Using HTML Tables in Blogger Posts
By Brian | August 20, 2006
For the three or four of you who are frequent readers of my blog (as opposed to the random 30 or 40 of you who find yourself here via Google searches), you may have noticed that my previous post was formatted really poorly for a while (there was a huge amount of whitespace above the HTML table in the entry).
A little Google searching led me to this Blogger Help page, which explained that Blogger automatically puts a <br /> commands after each line break in a blog post (you can change that in the configuration screen if you want, but then you have to manually put in HTML <br>’s when you type your posts & who wants that…).
Anyway, I had created my table, as many people do, with code that looked like this:
<table>
<tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr>
<tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr>
<tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr>
</table>
and so Blogger was adding the <br />’s after each carriage return in that code (which HTML interprets above the table, apparently). The solution, as stated on the help page, is to remove all the carriage returns from the table code, so it looks more like this:
<table><tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr><tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr><tr><td>Blah, Blah, Blah</td></tr></table>
Voila! No whitespace above the table!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: God Bless Google! Both for documenting the problem and the fix so completely on the help page, and then for providing a search engine that made it so easy to find that help page, without going to the Blogger help site & paging through multiple entries…
They’ve certainly got their bases covered, those Google folks…
Categories: Tech Talk | 10 Comments »
More Evidence that 1 in 3 Americans is Completely Clueless
By Brian | August 18, 2006
In this post, I marvelled at the fact that 1 in 3 Americans thought our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and could also not name the year the attacks occurred. And now, here is even more evidence that just about one third of us are off the deep end:
So, here’s what I suggest: Look around the room. If you see two other people that aren’t crazy, well, you know….
Categories: News and/or Media | 4 Comments »
Top Al Qaeda Man Captured After Being Distracted by JonBenet Story
By Brian | August 17, 2006
The Pakistani authorities that arrested Rashid Rauf (the London plane bomb plotter) have linked him to, and subsequently captured, Matiur Rehman – a senior Al Qaeda official who is in frequent contact with Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ayman al Zawahiri. They say Rehman met with Rauf just before the London plot was foiled.
So, four thoughts:
1) Someone ought to tell Bill Clinton it’s OK to link the London bomb plot to Al Qaeda now
2) Thank goodness the British government was tapping the phones of the people Rauf’s cohort called to order the attack
3) Good for Rehman – now that he’s in our custody, he’ll enjoy a full array of civil rights, including a federally provided Koran and three square meals a day. Wouldn’t want to see anything bad happen to a nice guy like that…
4) Too bad this will dominate the headlines and remove from Page 1 important stories like the confession of a man who claims to have killed a six-year old in Colorado ten years ago…
</snark>
Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »
New Features in the Next Blogger Release
By Brian | August 17, 2006
Google has released a new beta version of Blogger (which powers this blog). I’ll probably wait until it goes live to use it, but there are some mildly interesting new features. The virtual tour is here, and my comments on the features are here:
- Drag & drop editing of the template. Cute, but I prefer to write it myself (or use MSFrontPage for the very obvious stuff).
- Support for multiple authors. This is very interesting to me, as I can envision blogs that I’d be happy to share in, but wouldn’t have time to maintain on my own.
- Private blogs – allowing only certain readers to read the blog. Maybe cool for some. For me, meh…
- New stock templates. Ho hum. I never used their templates – choosing instead to make the blog look like a part of the overall site.
- More feed options: Separate feed for comments (I was just telling Jeff Porten that he was the only blogger I know that had a separate RSS feed for his comments. Now I know why. Blogger will also allow for separate feeds for each post’s comments, but that strikes me as overkill…
- Updated dashboard. Will have to see this one to judge it. I’m pretty happy with what’s there now, but knowing Google, the new interface will be very cool…
- Instant publishing. This is really cool, although I’m not sure what they mean (there must be some concept of publishing if they’re putting content on a server & reformatting the blog page…) Maybe they just mean you don’t have to click the button anymore? If so, it may be a cool usability feature, but not a big deal at all.
