Well, ideally, it should depend on how the type size is defined in the CSS. 12pt != 12px. Well, they are equivalent if your screen resolution is 72pixels per inch, but screens have not been that coarse for quite some time. So If you specify a font-size of 12px, then the type should take up 12 pixels on the screen, no matter how large or small those pixels are. It would be better if you specify a font-size of 12pt -- then the type would be the same size across all viewing devices because a point is a finite, defined, literal measurement unit - modern usage pins it at 1/72 of an inch. But I have yet to see browsers actually treat font sizes in this way - they scale points up and down as if they were some variable measurement system.

I pretty much instantly lost interest when I saw the hats.

You know what I love to read about? Americans bitching about their taxes. Their infrastructure is falling down all around them, their schools, police, fire departments, utilities, etc. are all chronically underfunded. But lawdy lawdy, don't dare raise their taxes to try to FIX some of this stuff. From the outside looking in, all this complaining just seems so... what are the words? Stupid and shortsighted.

Well, your memory might be different from mine. I remember Pac-Man as a flickery unplayable mess, but Ms. Pac-Man on the exact same hardware you describe was significantly better in all respects. I assume because it was written by a professional with experience, instead of by a high-school intern. Just my recollection though.

I looked up the exact location of my office within the building I work in every day. "unlucky.sublet.deciding"

Sorta. It "boots" to running a startup script that executes a series of CLI commands (to mount various directories as aliases and to move some critical libraries to a RAM disk) before (usually) ending in a call to LoadWB, which prompts the system to load up the graphical workbench. When I had an Amiga I almost always left that step off my startup script because I did my work from, more often than not, the CLI, not the clumsy Workbench.

Now you're just trying to make me cry. :P

Augh! "For all intents and purposes". "Begging the question" does not mean what you think it means. It means "a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion," or in other words, circular reasoning. How do people get to the point of mangling the language to this extent?

What I would like to do is to download a backup of my brain from about 5 minutes before I read your post into a new brain, boot that one, and kill this one.

I've been surfing the web fairly continuously since I got up this morning (5 hours ago). I have stacks of plug-ins installed. I've read PDFs, watched videos, looked at Slashdot and Reddit, and wherever those other sites took me, read those too. Right now I have three tabs open, plus a PDF of a menu I am trying to choose my lunch from. My current Firefox memory usage (FF 3.6.11 on OS X 10.6.4) is 245.1 Mb. YMMV.

Cool story, bro.

Autism is a nutritional issue now?

Atols don't "drown" when the sea level rises. They rise with the sea.

You know, I saw Star Wars the year it came out. I remember it pretty clearly because "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" dominated the box office that year, and stayed in the big "Famous Players" theater downtown for MONTHS. So when Star Wars finally came to town, it went to the drive-in because Butch was still firmly ensconced at the nice indoor theatre. (I bet the assholes who set that up never factored in that if you were taking a girl to the movies you might want to see a different one from time to time. I ended up taking the same girl to Butch about 3 times.) Anyway... I clearly remember the movie starting with at least "Episode 4" at the top of the opening crawl, because we chuckled when we saw it. Star Wars was meant to emulate those old Flash Gordon serials (with the corny wipes and so on) and calling the first one "Episode 4" was to give you the sense that you were picking up a story already in progress, just like when the serials used to run.

The problem is that the web has actually moved on from what was standard practice 9 years ago. There are new methods to make crafting pleasant looking web pages easier and more productive. IE6 is simply too out of date for a large chunk of what is possible to do on the web anymore, forcing web developers to waste time doing their sites two ways. In my case, I build my sites to work in all current versions of browsers, and then spend an additional 30% to 40% of my development time making it work in IE6 as well. I'm starting to think of listing support for IE6 as a separate billing item so that the client can more accurately evaluate how important it really is to keep supporting this cranky old beast of a browswer.