In HTML 4, form elements can be defined as "readonly" so that the user can't modify the value. However, you'll notice that select controls (the drop-down lists) do not support the readonly attribute, just input and textarea controls. Can anyone out there please explain the rational behind this? It seems perfectly reasonable to have a readonly select box, especially if it is put into that state by a script.

I think my workaround will consist of making them disabled so they cannot be editted, and enabling them via a script right before the form submits so that the values for those controls are submitted (disabled controls are not successful and are not "valid for submission").

If anyone can explain why selects can't be made readonly, or give me a better solution for simulating readonly-ness, please share.

Ok, this is just cool. The idea is simple. Pay for however much gas you want right now at current prices and go get that gas as you need it, without worrying about rising gas prices. Apparently, this has been going on since 1982, but only in Minnesota. Imagine next year when gas costs $4 per gallon, and you can go fill up at $2.69... sounds nice huh? Of course, it may have gone up so much because people like you have been hoarding it all for themselves. Regardless, this is neat, and I want them to expand to Mississippi. (via CNN)

Go read the excellent article by Bruce Schneier discussing who actually has control over your computer and who you can trust. If you don't typically think about this stuff, now is a good time to start:

There's a battle raging on your computer right now -- one that pits you against worms and viruses, Trojans, spyware, automatic update features and digital rights management technologies. It's the battle to determine who owns your computer.

Installing Software on your computer (or sometimes just sticking a CD in) is roughly analogous to letting someone live in your house. Once they're invited in, they have access to anything in it while you're not looking. They may even secretly leave unwanted gifts behind after they're gone. Be careful about what makes its way inside.

Go now, and take your computer back.

You don't have to wait for Google to "federate" with AOL before you can enjoy talking to people on the over-popular AIM network (and ICQ, Y!, MSN, IRC, Gadu-gadu, ....). The day that jabber opened up server-to-server communication on the jabber network, this has been possible. The drawback is that, at this point, you'll need to set it up using a thrid-party client.

I just ran across this HOWTO on registering for "transports" to other networks with your gmail account using the Psi client (and you may just decide to stick with psi after you've tried it).

I can confirm that this works (I tried it with the very reliable jabber.anywise.com server), and I can also confirm that this works using a Gmail for your domain address, which enables you to use all of gmail's services with your very own whizbang domain name.

So all you "I won't switch until they support AIM" people can go ahead and switch... and if you convince your all friends to switch, you won't even need the transports anymore :)

Tags: Google, Jabber

I've wondered for a long time about why "visible light" is where it is in the EM spectrum, and why it seems to be pretty consistant among life on Earth. For example, why aren't there animals that can "see" EM radiation that is well outside the boundaries of our definition of visible light (about 400-700 nm in wavelength). In the wikipedia article on visible light:

The eyes of many species perceive wavelengths different than the spectrum visible to the human eye. For example, many insects, such as bees, can see light in the ultraviolet, which is useful for finding nectar in flowers. For this reason, plant species whose life cycles are linked to insect pollination may owe their reproductive success to their appearance in ultraviolet light. Thus, the true color of flowers may be in the ultraviolet spectrum.

That's an example of other creatures' ability to "see" outside the typical visible spectrum, but it's still really close. Now, Take a look at this image, and notice that there's a pretty big hole at visible light. That means that that portion of the spectrum can get through the atmosphere better than most radiation, except for the huge hole around radio frequencies. That would suggest that creatures can see that portion of the spectrum, because that's the portion that can get through from the heavens... or is it the other way around?

I'm sure this isn't anything new to the world of science, but I've been wondering about this for a long time. I still don't have all the info I'd like, but I'm no biologist/opto-whatever-ist. I'll leave the evolution/creation debate for some other blog (or at least another day) and just mention that little connections like these fascinate me.