Mordent

Clearest answer so far, thanks. I suppose I should have made the "is it a suggested method" point as well, as that's certainly made things a bit clearer. Now I see what you've been getting at, I'll have a go at tweaking it to make it a bit less sloppy. Cheers again, folks!

A switch block for what? I have no problem with the way my site's working, nor the structure of it. My only question is whether GET variables can be set rather than just read. Looks like I'll whip up a hasty page to check it, as it'll be a bit quicker. :lol:Cheers anyway.

I must admit, I had an inkling that I'd be seeing this film on the big screen pretty much as soon as I saw the first trailer (and I'm not a big-screen nut, so that certainly says something). After coming out of there earlier today, I have to say that I'm certainly glad I did. The quick summary of my opinions for those not all that interested in trawling through the rest of the post: the film has a large portion shot as if from a TV camera (or other cameras, such as CCTV), which gave a definite feel of Cloverfield without being too close of an idea to feel like a copy. It's essentially a documentary about some events that happened concerning a district in Johannesburg that was selected to be the home a race of aliens that ended up on Earth. Without delving in to the plot too much, it's not too easy to say much more about the events of the film so much as the style and message that it conveyed to me. WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! The alien species are nicknamed (in a derogatory way) "prawns" for their resemblance to the animals of the same name. The film gives a bit of background as to how the Prawns came to Earth and the events that followed to get us up to speed for the main events, but essentially riots and general public disapproval meant that they had to be separated for both their and the public's protection. The district they live in (District 9) is a slum, a great mass of sprawling shacks and junk that the million or so creatures call home. The lives they live are brutal, certainly not dissimilar in many ways to how slum-life is viewed today. The fact that the whole setting is in South Africa is actually quite poignant if you consider the concept of racial (or, in this case, species) segregation that exists today. Interestingly, by having a common "enemy" to unite against there is virtually no reference or suggestion of racial conflict at all seen in the film, but is certainly a stark reminder that the aliens are viewed as one step lower in the food chain, and therefore can be treated as such. Ignoring the main character, who the documentary revolves around, I found the actions of those around him far more interesting (though don't get me wrong, the acting is certainly entertaining and in-character, and I have to confess that I found the near constant swearing in a South African accent later in the film hilarious). The government that seems to treat the Prawns as research subjects, to be tested on and their technology exploited. The emotionless faces of so many of the authority figures (or, in some cases, faces of loathing) when dealing harshly with the aliens left a vivid image in my mind, and one of those that stand out as being a clear theme throughout the film. One thing I should point out is the level of "gore" present in the film. Not for the squeamish, there's plenty of body bits flying and being ripped apart that does make me wonder at the calibre of the negotiations by those trying to get the film to be a 15. Top notch work, right there, that one will definitely look good on their CVs. I can't possibly convey the true extent of some of the events and messages in the film, but even if you're not in to political themes or ethics and so on then it's certainly worth a watch just for some of the effects. The graphics involved incorporate the alien creatures seamlessly, which is quite a feat considering the amount of light around (most noticeably daylight) unlike a lot of dark sci-fi films that are all too common. One film I'll most certainly be getting on DVD (special edition, as I've no doubt they'll be doing) soon after it comes out, and one that I'd recommend is watched by any movie fanatic. It makes one heck of a conversation topic afterwards, if nothing else!

So...quick check: if you haven't got medical insurance currently you get lumped with the hefty bill for your medical care? And this insurance costs how much exactly? Sounds a bit like a no-brainer to me - assuming that it doesn't cost an arm and a leg, of course (pun intended ). The important thing here is that you get a choice in the matter, right? That's the issue? If that's the case, then I certainly agree. If they're simply going to fine anyone who hasn't got medical insurance then why not just up taxes to essentially ensure that everyone has medical insurance?Finally, a medical system that has a chance of being a bigger flop than the NHS!

