نمی‌دانم گفته بودم یا نه که من معتاد رادیو ام. این طور بگویم که من صبح‌ها که موبایل را از زیر بالشتم در میاورم، اول رادیو‌اش- رادیوی ملی عمومی – را به کار می‌اندازم و بعد می‌روم اینستگرام و بعد بلد می‌شوم در را باز می‌کنم که سگ برود بشاشد و بعد موبایل را به اسپیکر وصل می‌کنم که صدای رادیو از بلندگو پخش شود و بعد حالا ایمیل و بقیه مخلفات را نگاه می‌کنم. کلا خیلی پر رنگ است.

یک برنامه ای دارد این رادیو ملی آمریکا به اسم «هوای تازه» که در آن خانم تری گروس هر روز با یک نفر مصاحبه می‌کند. این یک نفر می‌تواند نویسنده، نوازنده، دانشمند، هنرپیشه، سیاستمدار…هر کسی باشد. فکر می کنم این از اولین برنامه‌هایی بود که من در آمریکا شروع به دنبال کردنش کردم. دنبال کردنش به این معنا که هر روز باید (و این باید خیلی جدی است) به پادکستش گوش کنم. شاید این عجیب باشد، اما من احساس می‌کنم این برنامه مرا آرام کرده است*. یعنی مرا تبدیل به آدمی کرده که وقتی می‌خواند، یا به چیزی گوش می‌دهد یا فیلمی را می‌بیند مکث می‌کند و راجع به آنها فکر می‌کند. این آدم در زندگی من بعد از مهاجرت خیلی تاثیرگذار بوده.
(یک بار در تویتر نوشتم که یک جایی بیاید مرا استخدام کند که بشینم مصاحبه‌های این آدم را ترجمه کنم. بهترین کلاس روزنامه‌نگاری است. یک بار دیگر هم نوشتم که اگر یک روز یک کتاب بنویسم فقط برای این است که تری گروس با من مصاحبه کند. بنابراین باید کتاب خیلی خوبی باشد. )

حالا اینهمه آسمان و ریسمان بافتم که بگویم این تری گروس خیلی آدم بی‌سر و صدایی است و تقریبا هیچ کس در مورد زندگی خصوصی اش چیزی نمی‌داند. (یا نمی‌دانست.) این هفته مارک مارون- که یک کمدین و آدم رادیویی و تلوزیونی دیگری است- با او مصاحبه مفصلی کرده. تا همین حالا که اینها را می‌نویسم خودم سه بار به این مصاحبه گوش کردم. (انگار تری گروس همان رودگولیت دوران ده سالگی شده که اگر روزنامه یک خط در موردش می‌نوشت، ده بار می‌خواندم.)

همین. این برنامه برای من آنقدر هیجان‌انگیز بود که در موردش بنویسم.

* یک جایی مارون به تری گروس می‌گوید که آدم با شنیدن صدای او می‌خواهد آدم بهتری شود. من این حرفش را از ته دل می‌فهمم.

-یک چیزی که در مصاحبه‌های تری گروس برای من از همه قوی‌تر است، تاکید بر موضوع و شخص مصاحبه‌ شونده است نه دانسته‌های خودش. مصاحبه‌کننده‌های خوب کم نداریم. اما خیلی وقت‌ها آنها تاکید کار را می‌برند بر روی آنچه خودشان می‌دانند یا شخصیت خودشان و از مصاحبه شونده در خصوص آن سوال می‌کنند. اتفاقی که من در هیچ کدام از مصاحبه‌‌های گروس آن را ندیدم. تاکید همیشه بر کار و یا شخص مصاحبه شونده بوده. همیشه.

