Alien Son
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Alien Son
-
-
It is for the homepage, the page which has a URL of http://awesomedude.com
I have sent the email.
I am using Firefox on Ubuntu, and the attachment works fine for me, when logged in.
Also, the website opens links in new tabs / windows excessively. You should only do that when they leave the site. People these days can right click and select "open in new tab". An example of this is all the links in the navbar, except codey's world, email and the forums. Also, dude's picks should probably share the same navbar as the home page.
Do you use a back end? Or is the website all raw HTML?
Is there a complete index anywhere? (ie: a table with the name of each novel / story, the author, whether it is short/novel/serial, date written, date uploaded, links)
Gwilym, I have no idea why I couldn't download the attachment. Firefox told me I didn't have permission to "view it" even though I was logged in.
If you'd like to discuss the way the site operates, please contact Mike.
-
The problem still persists. <div class="storynavbg storynav"> is still in the way. If I delete that element, then the links work.
You can see the links, just nothing happens when you click them.
Chrome also has such a tool.
Thanks, Gwilym, I'll have another look at it. Thanks for the additional info. Chrome? What's that? :)
-
Looking at the HTML code, the issue is caused because of small screen size. Because the screen is small, the <div class="storynavbg storynav"> element covers up the links, making them unclickable.
(Protip: you can use the "responsive design" tool in web developer tools in firefox to see what the page will display like on mobile devices.)
Related: http://forums.awesomedude.com/index.php?showtopic=8530#entry59096
I already have tools to show me this. They are limited, however, in that they only show what a page looks like - not whether it functions as intended.
I think you made your posts before I made another change that has solved the problem.
-
This change allows the homepage to work correctly on mobile phones with a screen width of less than 600 pixels.
I am contributing the change under WTFPL. This means you can do whatever you like with it. You could even remove the last modified notice.
Add this in the <head> section of the HTML file:
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
Replace homepage.css with the attached file.
Please be specific. I assume you're talking about the AwesomeDude home page? Most new pages using css already include that line.
Since I can't download to download your file, perhaps you could email it to design-editor@awesomedude.com?
-
By not working, it is as if there is no link there.
Do you mean you don't see a link, or that you see it but it's not clickable (or tap-able)?
-
I almost missed this as it has been listed directly in Newest Completed Novels and not appeared in the serialization section. I know there must be some good reason for this but WHY? I had a lot planned for the day, cutting the lawn, cleaning the car, potting on the Hollyhocks, now only the Hollyhocks have been potted on, the rest will have to wait, there is a new Mihangel to read. What more has to be said. This story continues on from Xenophilia Part 1 and it is in keeping with the great writing that Mihangel has produced time and time again.
You can find it here,
http://awesomedude.com/mihangel/xenophilia_part_2/index.htm
If you have not read Xenophillia Part 1, do so it is a great piece of writing.
Nigel
Nigel, the link in your post no longer works because we (read "I") renamed the story's folder. The amended link is http://awesomedude.com/mihangel/xenophilia-2/index.htm
I am using chrome on android 4.1. I read the first few 'segments' on the other site it was hosted on.
I guess I'll have to try again on my desktop to read it here.
Gwilym, the links all work in Chrome on my 7" Android tablet.
However, I've made a small change, but I don't know if it will help you. Would you mind trying the links again, please? If they still don't work could you let me know what type of device you're using (eg phone or tablet)?
-
It seems bureaucrats are the same the world over... unthinking, unyielding, and unintelligent. Sigh.
Full marks to Chase for fighting a nonsensical decision.
Oh, and you're right, Cole... he is cute :)
-
I will continue using IE for most of my browsing, and Chrome, Firefox, and Opera for going to some sites. For example, I find that Firefox works better with AD's forums because of weirdness built into IPBoard 3.4.6 than IE or Chrome, so that's when I use Firefox.
Colin
The AD forums are the only place I use Firefox because (as you note, Colin) for some reason IPBoard doesn't work properly with Opera or IE. Firefox is showing its age now, it lacks features, and it has its own weirdnesses built-in, so I avoid it as much as I can. I very rarely use Chrome, mostly because it's too bare-bones for me, but also because I don't want Google ruling my online life. I rarely use IE either.
Opera has been my "first" browser for about ten years; it's more secure, has lots of handy features built in that other browsers provide via add-ons (or don't provide at all), includes an email client, and is vastly more customisable than any other browser. On the other hand, it also has its own idiosyncrasies.
Last year the Opera developers opted to use the engine that powers Chrome. In making that decision they had to ditch everything that made Opera unique and useful - to much consternation and frustration from long-term users. Sadly, many of the features I use on a daily basis are missing from the new Opera and are likely to remain missing for a long time to come, if they're added at all. At present I'm still using the last good version of Opera, but I'll have to change at some stage in the future. The question is... where do I go? None of the other browsers matches the old Opera, so whatever browser I choose will be missing features I've come to rely on. It's sad when you're a bit of a geek! :)
-
Overhaul? Nah. You moved him into a mansion. It's stellar. My hat's off to you. That must've taken a while to do.
Hehe... thanks, Lugnutz :)
-
It's ironic that censorship often results in publicity for, and increased popularity of, that which is being censored. That has happened in this case: "An ironic outcropping of the controversy is that the book is now in high demand in local public libraries..." the article says. So the kids the Christians were trying to "protect" have probably since read the book anyway. The people concerned could have spent their time and effort much more productively by teaching their children the values and qualities that Jesus promoted. Sadly, I think it's more likely that they're passing on to their children the same prejudices and intransigence they've displayed by taking this action.
There was a time when I might have taken the same view as these Christians. While my commitment to - and belief in - Jesus has not changed, my thinking on some issues has changed, as have some of my attitudes. Articles like this one just make Christians look stupid - and they only have themselves to blame for that. Moreover, actions like that taken in this case are often counter-productive.
Chris, I probably disagree with your view of the Bible and of Jesus (I say 'probably' because I've only seen glimpses of what you believe), but I don't want to turn this into an argument on the merits/shortcomings of Christianity. I just wanted to point out that not all Christians think the way these people did in this situation, and that we can - and often do - agree with non-Christians.
-
It's there now; Cole's page has been given an overhaul.
-
You're welcome! Now I can make sure it doesn't happen again.
-
Thanks, Paul.
-
Hoskins, would you mind trying Cole's 2 x Ten now, please?
The fonts specified were "Comic Sans, cursive, sans serif". Your iPad, not having Comic Sans, substituted a cursive font.
I've changed the style sheet so that sans serif is the next choice after Comic Sans, and deleted cursive altogether. That should mean that the iPad will use a sans serif font. If it does, I'll eliminate cursive from our style sheets.
Have you had problems with other fonts? You'll probably have problems with some pages on the site being too wide for your iPad screen, or not displaying well. If you could let me know whenever you find one I'll do what I can to fix it.
Thanks for pointing out the font problem.
John
-
Whoa! I almost feel seasick after watching that. My pleas of "Hold the camera still!" were ignored. It was a good performance, though, and I hope it helps to boost Ukranian spirits a little.
-
When that evil bastard dies, he'll get to see what God hates first hand and I don't think they are on the same page.
Westboro Baptist Church started me on a journey that led to my acceptance of my sexuality - something I had struggled with for nigh on 40 years. (If you're interested you can read about WBC's part in the beginning of that journey here).
I agree with you, James. Fred Phelps will have to give an account of his life, and I'm sure he's going to find he hasn't been on the same page as the God he claims to serve. I am continually appalled at the attitudes of my fellow-Christians to gay people - and of WBC in particular.
-
I think the problem is the ones who don't think, either can't or won't, and allow themselves to be led astray by charismatic preachers whose purpose is anything but divine. Then these non-thinking people use the Bible to justify their behavior. So in that regard, I can certainly see why people, tired of those justifications and even more tired of the bad behavior, find reasons to dislike the book.
Yes, the Bible says to love thy neighbor. It also say stoning to death a woman who's strayed is the right and proper thing to do. And while we can condemn those who pick and choose from the Bible, they will do so. So in that regard, while the Bible may be a good book with good intentions, if it's not used for good -- if indeed it is used to justify evil -- then is there anything amiss in finding fault with it?
I agree that people should be held accountable for their behaviors, and blaming the Bible is a cheap trick that won't hold up in either a legal court or one of popular opinion. But this is still happening today in an age of more enlightenment than at any time in history. The Bible gets thrust in the face of congregations and used to further the power of the ministers, which is a wrong use, just as it's wrong to justify beheadings in the name of Allah because some people miss the spiritual basis of the Koran. But these things happen.
I personally feel organized religion causes more problems than it prevents, and the people among us who say every word in the Bible is the word of God and must be followed explicitly are a problem.
C
Cole, although my first reaction was to disagree with a couple of things you say, when I thought it through I realised that I pretty much agree with you.
However, I think you've misunderstood the bit about stoning the adulterous woman. The story is told in John chapter eight. The Jewish leaders, hoping to catch Jesus out, said "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They misquoted, and selectively quoted, Leviticus 20:10, which says the penalty for adultery is death - of both the man and the woman; why did they not also bring the man to be punished? - but it doesn't mention stoning (I might be splitting hairs here, because stoning was the ordinary form of capital punishment, but it seems to have been reserved for offences against God himself). Jesus replied, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." One by one the leaders went away, until only the woman was left. "Has no one condemned you?" he asked. "No one, sir," she replied. "Then neither do I," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." In other words, Jesus was saying (to quote the old saw): "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Many times I've seen critics of Christianity and the Bible misquote scripture. I don't know whether that's wilful or simply lack of knowledge (more often the latter, I'd guess), but it seems apparent that Christians aren't the only ones who misuse/misinterpret the Bible.
-
Unfortunately a large number of those who claim to be Christian (though their behavior does not support their claim) don't seem to know that the New Testament exists. At least that is my experience when they trap me in town a Saturday asking if I am saved. Every time I give them a quote in response to whatever bit of the Bible they are quoting at me they seem lost, I have found that Corinthians 13:4-8 is a total puzzlement to them.
