log

hel­lothere­bun­ny says:

i think she falls in love with any liv­ing thing that gives her a bit of atten­tion, get her a dog, that should be enough ¬¬

astro­la­try says:

Fuck you Chris­t­ian! JUDITH IS YOUR BEST FRIEND. You can­not con­vince me this sub­sti­tute is bet­ter than JUDITH.

Yoby111 says:

Back off, harpy!

thanatos101b says:

[…] Olivia was a bet­ter friend to Christian.

mit­saso says:

thank God that rock was there to cush­ion Rebec­ca­’s fall :P

MrO­liv­er­Rich says:

press­ing 6:41 over and over is amusing

ftlaud­carl says:

I am very wor­ried about the horse.

2glassgirl2 says:

I just noticed–are Chris­tian’s pants made of vel­vet? Some­one give that wardrobe girl/gay a raise.

I have to remem­ber that when I vis­it a Zeld­man post not to read the com­ments because most of them dri­ve me insane. Notes to future commenters:

• XHTML is no more ‘seman­tic’ than HTML4. You were just doing it wrong.
• Stan­dards mode is trig­ger­able by a HTML4 Strict doctype.
• HTML5 is not the death of XHTML (Wikipedia entry, third sen­tence).
• HTML5 has a more seman­tic vocab­u­lary than unex­tend­ed XHTML, not the oth­er way around.
• XHTM­L’s major ben­e­fits — stricter syn­tax and namespace–based exten­si­bil­i­ty — are avail­able in HTML5’s XML serialisation.
• You’re free to con­tin­ue to ignore the dra­con­ian yel­low screen of death issues by serv­ing con­tent in vio­la­tion of spec.

I’m sure Zeld­man is sick of hear­ing you par­rot his words inac­cu­rate­ly. Much of the com­ment­ing is two or three knowl­edge­able peo­ple try­ing to cor­rect some­one’s froth­ing, mis­in­formed or even malign post. The ben­e­fit of this oppor­tu­ni­ty for reed­u­ca­tion is off­set by the amount of crap one must wade through to find valid information.

Thanky­ou.

From Angli­can Church wants school tri­al of ethics class­es scrapped:

Bish­op Davis said allow­ing a sec­u­lar organ­i­sa­tion to deliv­er its pro­gram at the same time as the cur­rent reli­gious teach­ings set a “dan­ger­ous prece­dent” if oth­er groups want­ed access to students.

Trans­la­tion: It’s ok to brain­wash stu­dents with their par­ents’ per­mis­sion if you’re a reli­gious organ­i­sa­tion, but not if you’re secular.

I won­der what the Angli­can Church’s reac­tion would be if the Sci­en­tol­ogy brigade gained access in that reli­gious time slot?

Tri­alling spe­cial ethics class­es was also a vote of “no con­fi­dence” in teach­ers, he said. Bish­op Davis said the Gov­ern­ment should realise that val­ues of truth and hon­esty were mod­elled each day by teach­ers in the class room.

“Is there such an eth­i­cal hole in the cur­rent sys­tem?” Bish­op Davis said.

Trans­la­tion: Hel­lo chil­dren how are you? All the truth are belong to us.

Is Bish­op Davis say­ing that reli­gious class­es don’t need to cov­er ethics or hon­esty? See, I can dou­ble­s­peak too. After remov­ing ethics, morals, truth and hon­esty from reli­gion we’re left with a fan­ci­ful sto­ry of a man who heard voic­es in his head and believed him­self God.

“If so, then teach it as a part of the cur­ricu­lum rather than allow­ing a non-reli­gious group to enter the realm of the spe­cial reli­gious edu­ca­tion system.”

My trans­la­tion: step off our turf.

I’d like to know what the ‘spe­cial reli­gious edu­ca­tion sys­tem’ entails, because it sounds par­tic­u­lar­ly nasty.

No thanks. I’m hard­ly the tar­get mar­ket for Chrome OS, but I fear (FEAR!) the pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty impli­ca­tions of mov­ing to a non-local-stor­age mod­el for every­thing I work on, espe­cial­ly when encryp­tion of my data has no long-term guar­an­tees what­so­ev­er.

I appre­ci­ate sci­ence fic­tion’s por­tray­al of the future as a ubiq­ui­tous info por­tal (Accelleran­do) but this stretch­es my trust beyond its lim­it regard­less of whether a com­pa­ny or gov­ern­ment is in charge of the buy-in.

Diver­si­fi­ca­tion is the only safe route here. I want to see a pletho­ra of phys­i­cal-body devices with unique, user-pro­gram­ma­ble, lay­ered encryp­tion sys­tems. I don’t want the data to be stored in a gener­ic inter­op­er­a­ble for­mat; design an inter­op­er­a­ble API instead. This abstrac­tion means I can dis­able API access and my data is phys­i­cal­ly protected.

Google and co have clear­ly deter­mined (I think cor­rect­ly) that the way to ensure long-term free­dom of the human race from tyran­ny is to enable unbro­ken com­mu­ni­ca­tion, access to infor­ma­tion and learn­ing resources, and demand us to be altru­is­tic and hon­est for fear of the greater trust-web being bro­ken. I seri­ous­ly think we’ll reach a point where the trust-web will be so impor­tant that it’ll become sacro­sanct, with vio­la­tors giv­en the future equiv­a­lent of cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment: the denial of access to information.

We see the roots of this in our eco­nom­ic sys­tem, where the greater good is served by main­tain­ing faith in the val­ue of oth­ers. Note how many reg­u­la­tions we need to hold this sys­tem togeth­er against the mul­ti­tudes who want to cheat and scam for per­son­al ben­e­fit; when exposed their pun­ish­ment is the denial of fur­ther influ­ence upon the system.

Until we make a diety of the trust-web, secu­ri­ty and pri­va­cy are the biggest con­cerns. We should always have an exit, an opt-out in the form of per­son­al encryp­tion and removal of our data from the pub­lic eye. I don’t trust cen­tralised systems.

mrlast­week sez: final­ly it’s dawned on hix­ie, HTML5 is sui­cide with­out the W3C. A bit­ter pill he has com­mis­sioned his under­lings to swal­low. bra­vo madge!

Mark Pil­grim: The ones that win are the ones that ship.

Take as you will.

This walled gar­den also has a lead dome and watchtowers.