gaea

Michael: I'm not 100% clear on what you're suggesting. The problem is that the part at the "bottom" of the <div>repeat</div> changes, depending on what text size people use. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my description. Check out http://imptestrm.com/rg-erdr.php?_dnm=www.facesofwar.org&_cfrg=1&_drid=as-drid-2300300503455222 to see the site I'm talking about. I'd like to replace that bottom copyright banner with an "end piece" (some of the graphics are going to be redone, but you get the point). BuffaloHELP: Intriguing idea, I'll try it when I have a free moment. It seems like we'd wind up with the same problem though...making sure the top of the image lined up correctly with wherever it was inserted.

Does anyone know of a way to ensure that a css 'background-repeat' will end in a completed image? I'm using a fluid layout envolving curved paper. The paper is a background image repeated down the y axsis. I need it to end up in a full image at the bottom, in order to put an end image. I'm not sure if this is possible. I searched for it abit on google, but didn't find much. Thanks for your time.

The !important idea sounded good, but it unfortunatly didn't work.I figured out a way to fix my problem though: A set of three <spans>. The top one contains the top piece of the menu graphic. The middle one just employs a simple color background--so it's free to enlarge and shrink with the text. And the third span is for the bottom piece of the graphic.Html and programming puzzles are kinda like mindgames sometimes.

Sorry Michael, I don't think you quite understood what I'm asking.I've been using em in most places in my site--but for the navigation menu I want the text to be a fixed size (so it doesn't outgrow the menu background behind it). I was under the impression that px was supposed to be the last fixed width for text still available, but evidently firefox doesn't honor that (weird. It's usually Internet explorer which doesn't honor standards).

I'm looking for a way to stop firefox from resizing text that I define in px. Is this at all possible, or am I just S.O.L.? The reason why I want this is because I'd like to use links for my nav menu, with a specific background behind it. As such, I don't want the text to be able be enlarged passed the height of the background.If this isn't doable I can always just use images for the nav links...but this site is starting to get pretty image heavy as it is, so i'd like to do it the other way if at all possible.Thanks.

Thanks for the quick reply. I already realized that the text color and the bgcolor were the same...but that image is supposed to be behind the text.Thanks for the heads up about the block vs in-line element. I just added in display:block; to my css and it works now (though--oddly enough--only when I put a space following the tag. i.e. <span class="backgroundimage"> ). Weird quirk, but it seems to be working fine now.Thanks for your help.

Update: The pages referenced in this post have been removed for quite some time. I apologize if this causes any inconvenience. The finished version of this page may be found here. Also, if you're interested in political video art I highly suggest you check out my portfolio at http://www.highimpactart.org/. --Paolo Unger Dvorchik. I've been working on redoing one of my websites' designs and have run into a weird problem. I initially designed it using <div>s to separate the various sections, but then realized that it would create a line break separating the original banner from the content. When I tried switching it over to using <span>s instead the display gets all messed up. Are there certain css commands that are compatible with div but not span? I've never heard of this...but maybe? Here is the div based page: *Dead Link* And here is the span based page: *Dead Link* I'm sure there is probably a blatantly simple fix, but it's eluding me at the moment. (P.S. The is just a skeleton architecture...so things will change/come up to spec as the design progresses). The Css: body{ background-color:#000000} .backgroundimage { width:0em; /*center hack*/ margin:0 auto; /*center hack*/ min-width:1050px; background-image: url('bgdone2.gif'); background-position: top center; background-repeat: repeat-y } .textholder { width:35em; /*center hack*/ margin:0 auto; /*center hack*/ max-width:930px; font-size:1.8em; } The Html: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; <html><head><title>FacesofWar.org Test</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css"></head> <body text="#000000"> <script type="text/javascript" src="minmax.js"></script> <center><img src="bannertest2.jpg" /> <br /><img src="menutest.jpg" width="100%"/></center> <span class="backgroundimage"><span class="textholder"> <p>Blah blah blah, content, blah blah blah</p> </span></span> </body></html>

