So Long, NCSA Primer
by Scott Hardie on August 28, 2006
Someone asked me for help learning HTML today. I turned to my trusted traditional source, the good old primer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, but alas, it has finally been removed after all these years. This was one of the major how-to guides in the early years of the web, and it's the very guide that I used to teach myself HTML one weekend in 1996, from which this very site you're reading has since evolved. I was surprised it lasted so long, but over the years I have recommended it to a great many people interested in web development, including as recently as this past spring. It had such a comfortable lay-terms approach while most other guides are hopelessly technical, and that's silly since HTML is a very accessible, easy-to-use language and anybody should be able to pick it up, but maybe I only think that because I had a good guide to teach me. Thanks for everything, NCSA.
Two Replies to So Long, NCSA Primer
Scott Hardie | August 30, 2006
W3Schools has always been my second recommendation. It's highly technically specific and you can find the precise syntax requirements you need – but they're just not good at explaining it on a conceptual level so that someone just starting out can see the forest for the trees. php.net has the same problem for the php language: Technically precise, but almost zero context that would foster understanding.
As for the others, I guess I'll have to get familiar with them so I know other good places to send someone from now on.
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Throw Out Your Caller ID
I'm all for scientific research into the paranormal, since it will benefit humankind whether the results are affirmative or negative – but apparently it's awfully hard to keep such research scientific. For instance, I never fail to be amused by ghost hunters who claim to have proven a haunting because electromagnetic readings are higher in the area, a phenomenon that has no demonstrated correlation with hauntings. And let's not even get into the ones who claim to have proven a haunting because a "psychic" said they sensed ghosts nearby. Go »Jacked
It's good to be back online. We lost our Internet connection at home on Tuesday, and it has only come back on for a few minutes sporadically ever since then, just enough time to send a quick email before it vanishes again. Making sure goos got published in time wasn't easy. Go »Scott's Razor
Hanlon's Razor states:Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.That's cute, but aren't we all just a little quick to assume either explanation? Nobody trusts anybody else's judgment any more. Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »The News is Furry
I'm glad to see that CNN has continued their crackerjack, no-nonsense news coverage during ratings season: Go »
Amy Austin | August 30, 2006
Hm, that's too bad -- but there are three re-directs offered, which leads me to wonder how your estimation of these alternatives compares to your Old Faithful...