Mordent

I do something very similar in terms of creating a standard CSS file. When I first started using CSS (not all that long ago, to be honest), I got irritated with the way that different browsers render things differently. Most of that is due to Internet Explorer being a stubborn little piece of rubbish and doing its own thing, but regardless it's still one of the most commonly used browsers out there today, so I decided to try and accommodate it. Naturally it proved..."interesting", but I found that a large number of the differences in rendering can be compensated for by first "resetting" the styles. Much google trawling later and I came across something that I found very handy, and the file I use today is strongly based upon it: Reset Reloaded. It's by no means perfect, and you still have to take in to account the different ways in which different browsers (i.e. IE ) displays things, but by working from a clean slate you can build up your styles rather than have ones that are built in by your browser. Sure, this means you need to do a lot more CSS work, but in the long run it's certainly paid of for me as I'm gradually getting a better understanding of the sorts of quirks different browsers have, as well as how flexible CSS really is. I can strongly recommend trying this for pretty much anyone, as the results you can get from it are pretty awesome. One question I have for you, Tavox, is about the fact that you seem to use percentages literally just over 100% for font-size (such as 100.01%, or 100.1%). Is there any particular reason for this? What would the difference be if you simply used 100%?

I think we've all noticed that as time goes on, and communication between different nations and cultures increases, words have been adopted from various other languages, or we've picked up the odd smattering of a language that we use commonly. For those of us who don't really speak much other than English, we can get by more and more by speaking the exact same language we have been all our lives due to the integration of English in to other languages and vice versa. While I don't doubt that there are a whole host of other languages out there that are becoming "known" by a larger percentage of the world's population, I think that in the context of forming an international language English is certainly among the forerunners in the contenders for it. Again, though, I still don't see why an entirely new language built with the intention of being simple enough to not have clear and concise meanings, yet complex enough to allow a rich vocabulary and grammar to evolve, isn't the way forwards. If it's not based on any current language (i.e. built from scratch, with grammar rules, sentence structure and even new characters) then each of us should find it equally simple to learn. I'm not saying that it will happen soon, or that it won't have trouble integrating with those who have their language thick with culture, but surely it is a viable alternative to mixing and matching words and phrases from the current languages we have available?

As an aside note, I've found that I was deducted my monthly recurring payment 2 weeks before the "payment due" date, as I had more than enough earnings to pay for it. Normally I'd think that that was great, but as I intended to cancel my plan and change it to something a little different (when I've got a bit more time to do so, admittedly), I'd rather have been told about this a smidgen earlier. Still, for future reference for those who wonder when the payment will be taken for their monthly plans: last I checked I found that the payment due date was two weeks after when I first arranged the plan, so I suppose it makes sense that you will be billed two weeks before this date. Other than that, I think the new myCENT system is working perfectly and is crystal clear. Thanks a bundle!

But be honest: do you really need that many databases/parked domains? The fact that you're making a small fuss about it tells me that you'd at least like them, but are they really that necessary? Failing that, why not register the unlimited (within reason) hosting plan (if I remember rightly it's called the Ideal Plan)? Pass as to how much that costs, but I assume it's at least in part what you're referring to when you talked about the boost in price. With the recent changes, I'm more than happy to give Xisto time to settle down and sort itself out with the new system before trying to comment too much on the price of the hosting plans. I mean, we've barely had a chance to get through the first month so far, nevermind see how the prices compare further down the line...

For the record, you don't actually need a bank account (or didn't when I signed up, anyway, and perhaps it only applies to those in the UK), it just means you can transfer funds to/from your PayPal account and actually get your hands on the physical cash. For example, say someone paid you $20 via PayPal. That $20 would sit there until you spent it on something that requires PayPal payment. You should potentially be able to do that indefinitely, provided that you have some source of revenue that keeps coming in to your account. Tying your PayPal account to a bank account does two things: allows you to actually get at the money; and gives you a form of verification, due to the fact that anyone who deals with you knows that you have a (in theory) legitimate bank account tied to it.