So I'm trying to write a script to check if someone is trying to do a header inject using my web based email form. The problem is that, regardless of the content, it is being tagged as hijacked. The following is the relevant part of my code: $ip=$_POST['ip']; $httpref=$_POST['httpref']; $httpagent=$_POST['httpagent']; $visitor=$_POST['visitor']; $visitormail=$_POST['visitormail']; $subject=$_POST['subject']; $notes=$_POST['notes']; $passedTests = "yes"; $Hijacked = "no"; $HijackAttempt=$visitormail; if(!$visitormail == "" && (!strstr($visitormail,"@") || !strstr($visitormail,"."))) { echo "<div class=\"centerIt\">"; echo "The following error(s) were encountered: <br />"; echo "<font color='red'>Invalid email address. <br /></font>"; $passedTests = "no"; } if(empty($visitor) || empty($visitormail) || empty($notes )) { if($passedTests == "yes") { echo "<div class=\"centerIt\">"; echo "The following error(s) were encountered: <br />"; } echo "<font color='red'>Please fill in ALL of the required fields.</font>"; $passedTests = "no"; } if (!preg_match("/(%0A|%0D|\n+|\r+)(content-type:|to:|cc:|bcc:)/i", $HijackAttempt) && ($passedTests == "yes")) { $passedTests = "no"; $Hijacked = "yes"; }Any help identifying the problem with this code would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your help! The first link you posted worked like a charm. The second one is bunk. Hopefully this thread will be of use to someone else who encounters this problem. Also, as a side note, don't bother paying for the "SEF Advance" component--you can get an open source equivalent named "OpenSEF" for free.

It isn't accessable via the apache handlers section (that only controls how the sever interprets files with specific extentions). What would need to happen is adding the code: <Directory "WhateverServerPath/murphyscelltech.com/www/yournewplace/"> AllowOverride All </Directory>and then rebooting the apache server. I could be wrong, but I am 99.99% sure I can't acomplish this by copying/creating a new .htaccess. Hasn't anyone else ever (sucessfully?) installed the SEF modules in Mambo or Joomla? I've been going through all the steps, and turning on the .htaccess override is the only one I havn't been able to do. A quick test to see if the .htaccess override is enabled blatently fails. (Creating a new directory and .htaccess file with the code: 'Redirect /google.html google.com;, and then trying to access http://www.yourserver.com/rg-erdr.php?_rpo=t). If there are any workarounds that people can think of so I don't have to harass the admins that'd be wonderful. But I'm all out of ideas.

Hey. I'm currently developing a site for a client using Joomla (the CMS), and am trying to enable search engine friendly URLs. To do this, I need to enable .htaccess override for a specific set of directories. Therefore I have two questions:1) Where is httpd.conf (the apache config file) located in our installiations? I've spent about a half an hour browsing through everything, and still havn't found it.2) How would I go about enabling .htaccess override just for a specific set of directories (just one directory, and all of its sub directories).Any help would be much appreciated!

I didn't think there was a way, but I figured I mind as well ask. As for the use, yes it is for a layout. I'll probably wind up writting a javascript to switch the stylesheets. And have a no script default.

A quick question for all you coders. I'm looking for a way to autodetect a viewer's screen resolution without using javascript (as some people have it disabled). Is there any way to do this via a purely server side function, e.g. php? Thanks.

True, however the amount of damage that Bush has done to the US (destroying our foreign image, and completely decimating our civil liberties, etc) is going to take much, much longer to heal. Most likely the next president--be they republican or democrat--will continue the current domestic spying programs. Note the plural. Most of America only is aware of the situation in which they monitor calls comming from out of the country, with a supected terrorist at one end. It goes so much deeper than that though. For instance, most of the large phone companies (ATT, Bellsouth, Version, and a few others) have installed hardware components to allow the government to monitor thousands of calls at a time (I don't have the evidence to back this up on hand, but if anyone wants to see it I can find the reports). Of course there were already domestic spy programs advanced by other presidents...but there is no reason to make it worse. I do agree that portions of Iraq will continue to see insurgent fighting. But, aside from a few hot spots, I think that the majority of the country will be fine. Then again, that depends on numerous things, least of all being the US pulling out *completely* (not very likely, as we've constructed over ten permanent bases within the country). An ideal situation would probably include quickly phasing out american troops in favor of a UN peace-keeping force. Then reducing that pressence slowly over the course of a few years. P.S. Starting tomorrow I'll be moving down to boston, and so won't be able to respond to this thread for a bit. Rest assured I'll be back in (hopefully) a few days when I'm settled in and we pay for the internet.

Thanks. It mostly comes from reading a lot of independent new sources. The two I'd most highly suggest are GNN (tons of diverse articles, updated almost hourly), and DemocracyNow! (Which also broadcasts video and audio news shows on hundreds of channels...check here to see if there is one in your area). I used to watch DN! a lot, but it took up too much time. So now I just skim through their headlines, and then get most of my other info from GNN. Quite an astute observation. While the war was partly about oil, it was equally about the corporatistation of a developing economy, and the creation of a US power structure within the Middle east (in an attempt to exert more western influence in the area, as well as providing a base of operation to attack the likes of Iran and Syria. Conventionally we've relied on our allies Israel, but they wanted an option which was completely under US control).

