Rigaudon

They're giving up quality for speed. Not a very good trade, in my opinion.True, sometimes I get frustrated when a page doesn't load in the first few seconds, but it's better to have a page with relevant information and wait a little longer than to have a page that loads fast but doesn't help.HOWEVER- I don't think this will be much of a problem. If your site ranks very high, then chances are it probably will also be fast to respond.

Header output must be given before any HTML is outputted. If you call the AJAX function, then the HTML is obviously outputted already.The best solution to this would to not use an AJAX function, but rather store that file that lets the user download in another .php file. Then, instead of calling the AJAX function, have it link to that new page with target="_blank".

Hah! Very interesting.As for me, I don't think necessarily all WOMEN are evil, but everyone would be evil if they had the chance and knew they weren't going to be caught. After all, it's more fun to be evil ;)Women have a choice of being straight, bi, or lesbian. The same cannot be said about men; a straight man is the only acceptable man in our society. Women don't get the same arousal that men get from seeing two women having at each other, at least I don't think.If you're going to say that women who paint their nails are insecure, why stop there? People who drink V8 are insecure about their diet. People who recycle are insecure about their part in the environment. The list goes on and on, though this has some truth to it; I suppose everyone who recycles actually is a bit insecure about their place in the environment.

Here's a list of all the new HTML 5 elements: <article><aside><audio><canvas><command><datalist><details><figcaption><figure><footer><header><hgroup><kegen><mark><meter><nav><output><progress><rp><rt><ruby><section><source><summary><time><video> Most are just for the sake of organization. Some define specific things, like Ruby. As for audio and video, each browser will have its own way of parsing that. They're just like <embed> except updated. I don't see youtube updating to it, though, because they use flash...

I'm currently trying to soft reset my Pokemon Emerald game for a shiny starter. By doing this, I can get my secret id, exploit the RNG and get even more shinies, which I can then clone at the battle frontier and migrate to my Diamond.Has anyone done this before and can give me some advice? I've been soft resetting for a bit more than a week now and so far, no luck

Sure, I can try that, but my hypothesis would be that it depends on your system, and not predominantly the browser. This is because Flash, as I know it, is a separate process from the browser, and the only link is in the initialization. I will try it, however, and report the results when I'm done.

Most people in the U.S. are Christian, and Christians believe that God made humans as reflections of himself. Therefore, Christians believe that God looks what we call 'human'. 'Father' is also a general term. There can be a 'father' of a concept, but that does not mean that the person is a concept.

I've heard that this game and its expansion total up to more than 100 hours of gameplay, which is stunning.I'd totally buy it if it weren't so expensive, though. I rather enjoyed Diablo 2, RTS's, and FPS's.

The school I attend right now is a high school, ranked #14 in the United States.I've just had an interview for a school for juniors and seniors that specifically revolve around science/math. It's a boarding school, and there are only 13 schools like it in the US.A majority of the people who get in also get into MIT if they apply.I'm really excited about attending this school, though I'm hesitant about leaving my parents and friends behind =|

I would definitely think that Chrome has optimization for Google products, simply because Chrome was made by Google, and therefore, intended to be used with it. I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox didn't fully support some functions since it's open source, meaning people can alter it. The good thing about being open-source is that one can always alter it again to fit what is required. I don't know why one would bother using Outlook anyways, just use the web-based email. Microsoft does some pretty weird and unconventional things these days.

Ahem...1) Please don't type in all caps. It makes your post much more difficult to read.2) I hope you'll understand if I'm a bit skeptical. Those things could've happened by coincidence, or rather, by a logical series of events in which you weren't a part of.3) Your word choice of "spellcaster" makes it slightly more unbelievable. How do you know for certain that he had magical powers?

I found this and thought this was interesting. What do you think our current system would have to say about this?

