"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.
But unfortunately the original meaning of "responsive" as Marcotte coined the term has been diluted by people who apply the term to any site that uses media queries to change its layout on a mobile device. There is more to responsive web design than media queries, and there are plenty of ways to use media queries to adapt a site to different devices that aren't responsive web design.
Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion. If a layout uses media queries to 'respond' to different screen sizes, it is by definition 'responsive'. Anything past that starts to be an aesthetic/no true scotsman type of argument.
Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion.
I don't have much interest in a lengthy argument about this, but FYI, the term "Responsive Web Design" was coined by Ethan Marcotte in an article for A List Apart in May 2010[1]. What it means is only a No True Scotsman type of argument if you choose to ignore the original source, or maybe if you want to argue about whether "responsive web design" and "Responsive Web Design" mean different things, neither of which seems particularly constructive.
Sure, but if you want to drive on the road, it's still at least a bit helpful to know that the framework is not, in fact, a boat. (I wonder if someone could give a Devil's Advocate position on the advantages of a non-responsive framework...)
Advantages of a non-responsive framework:
Less complexity. This leads to more speed and reliability in terms of development, deployment, and maintenance.
If I was building something that saw no significant advantages from being responsive (e.g. an ATM GUI) I'd definitely skip it.
Veering wildly off topic, but I haven't heard much from the jilted Google Reader crowd for a while. Have they found something new, or are we now living in a post-RSS world?
I'm using it too but still not able to find a Google Reader Play alternative that suggests new post based on your reading history. Sometimes suggested amazing posts.
That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour, and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.
However, there's a discussion to be had here, and it's possibly more important than the one surrounding cigarettes and second-hand smoke. It's a brand new industry and a brand new habit that people are only starting to adjust to.
Ecig manufacturers are, at present, allowed to advertise their product publicly, and sell them as a lifestyle choice. They're even allowed to advertise on TV, something that the tobacco boys haven't been able to do for a very long time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517504/VIP-E-cigare...).
As an ecig user myself I find myself using it indoors regularly. I'm harming nobody but myself with it. But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine, and it's only going to become more popular.
Smokers, even reformed smokers like myself, aren't going to change their habits unless they're forced to do so. So while many people are put off by indoor ecig use, until the law changes to forbid it, you're just going to have to deal with it.
> That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour
Saying "just vapor" means nothing here; consider "just chlorine vapor," for instance. Obviously the substance that has been vaporized is the important part. The most common e-cigarette vapor, propylene glycol, does have very low toxicity. But you still might not want to inhale it constantly -- no longitudinal, long-term study has been performed that simulates the e-cigarette use of PG and shows beyond doubt that it is safe.
> and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.
Nicotine is a known carcinogen, and e-cigarette vapor contains nicotine. Tea kettles do not release vaporized nicotine. The e-cigarette vapor may have a low concentration of nicotine after being exhaled, but again, nobody has extensively studied the results of breathing second-hand e-cigarette vapor over a long time period. Your assertion is completely unsupported by evidence.
> I'm harming nobody but myself with it.
You cannot back that up with evidence. This is your guess, and it could be wrong.
Now, I happen to think that it is _likely_ that e-cigarettes will be shown to be much less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes. But my opinion, just like yours, is meaningless since it's not backed up by evidence.
Is it? All I can find is that it promotes tumor growth if the tumor is already there but doesn't cause them by itself.
>> I'm harming nobody but myself with it.
>You cannot back that up with evidence. This is your guess, and it could be wrong.
Clearstream [1] was done and at least one other study (can't remember the name atm). Nothing completely conclusive but at least it points towards it being rather safe.
I may have been too conclusive there; the CDC only says:
"Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive"
And the counter to that is that 1) legislation has begun in a number of places, New York, Chicago, etc., to ban the indoor smoking of e-cigarettes because, at least primarily 2) the anti-smoking campaign so effectively illustrated the dangers of second-hand smoke, that people are now conditioned to equate smoke with evil (even smokers, like myself) so, despite the fact that e-cig 'smoke' is actually just vapor, many people are put off of it because of the stigma.
Also, at least in New York, the legislative bodies expressed great concern that e-cig users could gasp actually be smoking liquid THC instead of liquid THC, which still wouldn't be harmful, but they're worried about the evils that would certainly infest the hearts of men as a result.
>But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine
What's the problem with recreational ingestion of nicotine? It's a light stimulant; I'm not sure why this is any worse than caffeine. And certainly isn't worse than other medications like opiates or amphetamines.
I'm not a cigarette smoker, although I love cigars and probably have one or two a month on average.
