Jump to content
xisto Community

truefusion

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,324

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by truefusion

  1. truefusion
    I remember having to deal with that browser back when i was a Gentoo user (i.e. when i was installing Gentoo the long, manual way). Interestingly enough, this browser allows you to download files. If it wasn't for that feature in Lynx, i would not have been able to install Gentoo at that time (due to the path i chose for installing Gentoo). The only annoyance with Lynx, though, was trying to navigate to the link you want to "click" on. Although Gentoo tends to install a program that allows you to use the mouse cursor when in the terminal (i.e. non-X environment), it only reduced the annoyance slightly.
  2. truefusion
    So you want to obtain the value of the attribute of a specific element? Here, this should do what you want; just analyze everything yourself to understand. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/ ; xml:lang="en" lang="en"><head><title>untitled</title><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /><script type="text/javascript">function getValue(id, attr){ id = document.getElementById(id); for (var i = 0; i < id.attributes.length; i++) { if (id.attributes[i].nodeName.toLowerCase() == attr) return id.attributes[i].nodeValue; }}function setText(id, text){ id = document.getElementById(id); id.value = text;}</script></head><body><input id="hiddenElement" type="hidden" value="The value you want."/><input id="valueHolder" type="text"/><button onclick="setText('valueHolder', getValue('hiddenElement', 'value'))">Test</button></body></html>If after attempting to understand what's going on you don't understand, then i'll try to provide an explanation later on. But this code should be simple enough to understand.
  3. truefusion
    My family has owned mostly Toyotas, and from my experience with them they are pretty stable cars. The Toyota cars were Corolla and the Matrix. Personally, i would consider the Prius, even though i've never tried it myself. But Yahoo! cars has a lot of reviews from random users. The rating for the Toyota Prius is pretty good.
  4. truefusion
    I don't watch T.V., but are they seriously still talking about the swine flu? I personally avoid any form of injection. Even if they make it mandatory by law and i caught word of it, i wouldn't let myself be injected with any vaccine. I'm pretty sure i'd be better off without it.
  5. truefusion
    I don't need a cell phone, period. I have one, but i didn't get one because i wanted one—i wasn't even the one that got it. I rarely, if at all, use my cell phone. I would rather spend the money on other, more important things. I rarely consider picking up the phone when someone calls me. That's pretty much the only reason why i would ever actually consider using my cell phone: if someone calls me. I would probably just open up the phone instead and take a look inside to see how this thing works. At least then the phone would become more interesting.
  6. truefusion
    Scripting-wise, you may want to look into the credit card processing modules of PHP. I haven't tried any of them out, but MCVE looks more complete than the other. I don't know of any others, though; you could probably look at the source code of some e-commerce scripts.
  7. truefusion
    For the data submitted that require to be a number, just type cast the data to a double or float. This will ensure that, even though the user entered text instead of a number, the text entered will always be converted to a number. Note: even though an "integer" is a number data type, type casting the value to an integer would bear undesirable results when it comes to dealing with money values. To type cast the variable to a float: $var = (float) $_POST['field_name']; // or $_POST['field_name'] = (float) $_POST['field_name'];
  8. truefusion
    I probably would not have started posting if there was no credit system for obtaining website hosting. But after posting for a while you start getting used to it and the credit system starts becoming irrelevant where you don't even think of earning for your posts when you post. But the Xisto forums has become a boredom killer; aside from moderator duties, i come here to waste time when i'm bored and don't want to work on my personal projects. Plus, i like debating here, it helps me improve and obtain certain insights.
  9. truefusion
    Due to the limitations of the IPB search feature, people tend to resort to Google. That is, they use the following search query: site:Xisto.com what you want to search forObviously, just replace "what you want to search for" with exactly what it says.
  10. truefusion
    Read the Credit system v3 topic, and you should then understand everything.
  11. truefusion
    Hmm. If i were to take a guess, then maybe one of these would work: new Draggable('Test', {snap: [5,5], onEnd:displaypopup}); new Draggable('Test', {snap: [5,5], onEnd:'displaypopup'});If neither work, then i have no idea. I guess you could try searching for an example online that uses a callback or just forget about the callback.
  12. truefusion
    Let me see if i understand you correctly. When a user fills out a form and hits submit, you want to obtain the information they submitted and have PHP use that information to search through a database or run some kind of program on the server side to obtain whois information to be sent back to the user? If that is the case, depending on what method was use to submit the information, you would have to use either $_GET or $_POST to obtain the information. I'm not entirely sure how you would obtain the whois information, but you can try using the exec() or passthru() function. If that is not the case, then i have misunderstood.
  13. truefusion
    Eh, I'll allow that. "I was busy" makes it sound like you wrote all of that. But that article you reference, when looking at certain verses and the illustrations at the top, i found that grouping to be slightly comical. But before i address that page (and the other reference you provide), pillars and columns are both synonymous; older translations tend to use the word "pillar." I'm not sure what you mean when you say i pick on references, but i'll stay as long as i need to in order to address these articles. Now for the first article. The article says to think objectively by assuming that i had no foreknowledge of the shape of the earth and that the only information about its shape is found in the Old Testament (though they say Bible). His request sounds fair enough—even though the author of the article didn't do this very thing he asked from his readers. However, after reading everything, i came to a better understanding of what was meant by the "foundations of the earth" and by its "pillars." Psalms 18:15 basically gave away