Flash opinion at 8:12 PM ET — Survivor is an overproduced, more contrived version of Real World, if that’s even possible. My favorite part so far: that there’s a fake freshwater supply — it looks like a big water cooler that’s planted in the ground some distance away from each camp, and that is probably refilled by CBS frequently.
Holy crap, is Netscape screwed up. After yesterday’s addition of native CSS support to Manila’s calendar, I redid my cascading stylesheet to support it. Now, Netscape’s rendering of the calendar is horrendous. (If you’re running Netscape, see the line of weekday names? See how Friday and Saturday are rendered differently? Look at the source of the page; there’s nothing different about those two days when compared to the other five. Netscape just wants to make it look terrible.)
It’s nice to see a relatively positive article about the things that the Internet brings to medicine, both for patients and doctors. (Of course, since it’s the New York Times, that link will only work until they decide to make you pay for the article.)
Round four of the Blog-Off is on, with the topic “Sport”. Contestants: Jon and Dan. If it holds to prior form, one will win, the other will unleash a vindictive torrent upon the web; nonetheless, the links that both have come up with are pretty damn amazing.
Why have I never heard of this recalled Dr. Seuss book? It’s pretty morbid, so I see why it was taken out of print, but I thought I knew a lot about Seuss until I read this. (Bill Stillwell discovered Seuss political cartoons, as well.)
Last night, Matt mentioned that Yahoo has gotten into the weblog catalog business. I wonder who maintains this list? There are some solid logs on the list, but it’s missing some biggies, too (and I don’t mean Q, although it would be nice if it were there).
Salon takes a look at the life of Charles Barkley, one of the most interesting men in sports today. (OK, so he’s retired, you get my point.)
Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who elevates their prejudices to the position where they are defended as the will of God is evil. Anybody who justifies their denigration of another person’s being based upon a quotation from an ancient sacred text called the Word of God is simply out of touch with contemporary scholarship. Anybody who will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily available in medical and scientific circles because it calls into question their uninformed attitudes is profoundly ignorant.