Oh, I certainly agree that Saddam was a *BLEEP*. He was a brutal dictator with a great deal of blood on his hands. And I am glad to see him gone--even though I'm much less pleased by the so called "independent" *cough* puppet *cough* government that has taken his place. But he did not pose a threat to the US, as was continuously claimed by the Bush Administration. As far as the "bad intelligence" fiasco goes, I'd argue that the Bush administration was well aware of the reality of the situation, but instead rejected the major findings of the intelligence community in lue of cherry picked "evidence" that backed-up their pro-war agenda (hence the entire purpose of the "Office of Special Plans"). The evidence for this accusation is quite numerous. It'd take all day to write everything, so I'll name some of the most prominent facts. In September 2002 (six months before the invasion) Tyler Drumheller (then head of the CIA's covert branch for all of Europe) sent a report to George Tenant (then head of the CIA) who hand delivered it to both Bush and Cheney, among others. The report contained very accurate information (in hind-sight) from a high ranking official within Saddam's Cabinet--Naji Sabri, the then foreign minister of Iraq (a huge position of power/intel). The report, stating that Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction, was blatantly ignored by the Whitehouse. Contrast that with the case of the alleged "seven mobile weapons laboratories,"--an allegation that made it's way both into Collin Powell's speech to the UN, as well Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. The accusation stemmed from a Pentagon source by the name of "Curveball" (ironic, huh?). The one US intelligence operative that met with Curveball concluded in his report that Curveball "was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source...", even stating that there were questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Yup, real reliable. *rolls his eyes* Then there was the alleged case of Iraq attempting to buy "500 tons of uranium" from Niger. The special CIA envoy, Joseph Wilson, sent to investigate the case concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," and that reports claiming such were "unequivocally wrong." (His wife was then ousted from her position as a CIA operative in retribution). By early 2002 both the CIA and the State Department had submitted reports saying that the yellow cake papers were obvious forgeries. The International Atomic Energy Agency also reached the same conclusion (though barely before the start of the war). Evidently it only took them a "matter of hours" to come to this conclusion. Want to know why? The dates listed were blatantly wrong, and the names of many of the Nigerian officials were misspelled! Amusingly enough, one of the major tools the IAEA used in their investigation was Google! And the list goes on. It's also worth noting the amount of reports that suggest the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq, regardless of the intelligence uncovered. The most famous of these reports would have to be the Downing Street memo (which was actually the minutes from British PM Blair's meeting on July 23 2002). The meeting included the following sentences: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." More about the Downing street memo can be found here and here. There are many, many more. But I'll refrain from writting late into the night (especially as probably no one will bother to read it).

Yeah, I had read that too. What's funny is that anyone with a degree in chemistry can tell you that their plot was completely infeasible. The chemical explosive the terrorists were planning to create is named triacetone triperoxide (2 C9H18O6). It is highly unstable in its crystalline form; so much so that it's earned the nickname "The Mother of Satan." As such, bringing the white crystalline powder directly on board would have been too risky (they probably would have blown themselves up on the cab ride there). That leaves synthesis of the explosive compound on the plane as the only remaining option. While triacetone triperoxide is rather easy to create (compared to most conventional explosives), the plausibility of them being able to secretly mix up a batch of it in the lavatories is next to nil. In addition to the chemical precursors of hydrogen peroxide (which would have to be first concentrated as the potency required is not sold to the general public), acetone, and sulfuric acid they would also need a slew of other equipment that would draw attention, including: a cooler, frozen gel packs and/or ice, a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. Assuming, by some minor miracle, that they actually managed to smuggle all that on board the hardest part would have been still to come. The process of synthesizing the explosive takes a lot of time. They couldn't have just dumped all the chemicals together--not unless the most they wanted to do was set the bathroom (and themselves) on fire. They would have had to add the sulfuric acid drop by drop into the other mixture, stirring every single time, as well very very carefully watching the temperature (as too high of a temperature during synthesis would have rendered the explosive rather weak, and hence useless...not to mention that if it got too hot they risked a premature detonation only large enough to kill themselves). This process would have taken between two and four hours (depending on the skill, precision, and amount created)--all the while leaking rather noxious fumes from the lavatory. Might just be a wee bit suspicious (e.g. "I've been waiting in line for the bathroom for four hours while funky chemical smells are coming out of it!"). Even after synthesis they would have had to wait an additional one to two hours for it to dry before it was ready for use. All in all, their likelihood of succeeding was about nil. Which is not to say that the CIA/MI5/etc intervention wasn't necessary (still isn't worth taking the chance). But this whole plan to commit "Mass Murder On An Unimaginable Scale" crap is pure propaganda bull-*BLEEP*.