پس از اینکه گوگل از سرویس اینترنت بی‌سیم خود پرده‌برداری کرد؛ گویا نوبت به شرکت نرم‌افزاری مایکروسافت رسیده است که یک سرویس وای‌فای فارغ از مکان برای کاربران سراسر جهان ارائه دهد. منابع خبری نزدیک مایکروسافت اعلام کردند این شرکت نرم‌افزاری در حال توسعه یک سرویس فارغ از پلتفرم برای دسترسی به اینترنتی وای‌فای بدون هیچ زحمتی (hassle-free) است. سایت این سرویس جدید به نام Microsoft WiFi، اولین بار در توییتر کاربری به نام WalkingCat مشاهده شده است. این کاربر سابقه لو دادن اپلیکیشن OneClip را نیز دارد. در حال حاضر این سایت پاک و طرح گرافیکی «Coming Soon» جایگزین‌اش شده است. منابع خبری مانند سایت VentureBeat ضمن اینکه می‌گویند ۱۰ میلیون کاربر در ۱۳۰ کشور می‌توانند عضو این سرویس باشند، نقل می‌کنند یک نماینده مایکروسافت نیز این خبر را تایید کرده و می‌گوید: «می‌توانم تایید کنم در حال کار روی یک سرویس جدید به نام Microsoft WiFi هستیم که امکان استفاده از وای‌فای را بدون زحمت برای میلیون‌ها کاربر فراهم می‌کند. ما مشتاقانه منتظر ارائه جزئیات بیشتری درباره این سرویس هستیم.» برخی از سایت‌ها نیز از ارائه تصادفی پیش‌نمایش این سرویس در یک کنفرانس محلی مایکروسافت خبر می‌دهند و اینکه شروع ماجرا از آن‌جا بوده است.

این سرویس برای اپلیکیشن‌های سیستم‌عامل‌های iOS، اندروید، ویندوز و OS X فعال خواهد بود و توسط هات‌اسپات‌های بزرگ مستقر در فضا ارائه می‌شود. احتمالاً رایگان نیست و کاربران باید حق عضویت در سرویس Skype Wi-Fi را بپردازند و سازمان‌های بزرگ نیاز به استفاده از Microsoft Office 365 داشته باشند. همچنین، کاربران می‌توانند به طور مستقیم از سرویس وای‌فای ارائه شده توسط مایکروسافت استفاده کنند. ظاهراً کاربران باید یک حق عضویت پایه بپردازند و بعد برای هر دقیقه استفاده از این سرویس، مبلغی را شارژ کنند.

به گزارش سایت بیزینس‌اینسایدر سرویس وای‌فای جدید، نسخه به‌روزشده‌ای از همان سرویس Skype Wi-Fi است که به کاربران اجازه می‌دهد به هات‌اسپات‌های کافی‌شاپ‌ها، رستوران‌ها، فرودگاه‌ها، هتل‌ها و ایستگاه‌های قطار و مترو وصل شوند و با لاگین کردن در سایت microsoftwifi.com؛ از این سرویس استفاده کنند. برای مثال، هات‌اسپات‌های معروف Boingo، Xfinity Wi-Fi و Gowex در امریکا و اکسس‌پوینت‌های BT و The Cloud در انگلیس امکان استفاده از این سرویس را می‌دهند.

هنوز جزئیات زیادی درباره این سرویس منتشر نشده است و احتمالاً به زودی به طور رسمی توسط مایکروسافت معرفی خواهد شد. از هم‌اکنون می‌توان حدس‌هایی درباره چرایی راه‌اندازی چنین سرویسی توسط مایکروسافت زد. قبلاً در یک پزشک مقاله‌ای به نام «مایکروسافت گوگل جدید است؛ گوگل مایکروسافت قدیمی است» کار کردیم و اشاره‌هایی به تغییر جنس کسب‌وکار مایکروسافت در دوره جدید مدیرعاملی ساتیا نادلا داشتیم. مایکروسافت جدید شدیداً دوست دارد سرویس‌محور باشد و همانند گوگل از تبلیغات آنلاین بهره ببرد. مرتباً سرویس‌های خودش را رایگان و اوپن‌سورس می‌کند و دوست دارد تعداد کاربران بیشتری جذب کند. حتا در حرکتی غیرمنتظره در تاریخ این شرکت؛ برای دیگر سکوهای نرم‌افزاری نیز سرویس و اپلیکیشن ارائه می‌دهد. نکته ظریف این قضیه این‌جا است که لازمه و نیازمندی استفاده کاربران از این همه سرویس و نرم‌افزار و اپلیکیشن، آنلاین بودن است. مایکروسافت هم مانند گوگل نیاز دارد کاربرانش همیشه و در همه کجا به اینترنت وصل باشند تا به اهداف پشت پرده خود یا همان کسب درآمد غیرمستقیم برسند. کاربر آف‌لاین هیچ سودی برای این شرکت‌ها ندارد. بنابراین، تعجبی ندارد که یک شرکت غول نرم‌افزاری به سراغ ارائه سرویس وای‌فای برود.

