If you do that you have to double the used web space, and that can be expensive. I'm already almost at the upper limit for my site and will have to go to the next tier of hosting soon. As it is, only three of the well over a hundred pages on my site need a special mobile version, and I would imagine a lot of other folks are the same way.

Having it first look for m.sitename, falling back to mobile.html if it exists and m.sitename doesn't, then index.html if there are neither m.sitename or mobile.html might be a good idea, though.

That type of information is typically also in the docs because you're right. It's important, and if everyone has to hammer it out themselves, it's reinventing the wheel.

You shouldn't be marking stories as complete if they haven't passed QA.

If you find that you aren't completing the stories that were in your sprint plan during your sprint, you bit off more than you could chew. Adjust for the next sprint.

I'd be preaching what I don't practice; my favorite phone was the Razr. Tiny thing. Big phones are fine for those who carry purses, but mine stays in my pocket. The one I have now is about as big as I can stand.

I'm about to post a journal with a suggestion for the W3C and mobile browser makers.

It should work. I don't see how it would mess up the charging circuit unless that circuit was poorly designed. It's the same as a TV degausser.

My day was a lineman working around AC at 90,000 volts. If he wore an analog (wind up) watch to work the watch would get magnetized by those high strength magnetic fields and stop working. He probably could have fixed the watches the same way.

I would prefer the porn, personally, and it has nothing to do with anxiety. It's just easier, it's novel, I can get precisely the stimulus that I want for maximum pleasure. It's really just pretty awesome.

Don't get me wrong; I still have sex with my wife and I still enjoy the feelings of connection. I wouldn't want to stop. But at any given time.... I'd probably choose the porn if I could be guaranteed that my wife wouldn't find out that I chose porn over her, because who wants to deal with the fallout of that little gem?

No, I want them both at the same time, duh!

Could you please take a moment and familiarize yourself with what neoconservatism even is? I feel like it just represents "that which I hate" in your mind. Neocons don't give a shit about porn or video games, and James Dobson sure as shit is not a neocon.

All that being said, I think that there is some room for studying the effects of modern pornography on the human brain. Never in the history of humans has there been access to unlimited HD visual sexual stimuli. Unlimited in the sense that porn is always available, it never gets tired, and never gets stale. You could watch new porn every time you watch porn.

And don't think that I'm anti-porn. I love porn! And why shouldn't I? Humans are evolved to feel reward for sex and sexual stimulation. Porn makes me feel great! But like I said before, it's an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord that we aren't really evolved to deal with yet.

It's like how now that we have unlimited high-carb food, we're getting super fat. Obesity rates are through the roof! Perhaps there are also some consequences of the great porn buffet, but it's not so visible because porn doesn't make you fat? I have no idea, but intuitively it feels like there might be, and that we ought to be studying this.

And if anyone wants me to participate in a study by watching some porn, sign me the fuck up!

I'm not really sure what you mean here. There are plenty of action shows and there are plenty of romantic comedies. Do you have any evidence that TV and movies are targeted more toward men? One thing that I have noticed is that if any character in a commercial is supposed to be stupid or dense, that character will always be male because it's not PC to have that character be female.

If men are so highly-prized by the US, how come in the last war where there was a draft, 58,156 of those killed were men while only 8 were female? You can't really say that those 58,156 men really wanted to go die in Vietnam since they were forced by the government.

Men are always the ones who are asked to sacrifice. We even have a phrase for it: "Man up!" If you were imploring a woman to do something for you that was the opposite of what is in her self-interest, would you tell her to "Woman up!"? Would anyone even know what that meant?

Why must I pay for the sins of my ancestors?

I've used Java for roughly as long and before that I used C++.

One thing that I've noticed is that there is a lot of reflexive hate for the language. I don't necessarily fault people for it because it was marketed as a panacea in the beginning and early version of Java fell far short of expectations. If there's one thing I've noticed about Java, it's that it's really kept up with the times. Just look at Java 8. Is its implementation of Lambdas perfect? No, it's a little ugly, but I really credit Oracle for recognizing that Java would ignore functional programming at its peril.

I would never say that Java is always the optimal solution to every problem in computing, but I would say that Java is nearly always an adequate solution. To ignore Java is to ignore a very useful toolset that can be used almost anywhere.

I haven't seen any stories that said that the knife was legal in Baltimore, but in the context of determining if the arrest was legal, the legality of the knife isn't the main driver.

If you're arrested for something and are later found not guilty, that doesn't retroactively make the original arrest illegal. Police arrest based on probable cause, not absolute guilt or even reasonable doubt. The question we need to answer to determine if the arrest was legal is: Would a reasonable police officer (not the arresting officer--a reasonable one!) have thought that the knife was probably illegal to carry?

In this case, proving that probable cause was lacking is going to be a seriously uphill battle. If you look at the stories coming out about the knife, a police investigation has determined that the knife was illegal. Don't waste your breath, I realize that a court would have to determine that if Gray were still alive and facing charges over the knife, but the important thing is that in the comfort of a police station (rather than out in a field), a group of officers found the knife to be illegal. That means that the officers out in the field who also determined that it was probably illegal almost certainly were reasonable in that determination. It will be unlikely that the prosecution will be able to show the absence of probable cause.

Now, the officers still should have treated Gray like a human being, so they probably are guilty of something, but they are going to get a lot more latitude since the arrest was legal.

The prosecutor has to allege that the arrest was illegal, because if it were legal, then the officers have a much stronger case. Everything that I've read, by the way, suggests that the arrest was legal. Probable cause for carrying a knife that was illegal under Baltimore city statute was almost certainly established.

And then ran. The cops aren't going to chase you down, snap your spine, and toss you into a paddy wagon like a sack of meat just for looking at them.

That can only be determined in a court of law, but the knife almost certainly was illegal by Baltimore city statue, which is the statute that he was alleged to have violated.

It is not illegal to run from the police unless you have been given a lawful order to stop.

One thing that all of those shootings have in common is that the deceased has either run from the officer, physically attacked the officer, or both.

Running from the police is a bad idea unless you know that you will be in trouble if caught, and also you are certain that you can evade them successfully. Physically attacking an officer is always a bad idea.

That's not what is alleged.

The allegation is that he looked at the police, and then took off running away from them. So they chased him down, found what was probably an illegal weapon on him, and arrested him for it.

For what it's worth, I don't think that they killed Gary on purpose. But I do think that the officers were negligent in not getting Gray medial attention when he was clearly hurt badly. Had they called an ambulance instead of tossing him into the paddy wagon like a bag of meat, he'd probably at least be alive today.

The officers definitely fucked up, but I don't think it's quite as bad a picture as you're painting, that's all.