px solid red;
 border-top-right-radius:30px;
 border-bottom-left-radius:30px;
 background:#eee;
}

p.fullon{
 border:solid #00f;
 border-width:2px 4px;
 border-radius:20px;
 background:#000 url(/demos/border-radius/bg.png);
 padding:10px
}

p.onepointycorner{
 background:#666;
 padding:10px;
 border:2px solid #333;
 border-radius:20px;
 border-top-left-radius:0;
}

p.pseudoshadow{
 background:#eee;
 padding:10px;
 border:solid #333;
 border-width:0 2px 2px 0;
 border-radius:20px;
}

_________________
May 9 2007 - NSRT 3.4, now with lots of hashing and even more accurate information! Go download it.
_____________
Insane Coding


Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:44 am
Profile WWW
Reply with quote
Post 
Nach wrote:
You can get border radius on all browsers very easily.

See this page, it works in all browsers: http://verens.com/demos/border-radius/b ... adius.html


These tricks always break up when you adjust the page size.

Image

The whole point of border-radius and SVG is to allow the webpage to scale to any size cleanly.


Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:28 am
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 3901
Location: Solar powered park bench
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
Nach wrote:
You can get border radius on all browsers very easily.

See this page, it works in all browsers: http://verens.com/demos/border-radius/b ... adius.html


These tricks always break up when you adjust the page size.

Always? Hardly.

Works fine with browsers that scale images with text. Only breaks those with improper scaling.
byuu wrote:
Image

The whole point of border-radius and SVG is to allow the webpage to scale to any size cleanly.

I really doubt thats the whole point of border-radius.

_________________
May 9 2007 - NSRT 3.4, now with lots of hashing and even more accurate information! Go download it.
_____________
Insane Coding


Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:39 am
Profile WWW
Reply with quote
Post 
Added a bunch of CSS stuff for no real reason.

Added text-shadow to the title for fun, no real difference but it's nice to see FF3.1 finally supporting it (now if only they'd support SVG backgrounds.)

Added CSS3 selectors for alternating-striped tables, and converted the programming+articles lists to tables to properly space the text strings. I'd have liked to have expanded the widths of the tables to 100% of the page, but it looks tacky on some pages (eg the bsnes locale list.)

Added some style touches to the <pre> (eg source code) boxes, best example is in the emu optimization article.

bsnes page screenshot button code merged to main stylesheet in case I want to use it elsewhere in the future (probably not.)

Using red in some places to add some color. I'm thinking it'd be fun to try and work back in some opacity effects here and there like in the old days.

Kind of amusing that there's not a single browser out there that can render 100% of my page correctly.

Nach wrote:
Works fine with browsers that scale images with text. Only breaks those with improper scaling.


I'm not worried about it. It was just a simple one-line thing since I knew about the CSS command. Square borders look fine, too.

I'm honestly just really sick of the snail's pace development of CSS+SVG support in browsers; so I'm just kind of adding these things for fun. And who knows, maybe it'll encourage people to abandon IE6 finally if we stop catering to it already.


Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:34 pm
Lurker

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:47 pm
Posts: 102
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
And who knows, maybe it'll encourage people to abandon IE6 finally if we stop catering to it already.


Oh, that would be most fantastic. It's weird enough as it
is that IE's user-interface hasn't scared people away already.


Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:31 pm
Profile WWW
Inmate

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:28 am
Posts: 1485
Location: Salem, Oregon
Reply with quote
Post 
what I don't understand is why people would use IE6, I mean there are popular alternatives and even much better versions of IE available now for free for quick download. It's so simple!

_________________
byuu wrote:
Seriously, what kind of asshole makes an old-school 2D emulator that requires a Core 2 to get full speed? >:(


Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:43 pm
Profile WWW
ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 5613
Location: PAL50, dood !
Reply with quote
Post 
Panzer88 wrote:
what I don't understand is why people would use IE6, I mean there are popular alternatives and even much better versions of IE available now for free for quick download. It's so simple!

I'm not feeling like installing anything custom on my work machine, so IE6 it is. Not that I use it much for work except for the couple online tech docs once in a blue moon.

_________________
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Code:
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)

Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54


Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:56 pm
Profile
Seen it all
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:04 pm
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
Reply with quote
Post 
grinvader wrote:
Panzer88 wrote:
It's so simple!

