clagnol

This game is pretty fun. Especially when I put it on full screen and use my Wacom tablet.

I'm no expert on the matter, but I would assume that a virus created or modified the cookies in such a way as to benefit the virus. Obviously, a simple text document cannot house a virus. If it could, the Internet would be a very scary thing, indeed.

I didn't care for Wolverine's border, either. The little symbols on it seem arbitrary. Also, the color of the text seems wrong, somehow. I do like how both comic book characters appear somewhat grainy.With the Spidey sig, I don't like how Spidey is blended in with the background. It gives an uneven appearance.I prefer Phyre's text and colors, and Kubi's blending.This is a tough call, but I vote for Phyre, and not just to bring this to a dramatic tie.4:4

I vote for Truefusion. Yes, his/her sig has a lot going on, but Kubi's almost has too little going on. Both of these are excellent sigs, but the Storm sig instantly draws in and entertains my eyes.Now make that 2:1.

Whether you're into medecine as an art form, or you want to make gel buttons for your website, this tutorial is for you. First, make your canvas somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 pixels by 300 pixels. We'll be working on a large scale, so you can always downsize it. Now, choose whichever color suits your fancy. Since we're working with vectors, you can always change it according to whim. Use the rounded rectangle tool to imitate the shape of a capsule. I recommend you put "70 px" in the radius field in the toolbar at the top. You should have something that looks like this: Now you should right click on that layer, and select "Blending Options". Check the options "Inner Shadow" and "Drop Shadow". In the "Inner Shadow" options, make the distance 0 px, make the choke 10%, and make the size 50 px, or play around with these settings to suit your liking. Under the "Drop Shadow" options, replace the default black with the same color as your capsule. For my example, I set the distance at 22 px, the spread at 24%, and the size at 38 px. Make sure "Global Light" is checked and set it to 90 degrees. Now you should have something that looks approximately like this [but larger]: Now comes the toughest part: adding a reflection. Use the ellipse tool to produce a long ellipse along the top edge of the capsule. It doesn't matter which color you use, because the next step is to change the fill value to "0". You should be able to find this field in the layers window near the opacity value. Now go to the blending options menu for this new layer. Give it a "Gradient Overlay" and click on the default gradient in order to be taken to the "Gradient Editor". There are four nubs along the length of the default gradient. Click on the top left nub and change it's opacity to 0. Click on the bottom left nub and change it to the color white. Now you need to rasterize this shape so that you can blur it. But first, you should duplicate and then hide the layer in case you decide to back-track later. Rasterization is available from the right-click menu of the layer, or from the "Layer" menu in the top toolbar. Now use a "Gaussian Blur" from the "Filters" menu under "Blur". Set the blur to 0.7 pixels. Now set the opacity of this layer to 60% and your capsule should look something like this: If all you wanted was a gel cap, then you're done at this point. If you wanted to put text on your capsule, then you should use the text tool to do so. A font size of 36 px is about right, depending on your font, and don't be afraid to use the options in the "Character" window to tweak the width or height of your text. Because I forgot to install cool fonts on my laptop, I will be using Verdana. You will change the fill value of the text to 0% and once again enter blending options. Select "Bevel and Emboss" and select the radio button which indicates "Down". You can change the other options, but I'm sticking with the default values for this tutorial. Change the opacity of the text until it looks right to you. I chose 45% and my capsule looks like this: Now follow the instruction on my gel capsule, because you've just learned a cool trick.

What are your credentials, Squall? Do you live in a Spanish-speaking culture? Have a Spanish degree?

Lol at Snlildude; I thought you were going to ask your Spanish teachers to resolve this dispute.

Three words for your link: creation science evangelism. I have a hard enough time trusting people with radical claims when they don't openly espouse a political, cultural, and religious agenda. Jehovah's Witnesses found something in the Bible to support their claim that they will inherit the Earth, and the unbelievers will perish. Every Christian sect has a slightly different outlook, often contradictory, and they all have support from the Bible. Obviously, you can't all be right.

Spanish Help Line? People call you and ask for help with the Spanish language for a nominal fee?

Of course it got cancelled, Hamtaro was awful. Wasn't it about a group of preteen friends who all had hamsters, which, coincidentally, were also friends, and the hamsters had secret tunnels which they used to meet up and do decidedly un-hamster-like things? I seem to recall watching about two minutes of that show a few years back. There's never a lot of good programming on television in the day-time, but I'd honestly take reruns of CHiPs over Hamtaro. Especially if I flipped the channel right as Ponch was taking out the perp.

David Koresh [Waco]Jim Jones [Jonestown] Marshall Applewhite [Heaven's Gate] I could name more, but I'd have to think about it for a while. Strange how every messianic movement provides proof of their messiah's miracles, eh? No? What is it with Christians and feet? I'm seeing an institutionalized fetish, here [just joking, don't stone me!]. Finally, we agree on something. When some one makes an extraordinary claim regarding the sacred or profane [such as being the son of God], you either believe him or throw rocks at him. There is no happy middle ground.

This has been discussed on the Xisto fora before. Using this method does not create a valid icon file. It may work, but you will have much more control over your icon image if you use the authentic icon format [such as including transparency].