That’s all they’re saying right now. Anyone else here anything about the product?
Categories: Tech Talk | Comments Off on New Features in the Next Blogger Release
Do I hear $1,129.09?
By Brian | August 16, 2006
Here’s a algorithm that estimates the value of your blog based on the number of links it has and the value per link that AOL paid for the Weblogs, Inc. blogs.
I Should Be Sleeping comes in at $1,129.08. Not a bad sum, until you consider that DailyKos is worth $6.2M, Instapundit is worth $3.5M, and John Scalzi’s Whatever is worth just over $500K.
Interestingly enough, JeffPorten.com comes up as being worth 1,026.44 NL HE SNG’s. Damn, that’s a well written algorithm…
(Hat tip: Scalzi)
Categories: Blogging about Blogs | 1 Comment »
Clinton Bashes Bush
By Brian | August 16, 2006
I usually don’t blog so consistently on political topics, but there seem to be so many blogworthy items lately. I promise to stay on the lookout for more varied topics going forward. Heck – maybe that pizza thing will heat up again soon (Jason? Chenopup? You guys listening? Subtlety was never my strong suit…)
Anyway, Bill Clinton had a few very confusing things to say about the Middle East yesterday:
Clinton, who never mentioned Bush by name, suggested the administration’s claims that the British plot looks like the work of Al Qaeda reveals a flaw in its strategy.
“They seem to be anxious to tie it to Al Qaeda,” he said. “If that’s true, how come we’ve got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan? Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai’s rule and allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of Afghanistan?”
Hmm…two things here: first, “anxious” seems like a loaded term. I’ve heard various officials (British and American) say that the coordinated, international nature of the plot is similar to Al Qaeda’s methods, but that no clear link has been established. This always struck me as a response to the automatic and incessant questions about Al Qaeda that the press asks as soon as the subject of terrorism comes up.
Second, and more interesting, is this implication that we should have more troops in Afghanistan, and that by reducing our forces there, we’ve “imperiled Karzi’s rule.” How does this synch with the constant drumbeat of calls to draw down our troops in Iraq? Wouldn’t that imperil the Iraqi government and embolden opposing forces in the country? Forgive me if I’m projecting the standard Democratic talking points on Bill Clinton here (maybe he disagrees with some of this?), but if you’re going to advocate a “go-it-alone” strategy for the fledgling Iraqi government, you can’t very well criticize us for expecting Afghanistan, a somewhat more mature and stable government, to go it alone. If the Taliban is coming back, Karzi should take steps to remove them. If he requires assistance from his allies, he should ask. If we refuse to help, then we deserve the criticism we get…
Bill continues:
The former President also said Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq – including his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) – had hoped the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with UN inspections. But the Bush administration went to war before the UN’s work was complete, he said.
So the authorization to go to war was really an authorization to threaten war? And apparently the threat was supposed to be an empty one at that? I think Hillary’s canned response is more believable (I was for the war, but I don’t like the way the Bush administration executed the strategy). The fact that there are multiple rationales weakens them all, though.
After that, Clinton goes on to blast Lieberman for his war position (“his position was the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position”). I hope to God the interviewer’s next question was, “Why, then, Mr. President, did you support Lieberman in the primary? Are you in favor of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position on the war?” But I’m guessing he/she did not.
To top it all off, Clinton praised the Bush administration’s efforts to fight AIDS, telling the AIDS conference he was attending that the United States is “spending more to fight the epidemic than any other government.” First time I’ve heard praise for Bush on that front…
OK, I’ll stop now. I promise…
Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »
Lots of Storage and Fun for the Kids!
By Brian | August 16, 2006
Check this out – Lego hard drives!
Categories: Tech Talk, The World Wide Weird | Comments Off on Lots of Storage and Fun for the Kids!
The Ecological Economy?
By Brian | August 15, 2006
I have not seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. But everyone I know that has seen it has told me I need to see it “for my sake and for the sake of my kids.” I put that in quotes because everyone who’s talked to me about this has used almost those exact words. I’m starting to wonder if the movie ends with a tutorial on how to get others to see it? Or maybe they hand out instruction cards as you leave the theater? Or perhaps it’s just that good a film? Whatever they’re doing, it seems to be working.
