truefusion

Make a class in Python that makes a window (i.e. a non-console program) with only the base (core) Python package, then upload the source code, if you feel it is possible. What do you think these GUI modules make use of? PyQt won't work without the Qt/C++ libraries; PyGTK won't work without the GTK C libraries; et cetera. Comparing Python with Java doesn't seem proper, though. I don't use Java, nor have i ever made anything?let alone attempted to make anything?in Java, but doesn't Java provide its own GUI utilites? If not, then it is the same with what i said about Python.

Perhaps i'm misinterpreting this page then—never used anything related to Maemo, so... But that is good that your phone has all those fun things to work with. Python on its own cannot do GUI programming. That's where PyQT, PyGTK, wxPython, et cetera, come in, allowing Python to be a decent scripting language for GUI programming (the GNOME desktop environment makes significant use of Python). Unless you require (really) low-level functionality, then you won't need to dive into more complex languages. Programming in Python will always be easier than programming in C or C++, regardless of it being a GUI program. While learning C or C++ may introduce you into other interesting things that you would normally not need to keep in mind when dealing with scripting languages, i would recommend learning Python first and then diving into GUI modules for Python (specifically PyQt). Then you can decide whether you should learn something like C++ (though by this time you may be too interested in Python to care for other languages). Oh, and since you know some PHP, you might find this helpful.

As an idea, you could try basing your logo on binary clocks. You ever seen a binary clock? They're almost like a puzzle, they take time to "solve," they are based on something that concerns logic, and they represent time. I wasn't sure if you were still looking for a logo, but if you want, i could find the time to have another go at it.

Qt is easy to learn, i use it for all of my GUI programs. It is written in C++ and it is object-oriented. I find it a whole lot easier to work with, especially when compared to the Windows API or GTK. PyMaemo seems to be based off of PyGTK. While PyGTK is easier to work than with GTK in C, it is still a bit annoying. You'll understand why if you try to program complex things with it. Your knowledge in PHP will certainly help you learn Python a lot quicker. I skimmed through most of the Python documentation and quit at chapter 4 and just started coding from there, using intuition as my guide. Recommending you something to program or script up is most of the time not practical (normally do to conflict of interests), so i won't bother. And you don't have to worry about upgrading to the latest version of Python. Python is pretty good at maintaining backwards compatibility, the exception being mostly on the Python modules and Python version 3.While Qt support for Java (Qt Jambi) has been dropped since, i think, version 4.5 of Qt, you could probably still get a copy of it if you decide to (or are "forced to") work with Java. Nokia is the current owner of Qt, so your Nokia phone may or may not already have Qt installed, but you may (should) be able to get PyQt working on it. If you require any help in Qt, i could provide some help and some old PyQt scripts i did a long time ago. I mostly use Qt with C++ now-a-days, but the API is pretty much the same across different languages.

I like it. I don't fully understand the text, but i like it. I would have probably centered the upper text, though, and move it slightly down.

Coincidence is illogical: it has nothing to follow from; it has no beginning, only an end (conclusion). It is a word stated merely for convenience, to "fill" the gap in knowledge that the person does not seek to fill with any (the) proper alternative. While theoretically both the egg and chicken may occur (and at the same timethough this may be less likely to happen), the reason why the question of what came first is asked is due to intuition. Intuition expects there to be only one outcome, but the theory, in due time, allows for both. The word paradox need not always deal with contradiction. There are only a certain amount of options to choose from the position you place yourself in, that includes admitting that the chicken has no predecessor. It is not me trying to enforce anything upon you. You don't have to like the options you have, but since you replied against all but one, that leaves you with trying to figure out which came first. And as i previously mentioned, as far as i am concerned, that will merely entail the egg, regardless of what the theory theoretically allows. If they are obviously the same creatures, then it would be obvious that they are all (i.e. all the Adelie penguins) capable of flight (though the distance may be short) but are at least choosing not to. What is the reason why we say "they can't fly"? Body and wing structure? Or because we still haven't seen them fly? Then it wasn't that you were curious. Curiosity seeks a definite answer. If i were basing my "thesis" on the existence of a higher power, i would have included it in my statement. And what did i say it did? I am uncertain what you are referring to, so i cannot properly answer your questions. Nevertheless, faith is merely what we have not yet seen, not what we don't have evidence for. Faith therefore can be logical. You said above that you are not looking for a definite answer (though that is counter-intuitive) and you say there is no such thing as a definite answer. That would mean everything you consider a fact is practically a belief, for there would be no way to justify anything. The questions here, therefore, can be returned to you. In which case, your arguments have all been brought down by yourself.