I realise that I can do checks such as the one you posted, but the code that I'll be doing this particular bit of checking in is in a separate code block to my main chunk. Essentially I have the following structure: Initialisation Various Includes (functions; settings) Session Initialisation Authorisation Checking (ignoring page, the reasons as to why are a bit complex) Page Include Specific Authorisation Checking (i.e. type of member) Page Template Initialisation Page Template Completion Page Template Parsing Final Page Parsing As can be seen, I effectively have two authorisation checks. One gets the user's level of access from the session information. If the user is not logged in then they are taken to the login screen (which I hoped could be easily achieved by "tricking" the later code in to using it as the data in the get variable before the page is included). This way round I can easily direct any non-members to a certain page without having to use headers (not that I'm adverse to them, I simply prefer other methods). Hope this helps with explaining my question.

Before I spend a little while writing out the necessary code for it to test if my theory is right or not, I was wondering if anyone's had any experience with altering GET variables. For instance, say I have a variable called "page" that's set to whatever page I want to load. Naturally the URL will look something like http://www.blah.com/index.php?page=wherever. Would it be possible to manually override that during some sort of initialisation (essentially an authorisation check), so that even if it says page=wherever it instead is actually equal to something else? My thinking is something like $_GET["page"] = "access_denied";Hopefully my question's clear, as well as how I intend to use the functionality. I've got a handful of other things to develop first, so thought I'd leave this question out there while it's still on my mind. Any pointers appreciated!

In all fairness, I feel like I should give a quick review of lockerz.com to give other people a chance to get involved as well. Despite my initial scepticism, I have to say that the potential gains from it are fairly snazzy for maybe a minute of attention each day. The way I see it, you get a minimum of 4 points per day (2 for logging in, 2 for answering a quick question, sometimes "do you prefer A or B?" or sometimes requiring you to type in your answer), meaning that within a matter of 75 days (or two and a half months) I can have an iPod Nano in the post completely cost free. It does mention that the beta is a bit of a testing ground so they can ge ta feel for what products the members like most, so I expect that as of the official launch there will be some fairly substantial price hiking.Still, either way, even if the prices effectively doubled you'd still be getting something for virtually nothing (except a minute a day for however many months). Nice little find here.

I'd have to agree that that's the way I see it as well. I'd always viewed it that way until a friend pointed out that it worked the other way round, and was curious as to what other people's opinions on it are. Even with just one reply backing up my viewpoint, I'm happy to go ahead and use it for now and, as you say, even if the majority of the world see it the other way around it doesn't exactly matter. :lol:Cheers!

We've all seen the classic little doodles: the heart surrounding the letters of two people's initials with a "4" in between, but what does it actually mean? Clearly the "4" is representative of the word "for", but in what context? Is it "Person A is in favour of Person B" (loosely, "Person A likes/loves Person B"), or more "Person A is the one for Person B" (or "Person B likes/loves Person A"). Does it mean either/both? Does it really matter, as it's just a general cute way of expressing affection?It's fairly relevant, as I'm making something for my girlfriend and, what with my perfectionist nature, really want to get it the right way round.

Not a strictly relevant reply, but I had to Google "bumpits" to find out that they weren't "hair-volumizing insects". Misreading is a harsh mistress indeed, my mental images of a little insect primping up hair have been crushed.

Just a quick side note: I'll admit to being one of those who got an invite from loukas. So far the site seems a little sketchy (things take a while to load, etc.), but assuming that they live up to their promise of providing the prizes once enough points have been earned then I don't see any real harm in it. One point I should highlight, however, is that there's no limit that I can see on the number of invites able to be sent by one person. There is is a certain number (20) of invites required to get essentially a snazzy upgrade to VIP status, so in short: cheers for the invite, but it's certainly best if you're up front with people rather than trying to get more of them to hurry up and ask for an invite. Apologies if there is some sort of limit, but this is what a good quick scan of the site shows to me.

