Archive for May, 2007
Best MySpace-related quote ever
May 11th, 2007 • myspace, quote
The TV was left on from earlier and I just overheard the ever so wise news anchor say this at the conclusion of their Myspace segment;
Yeah, it’s amazing to see this thing go from zero to nothing.
I wish I were joking. I wish I could pull the video off my DVR for this because it’s amazing.
3 column layouts for sites
May 11th, 2007 • design, layout, reviewme, reviews, web
Many years ago, I was a web designer on the forefront of the now commonplace table-less layout. Places like CSS Zen Garden didn’t exist and many people were still stuck wrapping their heads around a 2 column table-less design. Then someone came up with the old Holy Grail: completely fluid 3 column designs. Now, three column designs are not new in any sense, they’ve been employed in other media for a very long time — namely newspapers. A lot of software back in 2002-2003 used them but only with tables, software such as PHP Nuke and all of its horrible branches used — and still do — a stock 3 column layout. You’ve all seen them: two smaller flanking columns around a larger one that is supposed to ‘attract’ your eyes to the content. Problem is they’re so widely used and so full of cruft that you frequently lose sight of the content itself. Thankfully, I left that game a long time ago when I realized everyone was going to be copying the work I’d done and the others before me.
Now there’s a new 3 column layout: a large block for content with two side-by-side flanking columns for everything else (but mostly ads). These are very common these days as well. You can find one almost anywhere, especially in the blogosphere where people want to do one thing and do it well: monetization and displaying ads. However, this design is not a true 3 column layout, the side-by-side flanking columns are almost always nested inside a larger box and split vertically. This makes them truly a two column layout with nested boxes — something not so easy when I was doing this. These designs are becoming all too common place for my liking.
This brings me to the whole point of this: the PurpleCrunch 3 column WordPress theme. Aside from being purple, I saw this design a while ago and it’s still uninspiring. It’s a pastel purple which, while easy on the eyes, reminds me of grape juice. Luckily, the only purple is the background and the link text as you can see here. This brings me full circle to the concept of 3 column layouts versus the flanking columns nested side-by-side in another box. Glancing at the source of this theme, this is exactly what this layout does. If you want to be pedantic about it, it’s actually merely three boxes. The outer box encapsulates the content and the right flanking column, each with its own <div> making them singular boxes nested in another. The flanking column is then split in two: left and right and each is given its own <div>. These designs are tired and uninspiring.
Overall, I remember when the box model of CSS2 was to be the catalyst for creative design but all I see is a bunch of the same. They were highly creative and original in late 2004 and early 2005 but that was then. These days, the problem isn’t a lack of creativity, it’s a lack of motivation to be creative. Honestly, if I’d found this theme back when I was helping maintain Greymatter, I would have dumped it and switched to WordPress far sooner. The next time I need to blend in with the crowd, I’ll think about using this theme.
The preceding has been a sponsored post.
The ultimate Spamtrap
This is possibly the most awesome spam trap I’ve ever seen. As a fantastic piece of performance art, it accurately displays what a spam trap should do: get rid of the emails about Cialis. It’s a simple piece of art that can say quite a bit about the scourge of spam we face everyday.
Part 2 of the atheist debate is now online
May 10th, 2007 • 2 comments atheism, christianity, debate, tv
Just dug up the link http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3160648 from abcnews.com — although it was buried in the site.
Although the overall debate was poor, this second part is on the whole a bit better. Both sides skirt the issues proposed to them but tried to still make some point that people may link to whatever they were asked. Here’s some interesting things I found that the Christians ignored:
(Ray wants to state there were no people before the Bible)
(Kirk’s bizarre denial of evolution)
(Kirk is completely floored when Brian asks him “How can you not walk a mile without taking one step at a time?” and has absolutely nothing to say in defense. Instead he asks for the question again and skips to macroevolution)
(someone posed the question about Communist states acting as atheists)
(Kirk says it’s love of their faith and people, that’s why they’re killed. It’s in the audience questions segment).
(Ray skirts the entire issue by talking about light/darkness and ends up agreeing with the original question posed to him and could not explain why other than saying “It’s not true”. Kirk fumbles.)
(Ray talks about suffering instead of directly addressing the question. Uses distraction tactics to hinge upon fear mongering. Ray also says to not use “suffering” as a rejection of God although it has no basis in the question)
What the atheists missed or ignored:
(they share a great number of similarities but this is Kelly’s area of “expertise”)
(and I mean any godhead figure)
(other Atheists have postulated on this as well)
(Martin made the most salient point about this earlier in the debate)
Everything I think they missed were either questions directly asked to them or inferred by the questions asked to them. Believe me, some of this crazy stuff I could never make up.
Atheist debate, part 2
May 10th, 2007 • atheism, christianity, debate, tv
After last night’s sad attempt at showing the debate on Nightline, ABC is airing the rest online today. It was supposed to be on abcnews.com at 1PM EDT although I did not find any direct links. It should be on abcnews.com/abcnewsnow at 2PM EDT. I will post a direct link to the player as soon as I find one.
