The thing is, if you disable your favorite browser's default styles (I use Firefox with the Web Developer add-on to do this under CSS-->Disable Styles-->Disable Default Browser Styles), then check your style sheet's display for inconsistencies and correct them as needed (I use resource://gre-resources/html.css and resource://gre-resources/forms.css to see what's going on) then haven't you effectively coded your CSS to work with the default styles of any modern browser? Because with that one browser's defaults disabled you're effectively coding with no default styles enabled for any browser at all, so you're forcing yourself to write bulletproof code without performing any cross-browser checks beforehand.
For added bulletproofedness you can use Web Dev to check Box Model compliance (Web Dev - CSS-->Use Border Box Model) - an exercise in torture for me because my entire blog narrows when I do that, but it's helped me solve two or three otherwise elusive bugs.
So no need to zero out everything and its brother before you start styling, no need to perform a reset, and no need for endless cross-browser checking. (And before you whisper "IE OLD" at me, forget it. No browser designed to work in Quirks Mode to this day for backward support of websites made when IE1 was still popular should count for much unless you really care that slightly more than 50% of the population still uses some version of it (over 30% use IE8 on Vista, if you really must know, and yes...Vista, seriously). Besides which, anything at or above IE9 should work with what I'm suggesting.
For more bulletproofedness you can make sure your DOC type supports Standards, and for the most bulletproofedness possible you can make IE use IE Edge so when someone goes to click the Compatibility View button, it's greyed out and completely disabled, with no workaround to bring it back unless they use IE's built-in (and in my personal experience, quite hellish) Dev Tools.
In fairness to the zero-out-and-reset-it-all crowd, the only benefit in doing one or both is it might allow you to use less code overall; less code means smaller style sheets, and smaller style sheets mean faster page loads (and I want every page to load, at most, in like a billionth of a second if it must take that long, so this is an Objective, for sure). If you zero out line heights you can set one line height in
body and be done with it. Margins and padding might work the same way, depending on what you hope to accomplish and how good you are at pulling it off without adding like an entire rat's nest of code to your style sheet.
Or if you don't want your code all that bulletproof? Your webpages don't have to look the same in every browser, anyway, so why bother? If it were up to me I'd have an unstyled, utterly resizable page for mobile and a much simpler design for IE - I have zero desire to be matchy-matchy across all the many browsers out there today. I simply want my code to work (and work as intended), wherever someone might see it.
2. Day off tomorrow! I worked last Sunday and then Wednesday spent way too much time getting my mom's computer set up, so I feel like I haven't really had a full day off to just relax and enjoy in a while!
3. Thanks for all the sympathy on the post about my bike. I appreciate it. ♥
There are an awful lot of sites blasting elements of pop culture, “geek” culture, science fiction and fantasy sub-genres of pretty much every entertainment form known to Man.
Over in the “real world” type blogs, there’s a lot of talk about ethics and conscience (and Snowden and Wikileaks)... but there doesn’t seem to be any overlap.
Which is -why- I am so profoundly confused.
Some of the finest science fiction and fantasy stories have tackled deeply distressing, world-shattering problems for their central characters, but the audience is supposed to what, ignore that part completely?
Or worse, absorb the implied ‘might makes right’ or ‘good equals doormat’ subtexts that also roll merrily through the same bit of entertainment?
Not this viewer. Not this reader.
Hopefully, you agree with that -implicit- part of this blog, and then merrily jump into the fray discussing/arguing the -explicit- bits.
Most fantasy stories are at heart, coming-of-age tales wrapped in nonsensical details that soften the edges, sometimes blunting the impact and the implications of choices made as the plot develops. Great films, like Labyrinth, use that padding the same way a photographer uses a soft focus-- to create a very specific, deliberate effect. Too often the blurring becomes obfuscation, or obliteration of the details that could make something as simple as the problems adjusting to a new stepmother and baby half-brother an amazing insight into one of the key concepts which I believe shapes the “human” in “human being”: a conscience.
Sadly, most of the modern fantasy stories seem to be one-shot movies, with the occasional trilogy filmed in New Zealand to broaden the viewfinder a bit. Television seems to abhor all forms of fantasy unless it is specifically animated for the under-ten viewing audience, suitably ground into pap for said viewers, of course.
Fullmetal Alchemist is one of the very few offerings that not only provided a stable background world with predictable ‘rules’, kicked over some pretty big rocks to examine the crawlies underneath them: how events like a parent’s death could affect two boys barely in their teens. How does being orphaned affect both boys’ relationship with the other? What does family sacrifice for each other?
Why aren’t there more /series/ like this?
Why are the very people who scream that FMA was too violent for its TV-PG rating ALSO beating down the doors of the few writers and illustrators willing to accept the idea that a good story for an eight-year-old can be JUST as engaging for a twelve-year-old, or a twenty-year-old, or a fifty-year-old?
Fullmetal Alchemist openly portrayed a person trying to decide whether to join his country’s military, who felt both reluctant and desperate. This was a teenager wrestling between conscience and practicality, a crisis integral to the first two episodes-- and critics didn’t bother to touch on this element at all? Every human being I know has had to face this kind of dilemma more than once.
I want stories about people I can not only understand and empathize with, but people I can find reflected in myself. That means people who screw up, people who land in water well over their heads and have to figure out how to claw their way back up to oxygen before they can begin to look for land.
Most fantasy movies never get that. The negative events are almost always externally imposed, and often the result of the villain’s actions. Edward Elric screws up SPECTACULARLY, in the very first episode. The viewers get to watch, bit by bit, as he figures out how to cope, and maybe how to repair just a little of the damage he caused.
In your favorite fantasy novel, movie or series, could you “be the hero” because it’s easy to fulfill the expectations laid out by the plot, or could you do so because the world is complex enough to allow for mistakes?
Finally, which question leads to a better story?
Well, I guess you wouldn't, if you're a fellow West Coaster in the US of A.
In better news, I got to hang out with mirabile_dictu today, who took me on an Easter Ride through Marin County: to the trail meandering along the San Andreas Fault, then, yes, to the lighthouse at Point Reyes, and to a deserted little beach named after Sir Francis Drake (who had the misfortune of almost losing on these cliffs but then repairing his ship, the Golden Hind less than a mile from where we sat by the ocean shores with our Cowgirl Creamery cheese on crackers).
I do love this place with all my heart. Broken infrastructure and healthcare and all. People here are whole.
Here, have a shot of me next to the fence torn apart by the 1906 earthquake -- fences, these days. ( The only action I see these days is tectonic action, it's true. )
/cutup( oh )
And, to end the humorless entry with a laughtrack: "humour is an intuitively inspired, colloquially expressed, and yet highly analytical precursor to the sciences of psychology and sociology."
Never thought I’d be getting pedantic about a Rent GIF set of all things, but here we are!
The line is “mutual masturbation” which feels kind of important here.
OH GOD I DIDN’T SEE THAT.
How do you even get ‘mucho’?
No, wait, it is definitely supposed to be mucho. I just listened to both recordings to verify. It’s a joke about how lonely Mark is.
I’m totally seeing it as both now that I’m looking it up - WHERE MY RENT NERDS AT, WHATS THE STORY HERE?
16 year old me would have never thought, “If I have a question about RENT lyrics in the future, I can just ask Anthony Rapp on the internet and he’ll answer within the hour.”
technology is magical.