Finally got around to actually trying to implement this, and I have to say that it worked like an absolute charm. Thanks a bundle!

Just a little bump, as this issue is still unresolved. As I haven't got the domain I want for my website yet, I can't test my ideas too easily (all development currently done locally), and as I never really spent too long looking at how file permissions and so on work I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to use them to do what I want (see previous post). What sort of file permissions would I need to have on the files (and the directory) to allow the server to see what it needs to see (namely able to include the files) but not let them be accessed directly? 700 (using the fairly standard notation)?

Just a quick question for any of you more experienced Brits in the world of work: I've started my first ever job in the past few months (the joy that is pub work), and can't quite work out why I'm on Basic Rate. I have no other jobs or other forms of income (exlcuding student loan), and as I believe it's relevant I'm 19 (so different minimum wage etc.)Thoughts on why I'm on Basic Rate, and how I go about claiming all that tax back? What sort of tax code should I be on? Cheers in advance!

Rather than remember a number I remember a word which is spelt out using something I found in a book by Derren Brown (although he didn't invent it). There's a wikipedia article about the system here. Admittedly the word isn't anything to do with a bank, pin, or whatever, but it's just one that I remember rather than some random combination of numbers.

So the suggestion I posted didn't work? If so, care to mention why not so I can perhaps help tweak the code? I can't really see any holes in it (in theory, of course, as practice often reveals a few gaping ones), and it should work pretty much exactly for what you need it for.

My answer is "easily". Honestly, I just don't use my mobile phone (yes, I'm British) anywhere near as much as most of my friends and peers. Sure, I probably use it at least once daily normally, but that's merely for convenience than some sort of need to. When I do use it, it's often for phone calls rather than any of the 101 other uses phones have these days. If I want to send a message, email is my first port of call (especially as most people I would otherwise text check their email on their phone). If I want to browse the internet then that's what my PC is for. To some extent, and especially recently, I'm even starting to replace phone calls with Skype and so on. While I'll confess that I understand why some people rely on their mobile so much due to portability (it's not always that easy to be able to use your laptop), virtually anything a mobile phone can do a computer can do better.

Yet the first result from wiktionary is: No mention of sweat, power or energy there. Darts in my mind is a valid sport (albeit one that I wouldn't choose to watch). Using your definition of sport, a fair number of recognised sports would certainly be discounted, such as snooker. Let's not also forget motor sports, which require next to no sweat, power or energy on the part of the sportsperson (staying PC, of course), though I'm not saying it's childsplay to control a however-many-hundred-horsepower engine while travelling at silly-miles-per-hour. If we instead use wikipedia's definition of sport: I find the first sentence of that definition pretty much sums up my views on what a sport is, so I find it hard to discount any of them as a "not-sport".

Technically, this depends rather heavily on how the whois site you plan on using has been coded. On a basic level, let's assume that no JavaScript (and certainly no AJAX) is used (links included for useful reading should you want to have a look at browser-side scripting too), and that the site uses the "GET" method of finding out what URL has been entered for "whois"-ing. If this is the case, all you need to do is replace that URL with the one containing the website they submitted on your site instead. Some sites may achieve this using different methods, but essentially most use the same basic idea. As an example, whois.net tells itself what site you're "whois"-ing by placing it in the URL like https://www.whois.net/whois/Xisto.com, so by using either GET or POST (whichever takes your fancy, although I suggest GET due to bookmarkability) you can use a combination of a form on your page with the clever and useful bit of PHP that is the "header()" function to redirect them to the whois page containing the information. <?php ...*snip*... /* assuming domain is stored in $whoisDomain, I'll leave this bit up to you */ header ( "location: https://www.whois.net/whois/&%2334; . $whoisDomain ); ...*snip*...?>If the whois site you're planning on using doesn't use GET (although a quick random selection of five resulted in all five using it) then it's a bit more complex, but certainly a fairly good learning exercise for PHP. On a slight side note: I'm not entirely sure on people's policies with using their sites this way, but given that they tend to provide a fair amount of advertising on the results page I don't see them being too upset by you doing this. Generally it's better to ask the site owner's permission first, but few people bother these days. I doubt there would be an problem with permission, and in fact if you're lucky you might even get a bit of support from them to make the most of their site! Hope all this helps!

