spacemonkey

I agree. Yes money should be donated. Yes, it would likely never happen. But I should make the point that perhaps we shouldn't think of all politicians and all wealthy people as having a lack of morals or ideals. The fact is that some of these people simply choose to ignore them and, although it is quite easy to stereotype these people, it is a bad and, moreso, unfair approach. On many levels, I actually agree to your statement. Maybe I just watched too many "Conspiracy?" shows on The History Channel this afternoon; but I do agree. I'm sure there's a LOT of information that we do not know. Really, it is for our own good though. I'm going to semi-quote Tommy Lee Jones' character from the movie "Men In Black" here: "The person is smart; but people are dumb, paranoid, and stupid and you know it." That's not an exact quote, but you get the idea. With regard to the cure for diseases, I do wonder about two scenarios: 1. If a politician were to discover the cure or other important information, why wouldn't he or she have "blown the lid" (so to speak) to expose the cover-up? Wouldn't he or she get VAST (and I mean VAST) public support for a political platform dedicated to exposing such secrets and making them available to everyone? A presidential candidate willing to give us a cure for cancer? I'd vote for him. 2. Bribery: its effects & downfalls. I would assume that behind every cover-up or conspiracy there's someone who wants to do the right thing. Some lab assistant who knows what's going on and wonders why the project he helped to succeed isn't getting released to the public (or the proper amounts of media coverage, for that matter). Perhaps this assumption is too far down the conglomerate ladder. Assuming that someone high up is being bribed to be quiet, maybe they demand more money, or maybe the deal doesn't work out. People can get greedy. I find myself with a loss of words to really describe this scenario, but you get the idea. Bribery leads to greed, or something else, which leads to exposure. "The truth will set you free." I suppose. That is a little different than assuming the cure for cancer was being concealed. If every disease, EVERY disease had a cure, then yes, I would agree. Hospitals might start to lose money because of the lack of disease treatment, but you must take into consideration that all these people being alive will be available to be hit by a car, or fall out of a tree, or even get shot. If they had died of cancer or some other disease, they wouldn't experience these things. It is really hard to say. I'm not sure. But you have a good point. I agree. This would be a major, if not the ONLY reason that that type of information would remain classified. Or at least that's why people in their semi-sane mind should keep it from us. Although the idea sounds insane, it makes a little bit of sense. An increasing population with a decreasing amount of natural resources spells doom for mankind. But, while this reasoning makes a 'little bit of sense,' nature, I believe, attempts to balance problems out by itself every now and then. Diseases could mutate and evolve into much deadlier and even gruesome diseases for which there is no current cure. There is a type of influenza that, while mildly treatable and preventable by vaccination, is much more intense and is even more fatal than the more common types. This topic is really hard to imagine, as we just don't know. But, like I said earlier, you have a good point, with which I agree. By all means, let's discuss it here! Yes, you are right, the world is not very peaceful right now. Nor do I think it will ever be. But realistically, you have to ask yourself: can the comprehesibility of man's actions, or even his fate, be changed? What I mean is: is it possible to eliminate all of the insane and malicious thoughts of humankind? No, not likely. There will always be someone, somewhere who will have violent, negative intentions for their own reasons. So, assuming this is a correct statement, the only way to achieve "true" world peace would be to have good RELATIONS with other countries, but really, the psychological intentions would stay the same. This could be more devastating in the long run for the world. Let me give you an example: Current world events: North Korea has admitted to having restarted its nuclear weapons program in order to possibly "bully" the nations of the world by threatening its deployment. U.S. spy satellite images may have recently discovered an underground nuclear weapon testing site, that, upon discovery, was covered up with (as of now) no confirmation as to whether or not a weapon was tested. True world peace: North Korea is in good political standing with the world. Does not mention its nuclear weapons program, but builds one behind closed doors. There are no more U.S. spy satellites in operation, since there is world peace (perhaps a treaty is signed to comfort previously "bad" countries), so the testing site is never found. North Korea could potentially launch a nuclear attack on the United States and we'd never see it coming. If there is no threat, there's no need for defense. When someone snapped, it'd be way worse than it is now. I can't really put my thoughts into clear words or descriptions. Maybe if you start arguing some points I'll find the right words. This just doesn't seem exactly like what I wanted to say, but, whatever. And of course, none of this is to be taken personally. It is just a topic of thoughtful discussion. To talk like this with other people about important and thought-provoking issues is good for the mind. And really, if for no other reason, I like this discussion because it introduces new viewpoints that perhaps I haven't taken into consideration. I might agree with your agruments and have a clearer sense of what I should or should not believe.

