Arbitrary

Woah, that's a nice painting you've got there. :-) I like the contrast between the flower and the background--really makes the flower stand out. I also enjoy the layering you did with the leaves (from light to dark) so that it seems more three dimensional. You know, the middle of the flower almost looks as realistic as a photograph. The background gives it a more painting-esque look. Might I suggest that the flower could have some more changes in color? You know, beyond the white and the pink, perhaps you could add some more flavor to make it a bit more vivid. Right now, the contrast between the flower and the background is a bit too obvious. By the way, did you have a reference photo for this particular painting?

Well, if you're going for ease, then Ruby might be a good first choice. If, on the other hand, you think you can handle something a bit harder (say you have people around to help you out), then you might as well choose a harder language and learn that first. That way, once you've got most of the basics of that harder language down, it won't be very difficult to go back and learn an easier one (such as Ruby or PHP).I'd say that PHP is probably even easier than Ruby, but it seems to have more pitfalls as you go down the road. (Aka, it has a lack of organization when compared to Ruby)

This is especially true. I learned this from experience (in a bad way). Most of my code turned out to be a major mess with repeat snippets everywhere. Later on, when I wanted to fix a mistake in the code, I found that it was nearly impossible to locate where the error was. Fixing it became an even greater nightmare as since it was already messy I thought it was fine just to stick a few patches here and there. This left the code even worse off. For security, always make sure you take care of sql injections (look here: http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/sql-injection.html) PHP's addslashes function was made especially for that purpose, I'd think. If your friend loathes to take care of the nitty gritty aspects of security, then he could probably download one of the numerous PHP classes (if you Google) out there catered to security. PEAR is definitely great. And while I'm at it, I might as well suggest using a PHP framework. I would recommend CakePHP -- it takes care of much of the issues that were mentioned earlier in a rather nice model-controller-view format. (The model is the object that accesses the database, so you could have a model like 'User'. The controller is like the verb of a sentence--it does most of the business logic. The view takes care of the design. ) For CakePHP, there is built-in validation specified by Perl regular expressions and security is taken care of by a class called 'sanitize'. With 'sanitize', you can specify different levels of security, from its paranoid function (which takes out all characters in a string besides those that are alphanumeric) to its sql function (which takes advantage of PHP's addslashes function).

Yeah, seriously, you might as well just come straight out and say what the catch is. The minute people see that there's something akin to a catch, they'll probably just choose to leave without even considering. Besides, you do realize there are a ton of other free url redirections that are by far better than this? Take a look at co.nr for me. That one's quite nice. Hahahahaha. The way I look at it, it's not even fine print anymore. It's right smack dab at the bottom of the list of things, in nice big font, enclosed in a highlighting box. It's just waaay too obvious. ;-D

^, that's a very good point. Those surveys are often in place to steal your passwords. I have a set of different passwords that I use depending on the site. For instance, some sites I could care less about (like survey sites), and so I end up using one particular password for all sites akin to that one. (And this password is always something stupid and not-so-good security wise like 'goodbye') Other sites I need more security (say my email account) and so I up the security of the password to something like 'd21of32y9rfuKei'. Then, for each of these 'important' sites, I use different complicated passwords. That way, if surveys do obtain my password, they'll probably only obtain the password to all the stupid sites I don't care about, so at least I'm partially protected. I don't trust it either, hence the reason why I don't use it. I've disabled the password-remembering thing; better to be safe than sorry in this case. Firefox probably fixed the bug by now though, but I'm not interested in waiting to see if crackers have found some new exploit in the browser. :-P

You can't just download this stuff; you have to go and actually buy the Microsoft Office Suite. Check out this link for Word: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/. You can download a free trial, but after that is over, you'll have to go and buy Word. You can also just get the whole suite here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/. Now, on the other hand, if you do want a similar word processing system for free, you can always download OpenOffice here: http://www.openoffice.org/. Programs similar to word and powerpoint are both in there. Good luck.

Woah, now that's pretty cool. I'll have to bookmark it and check it out later (when I have more time) Mmmm...the government will eventually find the site and crack down on it. But as long as it's not particularly famous (like at first), the government probably won't do anything. And if the owners aren't rich, there's no reason to file lawsuits. So problems might begin when the site gets bought by a larger company, (like the whole Google and Youtube incident), the government will also saunter along and attempt to get rid of copyrighted materials. But until then, I guess we can all just enjoy.

Ah, something similar happened to me, except that I was using Firefox, not IE (and that I was on windows). Aren't bookmarks usually stored in some sort of folder for bookmarks? If you can somehow find and copy that file (you won't need to open IE to do that), then your bookmarks wil be saved. At least that's what I did to save my info. Mine was in a folder called 'Favorites' (kinda obvious)And you should definitely consider switching to a different browser after that. Either Firefox or Opera...both are quite nice. @unimatrix, I think Opera is the fastest on any OS...Good luck. :-)

Hum. Hate Internet Explorer? Well, 'hate' is a rather strong word...so I do balk at using it (it's reserved for people in my book), but I definitely don't feel like using it myself. IE 7.0 isn't so bad, even if it is just a copy of every other browser before it. (But it doesn't matter if it's a copy as long as it's better, which I can't be so sure it is) @Jewbacca, exactly what animations do they put in the tabs? At the very least I haven't seen any when I use it on my dad's computer. On the other hand, I think the whole 'display a thumbnail view of each tab' view thing is bloat--it really isn't needed and I hardly ever see my parents using it. IE 7.0's phishing site checker doesn't seem to be that bad--it actually caught more mistakes than Firefox's. (I'm not sure if it's better than Google's built in list...but I'm also not so sure if I want to send every site I've visited to Google for a checkin--a bit scary, that) Btw, I thought those pointless messages could be turned off. You could argue that the average user might not find it so easy, but when I first downloaded Firefox, those annoying security messages were there as well, and I went through the same process to turn them off as I did in IE. So for usability, I can't say it's any worse than for other browsers. EDIT: All of that being said, I'd much rather use an alternate browser (currently using Firefox).

Just click and open layer options. Then, at the top left hand corner there's a select box that says 'normal' (usually). Click on that and a bunch of selections will show up, one of which is 'overlay'. I guess you do something similar to the other layer?

Yep, those three tutorials are the ones I've found myself using a lot. Of course, after you get the basics from those tutorials, you should pick a project to start working on. You might try to code a simple contact form, or something like that. Then you could move on to making your own blog (the CakePHP framework works really nicely for that...once you get it, a blog can be set up in a few hours) and so on and so forth.Good luck!

It's pretty old now. This has been out for what..years? Anyway, I haven't seen many people using it...I see a lot more people using blogspot whenever they want to set up their presence on the web. It's good, but I also heard that it uses your email username as your subdomain name. Which may or may not suit you, as you might not enjoy broadcasting your email out to the world.And there has also been mentionings of possible spam--spambots could just collect all google pages urls and fill them with @gmail.com and get a whole ton of email addresses. No one has tested that though.

Um, well, as to whether or not you should get Photoshop...I really think it depends. If you are really really serious about editing signatures (as in, you make signatures and then sell them for money; not a lot of people do this), then sure, buy Photoshop. You're a professional and ought to have done so long ago. But if you're just making them for fun, get GIMP (which is free and open source), which has much of the features of Photoshop anyway.So yeah, if you're not in the mood to spend hundreds of bucks on software, then just get GIMP, try it out, and see if it has what you need. I do agree with TheOneAndOnly on the fact that any Photoshop version works well--they all have enough basic features to suit you for quite a while. Of course, each version has its own set of features, like Elements 2.0 lacks curves and Photoshop 5.0 has it. Stuff like that.