I actually have this debate fairly regularly with my girlfriend, mainly due to the time it takes for her to get ready more than anything else. ;)Don't get me wrong, to my eyes she looks stunning either way, but when it comes to this particular argument she wins in the end for two reasons: she thinks she looks better with makeup than without, so if I don't mind either way than why not make her happy? Secondly, I'm wearing the mythical rose-tinted glasses that everyone else lacks when looking at her. What I might see as utterly gorgeous others might not, so in that respect I'm happy for her to spend a little time each morning (and I'm lucky in that she doesn't take as long as most) sorting herself out. It gives her peace of mind which boosts her confidence up a few notches, which to me is always a good thing.

Without scrutinising your PHP code in too much detail, and assuming that it worked well using $_GET originally, I suspect that your AJAX is actually a little off as the coding used for both methods is actually subtly different. Any chance we could have a peek at that too?One thing I should also point out is that it might be best to do some sort of validation/sanitation on the email address, as well as, say, the subject line and so on. Just for security reasons.

It's been a while since I've done C programming (funny how things that are no longer compulsory get pushed to one side, despite being fairly enjoyable), so I must admit that I've forgotten a little about how these things work, but I'm fairly sure you might need to explain this one a little more. If I remember correctly, the concept of "less than" and "greater" when it comes to strings is to do with the ASCII value of the characters involved, essentially treating the string as a 255-base number. This means capital versions of letters count as smaller than lower case, so will therefore be counted as alphabetically "before" in the context of this function. More importantly, it means that any capital letter comes before any lower-case letter, due to the way ASCII is ordered. Hopefully this clarifies things a little, as it certainly got me pondering a bit at first!

I'm having a little trouble getting my head around the best way of protecting various files in my site. Essentially, the basic structure of the site is such that virtually everything is done via the main index page, which then includes various other source pages (depending on the $_GET["page"] variable), so if the page index.php?page=archive is loaded then it includes the archive source page from elsewhere in the site.Naturally this points towards not allowing the visitors to access the source pages themselves (which are stored in the relative directory /src/pages). So far the best method I've had of making sure this isn't the case is to use a header redirect to point towards the full URL of index.php?page=error_forbidden if a certain variable isn't defined (which I define in index.php). This seems to work fairly well, but it doesn't strike me as being a particularly elegant solution, and I wondered if a neater one was available using file permissions and .htaccess? For those wondering, I've already tried using the header redirects to point towards the directory one up (namely to ../index.php), which all in turn point one directory further upwards, but apparently you're not allowed to redirect the user that many times. Any advice on the matter would be appreciated, as it rubs me the wrong way to do it with a full URL (especially as I'm developing it locally first, so would have to change every pages redirection location when I eventually upload it).

I can't tell exactly without seeing the script, but it seems like you've got an issue with getting headers sent after page content. Headers that change, say, the "location" of the page that come after page content has already been printed (via echo or otherwise) cause nasty little errors like the ones it says. What's actually done on lines 62, 63 and 66 of the script that it mentions?

My only real qualms with OpenOffice have to be Calc's annoying lack of a screen update when I try to insert a row (minimising and maximising the window seems to solve this) - which is something I certainly do regularly - and Writer's sometimes strange way of getting you to alter styles. Neither of these are by any means major, but I'd still have to confess that Microsoft Office just feels...nicer. When it comes to user-friendliness Microsoft products tend to be second-best, but I do confess to finding next to nothing wrong with MS Office in comparison to a fair few little niggles with OpenOffice. Still, what do you expect with free software compared to something you have to pay for, eh?