Ah, good old 419 scams...for those actually interested in giving these folks a run for their money, I suggest taking a look at 419 BAITER, a pretty good (if a little crude, so don't click unless you can handle the odd expletive) site that drives the ever growing number of people trying to con naive folk out of their money utterly mad in an attempt to use as many of their resources as possible in thinking they can actually get some cash out of you. It certainly amused me for a little while, anyway, and some of the stories posted there are fantastic reads... There's also 419 Eater, which amuses me on basically the same level.

As someone who never actually pays for their hosting (and with free hosting available, why should I bother if I don't use it all that seriously?) I can't really say that I can see from your point of view. Naturally, I can understand that some people don't post at all and instead pay for their hosting, but my simple argument for that is that if that's what they want to do then why not go and find a company that offers a better paid service (i.e. one that doesn't happen to also be the best free host around)? I'm not saying that Xisto is by any means a poor provider of decent paid hosting, I just think that the focus should really be on the flexibility it offers. Sure, although I haven't actually looked at the figures, assuming that the packages are now, say, twice as expensive as they used to be for those who pay for their hosting out of their own pocket, the fact that you can cut down the amount you have to pay from anywhere between not-at-all to completely by posting on the forums. Sure it comes down to how much time you have available to devote to keeping up with the posting to keep your myCENTs up, but remember that you can always supplement anything you don't quite meet with a little boost from PayPal or similar. This is all assuming that I'm not missing something and that Xisto - Web Hosting offers different services from those available to us here on the Xisto/Xisto forums...

So while in the process of revamping some of my websites I've decided to have a good shot at writing my own PHP/HTML template engine. For those who aren't sure what sort of thing I'm talking about, have a look at Smarty and think of a slightly toned down version of that. My question for you is what do you consider necessary in a simple template engine? On the basis that it'll be used by one-man (namely me, but I'll likely show people what I come up with if it works out to be any good), someone who has both knowledge of PHP and HTML etc., what sorts of features would you consider as "standard" in a template engine? The main question I have for you is, really, the differentiation between a template and the code that uses the template. As far as I can tell there are two different schools of thought on how each should be done: The first one suggests that all the programming bits (namely the PHP) should be separate from the HTML, whereas the second (and the one I think makes more sense) is that all the logic code should be kept separate from the display code. There's a subtle difference between the two: What constitutes as "logic code" will almost certainly be entirely PHP, as are the "programming" bits, so the two methods agree in this respect. The difference occurs when it comes to the templates themselves: the first suggestion implies that all PHP (so <?php ?> tags) should be in the programming bit, with a much simpler variable implementation system for using the variables set by the coding section directly to show what's needed. The second suggestion makes a strong differentiation between the language and the purpose. Logic code and display code are two different things from PHP and HTML. Overall, I certainly agree with the second of the two, although the main disadvantage of it is the requirement for the template designer to have some knowledge of PHP. Is that such a bad thing, though? You don't have to know much, perhaps a bit of variable manipulation and looping? There is, of course, the other disadvantage that by allowing the person who works with the templates access to directly run PHP code, so that could potentially post a security risk. That said, if you trust someone enough to upload templates to your site, surely that's not really a problem. Similarly, if you're to do most of the work yourself it's equally not a problem. Has anyone attempted to make a template engine before? If so, how did it go? If not, do you use another one, and have you had any luck with it?

I think the vote's pretty unanimous, then. For those browsing the forum and interested but aren't really sure of the content in the forum itself, Xisto is another sister forum that is part of the same chain and focuses far more on "technical" topics, gearing itself towards "technical minds" and such. Basically it's got a more close knit community and you can generally find an answer about computing and other "technical" subjects there, or ask a question yourself. If you're after hosting you've basically got two easy options: Xisto (i.e. here) or Xisto. Or both? Seriously, no matter how many reviews on other free web hosts you read I've yet to find one that isn't put to shame by Xisto's services (parent of Xisto and Xisto).