منبع: + و + و +

The developers’ desire to bring features from programming to CSS led to creation of CSS preprocessors. They allow us to define variables and create functions just as we do so in JavaScript; but even more important, we can make our code more flexible by using conditional and iterating blocks.

Such blocks can be created using Less, but the syntax for their use is quite different from the traditional if..else and for patterns. In contrast to Sass and Stylus, Less tries to stick as close as it can to the original CSS. Therefore, to construct conditionals and loops, it uses syntax borrowed from media queries. This can be a bit confusing at first, but once we learn how it works, we will see that it’s just another way to say the same thing.

Less Mixin Guards

Less calls its conditional statements mixin guards. To construct a conditional block, we need to use mixins in conjunction with guards. Let’s demonstrate the main scheme with an example:

.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "dark") {
  background-color: darkblue;
}
.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "light") {
  background-color: lightblue;
}

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  .theme("light");
}

Here, we have a mixin with one parameter .theme(@mode). We check if that parameter matches with a specific condition. Only once the parameter passes the test will the code inside the mixin be executed. For each separate condition, we need to repeat the name of the mixin along with its parameter(s). In our case, we have two conditions. As we can see, to substitute the if keyword, used in many other programming languages, Less uses guards. A guard is created by the when keyword followed by a specific condition. To understand it more easily let’s see how the above block would looks like in JavaScript:

function theme(mode){
  if (mode == "dark"){
   element.style.backgroundColor = "darkblue";
 } else if (mode == "light"){
   element.style.backgroundColor = "lightblue";
  }
}

So, a mixin guard is just a function with nested if..else statement(s). Although it’s created in a different manner.

In our div example, we use the mixin guard with “light” passed as parameter – .theme("light"). And when the code is compiled by Less, we get the following output:

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  background-color: lightblue;
}

See the Pen Less Guards and Loops Example 1 by SitePoint (@SitePoint) on CodePen.

Cool! But what if we have a shared style, which we want to apply in both cases. For example, when the theme is set to “light”, along with the light blue background color, we want to add an orange border too. To do so, we need to add a mixin without a guard, after our conditions:

.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "dark") {
  background-color: darkblue;
}
.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "light") {
  background-color: lightblue;
}
.theme (@mode) {
  border: thick solid orange;
}

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  .theme("light");
}

Now, we can see that the style from the last block of our mixin guard is added in the compiled code:

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  background-color: lightblue;
  border: thick solid orange;
}

If we change the theme’s mode to “dark”, the style for the border will still remains.

See the Pen Less Guards and Loops Example 2 by SitePoint (@SitePoint) on CodePen.

OK. Let’s take a look at another slightly different variant. This time we want to add a default style, which will be applied when neither the first condition, nor the second one is met. To do so, we add a mixin with a special type of guard – instead of a regular condition we use the default() function.

.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "dark") {
  background-color: darkblue;
}
.theme (@mode) when (@mode = "light") {
  background-color: lightblue;
}
.theme (@mode) when (default()) {
  background-color: @mode;
}

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  .theme(red);
}

This variant is equivalent to the final else in an JavaScript’s if..else block:

function theme(mode){
  if (mode == "dark"){
   element.style.backgroundColor = "darkblue";
 } else if (mode == "light"){
   element.style.backgroundColor = "lightblue";
  } else {
   element.style.border = mode;
  }
}

We use red as parameter and it doesn’t match neither with “light” nor with “dark”. Therefore, the background color is set to red in the compiled code:

div {
  width: 50px;
  height: 50px;
  background-color: red;
}

See the Pen Less Guards and Loops Example 3 by SitePoint (@SitePoint) on CodePen.