Actually, the 9/11 attacks were before Bush started to royally *BLEEP* up the country--so it'd have to disagree with you on that point. I'd be more apt to lay the blame at some of the previous presidents' actions (though, before 9/11, Bush had basically ignored all requests to boost up surveillance on "terrorist" threats to the US. That's more an issue of negligence than inciting them though). The London bombers, on the other hand, released a statement claiming that it was partially in response to the war in Iraq; so that's a pretty solid case. If you look back you'll see that most of that "evidence" came from a newly formed (i.e. created by Bush & Co.) section within the pentagon: The Office of Special Plans (now if that isn't an ominous sounding name then I don't know what is!). The O.S.P.'s job was to use a process known as data mining to find possible threats from Iraq. Data mining, in essence, is when you look through the thousands of discredited or implausible intelligence reports on a certain subject in order to find a few that you can prop up. Basically, you sift through a known pile of junk in an effort to find collaborating evidence. It's also worth noting that Abram Shulsky, former director of the O.S.P., has been personally briefing Cheney about Iran. Anyone see a pattern emerging? Actually, Israel has been constantly breaking the cease fire from basically day one. They continue to do "small" raids into the country to stop the alleged shipments of arms, etc, to Hezbollah. Defiantly better than the mass bombing of civilian targets, but it is still an infraction of the UN resolution. More frightening were Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz's comments, which included: "We will put everything on the table. Our duty is to prepare for the next round [of the war]..." P.S. The recent terrorist plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is a huge over dramatization (dare I say it, propagandization) over a bunch of amateur plotting a rather infeasible attack (as anyone with a degree in chemistry could have pointed out). But I'll spare you the details, as I'm going to write about it in the corresponding thread when I have a chance.

Wow, lots of good discussion and points here (as well as a few massively inane ones). I'm going to try and (intelligently) answer a lot of points that were brought up, so please bear with me as this post will probably be quite long. First and foremost I'd like to applaud shadowx's call for a well informed debate. Hopefully this won't turn into propaganda like dribble. Well said! While Bush/Blair and their cronies certainly didn't start this deluge of "terrorism," one would be hard pressed (or massively ignorant) to argue that they didn't severely exacerbate the situation (in much the same fashion that Israel has been doing in Lebanon). We've been fighting a loosing war. I'd venture to say that partially stems from a misconception: that we are fighting against a set group of people, instead of an ideology. Our actions only serve bolster their numbers. For every insurgent we kill, two more rise up to take their place. Every time Iraqi civilians get killed, families get destroyed, or some new atrocity comes to light it changes people over to the extremists' side. What is funny (in a disgustingly sick ironic sense) is that the CIA helped build, fund, and train the Maktab al Khidamar (more commonly referred to as "MAK"); a large section of which later split, following their leader Osama Bin Laden to create the al-Qaeda network. This is not to say that the CIA trained Bin Laden himself--as many conspiracy theorists claim--as there is no hard supporting evidence to suggest this. To understand why this happened we must look back to the cold war era. I'll try to keep this historical summery as brief as possible as this post is already getting gigantic. When the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized control of the country in April of 1978 the US was terrified, fearing that the so called "domino effect" would come into fruition. A year later, following the overturning of Afghanistan's head of state, thousands of Soviet Union troops flooded into the country in an effort to protect the communist government. In response, the United States (as well as many of their allies) helped fund a resistance movement consisting of -- you guessed it -- "radical" Muslim fighters (known as the Mujaheddin, of which MAK was the head contingent). From 1978 to 1992 the US poured at least six billion dollars (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of weapons, training, and hard currency into these rebel groups. Most of the money and arms were funneled through Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence group (their version of the CIA). Among those trained by the US was a US Green Beret by the name of Ali Mohammed. Mohammed trained at Camp Peary (one of the CIA's infiltration and sabotage training camps located in Virginia) sometime between 1982 and 1989. He (and many others like him) later went on to train a substantial amount of the al-Qaeda operatives. And it's not like this took place in Afghanistan without the US's knowledge--most of it occurred at the "al Kifah Refugee Centre" located in downtown Brooklyn New York. If you're interested in learning more about this subject, I highly suggest the following well written article by Norm Dixon (it's inside the "hide" tags). [hide=dixon] [/hide] No offence, but that is (in my opinion) a very one-sided and ignorant viewpoint. These "terrorists" didn't just wake up one day and say "hey, lets go kill people in the united states." These people dedicate their lives to this cause; some are even willing to forfeit their lives in the process (i.e. suicide bombers). To suggest that they would make these ultimate sacrifices without provocation (for instance: Bush saying they attacked us "because they hate our freedom") is completely ludicrous. I'll briefly outline a few of the reasons why these terrorists (in this case specifically referring to those in Iraq) are willing to commit such horrible atrocities. There are many, many more and I suggest that you read up on the subject if you're so inclined. The reasons include: between 40557 and 45104 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far in the war (as of the time of this post); The entire Abu Ghraib scandal (along with many otherssuch as the recent gang raping of a 14 year old girl, following the murder of her entire family); Paul Bremer (and the CPA) having basically sold off their entire economy; The fact that we destroyed their entire infrastructure in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (past what decades of sanctions and drawn out bombing campaigns had already done); not to mention that we've been building dozens of permanent bases in the country, and show absolutely no signs of leaving any time soon. Their mentality is that the larger group (e.g. the cause) outweighs the importance of any individual within it. As such, they don't need to see the results; they only need to know what will happen. It is also worth noting that when Hamas (who is currently the Palestinian Authority) originally started the first Islamic suicide bombings they were never intended to be used on such a massive scale. The loss of the bomber's life was intended to underscore the severity of the situation, along with whatever damage they created. Funny how selective your memory is. You underscore how "Saddam Hussein...tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds using Mustard Gas," and yet fail to mention that it was the United States that provided him with many of the helicopters (45 Bell 214ST helicopters, 60 Hughes helicopters, and 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters), much of the mustard gas, and "numerous shipments of bacteria/fungi/protozoa" (this allegation is the only one based on shaky ground, as the agents were never fully identified), not to mention countless intelligence briefings. In 1988, in responce to Saddam gassing the Kurds, the entire US Senate unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq, barring the exportation of US technology. While the measure was created with the best of intentions, it was blocked soon afterwards by the (Regan) Whitehouse. The US was both a financial and political backer of Saddam's regime from 1984 up until 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. For those that can't do the math, this includes the time in which he committed most of his atrocities. If you've managed to read through all of this, I applaud you. And now, to quote Jon Stewart, for your moment of Zen:

I'd also say not guilty...though the courts may very well say otherwise. It reminds me of a similar case some years back in Florida. A burglar fell through a man's skylight while attempting to break into the house. He then successfully sued the owner. Pretty ludacrist in my opinion...but we live in a sue happy country.

While I agree with your sentiment, I take a much more light hearted approach to it. Why? Because ninety-five percent of the time the people who are using cheats/hacks are newbies--else they wouldn't need to cheat in order to be concidered "good." Once you realize that, cheaters become more funny than anything else. That, and it's a lot of fun to rub it in their faces when you kick their asses despite their use of hacks. Alternatively, you can also just play on good servers (like ones you admin on) and ban the losers.

I don't know about you guys, but I find the current subscriptions page (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/) one of the most useful features of this forum. As such, I have two ideas to make this tool even better.1) Have the topics listed on page be sorted into two sections: one for new posts (at the top) and the other for topics without any new replies.2) Make the topic subscriptions page be the default destination when you click the 'My Controls' link. Or at least swap out the "Recently Read Topics" in favor for it. (I made this suggestion before along with another one. And while the second one was addressed I never got a reply about this one. As such, I apologize if this constitutes a double post.)Both of these changes would be remarkably easy to implement (though I know that you guys are busy). I'd be happy to lend my services if you're interested, shouldn't take more than about an hour of work max.

As you described it, yes you can still retrieve the data. The solution would be to use a "shredder" utility. In essence what it does is find the location and size of the file you want to destroy, and then over-writes it with garbage information fifteen times or more. If you really want to destroy a file overwrite it about fifty times, and there will be no going back.

Else you have to edit the boot.ini file (if you don't have administrator privillages)...but that shouldn't really be nessacary.

Here ya go Invites sent to both thatchap and jimhap. I have a crapload left if anyone else wants one (though isn't it past the invite only stage now? *looks confused*).