The way I see it, Microsoft took a pretty hefty blow from the feedback about MS Office 2007, but that's already in the past. OpenOffice's main advantage is, naturally, that it's able to be spread about like wildfire with no real legal issues. Personally, I use MS Office 2003 simply because it was what was installed on my machine at the time, and that it's what I grew up with (MS Office, that is, not Office 2003) so I'm more "familiar" with it. That said, OpenOffice is growing on me more and more as I use one of a few Linux based OSs more and more, but despite this I still use Microsoft Office for a majority of my work. Why? Mainly because it's installed on every machine at the university I'm studying at, whereas OpenOffice isn't. While I realise that I could use OpenOffice and save it such that Microsoft Office could still read it, why bother? I generally like to use the same software if I'm working on the same documents, which is why I tend to stick to it. Over time I think we'll see one of three things happen: 1) Microsoft loses out bigtime to a piece of freeware (such as OpenOffice) 2) Microsoft makes some radical changes and releases a piece of software that (heaven forbid!) actually works and conforms to international standards rather than just its own and makes a pretty good comeback. 3) Some other company competes with Microsoft, making both companies have to try hard to keep up with the other and therefore better (although not free) software is developed and becomes used globally. Naturally combinations of the above are possible, but in my opinion they're somewhat unlikely.

The way I see it, the government want us to have a form of ID that is purely for that purpose: identifying us. Passports are used internationally, and allow us to travel to other countries. Drivers' licences show that we are legally allowed to drive on public roads etc. While I'm by no means strongly for the idea of there being ID cards that are compulsory for all UK citizens, I'm not all that against it either. The main concern is, naturally, the ability of people to fraudulently exploit the system by duplicating cards (either in appearance or the whole card) and altering it to their means. What is the difference between that and, say, fraudulent passports? Passports allow people access to other countries, and acts as an international form of identification. By limiting the form of ID used so that, for instance, to prove your age you must use one of these new ID cards, it cuts down on the number of other possible uses for one piece of forged ID. As per usual, with any new system it will clearly take a lot of time for it to be trusted. If you knew that about half of the country were using the cards, for instance, but didn't have one yourself to compare it to and therefore know what it's supposed to look like, what use is it? Sure, you realise that it could be a valid piece of ID, and that you're supposed to accept it, but how do you know it's the "real deal"? The only way I can see of getting it to be even vaguely effective is to insist that every UK citizen has one and that they are issued at the same time (or perhaps only valid from the same time) and so we're all therefore aware of what they are. The logistics of that, though, are ridiculous. As for the government's record at...well, losing our records, suffice to say the sheer amount of data available in a national database would be so large as to be obscene. If someone managed to get hold of that data then who knows how much control and power they might have...

There's a subtle difference between the world's "main" language and one that is more "international". By percentage I think you'd definitely be hard pushed to convince anyone that Chinese (or variations/dialects/whatever-they're-called thereof) isn't a definite contender, but that's certainly not the only factor to consider. As an example, looking at this page on Wikipedia shows that Chinese is "officially" spoken in only 3 countries, whereas English is "officially" spoken in the US, India, Nigeria (and 52 others). Assuming you use this as your source of the most common language, English certainly wins. I think the main problem simply comes down to actually adopting any language as the official one. Culturally, you'd be hard pushed to push every country in to speaking your own language. Aside from that, what makes one language better than the other? Perhaps one is decidedly easier to learn in general, although not yet widespread. Would it be best to teach the majority a language that requires the minimal effort than the minority one that requires the most effort? Who's to say that any of our current languages will eventually end up being the international one? Why not make one[/i] instead? Honestly, I see little reason to not construct one ourselves that is generally accepted as being an international standard. Perhaps even make up a new alphabet (or whatever you want to call it) for it, with entirely new characters. Heaven knows English is a nightmare to learn, even as a native speaker, and inconsistencies and exceptions make things even worse. Surely we could solve that by agreeing on a "fixed" language, once and for all?

