SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TechDirt reports:
The Cherokee County [Kansas] Sheriff's Department engaged in a fruitless 19-hour standoff with a vacant residence. On the 20th hour, the
fugitivehouse was finally taken down.[...] The write-up at The Free Thought Project contains a decent summation of the ridiculous ordeal, but the real fun comes in reading the play-by-play at the Joplin Globe, which captures the shifting narrative provided by the Sheriff's Department.
It begins on December 15th, with the site declaring "Joplin man in standoff with law enforcement in Galena".[1] Granted, this was several hours before it was discovered that a more accurate headline would have been "Joplin house in standoff with law enforcement."
[...] [The cops] used a thermal imaging camera and thought they detected someone hiding in the attic. So, the standoff began, with the sheriff confidently stating they'd be able to wait out the fugitive member of the local gang concern, "Joplin Honkies", thanks to the department's bench depth.
[...] Five hours later, Sheriff Groves admitted[1] that the man the occupants of the house had already stated wasn't in the house was, in fact, not in the house.
Cherokee County Sheriff David Groves said local, state and federal law enforcement officers late into the day on Tuesday had believed that Doug Alexius, 40, of Joplin, was inside the home and armed, although no shots had been fired.
Groves said a search that ended at 5:30 p.m. concluded that Alexius was not in the home.
Left unmentioned was the damage done to the house in search of the fugitive who wasn't there. Law enforcement officers fired flash bangs into the home and used an armored vehicle-mounted ram to punch holes in the attic. The officers also tore apart the inside of the home in their futile search.
[1] Yet another website that puts styling in their HTML (black text on a black background) then doesn't check that with a text-only browser.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @05:19AM
Yet another website that puts styling in their HTML (black text on a black background) then doesn't check that with a text-only browser.
Use the No Color [mozilla.org] extension for firefox. It puts a button on the toolbar or an entry in the view menu to force text to black on white. Made that page completely readable.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @05:59AM
Yeah, there are lots of workarounds. [soylentnews.org]
Wouldn't it be nice, however, if web flunkies knew how to do their damned jobs correctly and "website design" instructors understood Degrades gracefully and actually taught that?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @02:21PM
You can't change what other people do, only yourself. Especially by posting on a forum that none of them read.
BTW, disabling styles usually fucks up the formatting too.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday December 28 2015, @04:55PM
Wouldn't it be nice, however, if web flunkies knew how to do their damned jobs correctly and "website design" instructors understood Degrades gracefully
They are doing their jobs correctly. The spec they are working to is to work on modern browsers and modern smartphones. 'Degrades gracefully so that it even still works for that one soylent guy who blocks almost everything' simply isn't their 'damned job' no matter how much you think it should be. They aren't paid to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @09:55PM
If the black background was re-specified to a light color (or that totally-unnecessary callout was removed completely), it would change nothing in the presentation in a "modern" browser **but** would then look fine in a text-only browser.
Devs who don't have and don't routinely use a copy of lynx, elinks, links, and/or w3m to check their work don't understand what their jobs is.
It's like a carpenter driving screws with a hammer; this isn't even junior-high level performance.
Web developers should *also* be putting their "HTML" through a code validator to assure that it actually *is* HTML--not just something that "works" in ONE VERSION of Internet Exploder.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://microsoft.com [w3.org]
In short: You are simply wrong.
Developers who create|change something and don't then check that something against the lowest common denominator are lazy and/or ignorant and are absolutely incompetent.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]