Technical Difficulties

by · June 27, 2012

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. M.A. says:
    June 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    So what was with the pinecone image?

    Also, as long as this is open, what’s the proper way to code an image in comments so that it actually appears? Or is linking the only option?Report

    • Erik Kain in reply to M.A. says:
      June 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm

      1) Temporary theme change as a troubleshooting procedure.

      2) I’m not sure.Report

    • Murali in reply to M.A. says:
      June 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      How to properly code an image in the comments:

      1. Find the image URL. If you are selecting the image from google images, this is very easy. Once you click on the image, the URL will appear as a link at the bottom. Click on the link to access the image URL

      For example, if I wanted to include the smiley face image into the comment, I woult take note of the URL.

      To include the image, type the following:

      <img src=”image URL” height=y width=z>

      height and width are optional tags. y and z are in terms of pixels. To get a rough idea, the picture that accompanies each post is usually about 400 pixels wide.

      so, including the smiley face picture at 10% of the original size in this comment gives me something like this:

      I’m currently having trouble changing the the size of the image. give me a minute solved!

      Note: Please keep the image to within the boundaries of the comment section. err on the side of caution if you are not sure. Merely specifying the width will resize the image without destrying the aspect ratio. So, to produce the above image, I typed:

      <img src=”http://www.cartoonlogodesigns.com/images/misc/Smiley%20faces/smiley%20face.jpg” style width=400>Report

      • BlaiseP in reply to Murali says:
        June 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm

        There are a couple of problems with using the ol’ img tag that way. The entire image is loaded and it’s a big time sink for the browser to do the resize. It’s also a mess for the layout beast behind the scenes. Better to resize the image and host it somewhere.

        And — we’re leeching content from someone’s site. There’s a good reason for hosting our own images.Report

      • M.A. in reply to Murali says:
        June 28, 2012 at 9:50 am

        Strange, I’ve done that several times and the image never displayed.

        BlaiseP, if this site had an option for uploading an image directly rather than just linking it, I’d use it.Report

  2. Tod Kelly says:
    June 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    How sad is it that I miss The jet pack stats as much as I do when they’re down?Report

  3. Wardsmith says:
    June 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Erik you should ask your hosting provider to give you a test domain. You could clone the current directory structure and change the cgi_bin only for that area. Then you’d be able to see the effect of changes without affecting the main site. Just a suggestion. Blaise could fill in the details or translate my geek 😉Report

  4. greginak says:
    June 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Interesting article on Fast and Furious which has been the subject of some discusion hearabouts.

    The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal:

    http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/Report

    • Tom Van Dyke in reply to greginak says:
      June 27, 2012 at 10:33 pm

      All of a sudden we’re interested in Fast & Furious? Too late, too soon. It never happened but they covered it up anyway.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304142/did-fast-and-furious-not-happen-robert-verbruggen

      Sorry, Mr. Greg, but this again proves our problems are epistemological. Why was CBS’ Sheryl Attkisson the only major newsie investigating this? Besides a reporter from Fortune Magazine, which has zero interest in the issue.

      Because the media was afraid they’d find something they’d prefer not to find. Solution: Don’t look for it!

      Even if the Fortune “Move along folks, nothing to see here” story is accurate [that’s debatable], the story is now a political one. The admin’s “Executive Privilege” claim should have been made as a matter of constitutional principle a year ago, not thrown up as a last-ditch effort to conceal documents mere days ago.

      Will this amount to much? I guess not. But the Administration could have made this go away a year ago by cooperating with Issa’s committee. By stalling until 2012, the fit has hit the shan.

      They screwed up, but that’s not a mortal sin: administrations screw up all the time because nothing succeeds as planned and some things go really really wrong.

      Will we ever know the truth of all this? Doubtful. If Obama’s re-elected it’s buried, if Romney’s elected, he buries it out of courtesy and self-preservation. No admin wants to be prosecuted by the next.

      Did you know Dubya once invoked “Executive Privilege” on behalf of Bill Clinton? True story, you could look it up.

      Let’s save us the trouble. 😉

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/14/us/bush-claims-executive-privilege-in-response-to-house-inquiry.htmlReport

      • greginak in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:
        June 27, 2012 at 10:46 pm

        So how much does the RNC pay you Tom? Really nobody can be this partisan and focused on the horserace without getting a paycheck. If the scandal was bs then that actually matters. Using big words like “epistomology” doesn’t make it any less seemy to say what really happened doesn’t matter since this is allready a scandle. What kind of epistomology is it to say the actual reality doesn’t matter as long as it is a political problem. +1 for the aggresive shifting of the issue from whatever happened in F and F to F to the current scandle du jour. That is pro level scandle mongering.

        OBTW Issa said this today “Sure,” replied Issa. “It’s not for what the attorney general knew about Fast and Furious, it’s about the attorney general’s refusal to provide the documents.” It’s not about what happened, since Issa has now said he didn’t Holder knew about any “gun walking” that may have happened. Its not about what happened at all, that story is gone. Its about not giving docs about something Issa doesn’t think happened. oy.Report

        • Tom Van Dyke in reply to greginak says:
          June 27, 2012 at 10:51 pm

          Sorry, too personal, Mr. Greg. What I wrote today has been my position previously, that the F&F flustercluck was just one of those things. The Exec Priv thing, something else. The admin could have made this go away a year ago if they’d have played it straight.

          Interesting that Dubya invoked Exec Priv for the Clinton Admin, though. Probably the most interesting and principled part of all this.Report

          • James Hanley in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:
            June 27, 2012 at 11:19 pm

            Interesting that Dubya invoked Exec Priv for the Clinton Admin, though.

            He invoked executive privilege to protect the presidency, not to protect Clinton. Same reason Obama didn’t go after anybody from the Bush admin. for torture.

            It can be seen as principled, a defense of the executive branch in the separation of powers scheme. It can also be seen as unprincipled, as an attempt to undermine the scheme of checks and balances.

            Anyone who takes a partisan approach to it, as in “see how noble my party’s president” is, is far off track on understanding the issue.

            It kind of looks as though you see it that way, but it’s not evident that you do. I don’t know, so I’m not claiming you are. Only you know.Report

            • M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:
              June 28, 2012 at 10:03 am

              I’m convinced TVD sees it the way it’s written on the morning’s talking points sheet.Report

              • James Hanley in reply to M.A. says:
                June 28, 2012 at 10:21 am

                M.A., TVD and I go back a long way. There’s not much love lost between us, and I’ve been one of his most relentless critics. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s less ideological than you, based on what I’ve seen in your participation here to date. Although I will take this moment to say you’ve been writing pretty reasonably this week, and I apreciate it.Report

        • Scott in reply to greginak says:
          June 28, 2012 at 10:17 am

          Greg

          So TVD is a paid shilling but other knee jerk liberals here are just thoughtful honest folks?Report

  5. Murali says:
    June 28, 2012 at 12:20 am

    Hey Erik, I added a picture to this post. I hope its fineReport

TEN SECOND BUZZ

A Message From Devcat

Devcat image

Devcat is watching over, but if you notice any problems contact the editors and Devcat will be notified and deployed immediately.

HELP ORDINARY TIMES

Recent Comments

Comics