@DavidFreitag heh, like your new avatar

Do we have any French regulars here?

not that i know of.

you mean because of the attacks?

Yeah, just wondering.

there are some in britain, they probably relate to it strongly as being close by.

and if i may play devil's advocate, we've had a smattering of questions from people with muslim names who haven't spoken english well, and thus may have been in the middle east. where conditions are so bad, it has bred the organizations who did this.

we relate so much more easily to the french viewpoint, a culture so much more similar to our own.

I'm not trying to diminish anyone's difficulty in other countries. Attacks like this aren't reported in as much detail unless they're in a European country, particularly one who is a very strong ally of the US. We usually don't see them this well coordinated, and this attack will have more of an impact than an attack in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc...

This is a very significant event because of what will come out of it.

Looking through history, it's usually not a good idea to mess with France.

yeah, i don't mean to diminish the attacks in france either. and the coverage in the middle east has certainly been way more sensitive than it would have been a few decades ago.

What do you mean, sensitive?

well, there was an entire war between iran and iraq that was reported on in a very different way than we report on bombings and all the various horrors of iraq today.

mostly just very little attention was paid to it. maybe it is just volume, due to technology and access. but perspectives did change once america felt some responsibility for iraq.

Yes, I'm sure both of those things together have increased the coverage there. Technology certainly has an effect, but that doesn't seem to be enough on its own. There are lots of wars and attacks around the world that aren't covered, despite the general ease of access to technology.

and now the public has some awareness that terror over there can lead to terror here, so that too makes them more inclined to pay some attention.

Right, but this attack isn't just going to make people fear terror attacks where they are. It will increase military force in the middle east.

This attack is being dissected and deeply analyzed, and it's creating as much anger as it is fear.

yeah... i haven't read much on it yet. is any notice being taken of how well (NOT) that worked for america when it attacked afghanistan and iraq after 9/11?

Of course not. Nobody looks at history when they're angry.

if you ask me, it falls to the US to calmly, sensitively go visit the french leadership and say, really, think this through...

obama is a lame duck, he can do something like that.

but Afghanistan (probably shouldn't have been invaded) and Iraq (shouldn't have been invaded) could have been somewhat successful if they weren't led by Bush.

I think Obama wants less military action in those countries.

i don't think it could have gone much better, no matter who was president.

but if you look at the Republicans, primarily those who are running for President, they're already getting in front of cameras and talking about what they'd be doing if they were president.

It definitely could have. If Colin Powell's plan had actually been followed, I think Iraq would be a very different country today.

which plan was that?

The one that was extremely effective in getting into the country and arresting Hussein, and then completely thrown away.

i'll have to look that up

The Iraqi Army never should have been disbanded.

i also recall something about peace negotiations after the first gulf war, in which saddam's air force's wings were clipped, but they decided it was okay to allow them to put gatling guns on helicopters

and that is how saddam put down the ensuing rebellion the US had been counting on for regime change.

I don't know much about that war, honestly.

In any case, it never should have been our place to invade the country and tear it apart.

agreed. and maybe you have a point, it could have been handled a lot better.

but allow my bittersweet mexico experience to speak for a bit, as i am often itching to do...

yes, you can try to put in good leadership, and you might even succeed. but if the whole country is traumatized and riddled with deeply dysfunctional behaviours, it won't do you much good.

the difference between a country where terror organizations thrive, and one where they shrivel, goes far, far beyond the party in power, even if you replace every elected official there is and rewrite the law book.

the effort to control drug cartels by sicking the army on them, during the presidency of calderon and fox before him, has placed much more brutal people in control of those cartels, and made them interested in f***ing with the government in a way they weren't before.

this has killed a lot of people.

@kimholder Thanks. I like to change it up from time to time.

here in mexico. and i think there are many parallels to that and the idea of bringing better government to the middle east

How do you fix that sort of problem?

well, in my opinion the drug problem is stunningly simple but we can't get past our confusion about drugs. legalize them and regulate them. simple. done. it would still take mexico decades to heal, but at least you have removed one of the main things keeping it stunted.

the thing about the middle east is we have no way of bringing real healthy change to the general populace like that

the whole way the oil trade has been managed has of course been a disaster. but there is probably no way to make that more fair any more. that fate was sealed long, long ago.

probably the best thing that can be done is ironically happening as a byproduct of the awful things that are happening. allow a big wave of immigrants from the mid-east to migrate to european nations.

I've been worried about that.

I think some countries and people will want to stop, or slow, the number of incoming refugees.

but, from what I've understood so far, at least some of the attackers were French.

I just don't think that will matter to some people.

it is quite possible there motivation behind the attacks was to force europe into the war against - heck, i can't even remember the name of that asshole, the leader of syria, his face just melds into the whole pitiful series of them...

Assad?

@duzzy yeah, him

Well, apparently ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State/Whatever-you-want-to-call-them are claiming responsibility.

maybe they are even right, since the war is already happening and things are just getting worse

sure, they want to get rid of assad too. why not. but you can't wage war against isis, just like you can't wage war agains al qaeda.

but any attempt to do so would have to start with putting a sympathetic gov't in place, so out he goes.

That whole thing is Syria is such a mess, though. Russia is not helping matters. They want Assad in power.

I think everyone is walking on egg shells there because they don't want to piss off Putin.

and if we end up with a Republican president after the next election, and Republican majorities in the House and Senate, I expect everything there to become even more complicated.

They want a no-fly zone over Syria, but who's flying over Syria? The US and Russia. Who is going to enforce a no-fly zone that Russia doesn't want? The US? What if Russia flies into it? Are we going to start world war 3 because of it?

clearly i have not followed the news on this at all. its an endless series of tragic mistakes all piling up, i don't care to read about it any more.

