beeseven

Believe it or not, there were still addresses, phone books, and information (phone number 411) before the internet existed. Though it may have been slightly (just slightly) harder to find someone, it could still be done. And that's also assuming the tracker doesn't have internet access. You can find just about anyone on Google (or an engine specifically for locations) - irregardless of whether they have the internet or not.

Ever think that not all programming languages are online?... I know it's hard to imagine, but it's true BufferedReaders are good, but if you're using Java 1.5.0 then you can use Scanners which are a bit easier. Here's code to read from a file with a scanner (you also have to import java.util.Scanner and java.io.File): public static void main(String[] args) throws FileNotFoundException //because you're using the File class{ Scanner infile = new Scanner(new File("filename.txt")); String s1 = infile.next(); //you could use int n = infile.nextInt() if you want an int String s2 = infile.next(); infile.close(); ...}

What I would do is just to do all the database queries before you do any of the html. That way, when you start outputting html, you can put something like "Information about $name" in the <title> tags.

I'm not sure what the previous poster's side was in the argument, so I just want to point out that the graph says Clinton gained $523 billion and Bush lost $713 billion.

O_o unless they changed it recently (last 2 months or so), then variables are treated as their values only in double quotes, not singles. Ex: $x = 9;echo "$x";echo "<br>";echo '$x';should output 9$x

I asked about this a while ago. A quick and easy way to set the next ID is this: ALTER TABLE [tablename] AUTO_INCREMENT = [number]where [tablename] is the name of the table and [number] is the next ID. I'm not sure of a quick way to change other, existing IDs, though.

API is always nice. Java 1.4.2 / Java 1.5.0 Also I could help you if you want. I'm also in APCS, but I'm teh own at Java.

Actually under U.S. law a "?" has legal power, so stick one in there if you don't have one already (I think the preferred format is "? YEAR-YEAR AUTHOR"). If they continue just threaten to sue.

First let me ask you what good Bush has done for America.Second let me list a few bad things.-Lost thousands of jobs-Started a pointless war-Lied to the country about WMDs-Took money from New Orleans's flood budgets-Didn't come to New Orleans's aid very quickly-Lowered educational standards-Turned the world against us/made the U.S. a bully-Ignored U.N. decisionsNeed any more?

First, apparently I was wrong about the dogs. They don't lack cones, they just have very few and can only see blueish-violet and yellow (http://vetmed.illinois.edu/animal-care/pet-health-columns/?OLDPETCOLID=116).Second, hacker, why did you censor bypass "want"? O_o

I agree with you, Lozbo. I'm generally pretty good with logic and I find programming to be the easiest class (and most fun >_>).

A couple of these are pretty easy to answer, actually. Yes, they lack the cones of the eye that allow for color vision at higher light levels. Interestingly, humans can't see color at low light either. The rods, which regulate low-light vision, don't do anything about color. This is why when there is less light things appear to be grayscale. Time is easier to work with when it starts at 0. For example, let's say years B.C. are negative numbers and A.D. are positive. If the first year A.D. was 0, then it would go ... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 ..., but it was started at 1, so it's ... -2, -1, 1, 2. It's a bit counter-intuitive. Also if the first year were 0, then there wouldn't have been any confusion about whether the year 2000 was the start of the millenium or not (it wasn't, it was actually 2001 because there was no year 0). Starting with 0 just makes more sense. Also the Mayans used a base 60 (sexagesimal) system (which was adopted for short time periods and a couple other things), and any base starts with 0 and ends with the base number - 1. Don't know. Don't know the difference between -R/RW and +R/RW, but yes, there are CD-Rs and CD-RWs. I'd assume it's because most people can't use the raw signals, so it doesn't matter if they go there if they can't watch them. Also something about paying for goods and services. Possible, but I kind of doubt it. They are basically just bread and whipped cream. Considering Wikipedia tells you how to do it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_hold), I'd think so. As for the second part of your question, I do now

It depends on what kind...A WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get, like FrontPage or DreamWeaver) will probably make creating your site more easy, but they also tend to make it less customizeable than if you do it yourself. In addition, WYSIWYGs don't use valid HTML and often look very strange in different browsers.A plain text editor (like Notepad) will allow you to make your site more how you want it and you have the option of using W3 standards, but anything besides the basics can be hard if you're not experienced with coding on your own.If you haven't done that much coding before, go with a WYSIWYG for now, but look at the actual code once in a while (most give you this option). If you look occasionally then you can see what tags do what things and eventually move on to a plain text.

