December 11, 2002

Georgia legislators will introduce a bill early next month that refers to abortion as an ''execution'' and will require any mother seeking an abortion to go to court to obtain a death warrant.

''A mother would have to argue why the child should die and why her rights would take priority over the rights of the child,'' said Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, who sponsored the legislation.

Once a mother filed for a death warrant, a guardian would be appointed to protect the rights of the unborn child. That guardian would be authorized to demand a jury trial in which the rights of the unborn child would be balanced against the rights of the mother seeking to have the ''execution'' performed.

Posted by at December 11, 2002 02:07 AM

I'm sorry, you must be kidding. This must be a lost novella by Samuel Beckett.

Jesus, those people are fuckers. Where'd you find? No source indicated.

Posted by: Kio on December 11, 2002 03:29 PM

Source is linked at the beginning of the post. WorldNet Daily.

Actually, tmonkey, it turns out it's real difficult to tell what's a link, at least for me on a PC, I sometimes miss them. Can we do something like turn underline on? Check it out on a pc, the gamma is different, so the red and the black are close, and I could go on, but it's geeky.

Posted by: Kevin Slavin on December 11, 2002 04:44 PM

I checked this on my PC at home and it was okay for me. But I'll change it tonight, make it flash or something.

Posted by: tmonkey on December 11, 2002 05:04 PM

Yes, the flash tag, how I miss it.

Posted by: Kevin Slavin on December 11, 2002 05:20 PM

yes, i'm also on a PC and can't see links. and unlike Kevin, I've got good vision.

Posted by: Kio on December 11, 2002 05:43 PM


Posted by: dbrown on December 11, 2002 07:10 PM

to explain, that last post is supposed to blink. It blinks in netscape, but not in IE. PC users?

maybe, to keep the mac 128 them going, links can be in drop-shadow, or outline + drop-shadow. Get bill atkinson on the phone!

Posted by: dbrown on December 11, 2002 07:13 PM

Awright. Can y'all see the links now?

Posted by: tmonkey on December 11, 2002 09:56 PM

yes! thanks!

Posted by: Kevin Slavin on December 11, 2002 10:17 PM

but: why didn't colored text work for windows people? (i.e., underlining, feh.)

Posted by: dbrown on December 11, 2002 10:35 PM

Jakob Nielsen can test the usability of my anus.

"To reach the goal of making technology truly suited for humans, the world will need about half a million new usability professionals over the next 20 years." Great.

Or we could get Bill Gates' fricking monopoly to make browsers that behave properly so we wouldn't need half a million usability professionals to wonder why the same code renders on every other browser but not on PC IE.

Posted by: tmonkey on December 11, 2002 11:11 PM

Yeah, I guess so, but the alternate stance is that people -- as a general philosophical discussion, not you in particular -- can just start developing for hegemony, once it takes hold. Refusing to conform to lousy standards is not an effective form of resistance to them, once they have a certain level of popular adoption.

Like when I rent movies, I rent NTSC, not PAL, even though PAL has much higher resolution and fidelity. NTSC sucks, but it's what I have at home, and what they have in stores, so I don't buy PAL to get higher quality. Not a lot of Laserdiscs in my home, neither, even though they beat hell out of DVD compression.

Putting aside whether it's better, because I just don't know, IE is now 97% US browser, and PC is 97.5% US platform. Which is a strong argument for developing for that, in the end. Except on Saturation, which is nothing more than we are, so this is more a general point than a practical one.

And yeah, underlining sucks, I think so too, but I don't know what else to do if the type is this small, which I happen to quite like.

The reason colored links weren't working for us PC users (e.g. the reason Kio didn't notice the link, which started this) is that 1) the gamma is different, so with tiny text, the difference between the red and black is minimal (in partic on LCDscreen) and 2) I think the links are also bold maybe? and at the font size we have, the bold is rendered exactly the same as the standard font.

Maybe (maybe?) it works without underlining if the red is brighter, which might make the links pop. I can see the metafilter links clearly, for instance, even the small type on the right, even though that color scheme kills me.

So does Jakob Nielsen, by the way, he's the fucking Ted Kaczynski of the web. That was a joke. I can't even imagine how many of him it would take to screw in a light bulb.

Me, I could let the whole thing go, it's just that it really was easy to completely miss the links. And I'm pro-link, I'm political like that.

Posted by: Kevin Slavin on December 12, 2002 11:25 AM

Gore got more!

Posted by: dbrown on December 12, 2002 12:30 PM

Thanks, Kevin. I'm sorry I got all huffy. The mention of the Fucker Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered gives me hives. I think Dante wrote a special level of Hell for him in which he is damned to make his website compliant on a plague of browsers, each of which feature their own arcane rendering quirks.

I changed the red to FF0000 (normally too bright but tell me if it looks better on a PC LCD -- I don't happen to own one to test it on).

Posted by: tmonkey on December 12, 2002 12:52 PM

Yeah, that pops right off my little screen! Like that it could be no-underline, if you're asking me. Easy to read, and FUN too!

Posted by: Kevin Slavin on December 12, 2002 03:08 PM

OK, I'm going to take the underlines off.

But now can somebody explain to me why Windows gamma is set such that the #990000 (web-safe I might add) is so close to black as to be undiscernable and #FF0000 is fine??? Bill? Jakob?

Posted by: tmonkey on December 12, 2002 03:16 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:


Remember info?