Which god, kwapster? Tell me which one, and provide a modicum of evidence to support your choice, and I'll trust in your lord. Hell, I'll be relieved.

Did you create that image of a storm trooper performing one of Michael Jackson's signature moves?Either way, very nice.

Still no references, jzye. There's some contention on this point among believers, so don't take it for granted. I generally use the New International Version, which, when I was a Fundamentalist, was considered the most accurate English interpretation among my peers. King James' translators were a might touchy around verses relating to genitals. I was just throwing out my own favorite verse; let's not make this evolution thread about the Bible.

I thought about it, then decided that a transparent background would complicate the little red shadow immensely. Perhaps I'll try this next time. Photoshop I think I will. I was waiting to see if people liked it, first. I saw a commercial on TV with shiny gel buttons and for the first time, really focused on what made them shiny. As it turns out, this effect is really easy to recreate. Thanks for all the feedback, guys.

I was instant messaged by a guy looking for moderators for his discussion board. I asked him why he didn't ask for help on the Xisto fora, and he said that it was considered spamming to do so.My suggestion is to create a subforum, wherever appropriate, for people to ask for help with internet-related projects, or to offer their services. A content-provider might seek a web designer or a PHP programmer to help build a website.This could be extended to allow other non-computer-related "help wanted" relationships, like a guitarist searching for a drummer. Or even material transactions, like a person looking for used computer hardware.There is a definite need for this kind of forum. Plus, the moderators won't have to spend as much time deleting these posts when they appear in irrelevent fora.

The link is broken.

I know the lettering is a little blurry. It looked much more crisp before I shrunk it down. Critique if you like.

I replied to your invocation of biogenesis in the "Is there a god?" post [to which I don't feel like finding the link]. I'll leave you the Wikipedia link. The other things you mention aren't really compelling evidence to me. You throw around a lot heresay and half-truths. The dating methods you mention have not been discredited. That's a joke creationists tell eachother on fundamentalist Christian discussion boards. Give me some references to credible scientific work, and I'll consider this idea. You're also flat-out wrong about microevolution. Microevolution does not account for one species becoming another. We demarcate microevolution as occuring at or below the level of species. The difference between a housecat and a jaguar constitutes many macroevolutionary changes. Likewise, Darwin's finches were different species. You might be able to argue that a Jack Rusell Terrier microevolved from another terrier, but I'm not sure if the domestication influence rules that argument out. As to your arguments about Darwin's personal beliefs, they are irrelevent and sound apocryphal to me. But let me point out the flaws in that argument, anyways. Regarding cat-dogs: cats and dogs aren't often subject to evolution, as both species are domesticated animals. Humans control the reproduction of these animals, thus largely removing "survival of the fittest" from their lives. Furthermore, species do not blend together to create viable offspring. As I recall, ligers and tigons are impotent/frigid. The best-case result of cat-dog coitus would be mutual satisfaction. But I'll assume, for this discussion's sake, that you don't believe all evolution to result in animal mixtures. Another mistruth you wrote was that evolution is unproveable. Supposing we last that long, I'm sure we'll have ample evidence in a few thousand years. Even if your savior comes to take away all the fundies, we'll still have our atheist scientists hard at work. Let me point one more thing you got wrong: you made a sweeping and incorrect generalization about Catholics. A lot of Fundamentalists like to impugn the Catholics for their lax interpretations of the Bible or impiety. But what you probably didn't know is that there are many Catholics out there more zealous than yourself. Biblical literalism, salvation through guilt, asceticism, the whole shebang. I'm sure some of them think Fundamentalists [the bill of which you certainly seem to fit] do not take the Bible seriously enough. As you are so keen on quoting the Bible, I will share with you my favorite verse in closing: Ezekial 23:20.

Beeseven already said that.

From Wikipedia: It is commonly accepted that viruses are not alive, for the sole reason that they are unable to reproduce without their hosts. Scientists have successfully created viruses. Although, viruses are much simpler than those organisms which are classified as "living", I see it as only a matter of time before microbiologists are able to create prokaryotes. Abiogenesis doesn't negate the possibility of deities. It just proves that they are not necessary for the existence of life.

paypal.login, videos and images cannot infect your computer. You must be running programs that you think are porno. And Noonster, your analysis may be true for XP users running Internet Explorer, but for those of us who use Firefox, we're generally safe wherever we browse. Also, you're only focusing on Internet-borne viruses, completely neglecting viruses spread through other means (email, instant message, etcetera).

NovaTerra (NeoGeo?), where do you live? I've seen people get beaten up for stupid reasons, but I can't imagine anyone getting beaten up for covering their noses, where I live.

I actually asked about this just after I joined Xisto. Many people gave their own responses but the most official response came from Whyme: I covered my bases with the warning, and title description, but there really is no way to make sure that no one is offended. I think this forum's policy toward offensive material is "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". The people who make the decisions here at Xisto should seriously consider lifting their censorship over material deemed "offensive" in favor of a reasonable system of warning, such as I employed in this thread. Think of this not as a complaint, but as a serious suggestion.