So, now that I’m starting to feel half-way competent with PHP, now I’m noticing that PHP programmers are using this new-fangled thing called “AJAX,” and now I want to do that, too.  Great.  Like I’ve spent so much of my time carefully studying JavaScript and can easily make the transition!

Well, thank goodness that as things develop, people are starting to put out more and more tutorials on the subject.  Right now, I’m just creating the basics of DFE4.0, and don’t have time to spend digging into the finer points of JavaScript, but that doesn’t stop me from occasionally looking.  At A List Apart, they’ve got a great new tutorial that carefully explains one of the more important concepts behind AJAX, which is the idea of “Unobtrusive JavaScript” which is akin to the separation of formatting done with CSS and in fact relies on it:

A List Apart: Articles: Behavioral Separation

Breaking up is hard to do. But in web design, separation can be a good thing. Content, style, and behavior all deserve their own space.

This is good stuff, right here, and you can bet your ass I bookmarked it.  I am thinking that in much the same way as the W3Schools tutorials have helped me with CSS (and continue to do so), this ALA site will probably be the key to my understanding AJAX.  This, of course, along with another recent favourite of mine: the podcasts on “Software As She’s Developed” which are verbose but informative.

Separation of content, style and behaviour is as imperative to webdesign as the separation of Church and State.  Not that this is entirely relevant, but I wanted to end this post on an interesting note. . .  And that was the best I could come up with.

powered by performancing firefox

Anyone who has looked around my site knows that among the many things this site is meant to cover for Rochester is food and wine. Therefore, when a new place opens up and I have the time and money to check it out, I feel somewhat duty-bound to go for a review. However, I do not review places I do not like. That is because if I like the place, I have nice things to say about something that others will enjoy, but if I don’t like the place, I have not-so-nice things to say about a place that others may enjoy. My site is in large part about promoting Rochester to the world and to itself. I don’t feel like pissing on someone trying to start something new, and thus the actual Wine and Dining section of my site is strictly bitch-free.

However, this is the blog, and in the blog I get to say whatever I like. Them’s the rules.
» Continue Reading…

Of all the dumbass political stunts by a desparate politician in a Mid-Term fight, Rick Santorum (one of the finest minds of the thirteenth century, remember) announced that we’ve found WMD’s in Iraq:

Crooks and Liars

Olbermann: “Good Evening from New York. We have found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 15-year old Weapons of Mass Destruction that could give you the equivalent of a serious rug burn. Our fifth story on the Countdown: Independent experts and the level-headed, staggering in amazement today, that deteriorated mustard gas canisters — at least fifteen years old and as much as “eighteen” years old — could be “palmed off” by desperate politicians as some kind of rationale for the deaths of 2500 American servicemen in Iraq.

Olbermann goes on to point out that Santorum is down 18 points in the polls in his home state. That’s a damned shame: he’s been doing such good work for the American people! I mean, if he hadn’t used this as a political stunt, that report that he’s citing might have gone entirely unreported. . . as it had done for the last two months.

Technorati Tags: Rick Santorum, Santorum, Iraq, WMD, Republicans, Mid Terms

powered by performancing firefox

I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox

I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox

I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox

I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox

I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox