The price of solitude is effort. Don't want to share nature with others? Walk a mile and you will filter 99% of humanity. Three miles uphill will filter 99.9%.
My trip to the Grand Canyon was tailored for solitude. We drove hours to get to a trailhead on the North Rim, hiked a a steep trail down, camped (by a hard-to-believe falls/spring), and hiked up and out by moonlight to avoid the heat. I don't mean to sound hardcore - I'm really not - I just like solitude and that's how you get it.
I'm ambivalent about this particular proposal. Exposure to nature creates naturalists. At the same time people ruin nature - the experience of it and it's physical environment. It's a balancing act and I have no idea if this is too much or too little.
The proposed development doesn't expose people to nature any more than a shrub in the middle of a shopping mall does. It is simply trying to convert one of the greatest natural wonders in the world into a cash grab for greedy, short sighted developers.
Preservation of natural beauty like the Grand Canyon is one of the most important functions of government. Allowing this would be a disaster.
I like your idea of coding up your resume - it shows competence and a desire to learn and build. I recently did the same thing.
But there is a first-impression problem. Obviously design skill is not what you are trying to demonstrate, but it's the first thing people see! Some people might read the code (and appreciate it), but even they won't jump right into doing that in the first few seconds.
I'd suggest copying the heck out of a good-looking online resume, and then subtly tweaking it to your taste. Subtly.
I'd also suggest hosting this on it's own. It will look more professional. (Github pages is a slick, free way to go.)
Your question was about whether someone would hire you as a dev. Yes, I suspect they would! Especially if you find an employer that has at least a passing interest in your operations/systems experience. I would look for a software company that works in this area (maybe one of your frequently used vendors?) - they'll eat it up that you know the domain.
It might be time for me to stop worrying about IE8 and embrace `transform`-dependent icons.
I regularly create one-off semantic icons as long as they don't rely on `transform`. That limits it to ones based on a character glyph - (i), (?), (x), etc - strictly orthogonal blocks - (+), (-), etc. - or CSS triangles - mostly arrows (which don't always render great anywho).
I'm always too concerned about the fallback in browsers without `transform`. But really, that's illogical - it's just IE <= 8, and generally don't need to worry about that support anyways. I guess my hangup is that the meaning of the icon gets garbled when it isn't displayed correctly in older browsers, and that seems like it crosses a line. (Thought about the "semantics" of an icon quickly feels like Philosophy 101 and probably means its time to get back to work!)
As others have pointed out, I wouldn't use the pixel-based positioning/widths as this does, but `em`s, `rem`s or `percent`s. Relying on `tranform: scale(x)` would complicate layout flows - for one thing you'd always need to compensate for the scale with `margin`, `padding`, or other pixel-budging.
In the early 2000's I worked in a school system that used a faux-email system where un-sending messages was completely possible. Any user could un-send messages that no recipients had read, which was _great_ as a user. Only sys-admins could un-send read messages. The only time I remember the latter happening was after someone got fired and flamed their way out the door. It was a bit chilling if you did read their messages before all evidence of their outburst erased by the invisible hand of the sys-admins.
The VA's internal system also had "email" like this (before email was widely used), where we could unsend messages.
Fun fact: The VA's system was called Decentralized Hospital Computer Program (DHCP). When that acronym was overloaded by Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, they changed it - to VistA. Either they had really bad luck picking names, or were very prescient.
Frankly I've never understood why email doesn't work this way, it looks backwards to me. As long as the recipient hasn't read the email the sender should have the right to delete it. Even if the client has already delivered the email in the recipient's inbox there should be a way for the SMTP/IMAP server to notify the client and remove it.
Even Whatsapp works this way: once you've sent a message, you can't unsend it. The message is first relayed to their servers and then relayed to the client, but even if the recipient isn't online and the message is only on the server, deleting it only removes it from your conversation. You'd think that in 2014 we would have addressed these kinds of flaws.
> "there should be a way for the SMTP/IMAP server to notify the client and remove it."
As long as the protocol requires the client to obey a command to delete, it's not going to work.
With such a protocol, nothing is stopping me from choosing to disregard any messages to delete already received (and downloaded) messages. In fact, I'd probably have the client highlight them for me if they got a "delete this" request. There's probably something good someone is trying to hide in that message.
If I recall correctly, Twitter had a similar issue with their API. They have a method to delete a Tweet, but the Twitter client has to honor the delete client-side since it has a cache of tweets it has seen.
Of course, in a closed environment like Twitter, Twitter can choose to revoke a non-compliant client's API keys if they don't follow the rules. Not so much with email.
> Frankly I've never understood why email doesn't work this way
Because internet email is mostly designed as a highly fault-tolerant low-trust network, so the basic design is unauthenticated forwarding, so once its sent, there's no generally-applicable way to prove that you are the sender to ask for it to be deleted. Inside something like a particular Exchange server, email can be implemented that way (and basically is), and that works because its a single centralized database with client authentication.
It seems to vary though; you can configure Outlook to not obey message recalls, although that might be at the discretion of an admin group policy. Either way, my last DoD network allowed you to avoid deleting emails based on recall requests, which was a very nice feature (or policy omission, not sure).
1) Possession is 9 points of the law was the original quote - it's just been bastardized over the years.
2) If it's "okay" for your machine to receive and keep the misdirected email message, how is it "not okay" for someone sending a correctly directed message asking your MUA to remove the message? Your MUA allows the behavior; you allow it by use of that MUA; no access control mechanisms were broached. To look at it literally, all email is "reaching into your machine to suit the sender".
> Possession is 9 points of the law was the original quote - it's just been bastardized over the years.
Its not that much of a bastardization, as a modernization -- the original seems to have been "possession is 11 points in the law (and they say there are but 12)", which was decimalized from 11 and 12 to 9 and 10, sometimes used with the "9" alone and the last part omitted, and later simplified to 9/10. The original sense of the statement is preserved, which is why I wouldn't call it a "bastardization".
This is off topic but I found out the hard way that then you delete a google docs account all documents you shared with others are deleted from their list of documents.
I suppose on the one hand something like that is a solution for gs.
On the other hand, while I understand the model, I'm not 100% it's the right one.
IntelliJ is indeed java-centric (and not light-weight), but the front-end coding environment is top-notch. I've tried going back to a light-weight text editor (I'm still a sucker for TextMate) but I always come back to IntelliJ. The code completion for HTML/JS/CSS is phenomenal, and the way it intelligently switches syntax highlighting schemes regardless of filetype cuts down on my numerous, numerous typos (for example, if in app.html you write <div style="foo:bar" onclick="foo('bar')"></div>, the HTML, CSS, and JS components will all be syntax-highlighted appropriately). It's also great for XML.
(I also happen to work on an app with a Java backend so it's a no-brainer, and the company's paying for the software...)
EDIT: Just realized you were referring only to the CE, which I've not used. I'll leave this here as a _non-sequiter_ opinion on the paid version nonetheless.
My trip to the Grand Canyon was tailored for solitude. We drove hours to get to a trailhead on the North Rim, hiked a a steep trail down, camped (by a hard-to-believe falls/spring), and hiked up and out by moonlight to avoid the heat. I don't mean to sound hardcore - I'm really not - I just like solitude and that's how you get it.
I'm ambivalent about this particular proposal. Exposure to nature creates naturalists. At the same time people ruin nature - the experience of it and it's physical environment. It's a balancing act and I have no idea if this is too much or too little.