Use .css to insert small "Donate" one-liner on top of all pages?

11-23-2011

In article <jaj3jq$jsh$>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > Manually? Does my BBedit text editor have hands?
>
> OP: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
>
> I don't think so.
>

See OPs later posts. But if you and Dennis want him to
\/^[/\])-sed and maybe throw in some funny finger movements and
chants, fine by me! <g>

> >
> > Or do you think you can't use the simple-minded, dumb, low-rent
> > one to replace over a whole folder in one go? The text is low
> > geek but the editor is smart as hell. I have been trying to
> > persuade you, Jonathan, for how many years?, to come over from
> > the dark side.<g>
>
> Okay now you have done it, you got me on a tear!
>

Oops!

> <rant>
....
>
> I like the OS to look nice, but ultimately I *need* to get stuff done.
> Icons may be pretty but I still believe data stored in a hierarchical
> structure and browsed by sortable tabular lists is by far more efficient
> than piles of icons and tagged searches. I have no trouble finding stuff
> with 570GB over 2.5TB of drives.
>

Perhaps you seriously misunderstand Macs and see only the screens
of very amateur users through the windows of their houses? In a
Mac, the *least productive* view of directories is in icons
(except now and then when searching for images, their previews
are shown).

Unix geeks are right at home on a Mac via *Terminal* where lies a
whole Geek Superpower. C'mon Jonathan, you would love it to bits
and all this ranting is maybe your last protest before succumbing
to temptation.

> And now EVERYBODY is trying to emulate a bleeping MAC (oops worse, a
> CELLPHONE) ...

Yes, this worries me too.

> </rant>
>
> See now you did it!

Yes, I *do* see!

--
dorayme

11-23-2011

I.N. Galidakis wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> I.N. Galidakis wrote:
>>
>>> Then, uploading would be a jiffy, once I perform a search/replace on
>>> all open docs. All docs do have a <body> tag, so it's no problem.
>>
>> As I mentioned about twelve hours ago, none of your pages that I looked
>> at have a <body> tag.
>
> WhoOps! How the heck did they validate?

Because the <body> tag is not actually required - though it certainly
makes good sense to use it for legibility.

> The appropriate time to add it, then.

Sure. You could use Denis's command and modify it to include a new <body>
tag to start. Use </head>.

sed -i 's|$</head[^>]*>$|\1<body><p><a href="/donate.htm">Please
Donate</a></p>|' *.htm

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

11-23-2011

dorayme wrote:
> In article<jaj3jq$jsh$>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> Manually? Does my BBedit text editor have hands?
>>
>> OP: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>
> See OPs later posts. But if you and Dennis want him to
> \/^[/\])-sed and maybe throw in some funny finger movements and
> chants, fine by me!<g>

I have sed, grep and awk installed on my Windows box...see
SourceForge... I cannot live with out them, also Perl installed...

>
>>>
>>> Or do you think you can't use the simple-minded, dumb, low-rent
>>> one to replace over a whole folder in one go? The text is low
>>> geek but the editor is smart as hell. I have been trying to
>>> persuade you, Jonathan, for how many years?, to come over from
>>> the dark side.<g>
>>
>> Okay now you have done it, you got me on a tear!
>>
>
> Oops!
>
>> <rant>
> ...
>>
>> I like the OS to look nice, but ultimately I *need* to get stuff done.
>> Icons may be pretty but I still believe data stored in a hierarchical
>> structure and browsed by sortable tabular lists is by far more efficient
>> than piles of icons and tagged searches. I have no trouble finding stuff
>> with 570GB over 2.5TB of drives.
>>
>
> Perhaps you seriously misunderstand Macs and see only the screens
> of very amateur users through the windows of their houses? In a
> Mac, the *least productive* view of directories is in icons
> (except now and then when searching for images, their previews
> are shown).

Perhaps, but your snipped the deal-breaker: 'Why would I buy a computer
with a price premium with diminished specs and limited choice of
software saddled with DRM that makes Microsoft-ware look like "Open Source"'

>
> Unix geeks are right at home on a Mac via *Terminal* where lies a
> whole Geek Superpower. C'mon Jonathan, you would love it to bits
> and all this ranting is maybe your last protest before succumbing
> to temptation.

Don't think so. I can get it with Linux without the chains...