I have qualms about using something like Ajax for something as basic as a search box. I just feel like a non-ajax-ified version along with an ajax-ified version would be nice. After all, I tend to have Noscript on, so the first thing I see is no results, which leaves me pondering. On the other hand, once the results are loaded, the design is great and the results load really quickly. (Far superior to non-ajax-ified search). I also like how it's really quick when loading images and videos of the same search query and keep things all on the same page (ahh, the power of ajax). As mentioned above, I also almost never look at more than 50 links worth of search results. It's rather tedious if you haven't found it quickly and typing a new word/word combination in seems to work better. Mmmm...not always the case here. Then again, some of the stuff I search for is rather weird as well; it's usually things that aren't so easily found, and a quick change of keywords usually brings me to what I want. As for the removal of the search button--it depends. Though it usually IS easier to just type enter, there's the factor that users are familiar with a certain kind of interface, and loss of familiarity leaves them confused. I also sometimes use the search button simply because I spend the bulk of my time on my mouse rather than on my keyboard.

Well, whether or not you want to use Blogger depends on what exactly you want. Blogger is easier to mess with than Wordpress (assuming that you're using the hosted version. The wordpress.com version is entirely different, and I believe it offers less customization than Blogger (Custom CSS is a paid service)).Obviously, if you actually had the resources to find a good host that supports php and the time to set up Wordpress (though I used fantastico), then Wordpress is definitely better. But Blogger is nice for those who want a blog without putting too much work into the nitty gritty details.As for that tips for new bloggers site, the title is rather deceiving. Upon first glance, I think that it offers tips for bloggers like me (I use Wordpress), but apparently it's only for people who use Blogger. Confusing.

I agree with all those above me--Notepad++ is truly great. The lightness of it really appeals to me--sometimes I really don't need a million buttons cluttering my interface. Notepad++ adds onto Notepad numerous features that are quite useful while coding, but aren't necessarily needed for a not-so-huge project.Treeviewing is especially useful as well. Though sometimes I wish they could put the tree tab (you know, those little + and - signs) next to the text of the level that it's collapsing so that it's easier to see exactly what it is collapsing. Otherwise, it kind of acts as if you have no tabs in your code, which can become confusing. I also like how you can specify the colors for syntax highlighting for different languages. Very useful when you need to work with a specific type of file. Jedit also does this nicely, but after downloading it, I've discovered Jedit to be far slower in loading and just overall more annoying. Tabs are a plus for Notepad++--it really operates the same way Firefox does, something I'm used to and prefer. Jedit's frames are harder to work with--too much resizing and Jedit won't let me close any individual frames.Line numbering is pretty basic, but at least Notepad++ keeps it on automatically, unlike Jedit, which requires you to turn it on for every file you open. Eclipse or Visual Studio is really only when you've got something extraordinarily grand that you're working on with other people. Otherwise, simple is usually better. :-D

Agreed. I would say there's no point in pushing your beliefs on other people. All circumstances, are, after all, different.

Ah, dear gods! I have forgotten the calculator! Google's calculator is the best that I've ever found. I especially enjoy its unit conversion feature (I'm too lazy to remember that a micrometer is 1 x 10^-6 m and stuff like that); it's quite useful when I'm working on homework. The calculator picks up on words exactly the way I want it too...absolutely great. As for other improvements...well, for Google calendar, they ought to offer to do lists that you can check off as you finish each item. Currently I'm using Google Notebook as a to-do-list, which works well, but it doesn't have automatic "mark as finished" buttons, which are very useful. I also think Google Reader should have search. I mean, come on, Google is a search giant; how can it possibly lack its main feature on such a great product?