Less also allows us to use logical operators with guards. So, if we need to negate a condition, we can do so by using the not keyword, like so:

.theme(@mode) when not (@mode = "dark"), (@mode = "light")  {
    background-color: @mode;
}

Here, we use the OR operator too, which in Less is emulated by a comma. The code for this guard have exactly the same effect as the default() function.

Less Loops

Less defines a loop in a similar way to mixin guards. First, we create a mixin with a counter parameter, and a guard with our condition. Then, we put the code, which we want to be generated, inside the mixin. The last thing we need is a way to increment/decrement the counter value. We use the fact that a mixin can call itself and we add the same mixin as nested function. As an effect of this, our mixin will loop and iterate as long as the condition set in the guard is matched. Let’s make things clearer with the following example:

.make-variants(@i:1) when (@i =< 3) {
  .variant-@{i} {
    width: @i * 40px;
    height: @i * 20px;
    background-color: orange;
    margin-bottom: 10px;
    }
  .make-variants(@i + 1); // increment function
}

.make-variants();

We have a counter parameter set to 1 (@i:1) and a condition (@i =) which will return true until the counter value is equal or lesser than 3. Inside the mixin, we put the code we want to be generated on each iteration. And finally, to make the iteration possible, we add the mixin itself as a nested function, which will increment the counter value by one (@i + 1).

The above code block is similar to the following for loop in JavaScript:

for (i = 1; i <=3 ; i++) {
   ...
}

When the code is compiled, the style block from the mixin is repeated three times as expected, and thus three different classes are output:

.variant-1 {
  width: 40px;
  height: 20px;
  background-color: orange;
  margin-bottom: 10px;
}
.variant-2 {
  width: 80px;
  height: 40px;
  background-color: orange;
  margin-bottom: 10px;
}
.variant-3 {
  width: 120px;
  height: 60px;
  background-color: orange;
  margin-bottom: 10px;
}

See the Pen Less Guards and Loops Example 4 by SitePoint (@SitePoint) on CodePen.

Note that the place where you put the increment function matters. If you put it above the styles then the order in compiled code will be reversed – .variant-3 will be output first, and so on.

Summary

As we can see, Less’ variants of if..else and for blocks aren’t so confusing as they may look at first glance. Once we grasp how they work, we can easily use them to make our CSS more flexible and reusable.

اگه طراح وب باشید به احتمال زیاد به شرایطی برخورد کردین که شما یا مشتری پیشنهاد میدین هم دامنه ir و هم دامنه com و در شرایط حادتری چند دامنه مرتبط یا شبیه دامنه اصلی را ثبت کنید. قطعاً index شدن یک محتوا در چند دامنه برای سئو سایت مناسب نیست و دامنه های فرعی بایستی به دامنه های اصلی انتقال پیدا کنند.

بدترین اتفاق مخصوصاً در مورد دامنه های ir این هست که برای redirect از طریق ثبت کننده دامنه باید پول اضافی بدین و حتی اگه ثبت کننده شما انتقال را براتون انجام بده معمولاً فقط نام مثلاً domain1.com به domain.com منتقل میشه ، حالا اگه شما صفحه about-us به نشانی domain.com/about-us داشته باشین و کاربری صفحه domain1.com/about-us را بزنه به صفحه index دامنه domain.com انتقال پیدا میکنه.