>
>> And now EVERYBODY is trying to emulate a bleeping MAC (oops worse, a
>> CELLPHONE) ...
>
>
> Yes, this worries me too.
>
>> </rant>
>>
>> See now you did it!

>
> Yes, I *do* see!
>

Yes most worrisome.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

11-23-2011

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:38:12 +1100, dorayme wrote:

> About your replacement, yes, you can do the above as long as you catch
> what is on each page. I noticed, as did another motorcyclist here, that
> there is no "<body> on some at least of your pages. So while at it,

Wouldn't it be better to insert "<body>" after "</head>" rather than
after "<html>" ?

Rgds

Denis McMahon

11-23-2011

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:13:10 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Sure. You could use Denis's command and modify it to include a new
> <body> tag to start. Use </head>.

> sed -i 's|$</head[^>]*>$|\1<body><p><a href="/donate.htm">Please
> Donate</a></p>|' *.htm

Could probably drop the "[^>]*" bit if you're going after the "</head>",
but there's a gotcha here too .... what if some documents have "<body>"
already - you need to not add an extra one if there's already one present.

Might be safest to first of all delete any existing body tags, and then
run your sed over the tree.

Except that will lose any existing attributes on body elements .....

Rgds

Denis McMahon

11-23-2011

In article <jajp9g$g0b$>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
....
> >
> > Perhaps you seriously misunderstand Macs and see only the screens
> > of very amateur users through the windows of their houses? In a
> > Mac, the *least productive* view of directories is in icons
> > (except now and then when searching for images, their previews
> > are shown).
>
> Perhaps, but your snipped the deal-breaker: 'Why would I buy a computer
> with a price premium with diminished specs and limited choice of
> software saddled with DRM that makes Microsoft-ware look like "Open Source"'
>

You would not unless you knew and liked some Mac software and the
OS. For me, it is only limited in the sense of there was not
*every* type of apple in the Garden of Eden. But there were
enough to get into serious trouble with.

There is something you have *completely* overlooked, maybe this
is a redeal-maker, you can run Windows on Intel Macs. I do in
VirtualBox for my browser check purposes and the occasional need
for software. But you can simply run it for free, full throttle
(without the limitations of VirtualBox) out of the box if you
have a Win OS to install. There is the free Bootcamp comes with a
Mac, and there are cheap enough quality other programs that will
allow Win to run side by side with X.

--
dorayme

11-23-2011

In article <4ecd7a04$0$28481$ >,
Denis McMahon <> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:38:12 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > About your replacement, yes, you can do the above as long as you catch
> > what is on each page. I noticed, as did another motorcyclist here, that
> > there is no "<body> on some at least of your pages. So while at it,
>
> Wouldn't it be better to insert "<body>" after "</head>" rather than
> after "<html>" ?

Yes, it would! Just as it would been better to quote my actual
mistake. You are being too polite. I like public humiliation, I
am sicker than you can even imagine, Denis. <g>

Anyway, I am most sorry for my brain typo and now please imagine
the sort of humble apology you see at:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo>

--
dorayme

11-24-2011

dorayme wrote:
> In article<jajp9g$g0b$>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Perhaps you seriously misunderstand Macs and see only the screens
>>> of very amateur users through the windows of their houses? In a
>>> Mac, the *least productive* view of directories is in icons
>>> (except now and then when searching for images, their previews
>>> are shown).
>>
>> Perhaps, but your snipped the deal-breaker: 'Why would I buy a computer
>> with a price premium with diminished specs and limited choice of
>> software saddled with DRM that makes Microsoft-ware look like "Open Source"'
>>
>
> You would not unless you knew and liked some Mac software and the
> OS. For me, it is only limited in the sense of there was not
> *every* type of apple in the Garden of Eden. But there were
> enough to get into serious trouble with.
>
> There is something you have *completely* overlooked, maybe this
> is a redeal-maker, you can run Windows on Intel Macs. I do in
> VirtualBox for my browser check purposes and the occasional need
> for software. But you can simply run it for free, full throttle
> (without the limitations of VirtualBox) out of the box if you
> have a Win OS to install. There is the free Bootcamp comes with a
> Mac, and there are cheap enough quality other programs that will
> allow Win to run side by side with X.
>

How hypocritical! I can buy and *legally* run MS Windows on a Mac box,
but I am *BANDED* from buying Leopard or Lion and running it on my
custom-made NON-Apple hardware! So I have to be stuck with Mac-Tax?
People dump on big Bill, but Steve was a real piece of work.