Initially, I agree. It has always perplexed me as to why those same locations are always needing our money. You would think that, with all the thousands of dollars that are donated, conditions would improve somewhat drastically. I have seen commercials that do show improvements, such as a local hospital or increased availability of medicine, or perhaps even a new school. But other than that, quality of life in those same areas hasn't improved. I have wondered whether or not the money that is donated actually makes it to those people, and although a few donation organizations take a few cents out of your donation, there are a few that do not. So yes, the money is making it there. But the reason those people aren't living in better homes or relocating to different areas is because of the very fact that they get free money through donations. With the money we give them, they aren't inspired to go out and actually try to improve things themselves through work. They can just sit around and donation money will pay for their next meal... maybe. But at least it is a chance for them -- they don't have to go out and look for a job or look for food. Do I think donating money is bad for these people? In large quantities -- yes. You can only start these people off on the right foot, you can't take it too far or they'll take advantage of it. Also, if all the rich people in the world donate all of their money to feed everyone on earth, that would be great, but a lot of other people would lose money, and it could possibly start an economic downward spiral right into the toilet. It just isn't a good idea. If the cure for every type of cancer had been found, you would have known by now. These days the media tries to dig up every bit of information, ESPECIALLY information about medical and political policies. All the medical associations and pharmaceutical companies would be putting themselves at too high of a risk by witholding that type of information from the public. If someone found out, a lot of people would LOSE a lot of money. I believe your underlying logic is right -- money is the reason. But while they are trying to make it, they're not going to put themselves at such a risk that could result in bankruptcy. Besides, if everyone who had cancer was cured, the hopitals and pharmaceutical companies wouldn't lose enough money to put them out of business. The majority of people who seek medical treatment are NOT cancer patients. Plus, if everyone who had cancer was cured, there would be a whole lot more people alive and able to get hurt or get sick. I believe that in the long run, everything comes out even. Though a cure to a major disease like cancer (or HIV, for example) would start to bring up some population control issues, it is not a current issue as we have yet to see a cure for either of the two major diseases that I have previously mentioned. I believe that 'World Peace' is what the world is like today. Yes, there is fighting still going on overseas and even domestically, but true, utopian world peace will likely never occur. Nor do I think that it should ever occur. Bad things tend to happen in "perfect societies." I think the world is currently in a near perfect balance of authority and diplomacy. If our troops weren't in active duty in Iraq I would say it is about as close to world peace as it can be. I should mention, however, that I fully support the invasion of Iraq. At any rate, yes, I agree that world peace is not going to be what people expect it to be. I just hope those people can learn to deal with it.

You don't need PHP to avoid making multiple HTML documents. Javascript and CSS are all that is required.Use a Javascript and a form on the site to let the user select a style and process a correct stylesheet based on the user's selection. Quite simple, really. You can even create a cookie with Javascript that will remember the user's choice for a specified amount of time.Very simple, yet effective mechanism for any website.

I haven't tested this, but you could try a little javascript in an "onclick" event on your submit button, like so: <input type="submit" value="Change Image" onclick="history.go(0)" />"history.go(0)" takes you to the current page in IE's history, in other words, it refreshes the page. You can make an image change its source automatically (without a page refresh) with javascript. If that is something you think would work for you, just say so and I'll post an example.

I'm glad someone posted this. XHTML has strict, but acceptable guidelines for markup. Everyone needs to be doing the same thing, so as to easily consult others when troubleshooting or presenting information. Also, I should point out your explanation of Javascript in XHTML. Javascript definitely works correctly in XHTML Strict, Trnasitional, etc. When you have a Javascript that you want in your page, and you link to it externally, you need to make sure you put the "header" part of your script in a seperate file and link to it in the header like so: <script language="javascript" src="header_part.js"></script>And if your javascript has a body part as well, you would call the other file with just the body part in it in the <body> tag of your document in the same fashion. Also you should point out that tag values must be in quotes and must be lowercase. So the following would be incorrect in a number of places (not a single value or attribute is correct): <img src=file.jpg width=510 HEIGHT=100 alt=Hey align=CENTER />The correct way would be: <img src="file.jpg" width="510" height="100" alt="Hey" align="center" />

My favorite mode of transportation in general is an automobile. I know I can drive one, I am qualified, and when I am driving I am in complete control of my vehicle. Though this type of transportation is statistically the most dangerous.Flying in a plane, while enjoyable, is still slightly stressful. I still fear flying in the back of my mind, but it doesn't prevent me from flying. Overall, I'd say I like flying even though I get nervous before a flight.I have never really ridden on a 'true' passenger train, but I would like to.Boats are fun to ride on.However, with all of these different ways of getting from point A to point B, walking has become a rather enjoyable alternative. When I walk somewhere I'm getting my exercise, not burning fossil fuels, and I just feel better about myself than I would if I drive somewhere. I would highly recommend walking or riding a bicycle when possible instead of taking a bus or driving a car. IT is a much more beneficial alternative.

You've got your flash embed height set to "100%" I'm not sure if that will work. Try a pixel number.