2 + 7 + 0 = 9 My number is 9.

The Deitel books are supposed to be very good. Also the API (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/) is quite useful.

As said before, though, there are always ways of getting the scripts. Also a lot of the easier ways (disable right click, disable highlight, etc.) don't work on good browsers.But the thing about Javascript is that pretty much everything that can be done has been done, so someone could probably just go somewhere else and get a similar script.

Don't know what's wrong, but you could try to make it switch to a different icon and then back to preview. That should make it repaint. grayIcon = new ImageIcon("gray.jpg"); //Where gray.jpg is just a gray image (default color for labels and stuff is 204,204,204 or #CCCCCC)previewLabel.setIcon(grayIcon);previewLabel.repaint();Thumbnail.createImage(f, "preview.jpg", 90, 60);previewIcon = new ImageIcon("preview.jpg");previewLabel.setIcon(previewIcon);previewLabel.repaint();

It is possible to control the alpha channel, but I'm not sure about the color. In the part where you make the thing that you want to be transparent, add "opacity: .90;" or however transparent you want it. It works like a percent, .00 is not opaque, 1.00 is completely opaque, .50 is half, etc. I don't think that it's technically valid CSS, though. I believe that it will be in CSS3 (whenever that comes out). There are also some other filters that you can use which are described at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ (including alpha, I'm not sure if that's better than opacity:).

Yeah, there's really not much you can do. It's all a matter of what the server can handle.

It's a regular 20GB. I'm going to try to update/restore it and if that doesn't work I'll take it to an Apple store.I got a big burst of irony this morning when I thought it was working, but then skipped half a song and went to "I Should've Known Better."

This morning I was going to listen to some music, so I got my iPod, turned it on, and it reset (I hadn't had it plugged in for a while). When I got to the music, it would go through half of a song, then skip to the next. After doing this a couple times, it would just skip entire songs. It'd skip six or seven, then do half of one, then skip six or seven more.Later I looked on the internet for some ideas, so eventually I tried resetting it again, as instructed. This worked for a little bit, but then it started skipping over songs again. I reset again, and it lost all the data, then I reset once more and all the data came back. After that I tried playing some more things, but it kept skipping over parts or whole songs, and came close to freezing a couple times.Does anyone have any idea what could be happening and/or how to fix it? After it lost the data once I've been reluctant to touch it, so it's just sitting there charging.

Excellent! This should save me some time typing in those sites I go to a lot but neglect to bookmark.

It's an interesting question, but it varies by region. I guess I've always thought of Sunday as the last day and Monday as the first because Sunday just seems like that day when you lounge around and rest up, whereas Monday you actually start doing things.

Very nice, I always wondered what the stuff in preg_replace meant.

(I'm kind of a romantic so feel free to disagree with anything in this post or subsequent posts in this topic)I suppose that one could argue that someone would be perfect when not lying if viewed through the eyes of someone who truly loves them. Like the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I think it's possible for someone to see perfection in someone else, despite the fact that perfection is, by nature, impossible. I've always liked to think that there is some perfect person out there, but as I grow older and society begins to have more of an effect on me, I've begun to doubt it. Any relationship takes work from both parties, be it friendship or a romantic endeavor. However, with the six and a half billion people on this planet, there is bound to be someone who you would get along with extremely well. Backing up this somewhat, in my short 15 years of life I have already met three girls that I get along with exceptionally well, and many more with whom I have strong friendships.I also liked to think that it would be guaranteed that you'd meet this person some time in your life, but probability and the decline in belief of spiritual happenings has got me doubting this also. When I say "doubting this" it's not like I thought that it was actually something plausible in a world where nothing supernatural exists, but I've always been somewhat spiritual in my belief of things beyond what can be proven (not specifically religion).So I guess in answer to the topic's original question, no, I don't really think that there is a "perfect person" anymore, but there are probably many with whom it would be relatively easy to get along or have a strong relationship.