Wow, this is a broad topic. Well, I have my blood-family- my parents and brother. My parents both grew up in China and started out as pretty poor, with not even the wildest dreams of coming to America. They worked hard and made it all the way to the upper-middle class in America. When they came, they barely knew how to even write their own names in English. I can't possibly imagine how difficult it must be to do something like that, and make it all the way past many American families, and I'm definitely very grateful. However, sometimes I feel the difference of cultures between us. I was brought to America when I was five years old, so I grew up the American way. The contrasting cultures can lead to arguments at times, but I concede that more often than not, I am wrong when it comes to questions about life and morals. My brother was born 3 years ago, so he won't have to go through what my parents (or even I, for the first 5 years of my life) went through (lucky bastard). Then, there's my friends. They've always been there when times looked down. I've actually moved quite a lot since moving to America, and the gap between leaving friends behind and making new ones is always difficult. Moving forward on the path of life, I find that looking back does wonders for your self esteem and consciousness. I still keep in contact with my old friends while always making new ones, and my friends keep me motivated through whatever I may be going through, and for that, I am grateful.And last, but certainly not least, there's my intellectual family- people who I meet who share my common interests and goals- including all of you! I probably owe the most, in terms of self-development and discovery, to my intellectual family. The wonderful thing about this is not only meeting new people, but also being introduced to new concepts that you probably could not get if you lived on the opposite side of the world of that person.I feel like I relate to all my families, and it would be impossible for me to choose one over the other. If you asked me, "if they were all going to die, which one would you save?", then I'd think suicide would be an easier choice than choosing between them. That sounds dark, i know, but I couldn't live with myself if I knew I chose one over the others.

Well, when I posted, I was kinda assuming you meant people who weren't gullible enough to fall for phishing scams. If a person is THAT incapable of spotting a scam, then changing passwords doesn't help whatsoever. I realize I contradicted myself in my post, but it was purposeful. I wanted to bring in more perspectives of the case because I can see someone using those two arguments. I completely agree with you about a moderation between changing passwords at given times and using hard-to-guess passwords. I also DO use the same password for most sites, but I NEVER use the same username, if that's what you're berating me about

What I really hate about IE when developing is not only the speed, but when you have an interactive script that, say, changes the background color or alters html elements. You'd always get this "ACTIVE X- WARNING! THIS SITE MAY BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL. ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RUN THIS SCRIPT", or whatever it says, and you'd have to say "yes" every single time you reload the page. The only slight plus for JS developers in IE is the built-in decoding box. However, this can hardly be called a plus, since firefox add-ons, like firebug, are much better, and the decoding box in IE is so vague anyways (object can't do that? What is that supposed to mean?)