I would not attempt to reason with the weather and ask it, "Why did you choose to snow today?" It would be more logical to ask God, for example, "Why did you make and allow for the seasons?" For i would not be able to come up with a definite answer on my own. "This" is ambiguous, but i'll assume you are referring to the part where i mentioned that the egg-laying creature has to come from its predecessor (given the context). You're right, the theory allows for both, being it a world of possibilities. When dealing with possibilities, you may end up with no definite answer. And doesn't this bring us back to my first question? (What would make the chicken any different?) From here on you can choose to admit that the theory of evolution entails a paradox (though paradoxes are ways to show that there is a flaw), try to find some practical solution to the problem (though anything is possible for the theory where time is involved), admit that there was no predecessor to the chicken (though you may have to deal with every other egg-laying creature), or take the easy way out and avoid ever asking the question again. I did say "if." Nevertheless, i highly doubt it would be reasonable to label a penguin that flies as the same kind of creature as those that can't fly, for they are obviously not the same creatures. As mentioned before, if there are two kinds of creatures that are being labeled a "chicken" where only one kind can lay eggs and the other cannot lay eggs, you would have to reconsider your definition for "chicken." If there is nothing there to spark the person's curiosity, then the person will not be curious. If the person's curiosity is based on the unknown, then the person will not be curious of anything, for curiosity comes from which is known. How can you ask, "What is this?" if "this" refers to nothing? While the question may seek to fill a gap in knowledge, there is always a subject to these kinds of questions where the subject itself is always known. "Known" here does not need to concern the complete knowledge of the subject but realizes at least its existence. In order to state that anything is right or wrong, you'll require justification. Justification is objective, not subjective. If it were subjective, there would be no way to properly conclude something; reason and logic would be tossed out the window. What needs justification? Anything that wants to be taken seriously.

The current theme has only been up for about as long as Credit System v3 has been out (which is around 1.5 years). I've been with Xisto for about 5 years now (though it actually doesn't feel like it has been that long for me) and have seen the forum and the credit system get upgraded over those years. If you are talking about the over-all layout, then that is different. But if that is the case, theme != layout. But i do agree slightly concerning the theme. The green flare in the new logo does not match the current theme.

Not being able to figure out a reason for something does not imply that it has no reason. And, yeah, suggesting a reason also doesn't mean that the suggested reason is truly the reason for it. But the reason for something always entails a why; and the process of something always entails a how. You can't ask what is the reason for something without receiving an answer that can be given to why; and you can't ask for the process without receiving an answer that can be given to how. By the theory of evolution it has to be the predecessor that laid the egg, to which the chicken came out of. (Following from gisellebebegirl, don't evolutionists state from dinosaur to bird?) However, there has never been a case where a species gave birth to a species other than its own kind. The only way that would happen is if two incompatible creatures mated with each other and by chance alone was the incompatibility disregarded in the process (to where the newborn actually made it out alive and lived a long life—though it may have no one to mate with). Your example doesn't relate or follow from what i mentioned. If a penguin has always been known to be incapable of flying, then why would we consider any bird of flight to be a penguin? Because of natural selection? That's non-sequitur. Why do chickens lay eggs? Because they were born with that capability. Curiosity does kill cats. Consider, would you ask a question that shouldn't be asked just because you believe curiosity is self-justifying? Would you ask someone, "Why are you so stupid?" I certainly hope not. How about a question where the answer is obvious? Does curiosity justify the question then? Curiosity does not come out of nowhere, it is a by-product of an external inspirer (though this inspirer need not be conscious). And whether or not this external inspirer itself justifies curiosity is up to the inspirer itself.

The website seems far too overwhelming, and more emphasis seems to be placed on the tags rather than the topics themselves. Yes, i do realize that it is practically an exact copy of Stack Overflow (do to the system being used). Here's what i think should be done: Place less emphasis on the information that isn't as important as the topics themselves (obviously). Be creative, don't stick to any default style. Pretend you are a visitor to the site: What would you be most interested in? Think about the kind of visitors that come to your site. If i wanted to help provide hardware information to others, what would i be interested in? Obviously the topics, but what about the topics? Wouldn't i be interested more in the ones that have the less responses (preferably 0 responses)? What if i am someone who wants to ask a question? Why is "Ask Question" far off in the corner? And if i require to log in or register in order to ask a question, why not place the log in link next to "Ask Question"?Work a little bit on the colors, too. Consider more warmer colors, colors that contrast better with the background. Clicking on a "question" reveals that the question and the responses are in pink, a bright pink. I'm not against pink, but it's too bright to be with that background color (white) and it is slightly inconsistent following from the topic title.

The reason for anything deals with why. I was not referring to the question you bring up for how; i was referring to your statement that mentions about the reason for the universe. And i did retrieve and have understood what was mentioned by you. But the process undergone to bring an egg into this world is seen with any egg-laying creature of this world, so how it was given birth is explainable—the possibility of it coming into existence is therefore just as equal to the possibility of a chicken. Chickens have always been known to lay eggs. If it is the case that they mutated into egg-laying creatures, then you will have to question what kind of chicken you are talking about. In which case you will therefore come to realize that your position really does not conclude the chicken coming first but the egg. So in order to even be able to conclude that the chicken came first, you would have to drop adaption (through natural selection). For this case, i was referring to the one concerning the one in the topic title. And curiosity is not justified in its own right but requires external justification, which is what the question would be justified with in asking.