This is a good argument, I have enjoyed reading some of the things here. You argue that plants cannot think, feel, or touch. In studies, it has been proven that plants have very very basic levels of thought and instinct. A plant set next to a window but out of the light will, over time, move to be in the light. Technically this isn't "thinking" per se, it is merely surviving. But being able to survive is close enough. Tests have also shown that plants "feel" in a sort of way. A plant's cell activity was monitored on a specific part of a leaf while a leaf on the opposite side of the plant was ripped or torn, and cell activity increased correlating with the destruction of the leaf. This suggests that, perhaps, plants are aware of a ahcnge in their structure, or possibly they feel pain. Also, an animal is scared when it is cornered and if it feels threatened. Animals lack portions of a brain that humans have that justify and perceive. Animals want to survive, you can't really argue that they are afraid because they can't understand the significance of death.

I remember the days back at my high school (long time ago) we used to be able to go to some "safe" (non violent) game websites, like candystand.com. But then someone got around the filters one day to go to a pornographic website and the techies went nuts. We weren't allowed to do anything, and it was really really lame. But I suppose the best way to cope with it is to obey it. The only good thing that will come out of trying to beat the system is temporary gratification. You will be distracted from your schoolwork, you'll get in trouble (if your school has a competent IT department), and the dominos may start to fall and a lot of bad things can happen to you that will stay with you for a long time.Besides, school days are relatively short. Wait until you get home. That's my advice.

Personally, I prefer:1. Coca-Cola. None of the many variations. I have tried Coca-Cola with Lime, and that was actually pretty good, but I wouldn't drink it if I had the choice between it and the Classic formula.2. Mountain Dew. Mostly because of the enormous amount of caffeine in it. Or at least I think there's a lot in it. At any rate, I'm addicted to caffeine, so if I go for a while without drinking or eating things with caffeine in them, I experience nausea and some bad headaches. Pretty sad, actually.3. Dr. Pepper/Mr. Pibb (a.k.a. - Pibb Extra). I like the taste. Having caffeine in it is a plus.4. Apple/Cranberry/Orange/Grape Juice. A convenient, healthy alternative for when we run out of soft drinks here at the apartment.I drink whatever is available that isn't milk or water. I *do* drink water, but only on certain occasions, such as after I have worked out or done something (or if I am currently doing something) physical. When I sit around, I drink things that aren't exactly healthy.

I would agree with this statement if you changed "ten" to a very, very larger number. A number that may even be inconceivable by the brain. Once you've lost respect, you've lost it indefinitely -- whether you believe it or not.

Yes.

As much as I hate 7th Heaven, I do know that it still airs re-runs on *I Think* ABC Family. I don't know what times or anything, though. As far as what I enjoy watching on TV, I would have to say "not a lot." I don't really watch too much television, it doesn't seem constructive enough for me. The only thing I watch RELIGIOUSLY is 24. That show is great, I've been hooked since season two. My friends, who hang out at my apartment almost every night, watch some TV, and if Family Guy is on, or a Seinfeld rerun, I will watch those. Seinfeld is perhaps the best sitcom to ever air on television, hands down.

I chose Flash.This is because although Flash can eat bandwidth very quickly, it can allow you to create exactly what you want. Whether your idea or vision be of an intro movie, a helpful program, or a cool game, Flash can do it. Realtime graphics with a relatively easily scalable environment (in terms of processing speed) is a major plus, whereas Java can only do so much without giving the required amount of flexibility to the author.Granted that Java is a little bit more accepted in terms of availability, Flash is still superior when it comes to web games or multimedia in general.Using Javascript and PHP et cetera to make games and multimedia is a bit archaic and daunting a task. Not only does it turn off a lot of shallow-minded internet users, it also was not designed to make sophisticated multimedia presentations like Flash.Though I should note that Flash isn't free, which is why I will predict more votes will go to Java or the other option.

I think if Sony ever went on to develop this idea furtther into a working technology, they would either make it almost completely safe or warn about long-term usage. Either way, if people didn't die every now and then from using it, I would try it to see what it was like, to see how realistic it could be. I've always figured this was the next step in digital entertainment.Brainwash? I doubt it. At least not from Sony. But I suppose if terrorists felt so inclined as to use this technology against someone, they could make it harmful. But why would they bother? They'd rather detonate a bomb somewhere and get it over with.Though the brainwashing idea does kind of remind me of that movie "Brainscan" starring Edward Furlong. That was a crappy, crappy movie. But interesting nonetheless.