One new aspect of the fact that Xisto now gives us full access to their hosting rather than the basic options that were previously offered is that I'm sure the email system is now decidedly more confusing. How so? Perhaps it's just me, but allow me to give an example or two of how I feel it's different, and perhaps anyone who knows much about the different options could shed some light on the situation: In the Linux Regular Hosting - Logic Plan (which I believe is the most commonly used hosting so far by Xisto and Xisto members) we have a whole range of different possibilities. All of which require a yearly hosting plan, which is clearly fair enough. - The default option, and certainly it looks desirable, no? My question is about the fact that it requires a domain, and what the little asterisk next to it denotes. Is this similar to the method Xisto previously used, namely allowing us to create up to 10 separate mail accounts, each with a 7GB inbox (and hosted by Google Mail?) of the form <whatever>[at]<yourdomain>? What interfaces are available to let us see the mail sent to these accounts? Are we able to access them in the same way that we previously accessed our Xisto-based email accounts (i.e. via such programmes as Outlook Express)? - What exactly is LogicMail, and how is it possibly better to have a 100MB LogicMail account that we have to pay for than a fair number of free 7GB accounts? - Clearly there are a few "chunkier" LogicMail options, but it still seems like a pretty hefty investment...</option> - Do we get these as well as another option (it does say "Free"...)? How many do we get (note "aliases")? What sort of restrictions are there (if any)? - Now, call me a muppet, but surely you might as well choose the forward/aliases option as opposed to this one? For nothing extra you get something...why would you not want that, regardless of how little you use it? Thanks for any advice on these, as I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to how email works in general. The Google Mail option does sound ideal for someone who wants a number of email accounts something like me[at]mydomain, but I'd like to be sure. I assume you can use any subdomains/addon-domains that you have that are linked to your plan for the email accounts as well?

I would definitely recommend w3schools as an excellent source for all things web-based. Whether you can download their pages to look at offline is a different matter, but you can always save the page itself (at least I would assume it's not too difficult) for offline browsing, or just copy and paste the source code so you can look at it offline. It has a lot of the basics on there to give you a quick reminder of what needs doing, as well as the link to the forum which has an absolute wealth of knowledge...if you can filter through the tonnes of garbage. As for text editors, I can strongly suggest Notepad++ as a Windows based editor, and gedit if you're using, say, Fedora (and likely most other forms of Linux). Both work wonders.

Ah, touché. Anyway, I can't remember openly lying online any more so that I would to someone I know personally. My general opinion is "why bother?", as although there are times that you have a choice between lying or denying someone information (your real name, for example), if I don't want someone to know my real name I'll simply say that I rather they didn't know it. Sure, it's a trust thing in some respects, but if you know someone well enough that you'd trust them with information that you wouldn't give out to most, then there's no need to lie to either them (because what's the point?) or to others (as then you're dishing out conflicting information that could full well emerge to bite you in the "posterior" in the future). The only time I could vaguely understand someone lying online is about age. A fair number of sites that are deemed to have age-restricted content (such as sites about 18 rated (or some other equivalent) games or films) have forms where you need to fill in your birthday to show that you're old enough to view the pages. In my opinion, there's a subtle difference between lying to someone and lying to a site, but meh. That said, I've never done it, as I'm old enough to legitimately look at pretty much anything I want.

Sorry to revive a semi-dead topic, but just a quick check on something... Is the problem with the variable declaration in the for loop itself? I remember my lecturer saying that the following is valid C: int intCount;for (intCount = 0; intMin < intMax; intCount++){...}while the following isn't: for (int intCount = 0; intMin < intMax; intCount++){...} due to the fact that the variable was basically created in the for loop? Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but it's always good to know. I'm pretty sure he also mentioned that it would work in C++ (or maybe it was Java...)?

Is not valid what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is C++ not just a layer on top of C? If written correctly, C++ compilers should have no problem compiling C programs, and a lot of C compilers are quite happy with a lot of permutations on main(), so much so that GCC (the compiler that I'm most familiar with) while conforming to ANSI standard C accepts: main() main(void) int main() int main(void) And a whole host of others...why? As you said, main() is a function, but it's so damn commonly used (and admit it: programmers are lazy) that generally a lot of different variations are accepted (note that this isn't true for every function). One aspect you have to remember is that all of the above aren't quite what the compiler really "sees". All of the above variations are shorthand for: int main( int argc, const char* argv[] ) Do you really want to type that out every time? Nope, which is why a lot of compilers accept nigh-on anything that resembles it.

*grins* Ah, I almost forgot about this thread. The code I gave you above worked like a charm for me, and with a little tweaking we managed to get people playing Mexican waves of beeps around the lab. Certainly made me chuckle a fair bit.