I am not sure what of Mac software I would want that I don't already
have access to, (and more!)? And Why would I want proprietary-mangled
version of Linux when I can get choices of many mangled. I just said how
I am not very pleased with the current version of Ubuntu. If I find it
intolerable and can easily dump it for Mint, basic Debian. Although I
think that will only delay the inevitable as support of GNOME2 fades.
Hopefully more flexible shells and DEs for GNOME will be developed for
the power-users.

I have been testing out this VirtualBox. Impressive. Already found it
runs XP on Seven better than MS's VirtualPC XP-mode. And runs Ubuntu
well. Seamless mode it pretty cool.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

11-24-2011

In article <jak5e0$s6s$>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
....
> > ... you can run Windows on Intel Macs. ...
> >
>
> How hypocritical! I can buy and *legally* run MS Windows on a Mac box,
> but I am *BANDED* from buying Leopard or Lion and running it on my
> custom-made NON-Apple hardware! So I have to be stuck with Mac-Tax?
> People dump on big Bill, but Steve was a real piece of work.
>

Apple have traditionally been a hardware company, they have
mainly made software to sell their hardware.

> I am not sure what of Mac software I would want that I don't already
> have access to, (and more!)? ...
>

Well, since you think of Mac OS as just a lot of little pretty
icons, it is no wonder you don't want it! It is not the software
that you can get to run on Macs that is so greatly appealing, it
is the OS itself, its interface etc.

And, something I have not mentioned before, the most important of
things these days, the relief from the truly burdensome need to
protect the OS and programs with antivirals, that is such a
constant in the Win world. When on Windows, I feel like I am
walking in the dark in a dangerous suburb, I have to carry
equipment,

1. Personal alarm
2. High tech legs.
3. Electric running shoes
4. A simple joke that even an attacker would be disarmed by.

and above all,

5. Magnum .44

With a Mac it is like going to the beach for a swim, you leave
all in the boot of your car and with just swimmers, goggles and a
bathing cap you run the lower risk of sharks.

I expect things would change if more Mac were around but for the
moment, this is how it is.

> I have been testing out this VirtualBox. Impressive. Already found it
> runs XP on Seven better than MS's VirtualPC XP-mode. And runs Ubuntu
> well. Seamless mode it pretty cool.

You are not wrong about this. I am really impressed by
VirtualBox. One of the most impressive things I found was the
easy set up and how it just seemed to grab all my settings and
get online. I am running XP. I am wondering if I really need 7,
will investigate how much it costs, I guess to run IE9 to see
what is what...

--
dorayme

11-24-2011

dorayme wrote:
> In article<jak5e0$s6s$>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
> ...
>>> ... you can run Windows on Intel Macs. ...
>>>
>>
>> How hypocritical! I can buy and *legally* run MS Windows on a Mac box,
>> but I am *BANDED* from buying Leopard or Lion and running it on my
>> custom-made NON-Apple hardware! So I have to be stuck with Mac-Tax?
>> People dump on big Bill, but Steve was a real piece of work.
>>
>
> Apple have traditionally been a hardware company, they have
> mainly made software to sell their hardware.

For their little collection of iGadgets yes, but in the area of the PC
once they switched to Intel they are just a VAR. Again why would I want
to lock myself in with "Apple" hardware? Stick that little icon on it
and the price goes up.

>
>
>> I am not sure what of Mac software I would want that I don't already
>> have access to, (and more!)? ...
>>
>
> Well, since you think of Mac OS as just a lot of little pretty
> icons, it is no wonder you don't want it! It is not the software
> that you can get to run on Macs that is so greatly appealing, it
> is the OS itself, its interface etc.

Such as? I mentioned a couple of things that didn't make sense to me,
the worst was the unified menu for app windows which are disembodied and
placed at the top panel? How the hell is that better or intuitive? The
study used when Apple made this UI decision was back when multitasking
was a dream and a 15 in. monitor was extravagant. What is more intuitive
or efficient than to have the controls for a window actually connected
to *that* window? I kind of understand Ubuntu's adoption in Unity for
use on weak-CPU small screen smartphones and tablets where you only do
one thing at a time and real estate is so small, but it stinks for a
full size desktop. With multiple large widescreen monitors it is
absolutely absurd! It just may be a fool's errand to try and make a UI
common for ALL devices. If you want to maximize application window
content space, I would think that keeping the window menu in its
tradition location but auto-hide it like the Chrome browsers status bar.
Only have it appear when a small widget is clicked or pointer hovered.
At the very lease don't lock desktop users to a GUI more suitable to a
phone.