So what will be done about the words "Open Discussion Forums"? Sure, it was "Open Discussion Forums" even with "Xisto," but it is still a bit inconsistent. Likewise "Xisto Shoutbox." I just use Opera's Speed Dial feature, having one of the numbers point to the forums, avoiding the front page entirely. But having a non-flash footer may help those without flash access the forums quicker.

What is the reason behind this universe? Figuring out how it came to be does not imply why it came to be; while how may imply that there is a why, that why is still uncertain from the how. What then makes the chances of a chicken popping into existence (from nothing) any less than a universe popping into existence (from nothing)? They would be equal in weight, which just leaves you with no basis for asking the question which you have started with, for the chances are as infinitely small as you say they are.

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first. What would make the chicken any different?

All that is required from the skeptic is for them to make use of logic and reason and choose to be consistent with them. For no matter how obvious or absolute the evidence is, if they choose to become inconsistent in their reasoning and avoid the issue, then they will never be convinced. Indeed, many don't want a reason to believe (though they may say such); rather, they want a reason to say "there is no evidence," a reason not to believe. But in order to declare that there is no evidence requires inconsistencies within their own way of thinking. You say, "Why doesn't He do something that declares His existence?" If you pass by a sign, does that mean you will acknowledge the sign? Yet, why don't you contemplate on what it means for this universe to be perishable and that nothing can cause its own existence? Doesn't knowledge require for it to be searched out? The evidence is there, just be sure to acknowledge it.

Biblically speaking, if that would occur, then it would no longer be called faith. (Hebrews 11:1) Faith, therefore, does not imply without evidence, only what we have not yet seen but are certain of. If the existence of something required being able to see it, then it would be perfectly valid to deny the existence of air for not being able to see it.

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a producer, composer, DJ or what-have-you, but i do make music from time to time for personal entertainment (which i eventually release to the public for free). I use FL Studio to make music. Some of my old work (i'm talking about a few years old) can be found here. My favorite genre is D'n'B (similar to the beat you referenced), but i don't stick to any one genre.

It is never the case of what is it that makes religion make sense to us; rather, it is always the case of: what is it about religion that doesn't make sense to you? More often than not the flaw is on the questioners' side, not on the one that is not questioning. However, i will admit that there are some religions out there that are exaggerating, but the discussion isn't about those religions, it is about religions that make sense. Concerning what is mentioned in the Bible, the Bible mentions a lot of things that cannot easily be quickly mentioned all in one post. Nevertheless, the current structure is basically this: It starts off concerning the beginning of time, then it goes into Jewish history, prophecy, some writings (e.g. the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Job, et cetera), the Gospels, early church history, and, finally, the end of times.

The ^ is supposed to relate to the word "up" (though i chose to not merge it with the U under it). You could probably combine all the good parts of each logo to form a new logo.

You only get 10 minutes to edit your post after posting. After the ten minutes, you'll no longer be able to edit the post (unless perhaps you request for it to be edited). I don't use the rich text editor, as i like having "full control" of what i type and i'm not fond of those things in general.

Here is what i came up with. You'll need Inkscape to view it.

I'm liking the structure of the thing, at least compared to the other one. The style reminds me slightly of the Mac OS—not a bad thing. The current booklet can be used as a logo. I'm sure you can see it: the top edges and the center of the booklet forms a T, especially if emphasized. Have the right page slightly missing, to be taken up by the rest of the site's name, and the left page similar but slightly more complete. Of course, this means removing any "content" from within the logo (i.e. the GIMP mascot and lines that represent text, et cetera). The fact that the booklet is slightly slanted would allow for many interesting fonts.

If you had ever uploaded something through the WordPress media manager (since the "uploads" directory is located under "wp-content"), then the files stored there aren't going to be deleted through cPanel or through FTP. You can even change all the permissions available, that won't help, because you do not own the uploaded files (though that may sound counter-intuitive). Even if there aren't any files, WordPress creates folders within the "uploads" directory too (as you mentioned, according to date), which you do not have ownership of. To delete the files and directories under "wp-content" (since you have already deleted the rest of WordPress), you'll have to create a PHP file that recursively goes through all the directories under "wp-content" and deletes any files and directories under it.

I have been informed by tech support that this issue has been fixed, and i have just tried it out and i was able to successfully upload a file to a new WordPress installation. All i needed to do was create the folder "uploads" at wp-content/ (since i did not already have one) and give it 0777 permissions.