Methinks that there's a subtle difference between post count and credits/myCENTs. Any forum which could earn you posts to your post count also affects your credits and myCENTs (although how credits are still used is beyond me). Anyway, I think the important issue is still why a lot of people's credits suddenly went very negative, as after reading through this thread I still can't see an "official" (i.e. more than just speculation that could well be right) answer to it.

Glad I could help.

Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at this. My programming lecturer actually spent 10 minutes today recalling anecdotes about people who had basically had beeps playing in a loop...on every computer in the room. Guess what lab session I've got in 25 minutes? Anyway, to the second part of your question (pass as to the first, we haven't got around to time and dates yet, although I'm sure they're on the list somewhere), the code you had there should work fine. I'm assuming it's either more of a problem with the computer itself (lacking a "beep" noise, perhaps?) or it's been turned off/muted. My suggestion would be to use: printf("Beep in 3...2...1...\aBEEP!\n"); As this has other text wrapped around the "beep" (i.e. \a), so in theory if you see all of the other text you should hear the beep as well. If you see the text but don't hear a beep...well, then something's obviously up. You could try asking a lecturer/demonstrator etc. (or whoever is on hand to help your class, if anyone) about it, or try running a few similar tests by having the beep line between various others and seeing if it actually does what else you expect. Just a few suggestions of mine while I go off to try and have a tamper with them myself. I'll let you know the beep-based results later.

Eeek, that's got to hurt. I was actually going to ask whether myCENTs were updated for edited posts as well, but I'd imagine that if they're changed for deleted posts then the old system of deducting credits for deleted/spam posts is still in place. I'd assume the same is true for editing posts... Ah well, this should teach moderators to be a little less trigger happy with deleting threads, as well as for regular members and replying in said threads. The more people reply to a spam thread the worse it gets, so I'd imagine simply hitting "REPORT" is a better idea then commenting that the thread is pointless like good little forum members normally do. EDIT: Oooh, nice, now I've got negative credits too. Isn't this fun?

Really? Ouch...better not try that one on a random file, then...*attempts it on a new test file*...well, there you go, fancy that. I haven't got it installed as we speak, but I have fond memories of it solving the problems I had with some little urchin managing to "hard" delete some of my programs (while leaving them in the registry, hence hard delete), so it let me tidy that up. It also, I believe, does "soft" deletes as well just like a normal uninstaller would. Don't quote me on that, though. All I remember is that it worked like a charm. EDIT: Hmmm...so I just checked out the latest version of RevoUninstaller. Turns out that they offer a portable version, so you don't even have to install the software to use it. That gets a few extra bonus points, in my book. Anyway, basically it's a piece of software that allows you to both uninstall and delete items (not entirely sure how it works, it's 4:30 AM so I'm off to bed ), but basically it includes quite a lot of general other "tidy" options. Nothing you couldn't get somewhere else, to be honest, but I happen to remember this particular one working (and working pretty well, I might add), which is always an added benefit.

Nice try, OpaQue, but where did that chicken come from? On a relevant but different note, how's the theory of intelligent design going for you US folks in terms of it being taught as a "valid" theory in school? Quite frankly it amazes me that the education system let the church get away it. No offence to any of you who do in fact believe in the idea, but I just don't buy it, or even that it could be remotely true. Evidence wins in today's scientific community, which gives evolution an edge over "God created the chicken and the egg..."

QFT - seriously, this is the basic argument I would use. Assuming the question was "what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" to get rid of those ridiculous answers of "the egg, it was a dinosaur egg!", it had to be the egg. The first chicken came from an egg. Fact. What laid this egg? The mother of the first chicken, of course. "But what did that chicken come f..." It's at this point I'm going to stop you mid sentence. It's rude, I know, but it's a ridiculous argument. Assuming you agree with the theory of evolution, there is a combination of small mutations in an organism's DNA and the mix of the parents' DNA which results in a new species being born. If you don't believe in evolution (for whatever reason, despite all of the evidence there is for it), and hold some religious idea in your head about intelligent design (or somesuch, I'm not particularly well-versed in what arguments religions use against evolution, but that's for a different thread) then you're not really up to answering this question. I hereby approve of the phrase "proto-chicken". Definitely a great word, made me laugh when I read it.