Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

In article <e1c67$480e7c60$40cba7d0$20483 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <3434f$480de160$40cba7d0$10126 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?

Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?


Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!

Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <e1c67$480e7c60$40cba7d0$20483 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <3434f$480de160$40cba7d0$10126 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?

Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!

No, but I *obviously* a true blue can do the same much faster and easier
with a saw.

Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe

Use them with both feet on the ground. Axes while in a tree is not a
good combination.

or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.

I use a bow saw.

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the saw.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme wrote:

In article <e1c67$480e7c60$40cba7d0$20483 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <3434f$480de160$40cba7d0$10126 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?

Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!

Ask that competition performer to keep that up all day long like that.
He can't. But he could with a chain saw. Ever hear the old folk song
"John Henry?"

Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.

Nonsense. I have. Give me the chain saw every time. I'll do it faster
and easier.

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

No, it does not. The choice of tools, however, has nothing to do with
the existence of the tools. you are confusing, or deliberately
obfuscating, the differences.

Normally I ignore your faults in logic because you are being somehow
charming or amusing. Don't abuse the leeway you're being afforded.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

In article <e43ee$480eb9f0$40cba7d0$30965 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:


The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.


If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the [chain] saw.

Not if your big burly axe-murderer neighbour is asleep... (though there
is a remedy here, you cut so it falls over his bed-room and kill two ...)

Anyway, chainsaws remind me of the Irish migrant seeking work in an
Australian forestry company. Have you any experience asks the boss. No.
O well, look, 'ave a go but remember, it is piece work and goes by the
number of trees you fell. He hands him the chainsaw.

End of the day the boss asks him how many and Paddy says, well, just
one! The boss shakes his head and pays him a miserable amount and says
to come again if he really needs to! Paddy comes again next day and
manages two trees. The boss says to come next day and he will go out
with him to see if he can give him some tips on technique.

Day comes and they set out into the forest and the boss grabs the saw
and says "Now, watch my sawing angle and pressure..." as he pulls the
chord to start the thing. The Irishman jumps back in fright and screams
"What's that noise?"

--
dorayme

In article <VeKdnaC3I5A9IJPVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
Ed Mullen <ed (AT) edmullen (DOT) net> wrote:

Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.

Nonsense. I have. Give me the chain saw every time. I'll do it faster
and easier.

It is not nonsense, Ed. You and I are sitting around drinking a few

beers... wooohoo... and take A BLOODY DISLIKE to two poor innocent
branches as thick as our schooners up two different hard to climb tall
trees in our yard. We down the round, take one look at each other and
it's on. You pussyfoot about with some ruddy great tree-felling chainsaw
that is hard to start and where is the fucking petrol you scream in
frustration as I grab an axe that is lying about where we drink (as is
common when Australians drink). I'm up like a monkey and the brach is
down in a jiffy while you are still fiddling about with your silly ropes
to haul up that dangerous smelly thing...

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

No, it does not. The choice of tools, however, has nothing to do with
the existence of the tools. you are confusing, or deliberately
obfuscating, the differences.

According to you, Ed, I am always obfuscating. I think of myself rather

as being very deep.

Normally I ignore your faults in logic because you are being somehow
charming or amusing. Don't abuse the leeway you're being afforded.

How much leeway have I got left? Perhaps I better ration carefully. In
the meantime, in between time, 'nother schooner mate?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <e43ee$480eb9f0$40cba7d0$30965 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the [chain] saw.

Actually just about *any* saw beats the ax in efficiency when felling a
tree.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <e43ee$480eb9f0$40cba7d0$30965 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of
simpler or older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw
before you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the
[chain] saw.

Actually just about *any* saw beats the ax in efficiency when felling a
tree.

Oh and additionally, now that server-side is so cheap, developed, and
now ubiquitous, server-side inclusion beats frames in efficiency and
function in the same manner...there is no reason in my opinion to ever
use frames unless your are stuck with hosting that doesn't even offer
server-side, (but even that is a lame excuse with so many free servers
with php out there).

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> writes:

Oh and additionally, now that server-side is so cheap, developed, and
now ubiquitous, server-side inclusion beats frames in efficiency and
function in the same manner...there is no reason in my opinion to ever
use frames unless your are stuck with hosting that doesn't even offer
server-side, (but even that is a lame excuse with so many free servers
with php out there).

That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace frames,
an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make the site. PHP
would be like using a chainsaw to chop through a twig, and about as
safe.

--
Chris

dorayme wrote:

In article <676505F2nqtelU2 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?

Welcome to the hysterical

Hysterical? Hardly. You're the one who sounds hysterical.

fundamentalisms that liken using frames to
shooting oneself.

Um, it was only an example that better illustrates the *discussion* part
of this discussion group than merely stating "frames are bad".

You're only whining about it because it was I who said it.

--
Berg

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Chris Morris wrote:

That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace frames,
an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make the site.

If we have a 1/2 dozen pages maybe, but every time you make a change an
edit your have to re-preprocess and upload the entire site

FWIW, I've been using a preprocessor for years. It's great for small
sites that only get periodic content changes. You only need to
re-preprocess everything if you make a change to one of the common
libraries, like the navbar. Changing text on a single page only needs
that one page redone.

I wouldn't recommend a preprocessor for a large site, but it's great for
smaller ones.

body
?php
include_once('includes/banner.inc.php');
include_once('includes/nav.inc.php');
?

... rest of page ...

?php include_once('includes/footer.inc.php'); ?
/body

That's not really any different from my preprocessor includes, except
they're not php.

--
Berg