>What's the problem with recreational ingestion of nicotine? It's a light stimulant; I'm not sure why this is any worse than caffeine. And certainly isn't worse than other medications like opiates or amphetamines.
You're not wrong. But that's the problem - it's not enough to say "sure X is harmful, but so's Y, so it's alright". Ingesting nicotine by itself is a hell of a lot less harmful than taking it with tar and everything else that comes in a normal cigarette. But it's still a highly addictive substance, and personally, my concern is that marketing something highly addictive to the public (and, dare I say it, young people) is really seedy.
I'd call it slightly addictive. It seems it only becomes highly addictive in concert with other ingredients of tobacco smoke, at least that's what the German Wikipedia [1] has and it references [2,3,4,5,6,7] (I didn't read those myself as I can't say I understand their terminology)
But its not addictive. I totally wish it was, but its not. The addictive part about smoking is psychological, placing the nicotine into a pill, gum, or a vapour pipe doesn't really help you stop smoking.
It sure did for me — I went from a twenty year long, two pack a day cigarette habit to e-cigarettes a month ago. I immediately preferred vaporization to smoking, and honestly haven't wanted an ordinary cigarette since.
I tried e-cigs last year. They weren't that robust (I ordered a Chinese package from Taobao) and didn't do anything for me besides break. Maybe I'll try again when I can find something higher end.
The problem is, and you can't see this because you're a delusional addict, is that allowing e-cigs is like legalizing a highly addictive food substance and then allowing McDonald's to make a burger out of it. It might be better for smokers than smoking, but it's still a drug addiction.
And then worse you're blowing that highly addictive substance into the air in a confined place and stinking the place out with a foul chemical smell of 'chocolate' or 'mint' or some other 'pleasant' smell just because you're so addicted you can't even go a couple of hours without your hit.
If you were a normal person, and not a junkie, you'd never smoke those things in public because you'd see how bizarre, odd and selfish thing it is to do.
So no, it's not just 'vapour' and you've got no right to try and convince people otherwise because you are, ultimately, a junkie justifying your addiction.
e-cigs are not addictive, which is the problem. As a device to get people to stop smoking much more dangerous cigarettes, they aren't very effective (yet).
> It might be better for smokers than smoking,
It most definitely is better than cigarettes.
> but it's still a drug addiction.
And so is caffeine in coffee or sugar in coke or adrenaline from running. Human beings are quite easily addicted to many things (some better than others).
> If you were a normal person, and not a junkie, you'd never smoke those things in public because you'd see how bizarre, odd and selfish thing it is to do.
Self righteousness is actually not effective in this case at all.
> So no, it's not just 'vapour' and you've got no right to try and convince people otherwise because you are, ultimately, a junkie justifying your addiction.
Strong perfume is also not just vapour and can be downright annoying, especially for someone who is allergic.
> I'm a junkie too, but at least I admit it.
Great. Because someone who hasn't been addicted to something bad before has absolutely ZERO clue about what is going on (skinny people telling fat people to eat less, non-smokers telling smokers to just stop smoking...its so easy right?).
I'm not a junkie nor an addict. I have used e-cigs in the past, as I enjoy the flavor. There are liquids that do not even contain nicotine. I have used it in public. Your assertion that only a junkie would use one in a public place has been debunked.
I vape part-time and sneak in a pull here and there in public -- but it still feels wrong despite the lack of pollution.
This said, the vape scene is awesome for us hackers. The e-cigs that look more like cigarettes don't have as much of a scene, and aren't as enjoyable as a variable voltage, low-ohm 'pipe'.
I'm using an off-the-shelf ecig, the type that's designed to look like a regular cigarette. I'm loving /r/electronic_cigarette and all the clever mods they've been coming up with.
I have to be honest though, all of the various options are a bit overwhelming!
I started on the same type that you're on. Stop by your local B&M and check out the iTaste variable voltage battery with a dual-coil pro-tank. Also get an e-liquid that's 50/50 between vegetable glycerine (good vapor -- 'clouds') and propylene glycol (throat hit).
That's the best place to start. The mod scene is totally overwhelming. Here's a basic breakdown:
Veering off topic, but I wonder what people would say if analytics for websites required telling the user what data is being gathered about them before requiring an active opt-in.
No, that's entirely on topic for this particular point.
I know and you know this kind of tracking is industry standard because we are in this industry.
Most people outside this industry don't know that, and are pretty shocked when they see. Seriously, if you have access to a Google Analytics account with a reasonable amount of data start showing people how much stuff you are tracking and see what their reaction is.
Telling OP their "phone home" concerns aren't valid because that's "standard practice" is a terrible argument.
