lhunath

Um.. how about, do you know how to, when overlaying a DirectX PNG effect layer on an element as background using fake CSS in Internet Explorer to fake PNG support, make the underlying child elements receive mouse clicks again? ;P <div style="filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader (src='image.png', sizingMethod='scale');"><a href="blah.html">Blah</a></div> This will cause you to be unable to click the Anchor. Because the AlphaImageLoader lays over it. Fix it? ;P

Any MySQL Database can be as big as you want it to be. As long as you have hard disk space to store it. By the way, making alot of databases in MySQL is honestly, rather stupid.. :/ You should have only 1 database for each site, and use diffrent tables to store the diffrent things in, not diffrent databases. Those are theoretically, infinite in amount. As in, no limit, except for, of course, disk space. =)

I'd use CSS since JavaScript is evil. HTML: <div id="menu"> I am a very kewl menu xD. <a href="link.html">Linky</a> <a href="link.html">Linky</a> <a href="link.html">Linky</a> <a href="link.html">Linky</a> </div> Neat html, to the basics, structural only, as it should be. CSS: #menu { Â position: absolute; Â top: 0; Â left: 0; Â overflow: hidden; Â width: 0;} Â #menu:hover { Â Â overflow: visible; Â } CSS to the point. Yet, guess what, IE is a spawn from hell which doesn't apply this without Dean Edwards' IE7 patch ~lhunath

Internet Explorer has far more serious issues with security than Firefox or Opera. Reason? Because they don't upgrade as often, and because their code is poorly written. Trust me, it's a proven fact. Mozilla & Opera have by far better code than IE. And IE is far from getting better, new flaws emerge every day, and they are all reported to microsoft. Many of them have even been left aside by microsoft, flaws detected years ago still haven't been fixed, many people still use IE 5.0 - 5.5 leaving them open for huge security issues. Making a browser that's 100% secure is almost not possible, but consciddering Opera, Mozilla and IE, then you can not conclude anything other than, IE is a Nightmare. And if you don't believe me, ask all those people with pcs flooded with Spy/Ad/diffrent Malware. Bah, Sp2 may have improved security, but even with this so recent improvement, where they could have easily made IE better than any browser available, they did aweful. Their popup blocking is horrible compared to Opera's, they haven't even begun to try and improve IE's rendering engine (which, is just as much of a horror as zombies from Resident Evil). Sp2 comes with alot of security features, but the fact that they're so "user friendly" and "easy to install" makes them unconfigurable and causing thousands of companies today to have to fall back to Sp1 because it caused their entire network to fail, causing terrible economic disasters. Security for those that don't understand it, is and always will be, a laugh. And an economic crisis. Opera has never filtered a popup I did want, and has never failed to filter unwanted popups. And I didn't have to configure one thing about it. Trust me, you're staying with IE, because you have no idea how much crap it really is, because you don't know how good life can get and you've accepted that the uglyness you see on the web, is what you have to accept. Get Opera, enter heaven. Honestly. Btw, Sp2 changed nothing about the browser, as I just said, it's CSS engine is just as terrible and none of the HTML bugs were fixed. IE is a decent designer's Hell. Ctrl-tab. Exactly. Accepting the uglyness of the web. =) That's why Microsoft wins with it's integrated features. They are almost every one of them, buggy, crappy, not configurable, slow, bad, memory sucking, andsoforth, but we use them because we're lazy and ignorant.It's not timeconsuming at all, as a matter of fact, I do format too very often, and it takes me about 2 minutes to install Opera, FlashFXP (for decent FTP instead of IE :F), Codec packs, Aston Shell replacement, andsoforth. That's not all that troublesome and timeconsuming is it.......? ;O ~lhunath

By far, they are very diffrent as a matter of fact. They are two diffrent expressions of the same thing and can convert from one into the other, but stating that they are the same thing, is a terrible blunder. =) Hold on here, I don't know too much about matter-anti matter, but if you just said that by converting energy into matter, you create both, then the anti-matter is right there, not in another galaxy as you state here : Heh, is it so that a specific "element" of anti-matter reacts with Any matter or It's specific matter that was created with it? That's where you have the maths all wrong, qwijibow. There is a thing called limits. And in case you didn't know, there are an infinite amount of numbers inbetween 0 and 1, (and 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.0000000000 and 0.0000000001 as for that matter..), but still, it's not impossible to reach the next digit. It's not because there is an infinite amount of things inbetween A and B, that it's impossible to ever reach B from A. Infinism of time and the fact that it was "created" aren't really related at all. In this galaxy/dimention/whatever almost everything is infinite in size and dimentions. Time was just the result of the spawning of dimentions (length 1st, width 2nd, height 3rd, duration 4th, ..). They're used to point to a specific occurance, like, "that man is There". "There" being a point in space, and "is" being a point in time. Before the big bang, time was not, so there's no going back. Just like there is no going more north of the north pole. Infinism has little relation with any of this. I wouldn't be too sure. Sorry for the long post, btw, only just got here, couldn't resist the urge to comment a bit on it all.