حالا برای اینکه هم هزینه اضافی نکنیم و هم هر صفحه‌ای با هر مسیری که زده میشه به دامنه اصلی و همون صفحه انتقال داده بشه باید از htaccess. استفاده کنیم :

RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]

برای توضیح بیشتر :
خط ۱ : Rewrite (بازنویسی) را فعال میکنیم.
خط ۲ : بازنویسی بر پایه ریشه انجام میشه.
خط ۳ : مقدار شرطی برای خط بعد هست و میگه اگه هاست مربوط به URL درخواستی (منظور همون domain.com یا domain1.com بدون www هست) برابر با domain.com نبود (NC یعنی به حروف بزرگ و کوچیک حساس نشو !)
خط ۴: منظور از *. اینه که هر چی بعد از نام هاست در ادامه URL بود را با دامنه domain.com فراخوانی کن ! (L یعنی دیگه شرایط و حالت های بعدی را نمیخواد بررسی کنی و کار را تموم کن. R=301 هم میگه کلاً مسیر را اشتباه اومدی و از این به بعد مسیری که من دارم بهش انتقال میدم را در نظر بگیر که این برای موتور های جستجو معنی داره)

حالا اگه ۱۰۰ تا دامنه را هم توی cpanel روی هاستتون Park کنید.با هر دامنه و مسیری که کاربران توی مرورگرشون بزنن به دامنه domain.com که دامنه اصلی هست و همون مسیر درخواستی منتقل میشوند.

I am so sorry. Please forgive me. I love you all so much.

The note was simple, the handwriting was clear, uniform, not erratic. I asked the Detective how she looked. Was she put together, or did it look like she woke up and did not know what she was doing?

She answered me very calmly, “She was very put together, hair brushed, clean, dressed.” Did it look like she tried to stop herself? Again, calmly, the Detective answered, “No, she could have stopped herself and did not.” It was hard for me to imagine that this was an intentional act, but the facts were clear. My sister, a devoted wife, and mother of three beautiful children had hanged herself. That was two years ago, May 31st, 2013.

…

How she got to this point remains a source of frustration and pain for everyone who knew her. Amy was a wonderful mother, daughter, wife and sister. She volunteered at the children’s school, attended every function, baked cookies for the neighbors. She was an avid crocheter and taught children how to knit at her son’s elementary school. She was an accomplished nurse and worked up until the time she had her third child. She was a generous person and was always willing to help those around her. I spoke to Amy every day, if not more than once a day since I moved away to go to college. She had been married for over 15 years and her husband adored her.

While Amy always had many people who wanted to be her friend, she held few people close. In spite of her tremendous beauty, she was terribly insecure about her appearance. She had her ups and downs like most people; but nothing that caused too much alarm. Life’s usual challenges and bouts of frustration with life, but not more.

…

However, the two years that preceded her death were different. Amy became a completely different person. The trigger for this is difficult to know. I was living in California, and my family in Omaha, Nebraska. Our mother, who was 85 at the time, had increasing health issues. Amy’s children were getting older and less reliant on her. Amy seemed to become more withdrawn from people. She stopped returning phone calls and refused to engage in any social activities. In spite of barely leaving the house, she became increasingly preoccupied with her looks, specifically with her face and the quality of her skin. She began to get laser treatments for red spots and other minor defects that no one could see but Amy and the doctors who readily took her money.

Instead of feeling like the lasers were making her look better, Amy was convinced the treatments were leaving scars on her face. She then went to other doctors to treat the “scars” that again, no one else could see. I would talk to my brother-in-law and nephews regularly, whose feelings, understandably, went from sympathetic, to angry to sad in trying to figure out how to deal with the situation. Our pleading with Amy to go talk with a therapist was unsuccessful. She did not think anything was wrong with her and refused to go. She said once her skin was taken care of, everything would be fine.

At this point, the situation went from bad to worse. Our mother passed away, and Amy became obsessed with a single spot on her face. No one else could see it, but she was convinced it was not only there, but very disfiguring to her.

Amy would stare in a mirror for 8 to 10 hours a day. I would never have believed it, had I not witnessed it for myself. It was unimaginable. At this point, it became clear to me that we were dealing with a very serious mental health situation.

Continual pleadings with Amy to see a psychiatrist finally resulted in her seeing a specialist in Obsessive Compulsive Disorders. She went to several doctors, who did not understand the situation, others which she did not like. Then, finally, she found one she would agree to see with some regularity. My brother-in-law and I would call her psychiatrist repeatedly to get them to understand the facts. Amy would only tell them what she wanted them to hear. Since Amy was a nurse, she understood what to say and what not to say.