Hi everybody.I did my science fair project on a comparison of javascript speeds between browsers for both strings and numbers.The browser versions I worked with are:Firefox 3.5Google ChromeIE 8Opera 10.00Safari 4.31.9.1Here's the code that I used to calculate time for integers: <script type="text/javascript">var times = new Array(100)for(x=0;x<100;x++){ var start = new Date(); start = start.getTime(); var i = 0; while(i<=10000000){ i++; } var end = new Date(); end = end.getTime(); var difference = end-start;// document.write(difference); times[x] = difference;}document.write(times);var total = 0;for(var k=0;k<100;k++){ total = total+times[k];}var avg = total/100;document.write("<br />"+avg);</script> Here's the string script: <script type="text/javascript">var letters = Array();letters[0] = "a";letters[1] = "b";letters[2] = "c";letters[3] = "d";letters[4] = "e";letters[5] = "f";letters[6] = "g";letters[7] = "h";letters[8] = "i";letters[9] = "j";letters[10] = "k";letters[11] = "l";letters[12] = "m";letters[13] = "n";letters[14] = "o";letters[15] = "p";letters[16] = "q";letters[17] = "r";letters[18] = "s";letters[19] = "t";letters[20] = "u";letters[21] = "v";letters[22] = "w";letters[23] = "x";letters[24] = "y";letters[25] = "z";letters[26] = "A";letters[27] = "B";letters[28] = "C";letters[29] = "D";letters[30] = "E";letters[31] = "F";letters[32] = "G";letters[33] = "H";letters[34] = "I";letters[35] = "J";letters[36] = "K";letters[37] = "L";letters[38] = "M";letters[39] = "N";letters[40] = "O";letters[41] = "P";letters[42] = "Q";letters[43] = "R";letters[44] = "S";letters[45] = "T";letters[46] = "U";letters[47] = "V";letters[48] = "W";letters[49] = "X";letters[50] = "Y";letters[51] = "Z";letters[52] = "0";letters[53] = "1";letters[54] = "2";letters[55] = "3";letters[56] = "4";letters[57] = "5";letters[58] = "6";letters[59] = "7";letters[60] = "8";letters[61] = "9";letters[62] = "`";letters[63] = "~";letters[64] = "!";letters[65] = "@";letters[66] = "#";letters[67] = "$";letters[68] = "%";letters[69] = "^";letters[70] = "&";letters[71] = "*";letters[72] = "(";letters[73] = ")";letters[74] = "-";letters[75] = "_";letters[76] = "=";letters[77] = "+";letters[78] = " ";letters[79] = "|";letters[80] = "]";letters[81] = "}";letters[82] = "[";letters[83] = "{";letters[84] = ":";letters[85] = ";";letters[86] = "'";letters[87] = "\"";letters[88] = "/";letters[89] = ".";letters[90] = ",";letters[91] = "<";letters[92] = ">";var times = Array();var count = 0;for(var k=0;k<100;k++){ var starttime = new Date(); var start = starttime.getTime(); var generatedString = ""; var i=0; while(i<10000){ var rand = Math.round(Math.random()*92); generatedString += letters[rand]; i++; } var endtime = new Date(); var end = endtime.getTime(); var diff = end-start; times[count] = diff; count++;}var browser=navigator.appName;var b_version=navigator.appVersion;var version=parseFloat(b_version);document.write("Times for "+browser+ "Version "+version+": <br />");for(var k=0;k<100;k++){ document.write(times[k]); if(k<99){ document.write(", "); } if((k+1)%20==0){ document.write("<br />"); }}</script> The results were actually very shocking to me.(results are in milliseconds. Each number represents an entire loop- 10 million adds or 10000 length string)Integers: ------------Firefox 3.5:45,45,46,45,46,46,46,45,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,45,46,45,46,45,46,46,45,46,45,46,45,46,45,45,46,46,45,46,45,47,46,52,45,52,51,51,51,53,49,45,52,51,51,52,51,51,52,51,51,51,52,51,52,51,52,51,53,51,47,46,51,51,51,51,51,51,50,52,51,52,50,51,51,51,50,51,51,50,46,50,51,50,51,51,50,51,50,50,51,51,52,51,50Average: 48.74 msGoogle Chrome:117,114,112,113,112,109,109,108,109,109,109,110,109,110,109,109,108,110,108,111,108,109,109,111,113,110,109,108,108,109,109,110,109,109,109,113,109,110,108,108,110,108,109,110,109,109,109,109,108,108,108,108,109,108,110,109,108,108,108,108,108,108,110,109,109,110,109,108,109,108,115,109,108,110,108,109,108,110,108,108,110,108,109,108,108,109,109,109,109,109,112,110,108,109,109,109,108,108,109,108Average: 109.25 msInternet Explorer 8:2728,2727,2720,2732,2709,2704,2703,2711,2716,2714,2704,2724,2729,2730,2728,2739,2731,2727,2738,2714,2715,2722,2710,2717,2702,2699,2729,5093,2756,2730,2734,2691,2692,2681,2695,2719,2704,2719,2694,2713,5117,2734,2722,2725,2728,2713,2730,2727,2747,2715,2702,2724,2708,2699,4436,2730,2721,2717,2704,2732,2714,2726,2722,2713,2723,2709,2717,4523,2749,2733,2725,2736,2729,2719,2696,2682,2711,2699,2696,2703,5031,2747,2732,2727,2709,2710,2716,2708,2710,2709,2711,2710,2726,2736,4806,2747,2737,2733,2715,2711Average: 2845.3 msOpera 10.00:2536,2178,2124,2070,2081,2063,2114,2083,2101,2257,2144,2093,2079,2121,2211,2265,2071,2069,2071,2067,2064,2061,2066,2064,2070,2070,2067,2064,2061,2065,2062,2064,2069,2067,2067,2063,2063,2063,2057,2067,2065,2084,2070,2067,2073,2060,2066,2064,2062,2070,2066,2068,2065,2062,2062,2059,2063,2062,2069,2072,2063,2061,2057,2066,2060,2064,2067,2062,2068,2066,2069,2064,2060,2069,2061,2070,2063,2064,2060,2057,2065,2062,2059,2066,2062,2066,2059,2061,2064,2055,2067,2061,2059,2065,2057,2063,2057,2061,2061,2063Average: 2079.25 msSafari 4.31.9.1:37,35,36,35,35,36,35,35,35,36,34,35,34,36,35,35,35,34,35,35,36,35,36,35,35,35,35,35,35,35,35,34,34,36,34,35,36,36,36,35,34,35,34,35,35,35,34,35,35,35,35,34,35,35,36,35,35,36,34,35,36,34,35,35,35,34,35,35,35,36,34,35,35,34,34,35,35,34,34,35,35,36,35,35,35,35,36,34,35,35,36,34,36,35,35,35,35,34,35,36Average: 35 ms Strings: Firefox 3.5:4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 6, 3, 4, 8, 4, 3, 4, 4,4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4,3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3,4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3,4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3Average: 3.71Google Chrome:4, 3, 4, 3, 6, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3Average:3.45Internet Explorer 8:31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 15, 32, 15, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 15, 32, 31, 15, 32, 15, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 15, 32, 15, 31, 32, 15, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 15, 32, 31, 15, 32, 15, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 15, 32, 31, 15, 32, 15, 31, 16, 31, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 16, 31, 15Average:24.49Opera 10.00:20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 35, 20, 15, 20, 20, 160, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 100, 20, 20, 15, 20, 25, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 60Average: 22.25Safari 4.31.9.1:4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4Average:3.94 I had always known IE was terrible in JS, but now, though these numbers will vary depending on the machine, I think it is safe to say that IE is just plain.... bad.

