| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 78073 | 2007-04-02 01:20:00 | One website image not displaying in IE 5.5 or IE6.0 | Billy T (70) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 537557 | 2007-04-02 03:14:00 | I see the image (Firefox 1.5.0.10 NetBSD) and find it utterly hilarious. If this is an April fool's joke then you're a bit late. The device advertised is simply a tin foil hat for the unborn. In fact it would be less effective because it doesn't form an enclosure at all so it doesn't even approximate a Faraday cage. Such hats are very uncommon in mainstream society, as the injuries they might guard against are highly speculative, and their effectiveness in preventing such harm would be dubious even if the danger were plausible. See en.wikipedia.org |
TGoddard (7263) | ||
| 537558 | 2007-04-02 06:35:00 | The device advertised is simply a tin foil hat for the unborn. In fact it would be less effective because it doesn't form an enclosure at all so it doesn't even approximate a Faraday cage. Actually you not quite right in your assumptions there TG, the fabric used is quite an effective suppressor of HF emfs, and although it cannot emulate a true Faraday shield, it can definitely minimise exposure. It is a product in use by the military in some countries and by industry in many. Regardless of its efficacy, one of the most potent sources of harm for the unborn is stress in the mother, and if wearing such a garment gives the mother peace of mind, then it would have achieved its purpose even if it had no shielding capability at all. However, as I said it has been tested and found effective, and although I am not personally associated with the product, I have sighted official letters arising from military testing and personally I'm satisfied that it is effective within technological limits, and will be beneficial to the users, though I have no requirement for it myself. I have also tested a sample made into a pouch and it is not possible to establish contact with a cellular phone when it is shielded by this material. As for tinfoil hats for the unborn, I had not seen that proposal, however following your link I noted these comments: The belief that a tin-foil hat can significantly reduce the intensity of incident RF radiation on the wearer's brain is not completely without a basis in scientific fact. Of course this is a selective quotation, as was yours, and I believe that it is best to allow people to seek out and employ whatever resource they believe can offer them security. I drink tap water, others believe it is poisoning them. To each his (or her) own. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 537559 | 2007-04-02 07:08:00 | If its only use is to calm the paranoid fears of the mother then it is indeed the equal of a tin foil hat, and it can be said that variations of such hat are used by the miltary and industry. Personally, If Mrs Metla strapped on such a garment, we would be having a little chat about her state of mind. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 537560 | 2007-04-02 08:41:00 | If Mrs gf looked as good as that I would be chatting promptly as well. | godfather (25) | ||
| 537561 | 2007-04-02 22:44:00 | Thank you all for the constructive comments, they have been forwarded to the site owner who has in turn passed them on to the programmer. The owner wishes me to express his sincere appreciation for your assistance. He was very impressed to see 17 new site visitors from around the country and 7 repeat visits, and in a matter of a few hours you gave him the confirmation and information needed to eliminate a problem that has been ongoing for several months. All he needs now is for the programmer to knuckle down and fix it. Just for the scoffers and doubters, in addition to established military applications, clothing incorporating this material has been tested and ISO certified in Europe for protection when working on live radio transmitting masts and in other hot RF environments. Despite the compromises over a true Faraday cage, it is nonetheless effective and efficient. The material and the products produced from it have nothing to do with the loony fringe of foil-cap wearers and other fruit-loops who (judging by their forum posts) mainly seem to be trying to prevent mind control by hostile people and/or aliens, so Mrs Metla is safe for the present. :D Personal shielding products are without doubt targeted at a niche market, but that market is large enough to sustain some fairly big manufacturers so who are we to judge the health concerns, buying decisions (or mental status) of others? Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 537562 | 2007-04-03 01:30:00 | Excellent, The next time Mrs Metla is pregnant AND climbing a live radio transmitting mast I will insist she wears such a garment. | Metla (12) | ||
| 537563 | 2007-04-04 06:51:00 | The website developer claims to have fixed the problems overnight, but I see no difference in IE 5.5 or 6.0. Would Rob99, JonB or Greg mind looking again please, and post again if you can see what's wrong now? Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. My lack of knowledge here is only exceeded by that of my friend who owns the site, so he is totally reliant on external advice such as yours when he goes back to the developer. It works OK on his Mac, which uses IE5.0. Cheers Billy 8-{) :groan: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 537564 | 2007-04-04 07:11:00 | Could be wrong seeing as I know little about webpage design, but I notice that the missing image html coding is missing a forward / slash infront of the image path. eg: <img src="images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left" alt=""> instead of: <img src="/images/fabricprotection.jpg" align="left" alt=""> Other browsers may handle this missing / better than Windows IE. I can see the image fine in Firefox. :) Further edit: I see Rob99 mentioned this missing / a few days ago. |
Jen (38) | ||
| 537565 | 2007-04-04 07:15:00 | It works in IE 7 now tho. | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 537566 | 2007-04-04 07:41:00 | That was mentioned by a few posters yesterday, so I didn't bother. The difference between "/images/..." and "images/..." is significant, and is not something which different browsers should handle differently. The two forms specify two directories called "images" which, in general, are in different places. They are explicit file specifiers in the web site's file system on the server. Consider a web site stored as site.com/index.html site.com/htmlfiles/page1.html site.com/htmlfiles/page2.html site.com/htmlfiles/images/pic1.jpg site.com/htmlfiles/images/pic2.jpg site.com/images/pic1.jpg ; may be different from the other pic1.jpg site.com/images/pic3.jpg If the /htmlfiles/page1.html files contains references to /images/pic1.jpg and images/pic1.jpg the one with the leading "/" refers to a file in the root of the site tree, the other refers to a file in the images directory at the same level. If the /index.html contains references to both, the site.com/images/ directory is specified by both forms of the address. If there is no /images directory or if there isn't one at the same directory level as the calling .html file the server should return a "file not found" error. I suppose a browser might try adding or removing a leading "/" and retrying the request in the same way that some browsers have tried adding a "www." prefix to a site's address, or even adding a ".com" suffix. But it's a bit flakey. This would be the browser trying to fix bad coding in the web site. Modifying user entries might be permissible, being "user friendly". But the web site programmer should see an error while testing and fix it. A browser which "tries to help" is doing harm. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||