…

Over a year went by of a menial existence for Amy and her family. I went from talking to Amy nearly every day of my life, to barely talking to her. She wouldn’t take my calls. She stopped attending school events, stopped cooking meals, and laid on the couch all day. At this point, her psychiatrist put her on a combination of Prozac, Zoloft, Lexapro and other antidepressants. We all thought this was shocking given the gravity of the situation. As an adult, you cannot make someone get help if they don’t want it. If someone is mentally ill, they likely will not understand they need treatment. It is a frustrating situation designed to help protect people but ends up hurting people when you cannot force them to get treatment. Amy’s “treatment” consisted of talking to her doctor for 15 minutes a month to get her medication. That’s it. No cognitive therapy. No deeper intervention.

Fifteen minutes a month.

It was clear Amy was terribly ill. The drugs made her a zombie, but it was a better state than staring in the mirror for eight hours a day. In doing our research, her husband and I concluded that she had Body Dysmorphic Disorder coupled with depression. When you read the literature, it seems fairly obvious. We tried to talk with her doctor about this with no success. I was desperate, leaving messages for her doctor, writing letters to Amy, trying to breakthrough. Nothing worked.

Finally, Amy’s husband convinced her to check into an inpatient treatment center. Amy reluctantly packed a small bag and got in the car. Half way during the drive, Amy lost her nerve and jumped out of the moving car. As dangerous as the situation was, this was finally our opportunity to get Amy committed, so she could receive a proper evaluation. The police came to the house, a report was filed, and Amy’s husband officially was able to get her “committed against her will”. However, our hope was short lived. Amy was “committed” for a 72-hour hold but convinced the doctors she was fine. I was livid.

She was a mother of three who jumped out of a moving the car,
and you think she is fine?

Amy was also completely embarrassed to be in the medical center. As a nurse, she knew many of the nurses and doctors in the facility and the stigma of being mentally ill was shattering to her already fragile self. They released her, added an antipsychotic, Risperdal, and had her see a psychiatrist once a month to obtain the medication.

Months passed, and Amy seemed to get slightly better. She did a few activities and went to a few school functions. She was an avid knitter and begin to knit again. She knitted hats and gave them away to the homeless. She started to leave the kids notes, send me letters and presents and let everyone know that she loved them. Now, I understand, this is when she must have decided it was time. Like many people who decide to end their life, she began to give some things away, but nothing so noticeable that anyone caught on. Only now, as we piece everything together, do we understand what she was doing.

…

Even in her death, Amy was thoughtful. Although I know her pain was tremendous, she waited until the last day of school to do it. I know she must have planned to do it before, but waited, not wanting to ruin the kids’ school year or jeopardize their grades.

Amy had a severe mental illness that went undiagnosed and was not treated properly. She had insurance, and there were no financial barriers to her treatment. Still, she could not get the treatment she deserved to save her.

Maybe she didn’t want to be saved. It is hard to know, but when you are in the depths of such despair, you must rely on others to help get you out of it.
Not a day goes by where I don’t think about what I could have done differently, should have done differently to save her. Anyone who has dealt with this knows the guilt you feel is tremendous. There have many stories in the news lately about suicide, Students in Palo Alto, Madison Holleran, Robin Williams. All complicated in their own way. The hardest thing about suicide is there are so many questions that you can never get answered. You go back and trace every conversation over and over. What could you have done? In the end, it doesn’t matter. What’s done is done and you have to find a way to make peace with it. It is nearly impossible to do so, but you have to try. For Amy’s children, every day, I try.

At her funeral, the Cantor said that Amy was ill, and her illness was no different than her dying from cancer. I agree. It is unfortunate that mental illness is still treated with such little care and has such a stigma. If it weren’t for that, maybe Amy and many others would be alive today. I am telling her story because too many people keep mental illness a secret. I’m not judging this decision; I understand.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.