I'm not feeling like installing anything custom on my work machine

Portable versions.

_________________
vSNES | Delphi 10 BPLs
bsnes launcher with recent files list


Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:39 pm
Profile WWW
ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 5613
Location: PAL50, dood !
Reply with quote
Post 
creaothceann wrote:
grinvader wrote:
Panzer88 wrote:
It's so simple!

I'm not feeling like installing anything custom on my work machine

Portable versions.

Not following.

_________________
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Code:
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)

Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54


Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:47 pm
Profile
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
Posts: 6747
Reply with quote
Post 
Panzer88 wrote:
what I don't understand is why people would use IE6, I mean there are popular alternatives and even much better versions of IE available now for free for quick download. It's so simple!


Default + Lazy = Stranglehold

Besides, I still have IE5 available, even though I barely ever use it.

_________________
Continuing FF4 Research...


Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:50 pm
Profile
Seen it all
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:04 pm
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
Reply with quote
Post 
grinvader wrote:
creaothceann wrote:
grinvader wrote:
Panzer88 wrote:
It's so simple!

I'm not feeling like installing anything custom on my work machine

Portable versions.

Not following.

Meaning that you don't have to install anything on your work machine. Just run the browser from an USB stick.

_________________
vSNES | Delphi 10 BPLs
bsnes launcher with recent files list


Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:56 pm
Profile WWW
ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 5613
Location: PAL50, dood !
Reply with quote
Post 
Yeah... not doing that either.

I'm not installing anything because I'm not installing anything. It's not worth the effort of clicking around 5 times on a mouse, and you want me to stand up, grab my key from my pocket (wasting space on it for a program I'd barely use, if I wanted to bitch) and going back to my desk just to browse...

"ok"

_________________
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Code:
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)

Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54


Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:16 pm
Profile
Inmate

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:28 am
Posts: 1485
Location: Salem, Oregon
Reply with quote
Post 
so the question them becomes I suppose, why is the business world so behind when the software is free.

_________________
byuu wrote:
Seriously, what kind of asshole makes an old-school 2D emulator that requires a Core 2 to get full speed? >:(


Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:18 pm
Profile WWW
Official tech support dood

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:57 am
Posts: 2077
Reply with quote
Post 
Panzer88 wrote:
so the question them becomes I suppose, why is the business world so behind when the software is free.


the software may be free, but the IT personnel who have to certify that updates won't break any proprietary web apps or cause conflicts with any other software aren't.

_________________
Why yes, my shift key *IS* broken.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:30 pm
Profile
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 347
Location: The Netherlands
Reply with quote
Post 
I came across an interesting statement today, and I thought I'd share. Taken from this page:
Code:
Faith gets bandied around a lot by both sides in the religion versus atheism debate, and the term is misused quite frequently, mainly because the two groups most often at odds - atheists and Christians - see the core issue as being something completely different.

    * When an atheist accuses a Christian of having "blind faith," he is referring to using faith as a replacement for evidence, in order to believe that figures like God or Satan even exist at all. Faith in the sense of trust (as in trust in the scientific method) does not enter into the matter.
    * When a Christian speaks of "faith in God," he is usually accepting the existence of these figures as a foregone conclusion and is referring to faith that God is merciful and will save humanity from their sins.

I have to say I'd never considered this misunderstanding. It's probably a good thing to get your definitions straight if you're entering into a discussion with someone about these things.


Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:29 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
Faith in the sense of trust (as in trust in the scientific method) does not enter into the matter.


Even speaking as an agnostic here ...

That's because nobody considers scientific theory to be infallible. If it turns out something is wrong, say Einstein's theory of relativity, then we'll adjust. But we continue to seek new information. And we at least have something to go on. Something we can test -- again and again if needed.

Faith is pretty much set in stone: you don't question God's will or morals.

And when it becomes too inconvenient, you pretend like it doesn't exist and instead focus on something that is.


Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:14 pm
Lurker

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:35 am
Posts: 128
Reply with quote
Post 
I think mysticism is no less prevalent today than it was 1000, 2000, or 3000 years ago.

Hold "religion" aside entirely for a moment, there's herbal supplements, essential oils, PETA, some sects of environmentalism, etc.