I need to stop.

I keep telling myself to stop.

I've only paid any real attention to this the past five years or so... and in that time I've become more angry and frustrated and sad.

there are very positive things happening and i have a lot of hope. it just isn't mediated by government in any way.

at least not when it comes to anything relating to security.

toronto i think is another fascinating case example. there are many cities like it in english north america.

during my lifetime, which was largely spent there until i moved here, the proportion of the population that is immigrants has skyrocketed.

just crazy high immigration. and it has caused a lot of tension, but with time there has been a very high degree of adaptation and accommodation.

in another generation, maybe two, there will be a true integration of all the many cultures that live together there. people from far-flung cultures will truly be treated as equals, be able to get the same jobs, have the same status.

then that will naturally diffuse back to the countries they came from. it isn't going to happen any other way.

and it couldn't happen without the technology existing to make the diffusion work. there is that too.

Yeah, the technology is vital.

What you're saying is making me think of China and North Korea, where communication isn't as easy as it should be.

Cheaper and easier movement/migration and communication seems to be among the most important things.

in china at least you hear of an underground that manages to defy the government's control of the media. the internet makes that possible.

I need to read more about Elon Musk and Google, and that plan to put up that network of internet satellites.

but right now I need to go for a walk.

oh? enjoy your walk. is that a routine?

No. Walking helps me relax and clear my head.

world getting you down? i'm always ready to say we'll be okay in the end. a lot of good things are happening. but it's probably the case that some real ugly stuff will have to happen before we get over the hump.

life is like that. it helps to take the long view.

@DavidFreitag you there?

@kimholder Yeah whats up?

can i ask you if i am understanding how to use this javascript library right?

github.com/davidjbradshaw/image-map-resizer

so, i can paste the code that comes up when i click on the imageMapResizer.min.js link into the header, and then in the call i put in the name of any maps i have?

$('coolLunarBase').imageMapResize(); like that?

Are you using jQuery?

i have a little jquery, i link to the version google maintains

Well as long as the image you want to size has the id of coolLunarBase and you have included jQuery somewhere on the page, then you should be able to do this:

$(document).ready(function() {
    $('coolLunarBase').imageMapResize();
});

ok

Just throwing $('coolLunarBase').imageMapResize(); onto the page will attempt to load the library before the page has actually loaded.

yeah, i didn't put in all the formating. but that bit i did know. however i've never used a library without linking to it.

i put it in a file and point to it with a src= statement?

or can i put it right in the page?

Well if you look at the example, you will see the following:

<script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../js/imageMapResizer.min.js"></script>

ok, and that source file is a file in the directory for my site, like image and css?

Yup

You can tell because of the relative directory "../js/"

If this person hosed his library on a CDN like Google, then you could link directly to it, but since they don't you need to have a local copy.

is that just to indicate where you'd put in the full address, or can it actually be shortened like that?

since it is in the parent directory

The .. portion of that path says "go up one level" then to look in the js folder for imageMapResizer.min.js

So you can put the imageMapResizer.min.js file in the same file as your html and do this:

<script type="text/javascript" src="./imageMapResizer.min.js"></script>

The . in the path says "search the current directory" for the file "imageMapResizer.min.js"

So you can do this:

<script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="./imageMapResizer.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
    $(document).ready(function() {
        $('coolLunarBase').imageMapResize();
    });
</script>

great. that was a very clear explanation. i feel a little guilty not looking it up myself, but i've tried before and it is the kind of thing where they assume you already know, and i've never figured out how to search for the instructions on how you use a library in the first place. and i've tried just messing before to see if i can do it, and haven't succeeded.

@kimholder The problem is that there is no clear definition of what needs to be done. Most people who write libraries like this expect that the end user has the requisite knowledge to get going.

and oddly, searching on SO for previous questions that address that doesn't work either. search on SE in that respect i don't feel works very well.

I use google to search SE, it works much better than the SE search.

Just do: <query> site:*.stackexchange.com

yeah, i've started doing that too. but it has lots of other results too, and you have to sort through them.

ooooh. well that's a great tip.

Yeah it limits to that site. So if there is a specific forum you want to search for a thread you know of but their search is awful, just use google.

hell, i wonder if there's an add-on for chrome that lets you set up a few sites for that?

cuz i'd add it for sure

What do you mean?

maybe it doesn't work the way i think, but an add-on that creates a tool bar where you can set up the top few websites you generally search within, so the little 'site:*x.x' is already there instead of typing it each time.

well, if you use chrome you can setup custom searches

Settings -> Manage search engines -> Scroll to bottom -> Add new custom search

i have to go buy meat before the butcher closes, if i'm not already too late. but lots of users don't know these little things. offer them an add-on, they'll go for it. but i'll go find that and add it in like you say.

Ah it won't work

The URL can't have spaces so you can't do what I was thinking you could do

Atleast not without some jiggery pokery

@kimholder You can do this: https://www.google.com/search?q=%s%20site%3Astackexchange.com

Add a new search engine= StackExchange Google, Keyword= se, URL= https://www.google.com/search?q=%s%20site%3Astackexchange.com

Then, when you type "se " into the address bar, chrome will say "Search StackExchange Google: "

@DavidFreitag oh hey, actually when i check through the list of search engines, it is already there :P

@kimholder Yeah but that searches the site using the site, mine searches the site using google.

ah yes. i pasted the queries so i could see the whole thing.

huh. well, i've got that now.

thanks for both bits of guidance.

No problem :]

It's pretty cool having our own resident programmer in our little space chat.

i thought you could probably help too, but you were walking

I didn't read through everything in detail, but I don't know Javascript.

you didn't read everything in detail!! oh my god...