Well, at school, we are apparently required to do it. I believe a while ago there was a law in Colorado that made everyone say it unless they had a note from their parents saying that their religion didn't allow it. The problem here is that what if your parents' beliefs and your beliefs aren't the same? What if you didn't wish to say the Pledge of Allegiance while your parents wanted you to do so? Then it's not freedom of speech; it's your parents deciding what you should say. The system is not totally fair, but then again, no system can be totally fair. Well, I think it depends. As a little kid, I had just immigrated to the U.S. and so didn't really know English. So when I was first made to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I just copied what everyone else did. But I couldn't have been brainwashed because I didn't have any idea what they were trying to make me say. By the time I actually understood what the words meant, I was older and ready to form opinions on my own. And even then, the Pledge of Allegiance was just a mindless repetitive trite to me--I didn't believe in god, but saying the pledge of allegiance for years on end didn't convince me to believe god either. Well, of course. But the problem is, without knowing, it's not very likely you'll ever saying stuff like "I'm being brainwashed." Without having any outside opinions on your education, you'll think that your education was perfectly fine. For instance, let's say there's a dictator who takes control of your country and tells everyone that freedom of speech undermines the power of each individual. While you are stuck inside that education system, you'll believe every word that's being said. However, if you went around deciding that you were "being brainwashed" even before you were in the system, it's more likely you'll actually be suspicious about the system afterward. Even if it's an ignorant statement of "being brainwashed", I still feel that one ignorant statement is like a net--it catches your mistakes later. Well, I'd say it's still possible, even without computer involvement. Conspiracies are supposed to be hidden, hence the reason we don't know about them. By the time they're revealed, it's usually too late. For instance, that Enron conspiracy--it was hidden for quite a while. For a long time, the U.S. thought that Enron was a great company and was doing quite nicely. No one had any idea of the internal problems the company was facing--no one until it was too late. And sure, there was human involvement, but it still went on. It wasn't a total conspiracy like where everyone worked together immaculately, but the end results were still disastrous. Well, that's definitely true. I mean, the government explicitly makes the statement that certain information must be hidden. If you work for certain government posts, you aren't allowed to leave the country for a time period of several years until they believe that whatever knowledge you held while at the post is too old to be useful. All governments do this; it's for their own protection.

Well, it's different from person-to-person, but I usually play just out of pure boredom. If I have nothing better to do, I'd just occupy my time with random flash games that I find on the Internet. I also prefer them because for the most part, they're short and can be finished within a certain timeframe, leaving me plenty of time to do actual work. If I did play an addicting game then I'd probably spend all of my waking hours playing it, which, frankly, would kill any productivity I've ever had. On the other hand, if I had a large chunk of time on my hand (say during the summer break), then I wouldn't mind playing a more addicting game, as long as the addiction was controlled and didn't last longer than several days. If it did, then the addiction would probably spill over to school days as well, which causes some rather...mind-boggling issues.I usually prefer games that require some amount of strategy...those just seem more interesting than repetition over and over again just to achieve some great goal in the end. (Though real life is probably more like the latter...but the point of games is to escape from real life, right? XD)I have met people who play games to nullify some of their rage and relieve stress, but that has never worked for me. I always find that a game tends to cause more stress than it actually relieves (let's say I fail just before I can achieve some sort of rank--it's much more likely that I'd be pissed, causing more stress than calm). Therefore, I can only play games when I'm really calm or else my anger will just go overboard.

What kind of generalization is that? I know plenty of friends who are not women and value copyrights. I also know plenty of females who don't value copyrights. I fail to see where you come up with this. I mean, guess what, the CEO of Microsoft is obviously male. You think he doesn't value copyrights? *coughs* Yes they can't, but if users upload copyrighted content, that doesn't make it any more legal. I'm not saying that it's possible for Youtube to monitor every single video that is uploaded (that would require a whole department devoted to just monitoring copyrighted materials), but I'm just saying that it is illegal whether or not you get caught. Getting caught is one thing, the legality of it all is another altogether.