What's wrong with changing your password every week/month rather than 3-4 months if you can remember it? If someone has targeted you specifically, they're going to try all they can whether they know your password or not. If they saw you typing your password, shouldn't that be more reason to change your password more frequently? The chances that you have to change your password on the same day that someone saw you typing it is very slim as it is, anyways. I also think using the same password on multiple sites is fine. Certainly easier to remember, in any case, unless you write down all your passwords. I think a solid non-guessable password is strong enough to prevent anyone from getting into any one of your accounts. If the person doesn't know you personally, then he/she probably won't know where you have other accounts, anyways. I've never like Microsoft's customer support or help. The help web page is terrible, and I totally agree with you there.

I rather like the design. It's really simple right now, but I know that you'll work on it further and make it better. Keep in mind that what makes a website attractable on first glance is interaction and how easy it is to look at. I know spamming black and red everywhere makes it look cool, but the effect wears off after a while and it gets really hard to look at. I had to learn this the hard way.Overall, it's off to a very nice start. Thanks for sharing.

I did a little research, and found something on this. Basically, you can send sms messages through PHP through a gateway. Here's the HTML code: <table border=0> <tr> <td>Recipient</td> <td><input type='text' name='recipient'></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Message</td> <td><textarea rows=4 cols=40 name='message'></textarea></td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td><input type=submit name=submit value=Send></td> </tr> </table> </form> </body> </html> linenums:0'><html> <body> <h1>My SMS form</h1> <form method=post action='sendsms.php'> <table border=0> <tr> <td>Recipient</td> <td><input type='text' name='recipient'></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Message</td> <td><textarea rows=4 cols=40 name='message'></textarea></td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td><input type=submit name=submit value=Send></td> </tr> </table> </form> </body></html> And here's the PHP code: <?php######################################################### Login information for the SMS Gateway########################################################$ozeki_user = "admin";$ozeki_password = "abc123";$ozeki_url = "http://127.0.0.1:9501/api?";######################################################### Functions used to send the SMS message########################################################function httpRequest($url){ $pattern = "/http...([0-9a-zA-Z-.]*).([0-9]*).(.*)/"; preg_match($pattern,$url,$args); $in = ""; $fp = fsockopen("$args[1]", $args[2], $errno, $errstr, 30); if (!$fp) { return("$errstr ($errno)"); } else { $out = "GET /$args[3] HTTP/1.1\r\n"; $out .= "Host: $args[1]:$args[2]\r\n"; $out .= "User-agent: Ozeki PHP client\r\n"; $out .= "Accept: */*\r\n"; $out .= "Connection: Close\r\n\r\n"; fwrite($fp, $out); while (!feof($fp)) { $in.=fgets($fp, 128); } } fclose($fp); return($in);}function ozekiSend($phone, $msg, $debug=false){ global $ozeki_user,$ozeki_password,$ozeki_url; $url = 'username='.$ozeki_user; $url.= '&password='.$ozeki_password; $url.= '&action=sendmessage'; $url.= '&messagetype=SMS:TEXT'; $url.= '&recipient='.urlencode($phone); $url.= '&messagedata='.urlencode($msg); $urltouse = $ozeki_url.$url; if ($debug) { echo "Request: <br>$urltouse<br><br>"; } //Open the URL to send the message $response = httpRequest($urltouse); if ($debug) { echo "Response: <br><pre>". str_replace(array("<",">"),array("<",">"),$response). "</pre><br>"; } return($response);}######################################################### GET data from sendsms.html########################################################$phonenum = $_POST['recipient'];$message = $_POST['message'];$debug = true;ozekiSend($phonenum,$message,$debug);?> Note; I didn't write the code, I found it on a website which discusses this topic. The one that I found is called Ozeki NG SMS Gateway. You can find more information and download it here: http://www.ozekisms.com/index.php?owpn=327

I use Adobe Photoshop for the design, and usually use Dreamweaver for the code. CS4, by the way. On a side note, I can't wait for CS5 to be released to the public.

