I just find it amusing that they claim they're not interested in what we're looking at, just the start and end points of the connections. If they wanted to know what we were looking at, sounds like it'd be pretty damned simple just to navigate to the logged IP address... Forgive me, but this sounds like them saying "We're going to monitor you using GPS - don't worry, we only store the coordinates, not what you were looking at!".

The whole point of HTML is design. It is a markup language, and it's sole purpose is to make a website look nice. If it didn't then we'd just have command line websites and everyone would use Lynx. It can be complemented by CSS, styles and scripting, but it is the skeletal design of a site. Secondly i agree, i meant to explicitly state that coder != programmer. HTML is code, after all. But yeah, i realise that putting designer, coder and admin is misleading.

I would just say Web Designer. There are three main categories, design, coding and administration.

HTML and CSS is just markup - lets make this clear, being able to write HTML does not make you a programmer. I would expect a web designer to be able to design the graphics and type the HTML to display it. They don't even need javascript necessarily. Their sole role is to design a web page.

A Web Developer on the other hand takes the design and adds bit into it to make it interactive properly - so this might include flash content, javascript image galleries, etc. They are also the people that do the server side scripting in PHP and Ajax. They are the programmers.

There are people who do a little of both but i think in most companies there are people who do almost solely one or the other. Crossover experience is useful because if you're a designer you need to know what is within the limits of the coder and if you're coding you need to be in constant contact with the designer to make sure that your code not only works, but looks pretty when in action. Again, with coding, you might want to knock up a piece of code that displays a certain thing depending on the situation - and of course your thing will be rendered in HTML so clearly coders need to know HTML, but it's not their job to make the images or design the colour scheme.

A webmaster doesn't need to do either of these things but sometimes does both. The webmaster, to my mind, controls the hard drive space and/or server. It's his job to check that everything works ok, that people can't access files that they can't and to liaise with clients to see what they want. Again it's handy to have design and coding experience, but the webmaster is basically an administration role.

Finally you have the people who test things, i.e. testers.

That's my take on it. In an ideal world an applicant to a job would need a mixture of experience with all three, but needs to specialise in one. This description makes web designers look a bit wimpy compared to developers who need to know basically everything, but good coding is NOTHING without a good front end to back it up with.

Make 'em use text-only browsers :D
"Look mum, i'm watching Lord of The Rings in ASCII art!"

The hose trails behind in the water like an engine intake. The water then gets pumped out of holes on the back. The hose is only about 2 or 3 metres long. I assume your comment was implying that the pack is tethered?

Don't most people have their own firewalls anyway? The built in firewalls aren't exactly amazing for making custom rules and port forwarding, etc.

Solar power is incredibly poor in the cost:power department. A solar panel in a temperate zone on your house will not pay for itself (through selling power back to the grid) within a lifetime.

Wind is sadly the same, although cheaper. Both suffer from the nature issue - in that if the wind dies down, or it's winter and there's less sunlight hours etc then power is decreased. Ok so it's good for a "top up" but it's still negligible if it's powering a street.

Nuclear is, believe it or not, one of the safest ways to generate power these days. The waste is pretty much unacceptable, and that's why i don't think this is a good idea, but it is a viable power source. Chernobyl was a failure, not through system error, but through human error. Remember it was a controlled turn off of the safety measures to see what would happen. What happened was the reactor went into meltdown and it took a HELL of a lot to shut it off.

These days, most nuclear facilities are much more secure. The SCRAM mechanism for a fast reactor shut down is efficient and fast - it basically forces control rods into the reactor to slow it down. They're all mechanical and automated and i believe operate from 0 to extended in under a second. You'd probably get less radiation from a Nuclear battery than you would if you lived in a Uranium rich area (like Cornwall, UK).

The waste is what turns it off for me. Until there is a completely viable method for disposal or recycling that doesn't involve vats of waste in big concrete bunkers then it's not an option!