>President George W. Bush’s Administration invoked the prospect of mushroom clouds rising above American cities to justify its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not true at all! Afghanistan was attacked in a search for bin Laden after attacking the World Trade Center. Iraq was attacked for having and using chemical weapons. Is this author making things up?
EDIT: I knew that would get a laugh. It was a good joke. I chortled. I don't get offended by every off-hand phrase in life when no one's hurt in the process. If you're offended by the joke then you are the one with issues, not the joke.
If you're a home builder, I would expect you to already have what you need to build one, and not running elsewhere to buy parts that everyone uses on their houses, too. Unless you're just a tract house builder cranking 'em out without a care for what they look like.
I use a pad of paper. I have lots of pads of paper. None of them did I have to purchase. They were given to me at work or elsewhere for free. So refills are free, too. Without cranking.
And I get to use my favorite desk. I can clutter it up if I want.
Certain elements are, or can be made to be, "inline" which gets them treated the same as characters on a line. Thus those elements, such as an image, will have white space between them as a word does in a paragraph. If you butt those element's tags right next to each other, with no white space between them, then there will be no white space on the displayed page.
Complaints such as his, and most of the comments so far below, show a total lack of knowledge of the science and underpinnings behind the whole thing and the only supported proof throughout is silly, invalid examples of markup no one would ever use.
More laughable are the attempts at making HTML look like a programming language, which it is not, and I'd bet that comes as news to many.
Invalid markup means you are relying on the browser to read your intent or your mind. They are very good at doing that but no self-respecting web developer would ever do such an insane thing as your example.
EDIT: Interesting about the downvotes. It shows a total lack of understanding the fundamentals of how browsers work but, alas, downvote away.
You are confused. HTML is used to describe the structure of the document, not its visuals. CSS has nothing to do with the HTML content so your complaint about the property/value thing is misplaced and inlining CSS, as you show, is frowned upon.
Then you show the tag/tag thing as if that is a HTML pattern but what you show as your example is just gobbldey-gook nonsense and you claim it's typical.
OT but, on Chrome and Firefox on FreeBSD, all the images and most of the text have the opacity of the images set to zero in their CSS and I can only see a couple of headlines. I presume their javascript is not detecting something correctly and not doing this right. Interesting. I've never seen that before.
EDIT: I just now noticed that the link above goes to /macbook/ but, if you go to the Apple site and click on Mac, the pathname is /mac/ and now I can see and read everything. Also interesting.
EDIT2: Ah but the Macbook link still doesn't show everything.
You can come up with all kinds of "what ifs" while forgetting our (in the US) system of checks and balances which protestors forget about and want to circumvent by creating vigilante groups to take care of matters on their own. Anything can be made open for abuse but you are assuming no one is watching and will do nothing about it.
Funny but, on NBC News tonight, there was a story about 3 kids who went to Syria on their own. The family lawyer complained that the government, which is watching Facebook and all the social media they posted on, according to him, why didn't they alert the family to prevent this.
You can come up with all kinds of "what ifs" while forgetting our (in the US) system of checks and balances which protestors forget about and want to circumvent by creating vigilante groups to take care of matters on their own. Anything can be made open for abuse but you are assuming no one is watching and will do nothing about it.
Funny. Just a few minutes ago, I was watching NBC News story about the 3 teenage kids who went to Syria on their own. The family lawyer complained that, since the government is watching all the social media they posted on, why didn't they alert the family so this could be stopped?
Straw man arguments all the way around with plenty of assumptions. You presume the government's intention is to monitor him and watch his every move to work against him. The fact is, the government may scan something about him looking for bad guys and, once it finds he is not one of them, quickly moves on.
Just as your badge may be checked when you enter work, or you have to walk through a metal detector, these scans are not looking for the every day man. You can thank terrorists for this and quit blaming the government for looking for them. You can thank the government for looking for them and curse the terrorists.
OT - "you should care that the police is very brutal to black people"
I have to say that this is a blatant lie brought on by the media and the internet scream. While you can find something bad about something at any time, to generalize based on the occasional incident is wrong.
When you visit a Microsoft site with any browser but Chrome, you get an ad pushing IE. Is that a problem, too?