Well, it only negates trust in open wikis. If you were to pick up a book (it's like the internet written on a tree, for those of you who don't know), such as a real encyclopedia, I don't think one would doubt the information and mistrust it. I see this as a positive rather than a negative. If a person bet you about a fact that you were sure on, the topic may be so vague or unheard of that it would take ages to find a source for without the vast resources of the internet, and by that time, the person might already have "forgotten" the bet. Social networking causes nothing but problems for someone in a relationship who has many opposite-sex friends. Even the slightest comment, like "how was your day?" may set off a fiance or lover, like "Why would he/she care how your day went?" and reach the conclusion that you're cheating. I rather enjoy an intellectual conversation between someone with opposing views, but I agree that flaming can be just downright annoying. The internet is all one great copyright infringement. Well, not literally, but everyone knows what I mean- you can practically get any software you want for free if you know how. It's such a vast resource that it's so much less conspicuous than, say, breaking into a store. I could totally flame people from this one point- people who think they're good at something when they actually have no knowledge or limited knowledge on the subject. Why are you looking at me like that? I know what I'm talking about! Seriously! Huh? What's Nigeria? Isn't that some sort of country? Seriously, though, internet scams are the faults of the people who fall for them. Most internet scams are so blatantly obvious that I can't see how someone could fall for it. My #1 pet peeve: bad grammar/use of language.I can stand slight errors, like misusing homophones (I actually noticed a few grammar mistakes in your post), because those are understandable; everybody makes mistakes. It's just the mass spamming of words and sentences without punctuation that I can't stand, and, of course, the internet has done nothing for spelling and grammar. People like to know that their role models can make mistakes, and, in turn, justify their own mistakes. Yesterday, I ran into a couple in my school, and the guy was cheating on the girl. He said "Tiger Woods did it, and look how successful he is!". The internet is predominantly internet porn. It has its problems, true, but also acts as an outlet for the majority of the male population. I really don't have anything more to say on the matter.

Well, as of yet, this is not a problem that I have had to deal with, but I think probably will occur in the future.Right now, I'm actually thinking of making my own way of parsing things and therefore remove the need for more than one quote at a time.The method I'm using now isn't exactly the best one, which is why I asked in the first place. I think HTML encode/decode should work for the time being, though.

Very nice post for a first tutorial, though I question your word choice of "hack". Hacking refers a side-effect, or loophole, in the code in which the user may benefit from it in some way. What you've described I don't think is hacking since there are built-in functions to do them.However, these tips and tricks are very nice. Keep up the good work.

Ohh... I see. Well, I mean that makes more sense than magically appearing electrons. If this is the case, I assume it's like this for every polyatomic ion then? When you say "in the solution", does that mean that polyatomic ions cannot exist outside of a given environment, or solution? Or is this the only way to get said ion?

Hi everybody, I'm taking Pre-IB chemistry this year and our teacher just went over Lewis Dot Structures. They're pretty easy, but I have a question about it. As some of you may have noticed, I'm not the kind of person who can stand doing something and not understand what or why I'm doing it. I haven't gotten a chance to ask my teacher yet since she doesn't answer many questions and walks out right after class. Anyways: I'll use a simple example: Phosphate (PO4 with a -3 charge) We were told to add up all valence electrons and then add the electrons of the charge. Phosphate has 5, oxygen has 6 (times 4 is 24), and the charge is 3, for a total of 32. The Lewis Dot Structure is easy enough to draw. My Question: I see the Lewis Dot Structure as how the valence electrons between atoms interact and form covalent bonds. All the electrons added together are obviously more than 32, since valence electrons are only the outer level. However, if it only has 29 valence electrons readily available from the valence electrons of the atoms (Phosphate is 5 + Oxygen (6)*4), where do the extra 3 come from? I know I'm supposed to add the 3 from the charge, but the charge doesn't add more valence electrons to the atoms, as far as I know. Are they drawn from a lower energy level? Do they appear magically just to make me confused? I WANT ANSWERS! Thanks in advance.