I’ll probably see the movie eventually, but given that a babysitter and a night out is a fairly rare occurrence, I’m not likely to dedicate one to a lesson on global warming from a guy who Saturday Night Live used to parody as the most boring man alive. He’s got a much better shot at me when the movie appears OnDemand, or in the local video store on DVD.
All of that said, I’ve read quite a bit about the movie, I’ve seen the trailer, and I’ve seen Al Gore on various talk shows discussing it and showing clips, so in the all-too-forgiving world of the blogosphere, I feel more than qualified to give my (somewhat uninformed) opinion on the topic.
From what I’ve seen and read, the global warming issue seems divided into two camps: those who think it is the single largest threat facing mankind today, and those who think it’s an unproven scientific theory that requires more research, at least until the people who think this way no longer hold political power and don’t have to do anything about it. As is often the case with debates like this, I find this dichotomy frustrating, because it prevents a whole lot of honest, thoughtful discussion on the topic. For instance:
Let’s stipulate, for the purposes of quieting the anti-Gore crowd, that global warming is a real problem, and that it’s caused by human activity. I’ve also read that we’ve already put enough pollutants in the air that regardless of what we do, global warming will continue unabated for the next X years (10>X>90). And I’ve seen the clips of the computer generated models, demonstrating that Florida and lower Manhattan will eventually be underwater if nothing is done. For the sake of argument, let’s assume all of that is true as well.
So here’s my question: Can we also stipulate that migrating the world’s economy, or even just the American economy, to a model that doesn’t depend heavily on fossil fuels (cars, yes, but also oil for heating/cooling systems, electricity, factories, public transportation, shipping, etc., etc.) would be a colossal undertaking, and that even in the best of social, economic and political conditions, it would take decades and billions of dollars of investment to make it happen? And if so, can we stipulate that even in the best case scenario, the current global warming problem will continue for decades to come?
I ask these questions not to imply that we shouldn’t do anything about global warming, but to suggest a parallel course of action that no one seems to have mentioned: the economic transformation approach. If all of the above is true, there are literally billions of dollars in profit just waiting for the taking in the coming years. This money will go to the corporation that figures out how to make levees work properly, or whoever builds a better hurricane detection system, or the guy that invents a way to make homes/buildings more resistant to storms and floods, or the scientist who invents a way to weaken and/or alter the path of a tropical storm, etc.. While we’re working on the electric car, the solar-powered factory and other preventative measures, why aren’t we also encouraging investment in protective measures as well?
I bring this up for two reasons: First, if all the predictions are indeed correct, we’ll desperately need these technologies at some point down the road. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this tack provides for new economic development, as opposed to disruptive investment in the existing economy. The incentives are exactly opposite to the ones standing in the way of what Gore, et. al are advocating: new money chasing new technology, with the possibility of moving the economy onto a totally different growth curve. And the financial gains from this brand new industry can be used (read: taxed) to defer the cost of the more traditional anti-global warming measures we’re currently discussing.
This kind of thinking isn’t new to Al Gore. It was his leadership (among others, of course) that helped transform us from an Industrial economy in the 1980’s to an Information economy in the 90’s and 00’s (and led to that whole nasty business about him “inventing the Internet.”) The change powered the longest peacetime expansion in our nation’s history and, despite the bursting of the internet bubble, has retained a great deal of its value in terms of new technologies, new industries, etc.
I’d think he would jump at the chance to migrate us once again, this time from the Information economy to the Ecological economy. Unless he’s worried that someone will one day accuse him of inventing the environment…
Categories: Political Rantings | 3 Comments »
From the Grimly Ironic file…
By Brian | August 15, 2006
All this work to keep bombs off planes, and it turns out the unsuspecting laptop user may be a potential risk.