Mmmmm...while the design on that page may or may not be more appealing than Google's (it depends on opinion, and frankly, I think it fits too much to the Web 2.0 cliche). Here, however, is some solid reasons why Google might not want to migrate the Web 2.0 way. Let's take a look at the speed report of the site alamy.com: Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Then look at the speed report for Google.com: Google.com is evidently a lot faster than alamy.com. So if they want to cater to the most users, it's better to use their current design as it is obviously faster. Users probably won't be happy if they have to wait 10 seconds just for the page to load without a response of some sort from the page.

Hahahaha. Maybe I should...but I guess I prefer typing stuff out (it's what I do on Google Talk, so I guess that just transferred over here too) Hmm...aren't some smilies copyrighted while others are free for all people to use? But I think the set of smilies this board uses are copyrighted. I've also seen news in which a company sued Walmart for using smilies that were copyrighted. (Makes no sense) Uhh, let's see. I do think ginginca addressed your post pretty well, since the rest of your post is just subjective stuff about whether or not there is a way for Youtube to stop it. I think we all agree that stopping it isn't the easiest thing in the world, but it can be done. But since you asked for a link, here ya go: To the U.S. Copyright Office main page: http://www.copyright.gov/ To the section specially dedicated to digital copyrights: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Let's see, quoted from the U.S. Copyright Office site (I don't know how much more official you can go. Please also remember we're arguing laws here, not whether it's right or wrong.) Umm, yeah, I think we all agree that Youtube makes things much easier. It's a lot easier for me to watch something there than go to a nearby store, see if they have it, and so on. But does that mean it's right? Just because the majority of the people agree with it does not mean the law cannot prosecute it. And how do the copyrighters benefit in your case of watching Prison Break, Lost, etc on Youtube rather than buying the DVD? They don't. So of course they'd want to sue Youtube; they're losing a lot of profit here. If there's a few hundred people like you (and granted, there probably is), then think about the amount of profit these companies would lose. How is it not destructive for the companies? It's not destructive for you, sure, but it is very much hurtful to the companies who get less money. Granted, it may not kill them, but they're not getting their rightful due. And just how does that change copyright laws? If you're using the intellectual property of someone else illegally, it's illegal. Benefits to the company or not, it's still illegal. That point does not change. You may support the creators of the shows more, but many other people won't, even if they like it a lot. Prime example would be my friends and I. I know we will rarely buy the DVD versions of the shows that we watch as long as they're available in a free form. Unless I desperately wanted a solid version in my hand, I probably wouldn't go get it.

No, see, the message is that you must either conform to the message above or wait for your eyeballs to slowly rot as they continue staring at the hideous rainbow-filled screen. [/sarcasm]It's definitely a horrible site. I do wonder though--how can the webmaster him/her self not be utterly repulsed by the bright colors? Wouldn't their eyes die as well from the overexposure? Or perhaps they're used to seeing stuff like this and don't really care anymore. Or maybe they did it on purpose just to freak people out. I mean, yeah, I've seen sites with badly placed graphics...but this totally takes the prize. XD

There is apparently a huge uproar at Digg about the submission of the HD DVD hex key. The hex key itself was actually revealed quite a bit earlier back in February. It was then posted to Digg recently and Digg deleted the article on basis of a lawsuit from MPAA. Afterwards, they started banning the users as well as their ips when some of the users started to re-register. Then, numerous users began (it's almost like an online riot) to flood the Digg frontpage with submission after submission of the HD-DVD hex key. Users accuse Digg of having no backbone (they think Digg might have won the lawsuit had they decided to at least try; after all, Digg should not be responsible for the content that's submitted by users) and many of them are fleeing to other sites. So what do you guys think of this? Do you think Digg was in the right in banning so as to avoid a lawsuit or should they stick up for its community of users (it is, after all, a "user-based community"!)? There are also numerous users out there who think that Digg shouldn't have banned users. They believe Digg could've just deleted articles, but there's no point in banning users. And moreover, most other sites (say Slashdot or Reddit or Wired) haven't caved in to MPAA. There's also arguments about whether the HD-DVD hex key can really be considered copyrighted. It seems just like a string of numbers, after all. So, your opinions? Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/