I have pre-launched my first proper theme, Paper Cut.
Why ‘pre-launch’? Because it’s not quite finished and I wanted some comments from you all to help improve it.
I really would like to hear any thoughts you have, so don’t be shy!
I have pre-launched my first proper theme, Paper Cut.
Why ‘pre-launch’? Because it’s not quite finished and I wanted some comments from you all to help improve it.
I really would like to hear any thoughts you have, so don’t be shy!
Update: As reported by the BBC:
“US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.”
Google themselves are asking for people to petition against a bill going through US courts:
In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.
Hopefully, the proposal won’t go anywhere, but if it does it threatens to have wide reaching impacts including over this side of the pond.
If it does, then what sort of prices are going to be charged, and how will content be rated. Will individual sites have to lobby to be included in the high priority lanes, will they have to pay?
ISPs are already the winners on the ‘net, shouldn’t we be looking for ways to increase availability to remote users rather than limited those who are already limited?
The final instalment: WMD Part III by G-gnome at bit-tech.net
An absolutely stunning bit of modding. G-gnome has outdone himself, and everyone else.
How about just bringing back some discipline?
Isn’t that what schools are actually lacking at the moment?
This must be a smoke-screen.
And to the Muslims wanting Islamic principles to be taught as well – Muslims account for only 3% of the UK population.
How about mentioning all the main (world-wide) faiths and the underlying principles?
Currently in the news is the debate in [tag]UK[/tag] government over a form of legal [tag]suicide[/tag].
Unsurprisingly this is being criticised as a “back door to [tag]euthanasia[/tag]”.
My issue however is the argument against being used by various parties.
They will start with a well reasoned, well vocalised argument, and then spoil it all by mentioning religion.
I hope that my friends and family will know well enough that I have no issue with [tag]religion[/tag] per se.
However, it cannot be used as part of any reasoning – there are too many assumptions that have to be made and, in my eyes, the argument is null and void.
Are there times when religious texts can be quoted as truly meaningful reason?
Simply add the following to the the onFocus attribute of any HTML form input tag.
if (this.value == this.defaultValue) this.value = '';
this.defaultValue is automatically given the value in the HTML.
I looked for a long time how I could add JavaScript functions to an HTML document’s onLoad attribute.
Eventually I found this, something so obvious that I had considered trying it but foolishly didn’t try.
var oldLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = function() {
oldLoad();
function2();
}
Google (who recently bought SketchUp) have split it into two products.
There is now the free version ‘Google SketchUp‘, and SketchUp Pro.
The more important part of the news release, as far as I’m concerned, is the 3D Warehouse, a user-contributed collection of SU components – essentially a direct competitor to my SketchUp Components Collection.
I’m glad there is now a free version, but of course have some reservation over the launch of the 3D Warehouse.
This is the first time that Google has directly affect me personally. (Chances are that the SCC will suffer)
I wanted to tell the user that they need JavaScript, but obviously only if they don’t already have it enabled.
The following is a very crude script which uses the very fact that JS is available to hide the requirement notice…
HTML:
<!-- "jsReq" - Jez McKean (jazzle.co.uk) 2006-04-24 */ -->
<div id="jsRequiredDiv" class="important"><span class="error">Warning!</span>
You need to have javascript enabled to use this page.</div>
JS:
function removeElementById(eleId) {
eleId = document.getElementById(eleId);
if (eleId.parentNode && eleId.parentNode.removeChild) {
eleId.parentNode.removeChild(eleId);
}
}
removeElementById("jsRequiredDiv");