Yes. This is what makes Game Maker such a productive and efficient program to use versus others. With Game Maker you aren't limited to a certain genre of game (like an RPG or 3-dimensional shooter) -- and you are not even limited by what type of program you create. Though the Game Maker software and code is geared toward developing small (or even large-scale games), you can still use the code as well as other helpful functions to create a neat utility or helpful program such as those you have mentioned. Sometimes people just make things that are pointless, but interesting. This allows people to develop their abstract ideas and to further test them before they use them in a professional environment or on a registered product. For example, there is a program out there that will let you load an image and it will generate HTML markup that, when viewed, is nearly identical to the picture you loaded. While this is almost completely useless on its own, it might be incorporated into another project in the future as a special feature or even as the selling point of a mainstream program.

Just thought I'd say that rather than importing an external .css file through a "style" tag in the head, you could just put this in the head of the HTML document: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="yourstyle.css" />And just an FYI: all attributes and css properties should be in lower case (except for specific classes that you define in your css -- those can be uppercase). Very good tutorial for beginners, teaches a lot of useful information.

Awesome tutorial. I really like the effect this produces. It is almost like a sort of old black and white photograph. Nice work.

Well, that is a nice little script. I can see this being useful for people new to PHP and the like. Although this is a very simple script and it is not intended to be too complicated for beginners, I will go ahead and say that this could be a valuable resource to have, just for reference.

This assumes that your web server supports PHP.

Here is an easy way to make a random quote or block of HTML code appear on your page quite easily with javascript: var a = Math.random() + ""var rand1 = a.charAt(5)quotes = new Arrayquotes[1] = "QUOTE 1"quotes[2] = "QUOTE 2"quotes[3] = "QUOTE 3"quotes[4] = "QUOTE 4"quotes[5] = "QUOTE 5"quotes[6] = "QUOTE 6"quotes[7] = "QUOTE 7"quotes[8] = "QUOTE 8"quotes[9] = "QUOTE 9"quotes[0] = "QUOTE 10"var quote = quotes[rand1]document.write(quote); Even though this code is simple, there are two downsides to using it: 1. You can only have up to 10 quotes (because the random number is retrieved from a single character in a string of numbers) and 2. Unless you know some Javascript and can do some simple modifications, you would have to place this whole script in the body of your HTML document where you would want it to appear. So you wouldn't be able to call it externally (and would, hence, clutter your HTML). But, like I said before, you could make this script do that. I could change it for you but I am too lazy. I can not be bothered.

The wizard that has been designed to help users is, well, annoying.The design looks really busy graphically, which gives the site a more professional feel, but overall you can cut down on bandwidth usage and loading times by cutting down on the images.But, in the end, it looks great. Good job.

For listening to music, I usually prefer Winamp over Windows Media Player, or anything else for that matter. Yes, you can play videos in Winamp but for some reason I just can't seem to like it. I have to admit that I never really try to accept Winamp as a tool for watching videos, so I don't know what exactly I might be doing wrong, but every time I try to use Winamp to play a movie, it clears my playlist and I have to go load it up again the next time I want to listen to music. So, I use Winamp for music and Windows Media Player for video. That way, there is no interference.

Also realize that if you're interested in making programs on your calculator, BASIC programs are, as you would think, way more basic than an assembly program. I Find that BASIC is pretty much 300,000 times easier than assembly, and it is easy for making programs focusing on input and mathematical calculations and displaying the results, or other simple messages. Assembly will give you higher control, and the use of more pixels and smoother animation (i.e. - smoother movement in a game), but like I mentioned before, it is very difficult to learn and also very risky if you do not know what you are doing. It is possible to create games on your calculator in BASIC, but just be aware of the fact that there's a limit to what type of games you can design in BASIC versus in assembly.If you don't know already, if you're making assembly programs, you'll need some way to execute them. Either a special BASIC program or something like "MirageOS" or similar. I do not currently have a link to a website that has MirageOS as a download, but you can probably find it relatively easily by using good old Google.

I first learned about this incident this afternoon, and really, the sad thing is: I wasn't shocked. It is really sad that this has almost become a fact of life for Americans. I finally got around to watching Bowling For Columbine a couple of nights ago (which is, personally, awfully ironic) and although I do not agree with many of the ideas Michael Moore suggests, I do agree with a few. One of them being the priority at which the media covers negative, violent news stories. People in Canada have 7 million guns, and under 100 people die per year due to shootings in the entire country. In the United States, over eleven THOUSAND people are killed each year by guns. So what is the difference? The history of the countries? The culture? The people? Yes, yes, and yes. Why do these two countries differ in gun casualty rates then? The media covering every single shooting and all sorts of violence. So, it does not surprise me that another teenager has taken matters into his own hands and done what he had seen done on the news almost daily -- he shot people. But, with all media allegations of mine aside, he shot people for STUPID reasons. Shooting an intruder in your home who is posing a threat to your life is a logical reason to kill. Shooting someone because you're depressed and, perhaps, you do not like that person is selfish, immoral, and, quite frankly, pathetic. All this having been said, I am sorry for the families of those who were killed's losses.