And we bandy the word science around, but I'm reasonably certain that among some, there's a thoroughly unscientific worship of science. If "science" says something is true, they accept it blindly. Of course, it's simply not possible, nor profitable, to individually retest every one of those little assumptions in life we accept as fact.

Quote:
That's because nobody considers scientific theory to be infallible. If it turns out something is wrong, say Einstein's theory of relativity, then we'll adjust. But we continue to seek new information. And we at least have something to go on. Something we can test -- again and again if needed.


Can test again and again, yes. But so frequently don't. In nearly every case, science says "we're pretty sure this conclusion is true, given this evidence." And yet, given the evidence, individual conclusions could vary widely. Given the training and background of each individual, when presented with the experimental results, wildly different conclusions may be drawn. Reproducible results don't necessarily produce scientific fact.

And, in fact, I think between Einstein and Heisenberg, probably Planck as well, it's pretty much guaranteed that there's a point where we'll have to say "this is how we've seen it work in 100,000 times out of 100,000, and that's the best we can do." Because it simply won't be possible to experimentally determine underlying behavior. But everyone will accept it as scientific fact.

At some level, "science" has its own cult, with its own worldview. Its own "priests" who understand the "doctrine", and the lay people who accept the precepts on faith.


Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:29 pm
Profile ICQ YIM
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
I think mysticism is no less prevalent today than it was 1000, 2000, or 3000 years ago.


Oh, definitely. In my Psychology class, one of the articles tried describing all the stuff we follow now from the perspective of an archaeologist. Fairly amusing, but they made it way too obvious by going over the top.

Quote:
At some level, "science" has its own cult, with its own worldview. Its own "priests" who understand the "doctrine", and the lay people who accept the precepts on faith.


I understand what you're getting at. But when you try so hard to make a parallel of such substantially different concepts, you lose all the points of the comparison by way of your over generalizations.

For religious folk, fact = faith = immutable. For scientific folk, facts can change. No matter what they are, no matter how sure we are that we're right about something. Fact isn't as concrete a concept.


Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:12 pm
Lurker

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:35 am
Posts: 128
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
For religious folk, fact = faith = immutable. For scientific folk, facts can change. No matter what they are, no matter how sure we are that we're right about something. Fact isn't as concrete a concept.


I think you're vastly overgeneralizing the "religious community" as far as fact = faith = immutable. The point I was really trying to make is that there are "fundamentalists" to just about any ideology, including science.

It's a fallacious argument to hold up the pinnacle of science, the scientific method, and make a comparison to the worst the religious community has to offer, fundamentalists. It's called a strawman argument, where you basically suggest a parody, or weakened version, of your opponent's view in order to make it easier to criticize.

I think given a choice between thinking and accepting what one is told, it's easier to accept than to think. That is true for science just as much as it is for religion. No matter your beliefs, religious or scientific (not to imply that the two cannot coexist), it's important to constantly hold them up to scrutiny and leave them open for re-evaluation.

I've drawn a number of parallels between science and religion. I'm not trying to equate the value of the belief systems. I'm trying to suggest that a scientific society can suffer from many of the same deficiencies as a religious society.

---------

Pierre Abelard: "The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth."

Gordon Allport: "The mature religious sentiment is ordinarily fashioned in the workshop of doubt."

If you replace the words "religious sentiment" with "scientific mind", the quote makes just as much, if not more, sense.


Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:59 pm
Profile ICQ YIM
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
I think you're vastly overgeneralizing the "religious community" as far as fact = faith = immutable. The point I was really trying to make is that there are "fundamentalists" to just about any ideology, including science.


Speaking strictly for Christianity here ...

The vibe I got from sitting in churches and bible study for nearly a decade was that the Bible is pretty clear on things like God being infallible, and his laws eternal. The Holy Bible seems to back me up on that as well.

Are you proposing that only the "fundamentalists" believe this? I would argue that those who do not, and follow only the convenient laws (especially those that do not apply to them), are not really following the tenants of what they profess to believe.

The same thing I would say about these "fundamentalist" scientists who try and claim absolute knowledge. I never recall hearing in Science class, either in public or private school, that the scientific method provided incontrovertible proof of anything.

If either of these is not the case, then I concede your parallel as being much stronger.

Quote:
It's called a strawman argument, where you basically suggest a parody, or weakened version, of your opponent's view in order to make it easier to criticize.


Linking words to Wikipedia articles is tacky :P

Quote:
I've drawn a number of parallels between science and religion.


I agree with you in principle, but I feel the parallels are weaker than you make them out to be. But then, we're repeating our previous posts at this point. Perhaps time to agree to disagree? :/


Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:29 am
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 347
Location: The Netherlands
Reply with quote
Post 
Don't forget the following quotes (I won't claim to have remembered them word-for-word):
"Any technology sufficiently advanced will seem like magic."
And conversely:
"Any technology that does not seem like magic is not sufficiently advanced."
When you flip a light switch and a light turns on, how many people will really understand what happened? Sure, you may have a fairly good idea of the physical laws involved but for most people, that's as far as they get. So what about more complex things? There's no way to understand everything, so a lot of people stop trying. Religion is a common way out, and I agree with DataPath that science is the obvious alternative. Have you heard about the experiment where they had subjects supposedly giving another human an electric shock? There would be a man in a white coat in the room encouraging them to turn up the voltage, and many blindly followed this advice, trusting the white coat absolutely. As they were doing this they could clearly see the lethality warnings written all around the voltage setting, and perhaps even more macabre, could hear their 'victim's screams of pain. Incidentally, some would continue to turn up the voltage after these screams eventually.. stopped. All because they trusted the man in the white coat, who was not even a scientist.


Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:47 am
Profile
Lurker

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:35 am
Posts: 128
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
The vibe I got from sitting in churches and bible study for nearly a decade was that the Bible is pretty clear on things like God being infallible, and his laws eternal. The Holy Bible seems to back me up on that as well.

Are you proposing that only the "fundamentalists" believe this? I would argue that those who do not, and follow only the convenient laws (especially those that do not apply to them), are not really following the tenants of what they profess to believe.

The same thing I would say about these "fundamentalist" scientists who try and claim absolute knowledge. I never recall hearing in Science class, either in public or private school, that the scientific method provided incontrovertible proof of anything.

If either of these is not the case, then I concede your parallel as being much stronger.


So, if I'm understanding you right, your main point of disagreement with me is that religious folk hold their beliefs to be absolute and immutable, and scientists hold their beliefs to be flexible, and scrutinize them?

I quote for you Max Planck:
Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.

New scientific theories tend to be poorly received by the established experts in a field. And the theories haven't typically become accepted because the experts changed their minds, but because they largely retired, died, or otherwise became irrelevant.

Einstein refused to accept many of the consequences of quantum mechanics, a field which he principally pioneered himself.

If nothing else, experimenter's bias should be a fairly strong argument against the basic impartiality of scientists.

And if you insist that Christianity requires blind, unquestioning faith, and absolutist interpretations of scripture and other revelation, I won't try to sway you on that subject. But at least let me point out that Christianity is not the only religion in the world.


Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:39 am
Profile ICQ YIM
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.


I like that. Works well with equality in place of truth, as well.

Quote:
If nothing else, experimenter's bias should be a fairly strong argument against the basic impartiality of scientists.


Of course. Science is definitely a ripe field for bias. You spend years and lots of money trying to test a theory, realizing you were wrong would certainly suck. I can see one, even unintentionally, only looking at one side of the evidence to support their theory.

Quote:
And if you insist that Christianity requires blind, unquestioning faith, and absolutist interpretations of scripture and other revelation, I won't try to sway you on that subject. But at least let me point out that Christianity is not the only religion in the world.


That is what I take away from it. I'm not saying it has to be the case. But the Bible itself very strongly argues that it is. I've never heard a Christian state that God was wrong about something, for instance.

And true, there's a wealth of religions out there besides Christianity, say Buddhism, which would strengthen your parallel example. Point well taken there.


Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:26 am
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 347
Location: The Netherlands
Reply with quote
Post 
byuu wrote:
say Buddhism


Of course Buddhism started out as a philosophy, with Buddha being revered as a teacher. Compare Aikido, where many schools will have a shrine dedicated to either the founder of the martial art or the founder of their particular line, that students are expected to pay homage to at the start of each lesson.

On a more personal note, I've always found such practices somewhat hard to swallow. Respect is one thing, reverence something else altogether.


Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:15 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software.