>
> And, something I have not mentioned before, the most important of
> things these days, the relief from the truly burdensome need to
> protect the OS and programs with antivirals, that is such a
> constant in the Win world. When on Windows, I feel like I am
> walking in the dark in a dangerous suburb, I have to carry
> equipment,
>
> 1. Personal alarm
> 2. High tech legs.
> 3. Electric running shoes
> 4. A simple joke that even an attacker would be disarmed by.
>
> and above all,
>
> 5. Magnum .44

Most of that is BS. Most folks now get infected not with viruses but
because they are idiots! Come on! You cannot will a lottery that you did
not enter, nor will you get a commission laundering millions for some
deposed African|Arab|Alien king... The vulnerability is with the user
not the OS, and it is hubris to think otherwise.

That said anti-virus software and Windows' security is royal
cluster-****. Symantec, McAffee, et al., need viruses to sell their
wares. Damn stuff now tries to second-guess every app launch, keystroke,
mouse click...worse than a virus...much could be avoided if MS would
just make some simple changes. Seven's security is a joke. Windows still
allows you create an admin user with NO password. While most accounts
are admins, all the security is to make changes to your system is a new
additional set of nag dialogs that you merely have to click yes! Phfft!
No password, nothing, just have to be logged in. Leave your W7 laptop
unattended for a moment and anyone can trash it. Not so with my Ubuntu
laptop unless you know my password which you won't. Linux "sudo" is far
superior to the UAC.

>
> With a Mac it is like going to the beach for a swim, you leave
> all in the boot of your car and with just swimmers, goggles and a
> bathing cap you run the lower risk of sharks.

Hold on to that fantasy. Viruses are not problem but the invited scams.
Being fooled into giving up credentials at a fraudulent site is
OS-independent. And any OS can be compromised if couple with
human-engineering to get you to install it. When the Dutch CA was hacked
think how that could compromise anyone...OS-independent.

>
> I expect things would change if more Mac were around but for the
> moment, this is how it is.

Jobs realized the Mac as a PC was a loser. Couldn't compete with the PC
and anyway was too fussy and generalized, not his minimalist style.
Remember the success of the one-button mouse? Jobs preferred more
focused narrowly-scoped sleek and stylish appliances. Did well with
them, iPod, iPad, iPhone (Although Android still has them beat there).
But then again no worry, there is still pressure to turn the PC into an
appliance. Hopefully the geeks that rally under the Linux flag make keep
the PC as a flexible untethered tool alive.

>
>> I have been testing out this VirtualBox. Impressive. Already found it
>> runs XP on Seven better than MS's VirtualPC XP-mode. And runs Ubuntu
>> well. Seamless mode it pretty cool.
>
> You are not wrong about this. I am really impressed by
> VirtualBox. One of the most impressive things I found was the
> easy set up and how it just seemed to grab all my settings and
> get online. I am running XP. I am wondering if I really need 7,
> will investigate how much it costs, I guess to run IE9 to see
> what is what...
>

Yes by default the adapter is set on a subnet via a virtual router. Set
it to bridge mode if you want to be a peer node on your LAN.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FAQ 5.24 All I want to do is append a small amount of text to the end of a file. Do I still have to use locking?	PerlFAQ Server	Perl Misc	0	03-31-2011 04:00 AM
FAQ 5.24 All I want to do is append a small amount of text to the end of a file. Do I still have to use locking?	PerlFAQ Server	Perl Misc	0	02-01-2011 05:00 PM
VoIPCheap/Stunt/SIPDiscount/Et.al - Mobile - Top-up Expiry Period -- Campaign for Correct Expiry Period on Finarea VOIP Service Mobile Top-Ups	News Reader	UK VOIP	16	06-26-2006 05:03 PM
Top-Up Methods - Finarea (Voipcheap, internetcalls, etc.) et. al., VOIP Services Question - Top-up Methods	News Reader	UK VOIP	0	04-10-2006 02:41 PM
Why does my Top DashBoard Image do not touch top of the screen?	Frederic HOUDE	HTML	4	08-30-2004 11:22 PM