Although, what was shown on TV was merely about 20 minutes of the 90 minute debate and what’s been shown online so far has been far less than 90 minutes as well. In total, I’ve seen less than an hour of footage so what happened to the other 30 to 40 minutes worth?
Debate footage from abcnews.com
May 9th, 2007 • 2 comments atheism, christianity, debate, tv
Well, I watched the whole thing that was available from ABC and was less than amazed. If you’ve seen the teaser the RRS released, you’ve pretty much seen the whole thing. Both sides didn’t do very well in supporting their claims although, Comfort didn’t even manage to do what he claimed he could do. Cameron sat back most of the time and would chime in every so often but he was there to be exactly what he is: a name to draw people in.
Sapient and Kelly did OK but just as poorly at the same time. Kelly managed to be a better debater than Sapient but she too was offering little to their side. She did clearly get across some points that managed to stump both Comfort and Cameron but I could guess that any other Christian would have been able to spit out something in rebuttal. Sapient did manage to make both Cameron and Comfort speechless a few times with his very direct questioning. Overall, it was more of the same but in a widely accessible public forum for the masses to consume.
What was released today was only half of the debate and the rest should be online tomorrow according to ABC after Nightline airs with the same footage but should hopefully include more insightful clips. Since this was a 90 minute debate, I’m very interested in what we were not yet shown as the teaser from the RRS included segments from everything that was released today.
The debate is now airing
May 9th, 2007 • atheism, christianity, debate, tv
I finally dug up the somewhat buried link that’s directly to the player: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3156022
It’s split up into parts that will be used on Nightline so it makes me wonder just what they edited out.
The ABC debate is streaming soon
May 9th, 2007 • atheism, christianity, debate, tv
Looking around abcnews.com. The direct link should be here. Right now, there is a nearly 7 minute teaser from Nightline that will air later tonight. The full debate should be online shortly. The current teaser is giving a background of Cameron and the evangelism of the Way of The Master that both Cameron and Comfort put on.
I may do a live blogging but this may not occur due to work restraints. It’s funny to hear Comfort start off with his cola can argument that’s completely baseless.
New Four Stone Hearth
May 9th, 2007 • anthropology, archaeology, carnival
The new Four Stone is up at Anthropology 2.0. Let the archaeology and anthropology love begin!
ABC Atheist versus Christian debate teaser
May 9th, 2007 • atheism, christianity, debate, tv
I just watched the teaser video released by the Rational Response Squad, or RRS, over at Pharyngula. It’s 13 minutes of the 90 minutes that should be shown tomorrow on ABC. I’ll have to agree with PZ in the fact that Comfort and Cameron were pretty terrible but then, this is only 13 minutes of video that’s cherry picked from the entire debate making the RRS representatives look good. Although, they weren’t that great either.
A few other blogs have mentioned that they’re reading from prewritten materials so this throws the entire “debate” aspect out the window aside from the times where they’re asking the other side questions — thought it comes across as more of punches than questions. Just from this short video, Comfort did absolutely nothing to prove scientifically that the Christian God exists, he used his age old speech of “This is a painting, it must have a painter” as I wrote about a few days ago. The entire watchmaker theory proves very little of an ethereal guy in the sky. When asked very specific questions, there were times where neither Comfort nor Kirk could actually give an answer and even Martin Bashir was amazed by this, they could not answer simple questions that I’m sure other Christians would have belted out responses to.
I’m not going to entirely say that the Christian side of this was terrible, Sapient did a pretty bad job himself. His credibility goes down immediately since he’s dressed very casually at what is supposed to be a very serious affair but Kelly was looking rather cute in that dress. Aesthetics aside, Sapient fumbled here and there and misquoted some things but overall made valid points as did Kelly. Many of these Comfort and Cameron could not rebut. But Sapient did spend a good portion of the time reading from paper which gave off a monotone, boorish vibe which, to me, does not help his other shortcomings at all. But at least they acknowledge they didn’t do all that great on their own website. This is far more than Comfort did:
Just a quick note to let you know that the debate went wonderfully.
When I say “wonderfully” I have to qualify it. It was like an open air with an unreasonable and loud heckler. The “heckler” in this case wasn’t just the two atheists we were there to debate, but the fifty atheists in the audience. As per ABC’s stipulations, the audience was composed half-and-half : fifty Christians and fifty atheists. The Christians were very quiet and polite; the atheists weren’t. It was very apparant [sic] who was who in the audience. It seemed that no matter what we said, it was completely ignored by Brian and Kelly (the atheists) and then followed up with their anger, mockery, and insults. But as with a good open air, the heckler is simply a platform to speak to the crowd who is listening. In this case there is a crowd of millions who will hear clear, concise evidence for the existance [sic] of God. How incredible. So I am delighted, because of what we were able to say.
…
God bless,
Ray Comfort
(from Hemant)
He acts if there were never a moment where he and Cameron did not pulverize anything Brian or Kelly threw at him but the video shows otherwise. Calling the atheists “hecklers” doesn’t help his lacking credibility either.
The video is going to be streamed from ABC tomorrow at 2PM EDT so make sure you take your lunch at work then! I will!