TO BLINK OR NOT TO BLINK, THAT IS THE QUESTION! | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


ANNOUNCEMENT!
Still getting hacked. If you cannot see the page wait a few minutes and try again.


THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake, We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power... We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." -- from George Orwell's 1949 novel "1984"

YOUR RANDOM DHS MONITORED PHRASE OF THE DAY

BND

Paid advertising at What Really Happened may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied. While we try to avoid advertisers of fraudulent products, What Really Happened assumes no liability for such fraud. Caveat emptor.


TO BLINK OR NOT TO BLINK, THAT IS THE QUESTION!

In the early days of HTML, if one wanted text to blink, it was handled as...

<BLINK>Text</BLINK>

Pretty simple.

Today, most browsers no longer support the early HTML tags. Some self-appointed arbiters have changed the standards, apparently to stimulate sales of books and classes that teach those new standards, and today the "approved" method for blinking text looks like this.

<span class="blink_text">Text</span>

<style type="text/css">
.blink_text {

-webkit-animation-name: blinker;
-webkit-animation-duration: 1s;
-webkit-animation-timing-function: linear;
-webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;

-moz-animation-name: blinker;
-moz-animation-duration: 1s;
-moz-animation-timing-function: linear;
-moz-animation-iteration-count: infinite;
animation-name: blinker;
animation-duration: 1s;
animation-timing-function: linear;
animation-iteration-count: infinite; color: red;
}

@-moz-keyframes blinker {
0% { opacity: 1.0; }

50% { opacity: 0.0; }

100% { opacity: 1.0; }
}

@-webkit-keyframes blinker {
0% { opacity: 1.0; }

50% { opacity: 0.0; }

100% { opacity: 1.0; }
}

@keyframes blinker {
0% { opacity: 1.0; }

50% { opacity: 0.0; }

100% { opacity: 1.0; }
}
</style>

Wow!

Old method: Two inline tags.

New method: Two inline tags plus 43 lines of code!

I think there is a real problem on display here; a tendancy to replace the simple with the complex, the elegant with the obfuscated. And while this will guarantee the employment of full time programmers as opposed to people being able to write their own projects for themselves, it comes at a high price. Each new level of complexity means a new potential point of failure. Debugging 43 lines of code takes longer and costs more than debugging a single line.

Just because computers are capable of great comlexity doesn't mean we should strive to be more complex. To do so is to allow the software to escape our ability to maintain it. This appears to already be happening.

This may explain why the Obamacare website never worked properly, why recent Microsoft patches cause more harm than good, and why the software for the F-35 is still years away from actually being useful for something other than air shows.

Just my two cents...

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA