gaea

ok...this is going to be a kinda long post because I want to reply to a lot of what other people said. But, before I get to that, let me quickly explain where I'm currently comming from. I'm currently 20 years old. The first time I ever drank alcohol with the intent to get drunk I was 13 or 14. The first time i ever smoked ganja (marijuana) was at age 15. I lost my virginity at the age of 16. Honestly, the only one of those that I regret now is that I had sex that young. But that's not because of the physical act--that's because of the ammount of emotional bonds that it created...and that it made breaking up twenty times worse. Now for the alcohol vs ciggeretts vs marijuana question. There are a few ways you can judge the distructive effects of a substance, one of them would be to analize the number of deaths directly resulting from use. So here are the relavent statistics. I'm going to use the stats from america because they are easily accessible. These numbers represent the average number of deaths per year based on the past 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports. Tobacco: 340,000 to 450,000 Alcohol (including 50% of all related highway deaths and 35% of all related murders): 150,000+ Illicit Drug Overdose (including intentional ODs): 3,800 to 5,200 Marijuana: 0 Marjuana, like all hallucagens, is not physically addictive--but it has the potential to become mentally addictive. Then again, so does virtually anything else. Sunshine, friends, chai tea (mMmmM), sex, etc etc etc. Both alcohol and ciggerettes are both mentally and physically addictive. 1) Amen. I've been using marjuana (as well as a few other substances) off and on for five years now. I'm currently a junor in college and hold a 3.78 GPA. 2) Quite true. There are stupid people engaged in virtually any activity...but that doesn't mean it's representative of the group at large. Also worth noting is that defferent people have different levels of self control. I know a few people who do coke two or three times a year and are perfectly fine, non addicted, individuals. Then again I know alot more than that who have seriously f***ed up their lives using it. It is the user's responcibility to make sure they can handle a substance. And if they can't, then it's no one's fault but their own. 3) Don't belittle your own opinion man. Keeping an open dialouge is wonderful...and you can't do that without conflicting points of view. Could you please elaborate about why you think that?

No offence but...eeeeewwwwwwwwww. Budwiser is, atleast here in the states, absolutely disguesting. I live in vermont, and so enjoy a bunch of really encredible local breweries like Longtrail, Magic Hat, and Trout River. Ofcourse there are plenty good wide spread ones as well, like Brooklyn Brown Ale, Red Stripe, and Sam Adams. I usually prefer darker brews, those some I.P.A.s are good too. Wine is great as well. Especially penot noir. I'm starting to learn alot more about wines...and they're delicious. Oh, and the first drink i had was red wine (don't know the vinyard as I was about 8 at the time). The first hard alcohol I had was vodka. It mixes well, but I like something with a little more of a kick to it--like Myer's Dark Jamacian Rum. Then again, I've been trying to stick to wine and beer as hard liquior has been screwing up my stomach.

The easiest way to do this would be to just create a whole new frameset with the bottom frame set as the page you want. Or did you mean that you want it to be dynamic? If that's the case then I'd suggest writting the bottom page in php. You'd pass a variable into the page (name of the link they clicked, or whatever), then use php to dynamicly write a redirect using either javascript or more php. A redirect in php looks something like this: header('location:newpage.html'); While in javascript it looks like parent.NameOfThisFrame.location="newpage.html"; If you need me to clearify anything don't hesitate to ask.

Not to be nitpicky...but: The types of film developer that are used today really wouldn't make someone blind (unless they held their eye-lids open, poured the entire thing on their face, and then waited a hour before flushing out their eyes). Go back 90 years, with what is now concidered alt. pro. (alternative processes), and that'd be slightly closer.Also, while the story sound really romantic, a photographer giving up his eye sight is really crazy. Sure, for true love and all that jazz...but photography is a way of living, not just a profession. And so to give that all up would cripple his world.Just a few thoughts from a photo major.

I'd deffinatly choose love. Then again, i'm not much of a materialist (e.g. I'm paying lots of money to goto school for a BFA in photography, hah). Money certainly has its own boons, but there is no way that it's ever going to reach the level of emotional satisfaction that a truely wonderful relationship will give you. (Unless, ofcourse, you want to start a herion addiction with your money...but that isn't exactly a health alternative).Love is the most amazing thing i've ever experienced in my life. It also bears the potential for extreme pain. But you can't attain something that encredible without some risk. There is always a balance.

Glad you found what you were looking for Feel free to post any other questions you run into...we're a pretty friendly bunch here.

Hah, i'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Why? Because Firefox already has a tool to download swf files built into it...no need to download a plugin. It's rather simple to do: 1) Goto the webpage that you want to get the flash file from. 2) Click the Tools menu, and select Page Info 3) Click on the Media Tab 4) Select the file you want 5) Click the save as button. And there you have it. Much easier than the other options listed so far...and it's already built into Firefox. (sorry, just had to get a last prod in ).

I was excited until i checked out the most popular keywords: Yeah...Almost pure comercialization. Then again, if that's your bag . . .

Sorry for the late reply, i've been really busy with my finals. Both of those solutions would work, but the easier version would deffinatly be number 2. How much php do you know? I can give you the basic code you'll need for each...but you really should customize it for your individual purposes. Anyways, for #1 you'd have a form that asks for the url of the photograph. You should really insert some error checking to make sure that it is infact an image (.jpg, .gif, or .png) instead of an exicuitable. The code would look something like this: <?phpfunction http_get_file($url) { $url_stuff = parse_url($url); $port = isset($url_stuff[port]) ? $url_stuff[port]:80; $fp = fsockopen($url_stuff[host], $port); $query = GET . $url_stuff[path] . HTTP/1.0\n; $query .= Host: . $url_stuff[host]; $query .= \n\n; fwrite($fp, $query); while ($line = fread($fp, 1024)) { $buffer .= $line; } preg_match(/Content-Length: ([0-9]+)/, $buffer, $parts); return substr($buffer, - $parts[1]);}?> (take from http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/). You'd then take the binary value that is returned, and write it into a file. As far as #2 goes, there are lots and lots and lots of tutorials out there about how to make an image upload form. I find that htmlgoodies is usually a good resource for those first learning how to code. Check out their version of the tutorial at: http://www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/php/article.php/3472551 The one problem that i can find in that code is it doesn't check the file extention either. If you have any more questions please feel free to post again.

Just be strait with him (no pun intended). If he's a good friend he should respect you enough to stop hitting on you if you ask him to. Just tell him that you're strait (if applicable), or that your just not interested in him in that way.

Actually they do have the right to kiss in public. The same way that strait people do. It's protected under the freedom of speach/expression as well as in the constitution, everyone being garenteed "Life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness." So that's not really the issue. The issue is weither we should sanction gay marriage. Did you "choose" to be strait? It's not exactly something that people have control over (true, they can wallow in denial and subject themselves to relationships with people they arn't attracted to--but that's far from a healthy alternative). What makes you think that this is a choice?! God forbid that that our children become openminded thoughtful individuals *rolls his eyes*. Please explain how exactly homosexuality contributes to "the deliquency of minors?" You probably wouldva cheered on the exicution of socrates had you been there. Because, obviously, if someone disagrees with your views they must be evil.

If you want to get around your draconian cencorship software check out this site: http://peacefire.org/ Ofcourse, please only use this information for legal/legit purposes. They're awsome...their circumventor software even works to breach china's firewall!

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've gotten this far: You want a form that people can enter urls into. But what do you want to do with it afterwards? Do you want to save the url in a text file or data base? Are the urls links to images that you want to save? Please try to be more clear in your request, and I'll do my best to help you with it.

I suggest you checkout this thread: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/36326-the-possibility-of-gay-rights-should-it-be-allowed/ instead of starting a completely new one. I've already posted my views (if you need any clearification don't hesitate to ask), and would like to see you try and back yours up. Specificly: I want to know by what criteria you distinguish between "true" and "fake" love. Especially because (and this is an assumption, please corrent me if im wrong) you've never experienced this "fake" homosexual love. Please respond, but in the other thread.

No offence--but I think this situation was handled rather badly by everyone.You guys are overlooking what is probably the most obvious answer: itssami, did you have a contact form on your website? I'd be willing to bet the answer is yes. And that it is in hastily written php.If you leave any script that can access the mailserver without providing the nessacary safegaurds then you're just asking to be abused by spammers.If this happens it isn't Trap17s fault. I hope you enjoy your new host (I mean that sencerely), but if my guess was corrent you should really fix that problem--else you'll just get blacklisted again.

Personally I think it depends on the situation. If you're using the program to make money then you should certainly pay for it. But there is a whole class of people (college students included) that don't have the money to put $200 down on a single piece of software. In that case the company wouldn't be getting money from that individual anyways. Not that this justifies or makes it "right" in any way, just a good point from a practical stand point. Also, sometimes it is in a company's best interest to allow people to pirate their software. Both Adobe (specificly in regards to photoshop and imageready) and Maya have publicly stated that they don't mind students illigitament copies of their software. Why is this? Because those same students are going to be the ones running or working for graphic companies in years to come. And they'll most likely stay with the product that they already know how to use--only this time there will be money involved, and so they'll be able to afford it. I think apple may have made a similar comment about final cut pro 4...but im not 100% possitive on that one.

Honestly, i think logging that info everytime someone visits your forum is kinda overkill. Especially over the course of a few years you'll have tens of thousands, if not more, duplicate entries.I have my forum (phpBB2) configured to log all that information--but only when people first register. Seems be a saner way to do it, IMHO.

Hahahah. Personally, I find this halarious. The claim that this is a "perminate tattoo" is even more funny. Do you guys remember Half-Life 2's anti-cracking measures? Supposedly the strongest anti-theft security ever released on a product for the general consumsion. And there were pirated copies out for download on the exact day it was released. I'm sure that there are already many patches released to counteract this anoyance.Still, great for a laugh.

It's called a piramid scheme. Been around for decades. Can't believe people are still falling for them.

Really? Hah, that's halarious. Though I didn't really understand the whole contravoursy over removing it from the pledge of allegance--as it wasn't even in the origonal version. It was added in sometime in the sixties (or maybe very late 50s...I forget). Ask your parents if you wern't alive for it. Funny how people can ignore the obvious when it doesn't go along with what they want to believe. I'm sorry it feels that way. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I feel obligated as a caring human being to fight for equality for everyone. This isn't just limited to issues of sexuality, but also race, gender, faith, personal life styles, country, and ecconomic groups. It's hard for me to see how people can applicate for equality for some people and then ignore other whole groups. It all seems interconnected to me.

*hopeful bump* Does anyone have an experience with this sort of thing? I'm really rather at a loss. If anyone could help i'd highly appreciate it.

*laughs* BooZker: You kinda missed the (what i thought was blatent) bitting sarcasim in the "Ten reasons why being gay is wrong" post by 42ndEndOfTheWorld. It's a farce. Taking the opposition's side to try and emphasis how ludacrist is sounds. Actually, homosexuality has a history about as long as humanity itself. The best example (or atleast the one that comes first to mind) is the Roman Empire. In roman times not only was homosexuality/bisexuality accepted--it was activly encouraged. (Sidenote: I once saw someone blame the fall of the Roman empire on homosexuality. I laughed so hard. It's the only theory that's even stupider than the lead pipes). It is only in modern, i.e. Jedo-Christian, times that homosexuality has been demonized.

Quick quote from wikipedia: The mention of complete bisexuality comes from Biological Exuberance (the book i mentioned earlier). That's the only time i've seen that claim...but I'm choosing to believe it as i've never seen an opposing claim, and the book seems to be based on sound scientific rigor. If you any other information on the matter i'd be happy to read it. The fact that they are the only pacifistic primates is rather interesting. This is largely dirivative from their main method of conflict resolution: sex (many times preformed as a community). Maybe those hippies were onto something *wink* Ofcourse bonobo's society doesn't really mirror our own. For instance, they rarely develop perminate relationships with one other single individual. Fun side conversation, but lets try not to get too sidetracked from the origonal point of this topic.

Sure. I'd refer you to Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by P.H.D Bruce Bagemihl. Here are a few examples, though there are many many more: bonobo chimpanzees (which are, interestingly enough, 100% bisexual), silver gulls, black headed gulls, Japanese macaques, galahs, and bottlenosed dolphins. I can list many more if you want...but won't waste space on it unless asked. If you are going to evoke evolution/Darwinism please examine all the facets. A very good case has been made that homosexuality is (scientifically) another form of population control. The same way disease, famine, and natural disasters help to keep a tight reign on animal populations. These are nature's checks and balances. We've worked hard to eliminate many of them through technology and innovation, further exacerbating other issues. Being gay isn't some sort of drug. There is no way you can get "addicted" to it (unless you're prepared to argue that others are "addicted" to being strait, having friends, enjoying practically any other activity, etc ad infinitum). That being said, I do agree that some people experiment with homosexuality. I also agree that some heterosexual/bisexual individuals may temporarily believe that they are gay. But if they are not homosexual they will realize that fact eventually. Strait people can't "become" gay any more than gay people can "become" strait. Your sexual orientation is something you're born with, like the color of your skin or you eyes. Sure, you can repress your feelings of attraction towards a specific gender--but just because you don't act on your feelings doesn't mean that you don't have them. Sexual orientation is based upon emotions, not on actions (which are merely a repercussion). I'm not homosexual myself, but I certainly appreciate your willingness to have an open minded discussion. There will always be differences of opinion, but at least we can have intelligent mature conversations about them

Actually, the only thing that is required and, debatibly, inforced is the seperation of church and state. But that doesn't mean that the policies inacted by the goverment can't stem from religious thought. That happens all the time. Hell, Bush even said that "God" told him to invade Iraq (scary, no?). Not to mention the whole block of so called "values voters" that the right is currently catering to...as if no one but those with their religious affinity could possibly have morals *rolls his eyes*. Anyways, i'm getting sidetracked from the topic. Just thought that was an importaint distinction to point out. Well, that was a purely political ploy to rally support from the religious minority. If you look back to the last senate/house elections you'll find that similar statewide measures were put on the ballot with the express reason that it'd draw voters friendly to the republican cause. I completely agree. Unforunatly those uneducated about these issues may feel differently. Many people still see being homosexual as being "morally wrong" (an importain disctinction from "religiously wrong," although many times there certainly are corrilations). Some people also believe that homosexuality is contagious. That gay people can spread their "gayness," infecting strait people and causing an epidemic. Quite laughable when you examine the scientific research...but that doesn't stop ignorant people's fervernt belief in it anyways (especially when it comes to subjects like homosexual couples adopting kids). I would also disagree that our laws are created for the "safety and [sic] order of the country." While that is certainly the founding intent of them, now adays laws are based off of politics--not unbaised (as close as you can get anyways) examiniations of the relavent evidence. A good compramise has been reached with states that have created "civil union" laws. These laws give homosexual people the same exact rights as married couples--just lacking the name. Some homosexuals are irked about conceeding this point...but I'd rather fight for the things which have direct reprocussions, instead of a purely idealistic battle (there are enough terrible things in the world to act against that i can't conde knit-picking over issues).