Nigel
There's an old song that has the line, "They'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love" and immediately repeats the line. Sadly many of us show just the opposite - including me: there have been many times when my behaviour has been anything but Christian, leading me to make restitution or ask forgiveness. It seems that it wouldn't matter how many times the song repeated that line for all the notice those singing it take of it.
I think you mean First Corinthians 13. And you're right - many Christians habitually forget those verses.
John
-
Gay marriage is not about to change until someone tosses out that damn Christian book and allows people to think without all that garbage in their heads.
Chris, if by "that damn Christian book", you mean the Bible, I'd like to point out that the problem lies not with the book, but with the interpretations some people put on it (or read into it).
Taken in its entirety the Bible is a wonderful resource and guide (and, dare I say, instruction manual?). It's when people pick and choose which bits to believe, or when they place emphasis on one portion and neglect others, or when they take verses out of their context, that the problems set in. That sort of selective interpretation often results in skewed thinking and extreme views. In the US it seems to lead to the belief that God is a Republican.
A lot of Christians do not share the views of the so-called "Christian Right"; Christians are no more a homogeneous group than the Roman legion was. A good pastor/teacher will encourage his or her congregation to read and study the Bible for themselves and reach their own conclusions - not take someone else's word for it. The Bible itself does not create or foster the "herd" mentality apparent in some groups - that's the fault of the leaders of those groups and the laziness of the members, and Christians are as susceptible to that mentality as any other group. A letter on The Age website a few days ago said:
Not in my nameThe right-wing fundamentalist Australian Christian Lobby should stop claiming to be the Christian voice on moral issues. My church and my many, many Christian friends, of all ages, have no problem with two people who love each other getting married.
I agree wholeheartedly (except that I believe gay relationships are a human rights issue, not a moral one). The ACL has worried me for years with its strident pontificating. What's worse is that, as the letter's author said, they claim to act for all of us.
Through that "damn Christian book" Jesus himself tells me that I need to (first) love God, and (second) love my neighbour as I love myself. The command to love my neighbour is eclipsed only by the command to love God - and, he adds, "All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." In other words, all of the laws and all of the teaching set out in the Bible are subject to those two commands. If the lack of love shown by Christians is any indication, there must be a large number of us who have missed that bit!
Sorry for the sermon, but I wanted to make it clear that we're not all bigoted - and some of us can even think! :)
John
-
It seems that the Australian "states" have no inherent rights to govern themselves or pass laws when such things are said to be illegal. If only the national legislature has the power of lawmaking then how does anything get done on a local level? Sounds like too much centralized power and those of us in the U.S. understand how well that doesn't work.
Under the Australian Constitution, marriage is a Federal concern, not the states.
It should be understood that the Constitution stipulates the legislative areas of the Federal government, and the various State governments under the guidance of the the original 1901 Federation and its following amendments.
Under the Australian constitution, marriage is a federal responsibility, not a state (or territory) one.
Chris, as Des and Graeme point out, under our constitution marriage is a federal responsibility.
That, however, does not mean that only the federal parliament has the ability to govern or to legislate. In fact, the federal parliament has only limited powers - those powers conceded to it by the colonies during the lead-up to federation in 1901. In practice that means that the feds can legislate only in areas permitted under the constitution.
The colonies (which became states upon federation) retained the power to legislate on anything not listed in the constitution as the prerogative of the federal parliament. It just happens that the power to legislate on marriage is one of those given to the feds. If I recall correctly, the territories (which were created after federation) don't have quite as extensive powers as the states
The problem with the ACT gay marriage legislation, as I understand it, was that it tried to take over the right vested in the federal parliament. Inevitably the High Court (which is - in my view - not beholden to anyone) ruled against the ACT on this occasion. A new gay marriage bill is about to be introduced in the Western Australia parliament. This one seeks to create a new category of relationship, with the aim of bypassing the federal prerogative to legislate on marriage.
John
-
I can't speak for other Australians, but Nelson Mandela is one of my heroes. I admire the way he kept his dignity and humanity in the face of seemingly impossible odds, even through 27 years of imprisonment. He could have been excused for being bitter and angry... but after his release he quietly got on with life with no rancour and no hatred, and simply continued his life's mission. I loved his smile!
-
I'm another fan. I've loved all of Joel's stories, and I eagerly await the fortnightly new chapter of TBSD.
I think I'm finding the story especially interesting because my father was born into a working-class family in a rural village in England. Dad's village is in Northamptonshire, which is almost next door to Lincolnshire, the setting for Joel's Careby, and the story is set about 50 years before Dad was born. I imagine that the way of life depicted in TBSD is not far removed from that of the people of Dad's time.
Ooops... sorry for the double post. Editing somehow went wrong!
-
I'm another fan. I've loved all of Joel's stories, and I eagerly await the fortnightly new chapter.
Scan to donate
Thirty-two Faces by Kevinchn
in Readers Rule!
Posted
Thanks, Graeme. The conversion of this story to html - so that the pages you see at AD look just like they did in the author's Word douments - has presented challenges like no other story I've worked on here. That has led to some fairly creative thinking!