Joel Johnson writes a familiar but sad story. Malfeasance from a pastor drove him out of Christianity. He’s not alone; writer Sue Monk Kidd tells a tragically similar story. I’m absolutely certain the two are not alone in their experience. And they pose a conundrum, to believers and to those who have left because of this sort of thing.
As believers these sort of stories should serve to remind us of the burden we bear. We know we’re far from perfect. We know we’ll do things that offend others, sometimes egregiously, and even sometimes intentionally. There’s always that possibility; it comes from being human. And the burden is that when we do so, the world around us will blame our church, our faith, our Lord, rather than put the blame where it belongs — on us.
(more…)
The current issue of A List Apart has an article by Aaron Gustafson, one of those brave articles that is sure to cause a storm of un- and mis-informed comment. It’s a real attempt to solve a problem, and one that shows more than a little bravery.
Eric Meyer’s reply (published side-by-side in a point/not-quite-counterpoint approach) covers a lot of the thought process I went through when encountering it. I’ll freely grant that Meyer, having had more time than I did to come to grips with the idea, may have thought this through deeper than I, but I’m still at the “Ooooh, ick” stage with this idea.
I can see the point, and as I said I congratulate Gustafson for taking the bull by the horns in such a bold manner, but I cannot agree that he escaped goring.
I’m afraid I see this as an attempt to offload the responsibility for good design, to pass the buck, as it were, from designers to browser makers.
(more…)
I’ve created a new web design project as a giant learning experience. As a result, I’m making progress learning simultaneously a new language (Ruby) and a new framework (you guessed it, Rails).
I like learning new programming languages; To be honest I’ve lost track of how many this makes, but it’s over 20 now. I haven’t done it for a while and those skills have atrophied a bit. Still, the knack is coming back to me, and I’m enjoying myself immensely.
At the same time, I’ve let myself get talked into writing a book (for chess coaches, if you simply must know). So for part of everyday, I’m immersed in two completely different disciplines.
Or so I thought
(more…)
Just ran into an interesting quirk with Inman positioning.
I was using it with Safari 3, and noticed the same bug in Firefox 2.0.0.11 while testing. I loaded the javascript file in the document head and when the document started to load,, apparently it loaded a document and triggered the script before the body had loaded. The script failed, claiming document.body was null.
After ripping out handfuls of hair (”Whaddya mean null? I can see the tag right there! Open your eyes you stupid machine!”) I realized the timing issue and moved the script deeper into the document, so it would be triggered after the body tag was loaded.
Success.
I’ve got some real mixed emotions about the Boucher decision.
I mean, I’m all in favor of the Fifth Amendment. I think it’s necessary to preserve our liberties, especially today when the federal government seems intent on taking them away in the name of security.
I just don’t see any sort of meaningful difference between a password and the key to a locked room/box/safe. If I’m the target of a legally obtained search warrant, I can be forced to provide a key for a strong box. How is that different from a password for an encrypted file?
Even more to the point, the judge can compel me to provide the combination for a safe that might be the legitimate target of a search. Tell me, please, just how that possibly differs from the password for a computer file.
I’m definitely not in favor of giving the government carte blanche to search everyone everywhere. There are specific tests they must meet in order to be granted the right to search, and the warrants have to be specific about what they can find and take away.
But given those measures are satisfied, I’m completely at a loss how any reasonable judge can draw a distinction between the combination to a safe and the password to a computer, saying you have to divulge the one but not the other.
Every now and then, someone comes up with a solution that seems so obviously wrong you immediately open your mouth to object. But by the time your mouth opens your brain has done some more processing, and you realize what you’re about to say isn’t really an objection. Nor is the next thing. And you realize he’s thought it through a little more than you have. And you’re left with your mouth hanging open and nothing to say.
Derek Powazek just did that to me. On first hearing, his proposal to put images in pages as div backgrounds is just so wrong that my tongue trips over my teeth in its haste to make the declaration. My lungs fill, my mouth opens.
(more…)
Over at Lifehacker they ask the question, “Why not run an open wireless access point and share your connection?” Security maven Bruce Schneier offers several reasons for doing so.
I’ve got one good reason not to. I said I wouldn’t
You see, it’s not about the odds of getting caught. It’s not about giving people a reason not to hack me. It’s that when I signed up for the service I promised not to do that.
If the only reason you conform to an agreement is because of what will happen when you get caught, then perhaps you shouldn’t agree in the first place.
In the words of Lord John Whorfin: “Character is what you are in the dark.”
When I saw this, I just couldn’t help myself. Lift and enjoy, Dr Witherington!
Nothing warms the cockles of an old curmudgeon’s heart as much as things like this.
While I stop now and spend a moment of silence in mourning for the loss of Scoble’s data (which is truly a despicable act, one for which Facebook should be shunned off the web) I can’t help but remember something I learned long ago:
“Never commit to entering a room until you know the way out.”
I stayed away from Facebook for precisely that reason. I could see a way in, but no good way out.
(And to think, I learned that lesson long before politicos ever learned the phrase “exit strategy.”)
Anyone who trusts their data to a corporation without having a second copy of it is a fool. Period. Facebook is just one more example of a group that wants to lock us in their trunk and take us where they want us to go.
And to think, Facebook not only stole Robert’s data (if you think that’s strong, what other term would you use for keeping something away from its legal owner?) but they did this after having the temerity to use his name and likeness in a Saturn ad (without either his knowledge or his permission, and without compensating him for it). I think Scoble should talk to GM about their buying Facebook for him as compensation for that particular act of theft.
