Try these CSS Units: vh, vw, vmax, vmin, and %

display: table, display: table-cell, etc. should help you with that.

You could make an argument either way. Thankfully, we have box-sizing: border-box and box-sizing: content-box

Layout is not a trivial problem. Particularly when the layout needs to react to the viewport.

We had that with tables. Remember "Best viewed in 1024x768" and similar notices?

CSS actually improved things there. Today, if the designer is competent, you can do something like a single page app that perfectly fills the viewport and everything, including fonts, scale perfectly with the size of the window. No JS required.

CSS could certainly be improved, I won't argue that, but it has helped far more than it hurt.

The point in contention, as you'll recall, was that racism was a major factor in drug prohibition. Please try to focus.

Try learning it. Your opinion will quickly change.

Odd. I have the notorious ZTE Open running FFOS 1.1 around here somewhere. I'd give a significantly more positive review.

Sure, it has more RAM, 256mb, but it has none of the problems the ARS writer claims the Cloud FX phone has.

Now I'm curious. What OS would he run on a low-end device with 128mb of RAM? Certainly not Android -- even 2.2 needed more than 128mb.

I know the exact app they tested! It's complete garbage. That thing would take 10 seconds to load on a high-end desktop. They should have tested some of the better games, like Asteroid Mania or Cut the Rope.

The app store is anemic, but it's certainly not the empty wasteland the author makes it out to be. There are more than enough apps and games to keep a you busy. Yes, at least in my experience, the vast majority are local apps.

Who knows, maybe the Cloud FX really is that much worse than my ZTE Open. But I have every reason to doubt that it's as bad as the author suggests.

I thought it was closer to 20k?

We need a biologist.

That's one way for you to justify your bigotry. Surely, your opinion that women/blacks/Jews/whoever are inferior is just as valid as my opinion that they're equals.

After all, you have a few token members of your particular hated minority that agree with your particular brand of insanity, so you couldn't possibly be bigoted!

You'll find a few token "Uncle Toms" in just about every group of bigots. That doesn't make me any less skeptical about the AC's claims.

Bad analogy time. That's like saying "I'm all for equal treatment and opportunities, but handicapped people want unequal treatment (wheelchair ramps, elevators)."

If you want equal opportunity, you can't just sit there and pretend that everyone is the same. Different groups have different needs and face different obstacles. By refusing to make appropriate accommodations, you perpetuate inequality.

Phil Mason? Is that you?

Says the AC mysteriously repeating MRA talking points...

Got it. Ignore any problem because you read somewhere that it exists, therefore, it does not.

Not on your Vic-20.

They repaired it, sure, but charged you $130 bucks.

Think about that: $130 to replace a CPU fan.

If a local shop charged a customer that much for that job, I'd recommend that people avoid them.

How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.

You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.

You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.

Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.

Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.

Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:

Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.

Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.

I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?