• djs (unregistered)

    isn't the timecube guy named Gary? This guy sounds like he's channeling him, if nothing else.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to NCBloodhound
    Though the article highlights the craziness, I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool".

    Though there were probably many reasons not to use frames in this case, I really don't like when ideas are cast aside without being examined in detail first.

    E.g. The people that only use C++ and refuse to use any high level languages. Or the people that refuse to use anything BUT CSS, resulting in somewhat rigid and complicated CSS pages to do the work of a simple table.

    A screwdriver is not a hammer, although it can be used as such.

    So true. There is a place for frames, and a place for simple HTML tables over CSS. The mac vs. pc, or windows vs linux arguments are no different. There is a place for each. Each have their pros and cons.

    No, I'm sorry but there is no legitimate use for that architecture/OS abomination you are running.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to Monomelodies
    I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool". [..snip...] Or the people that refuse to use anything BUT CSS, resulting in somewhat rigid and complicated CSS pages to do the work of a simple table.
    Sorry, but I vehemently disagree. A table is meant for tabular data - no more, no less. It is certainly not meant for layout. There are a few cases where CSS2 support among all major browsers is limited enough for a table to be useful in layout, but these are far and between.

    To summarise, using a table for layout generally indicates the level of ineptitude of the webdesigner involved. Sorry.

    I'll grant you that it's also not a good idea to jump on any which bandwagon without thinking it through properly, but that's hardly the case here.

    Unfortunately, the floating divs of CSS were not meant for layout either. (They were designed to allow an inline image with the text flowing around it.) The web is still waiting for someone to design a sane layout scheme.

  • (cs) in reply to WmK
    Gary always drives home on the other side of the road. Loudly proclaiming that everyone else is drive on the wrong side.


  • (cs) in reply to AcusticThoughts

    You know, a lot of people used to believe the world was at the center of the universe. They are all dead now (or Catholic).

    A lot of people thought the world was flat. Dead too.

    A lot of people don't believe in evolution.

    I believe the majority of the human population is wrong in that they are over focused on physical goods because of their struggles and insecurities.

    I am right. The entire industry is wrong. Don't doubt the person who says that. Jump in next ot them and see why they think that.

    ...otherwise you will die stupid like the rest of them.

    It seems to me that Gary is the geocentrist flat-earther creationist in your analogy. People believed those things because they seemed like good ideas at the time. Then some enlightened individuals came along and poked holes in these beliefs, and eventually most people decided that the new ideas were more valid. But there are always a few people who cling so strongly to the old ideas that it is unthinkable that they may be wrong.

    P.S. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, step off! (If anyone else gets this, I'll be impressed)

  • (cs) in reply to BrownHornet
    P.S. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, step off! (If anyone else gets this, I'll be impressed)
    I don't know which fraternity you belonged to at college, but I'm assuming is starts with an alpha?
  • draeath (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    It wasn't that Aristotle was correct, it was that he thought - and thought way outside of what others would think about.

  • RussAu (unregistered)

    The email reads like on the bullshit explanations on an 'alternative' therapeutic product.

  • No Body (unregistered)

    a friend of mine once built a page infinitely subdivided into a recursive set of frames. or maybe it only got sub-framed a large number of levels deep; the question was academic, as every browser we tested it on crashed long before rendering the full window. it was a fun trick, provided you were drunk enough at the time.

    (the text displayed inside each tiny sub-frame read "are you framing me?". that part was hilarious, once you got far enough from sobriety.)

  • TLoC (unregistered)

    Wow. Reminds me of when I posted a thread on Newgrounds and everyone said that I should use CSS and DIVs instead of a table. Turns out I was right, and no one can prove me wrong. How, you ask? Well, DIVs don't allow for a very fluid column design if you want more than 2 columns. The reason? Floating DIVs, um, float; if a column to the left has content wider than the specified width of a DIV the borders of the DIV don't push to the right and the overflow content spills outside of the DIVs borders instead of making the DIV expand - while a table cell will expand, not just the width of that cell, the width of all cells in that column. DIVs give a problem when resizing as well. Trying another solution I came up with would force the DIV on the right (and then the one in the middle) down the page, showing up underneath the first two, when the browser was resized. My solution was to use a TABLE because I might not know how wide the widest content in a cell would be, especially if it were a particularly large line of code. I see code spilling off the middle DIV and getting hidden under the contents of the right DIV all the time. Presentation is about layout AND style, and you cannot style CSS to make a 3 column layout without some problems. Of course, if more browsers supported the display:table property (and it's kin) then you could make a 3-column fluidly expanding cell layout with CSS> For now, though, you must use tables.

    But there's more! You CAN bookmark while using multiple frames. USE THE QUERY STRING!

    However, whatever could have been done with frames was shortly replaced with similar functionality using CSS. I am not kidding. Independent scrolling of DIVs using the overflow:scroll property. Well, actually you can't use width="*", so just like the table problem you'd have to use percentages if you want the DIVs to scale. But since were scrolling each DIV independently you won't run into the other problems.

    Well, now that I've shown -gary WRONG in one aspect I'll just have to wait to find out how frames are more secure. You could still grab the source code to view. The only thing I could think of is a redirect if no parent frame. And that isn't much security at all. Seriously, you can get around that in mere minutes after trying just a few things. OK, let's say there's a no right-click script. Um, turn off JavaScript/JScript? Ya, that will do it.

    Seriously, this guy is an idiot, and probably has never heard of things like clip:.

  • andy (unregistered) in reply to bz

    The work of a "simple table" is to simply display tabular data, and ONLY to display tabular data. The only reason CSS is "complicated" is that so many lazy individuals in the industry became addicted to the ease of tables to design and the development of better CSS standards was therefore retarded. The more responsible designers that actually use it correctly, the more rapidly it will mature.

  • Traffic hazard (unregistered) in reply to jaspax
    You people are all idiots. Did you even READ the post? It says right there that EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND GARY IS RIGHT. If you would just WAKE UP and SEE THE TRUTH you would understand how important it is to believe Gary about this. Where does this guy work? All of the people at my place of work are IDIOTS LIKE YOU who can't see Gary's genius. Or my own. I need to put a resume in at Gary's office.

    Gary sounds like he has cubic wisdom that transcends and contradicts one day gods.

  • knock it off... (unregistered) in reply to origin_dev
    Frames were great back in the dial-up days, less data transfer. Frames screw up bookmarking, page back and forward controls and accessibility.

    I agree with you people jump on the "tech bandwagon" way too quickly, and do very silly things. Like trying to use CSS and DIVs to replace HTML tables for tabular data...ewwww...

    I do not think that anyone in their right mind would replace a table for tabular data with CSS.

    Remember, CSS is all about separating content from presentation, and tabular data (if it really is such!) is content, therefore represented best in HTML.

    Using tables for layout (or more like layout tricks), OTOH, is presentation and should therefore be done in style sheets.

    Granted, before the advent of CSS you simply had to mimick a lot of stuff by (mis)using certain HTML-elements.

    Web designers should perhaps start thinking in the paradigms of XML, where clean separation of concerns was included from start (which does not mean that one can not royally screw up and do it exactly the wrong way in XML too ;o)

  • woohoo (unregistered) in reply to Just Passing Through
    Just Passing Through:
    ...if your server is down, and you have a full page, then that full page is not sent and you get the 404 error message.
    Who's going to break it to Gary that when a server is down, nothing on that server's going to be sent, regardless of how many frames the content is in?

    Ahaaa...that gives me a brillant (sic!) idea:

    The frameset and the content pages should be served from different machines! I call this a "Gary Cluster" (GC).

    I should immediately file a patent for this ... ;o)

  • Bob (unregistered)

    Gary's writing style looks a lot like that of John Hargrave. See: www.zug.com. I bet John was trying to get you to do something stupid, by posing as your boss. He successfully did something similar to a Starbucks employee.

  • Shane (unregistered)

    What will he do with HTML 5?


    I feel bad for the guy. His world is going to come to an end.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    I wonder what he's going to do when he reads the W3C's proposal for HTML 5. Frames are going away. Forever.

  • alexgieg (unregistered) in reply to Todd
    Actually, this is a lot like Aristotle. Genius that he was, he was wrong about... well, not everything, just physics and anything derived from it.
    And how do you know WE are right about physics and anything derived from it?

    Before you answer "Do you know transistors? Your computer working is proof enough.", I'd suggest you read Wikipedia's article on Instrumentalism.

    In short: historically, working technologies have always been developed based on theories which were later disproven. Tomorrow someone can come with some new theory entirely replacing Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, explaining why transistors, tunnel diodes, genes, nanotubes etc. work in a completely different manner, and we'd still be no better at knowing how things actually work "behind the scenes". The fact our current technology works is thus NO proof, at all, of the truth of the underlying theories used to develop them. Technology only proves that engineers do great things when well inspired, but that's it.

  • Don (unregistered)

    Who cares.

    This is one opinion from someone and look how the lot of you go into orgiastic spasticity. Are your lives so dreary and mundane that you must leap on this like vultures? Go out into the sun and fresh air... remember what life was like when you were alive.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    in the event that he is right and the entire industry is wrong then you still need to do it "wrong" to work with the entire industry.

  • Willllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    Yep, Archimedes was a much better physical philosopher. I mean, look at Aristotle's description of motion; because he couldn't handle inertia and gravity at the same time he described motion only in terms of straight lines.

    Wikipedia: "His thinking on physics [] had a profound impact on medieval thought, which lasted until the Renaissance" ... when everyone realised it was complete rot.

  • WebWonder (unregistered)

    This was funny. Gary sounds like my highschool computer science teacher.

    Ric webelowwear.com

  • ELIZA (unregistered) in reply to Salty
    ... I honestly don't get it. How can some people be in charge of everything, and be completely stupid?
    We Americans looks at our Congress, our Senate, seven of our last nine Presidents, and we wonder the same thing.

    Which presidents are the idiots? Bush 2 is the one gimmie candidate.

    The two that weren't idiots were Reagan and JFK.

    So he was *deliberately* running up a massive budget deficit?
  • neminem (unregistered)

    Excellent. Clicking random article while waiting for compiling... this post's comments does not disappoint on the time cube references, it makes me happy.

    That said, I still like frames. I know I'm weird. (But not as a solution to all "www" problems, past present and future. Just when they make sense, as for instance when you have a game with a constantly changing main view and various not-changing-much outer bits, and you'd have no real reason to ever want to bookmark the current state of the main view anyway. I know you can use ajax for a similar effect, but... frames are simple. Simple isn't always bad.)

    (And yes, I know nobody is likely to read this. I don't care.)

  • PlasticineGuy (unregistered) in reply to bz

    "The people that only use C++ and refuse to use any high level languages." C++ IS a high level language.

  • eric bloedow (unregistered)

    ugh. this guy, Gary, made me think of the Flat Earth Society, and their so-absurd-its-pathetic "The Conspiracy" nonsense... here's an example, taken verbatim from their website:

    "everything on the internet has been faked by The Conspiracy."

    no, i'm not kidding, one of them wrote that to ME, personally, in direct response to my quoting a different website.

Leave a comment on “I am right and the entire Industry is wrong”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article