Categories: Tech Talk | 1 Comment »
On Politics – August, 2006
By Brian | August 14, 2006
There have been a few political events in the past few weeks that made me think, “Hey – I should blog about that,” but I’d keep getting too busy (or too tired) to write up an entry. So, I figure I’ll put some comments about each of them in one entry and see what interest it generates (i.e., will anyone other than Jeff comment?). If this sort of thing bores you, move on now. You’ve been warned.
First, the Democratic primary for senator in Connecticut. Jeff Porten has a couple of great posts up about how the Democrats are missing yet another opportunity here, and I have a couple of posts up as well. We have different takes on some of the particulars, but oddly enough, we are pretty much in agreement on this one.
(In other news, all the pigs are flying out of Hell because it’s getting too chilly, and Massachusetts has just approved cat/dog marriages.)
One thing we both agree on is the nasty nature of Dick Cheney’s remarks after the primary was over. The Vice President said that the Lamont victory might “embolden al Qaeda types,” because it would be seen as a weakening of America’s resolve vis-a-vis the war. This is dumb for several reasons, but mainly it’s dumb because it implies that the next terrorist attack is somehow the fault of those who voted against the current administration’s policies. If anything, I’d rather see the grandiose, made-for-TV protests stop (oh yeah, they have stopped, haven’t they?) and have people express their displeasure at the polls. It’s a more effective form of protest, it actually generates progress for the cause it advocates, and if anything, it shows the terrorists that the American people will have their voices heard, even if they disagree with their leaders. Also, an elected official should never be discouraging people from voting, no matter what the circumstances.
So Cheney did a dumb thing. Except that Cheney also did a smart thing, because he (and the rest of the GOP) have learned from recent history that this stuff works like magic where the Democrats are concerned. Instead of talking about democracy and the sanctity of “one man, one vote,” here are samples of remarks from both parties on the issue:
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): “Once again, GOP (Republican) leaders are using terrorism and our national security as a political wedge issue. It is disgusting — but not surprising.”
George W. Bush: “Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face.”
Reid is wrong here and Bush is right. Terrorism and national security ARE political issues, and SHOULD be used as such. It is, after all, our politicians that decide how/when/where to fight terrorism and maintain national security. I can’t think of a more appropriate topic for the political arena.
What Reid is trying to do here is suggest that the Republicans are benefiting from the suffering of others (as the DNC did when Bush put a scene from Ground Zero into one of his campaign ads). The comparison falls flat here, though, because there wasn’t any suffering. This was a failed terrorist plot, and the way in which it was foiled, as well our government’s reaction in it’s aftermath are legitimate political discussions.
Speaking of government reaction, this entire ordeal has provided an interesting insight into British politics and civil rights that I had not seen before. For example, despite all our hand-wringing over wiretapping and financial surveillance, it was these kinds of techniques that led us to Rashid Rauf, who was arrested in Pakistan and led the British authorities to arrest 24 additional suspects. And while we complain about all the secrets our government keeps from the mainstream media, this article suggests that things are much worse in Britain:
Since 24 people were arrested last Thursday, it has largely been left to the United States and Pakistan to elaborate on what British police said was an “attempt to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale”.
After 72 hours of caution, Home Secretary John Reid and the government’s most senior law adviser, Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith, reminded the media to “exercise considerable restraint” in their reporting.
They cited the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which essentially prohibits the publication of any information after an arrest that may give rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice at any future trial.
The article also mentions that British law allows the government to hold a security suspect for 28 days without charging him. We’ve had complaints about this kind of thing in the U.S., but have never come close to passing such a law. Finally, did anyone notice that the restrictions placed on air travel by the British were far more invasive than those of the Americans? No carry-on bags of any kind, no electronic devices and no liquids. One woman was dreading have to spend an entire 8-hour flight without her iPod.
So, it turns out that our “govern by fear” administration provides more information to its public, treats its suspects better, and respects the civil liberties of its citizens more than our friends in the United Kingdom.
Something to remember next time you hear someone say we’re on the road to fascism in America…
Categories: Political Rantings | 10 Comments »