But it is such a simple CMS. I can make user groups and assign each group to a section or download section using DocMan. I can revoke rights to one use or the whole group. I cannot do this in Wordpress.
That kind of authentication and authorization can be found in any respectable CMS. Choosing Joomla because Wordpress isn't any better is like choosing to drink your own urine for breakfast because stools taste worse.
It doesn't hurt your internet reputation as much as it gives them fake internet reputation. Which eventually will come bite them back if they try to use it.
My local newspaper's website never links to outside pages, always to previous articles within the site. I assume it is to prevent readers to go wander off.
Where he talks about encouraging outgoing traffic.
But one of the more interesting links in that post has gone "evil-dark" (expired, taken by squatters, endless unclosable javascript "your iOS app is inf1ected!!1one! Call us to fix it! Have your credit card ready!"
So by your newspaper linking only to itself, it could be that they actually hope to avoid this dead link behavior. (Although it would be better that it was a self link that went to a vetted link repository.)
I'm really not a web guy, so I'm surprised that this problem hasn't been solved for most content management systems.
An easy way to check would be to give the users gloves of a distinguishable color they are not wearing (it just have to cover the back of the hand) and check for that color to cover the dots.
That's one way (tape on the back of hand so it doesn't impact climbing). Another way is to make it a distinguishable shape and color (white triangle) that a Kinect could be coded to recognize. The problem lies in that for motion detection to be fun, it should be interactive, as in create new shapes on the fly and such. Instantly recognizing them would be tougher to implement, since I have little experience in motion detection.
Maybe it would be more accurate with sensors in the holds (maybe a low range IR sensor on each one). Starting/stopping the timer then would just be a matter of touching the right hold.
I once used Google Forms and Sheets to let users add data for a website (for which I had no control) and show the data with a userscript. You can even send simple sql in the url and get only the data you need.
No flash, no sidebars, no bottom bars, no comments, a total of 6 requests vs 98. Of course it loads faster. And looks better. This is the way the web should be.
That's a good analogy (as long as you mean "HTML" as a banner term to include the HTML spec and associated specs like CSS and Custom Elements [1]).
• AMP is a subset of HTML.
• Any normal HTML engine can, therefore, render any AMP file, without needing to know about the AMP spec.
• It's also possible to make an engine that specialises in rendering AMP (either exclusively, or by switching to a faster mode when it detects the file is just AMP).
• Even in normal HTML engines, AMP files will generally be fast because they avoid 'slow' parts of HTML.
The above points all hold true if you switch the terms to JavaScript and asm.js.
Where the analogy falls short:
• It's easy to write AMP by hand, but asm.js is really only meant to be generated by a compiler.
• Obviously, what is meant by 'fast' is very different in each case. In HTML:AMP, it's about things like reducing network usage, and avoiding layout thrashing by requiring up-front declarations of image dimensions, etc. In JS:asm.js, it's about making compiler optimisations possible so code can execute faster.
Note: AMP does create extra elements, like `<amp-img>`, but these are legit uses of the Custom Elements spec. You can see these elements rendering correctly in Chrome. [2]
AMPHTML whitelists a handful of HTML tags, but adds a bunch of its own custom elements, like <amp-instagram>, <amp-img>, and <amp-ad> on top. It's neither a subset nor a superset of HTML in the common understanding of those terms.
I'm glad I don't have to maintain anything in it again.