this form of understanding. But since one verse wasn't enough for me to conclude it with complete certainty, i kept reading. The other verses that did the job were: Job 9:6, Psalms 99:1, Psalms 104:6 (i.e., for Psalms 104:6, after you read Psalms 104:5), et al (i'm not going to list them all). The foundations of the earth, as mentioned in the Bible, are what raises the earth above the waters. "The earth" has many meanings in the Bible: it could be the people of the earth; however, "the earth" that the article was trying to emphasize was the land. The definition implied within the verses the author of the article used state that the earth is merely the land that is visible above the waters. It does not mean the entire earth (above, below, et cetera), just any land that is not covered by water and that humans are able to travel on. By providing verses that say that the earth cannot be moved, "cannot be moved" is ambiguous. However, the author also provided verses that imply that the earth can be moved. This gives us reason to believe that the earth cannot be moved by humans. As perceived previously, "the earth" is generally taken to be as any land that is above the waters and any land that is capable of being traveled on. No human can move this, nor any angel. If God is the only one that can move it, then it is safe to say that it cannot be moved, as it is common to assume a humans perspective when reading Scripture. Hence, the author of the first article, due to the fact that he wasn't as objective as he may have implied to be (or asked of from his audience), was unable to properly illustrate or prove his position. Moving on to the second article. I should mention what is provided in this one is not something i haven't seen before. Nevertheless, it still amazes me just how many people don't even bother giving the benefit of the doubt. For if they had at least given the benefit of the doubt, they would increase the chances of not appearing incompetent. However, just looking at some of the verses they give, the benefit of the doubt would not have been beneficial to them anyway. For example, number 1: how can one not miss the fact that Joshua is doing the praying here? In fact, many translations of today even provide quotation marks for the reader. Old translations such as the one used by the article do not use quotation marks, as they didn't really exist or were not used for such things back then. What old translations do instead, they capitalize the first letter of the quote. That is, it starts at "Sun," after the words "in the sight of Israel." Here's the trouble that unbelievers have when reading the Bible: they assume that because it is mentioned that the Bible is "God's Word" that God is doing all the talking and that it is always from God's perspective. Therefore whenever they quote verses like they do here, they make statements that make it sound like "God should have known better." Other problems occur when they attribute a word that is applied to humans to unconscious objects. For example, their use of the word "rest." By saying that the sun would still be active, they imply that "rest" is to be taken the same as when a conscious being sleeps. This is an obvious error on their side, but to them it doesn't seem obvious. Of course, this all falls under misconception or misunderstanding of Scripture. Since they use the same verses from the first article to try and prove that the earth cannot be moved, this shows their inability to understand Scripture—i've already done away with this part. Number 2: Even if the moon doesn't reflect its own light, it is fallacious to say that the moon doesn't not give off light. All objects are capable of absorbing light—even if the light absorbed isn't generally noticeable by humans. So, in other words, it's not really the Bible that is displaying ignorance but the author of this article. And their (his) comment on Matthew 24:29 makes no sense—that is, it doesn't matter which way Jesus said what. Number 3: The Bible states that there is more than one heaven, the last Heaven being where God is stationed at. The first heaven is considered to be our "sky." The Bible doesn't mention how many heavens there are, but we know that there are at least three heavens.[*] The second heaven is considered to be the layer following our sky. However, there's no mention, at least to my knowledge, on where this second layer ends, so it could actually extend to as far as the universe goes. But given the verse i provided, going beyond the second layer may require to be "out of the body." Knowing this, it becomes obvious that the author of this article, again, does not understand Scripture. And although he says that the Bible later on talks about "fixating" the sun to the "sky-dome," if you were to read the remaining verses, you will see something completely different (this difference is explained in my response to number 4). And the story he gives mention to on Genesis 11, in order to state what he stated about it, you would have to be ignorant about the multiple layers of the heavens. Number 4: I should mention, though, that there are many reasons for today's English-speaking world to avoid the KJV. But since the author chose that translation (for whatever the reason—though i could take a guess), i have used the same translation to counter his arguments. If you look at Genesis 1:8, as mentioned earlier, the first firmament, the first heaven, is called our "sky." However, the verse he uses for his argument, Genesis 1:17, talks about the heaven's firmament (i.e. the firmament of the heaven), not the sky itself. This means the second heaven, the part after our sky. And his ending comment limits what a "star" is or can be perceived as. That is, they seem to have never heard of the phrase "shooting star." Number 5: I'm starting to get bored addressing these; luckily there are only 7. But do i really need to address this one? He contradicts himself in this by providing an illustration on what the four corners are. Furthermore, he didn't even bother trying to prove that the earth was perceived to be flat in the Bible. That is, merely arguing that the Biblical authors excluded certain countries does not show that the Bible proclaims that the earth is flat. His Isaiah example doesn't even support his assertion of what the four corners of the earth is, especially since (for reasons i can only imagine—though they seem obvious) he removed the beginning part of Isaiah 11:12. If you look at Isaiah 11:12, you'll see something completely different that the author of that article is asserting. Therefore the author is guilty of taking things out of context. His argument for Isaiah 40:22 i have seen even rvalkass use. Just as i mentioned to rvalkass, it's illogical to think that a tent can only cover flat surfaces. I mean, i wouldn't even consider that a human is a flat surface. Likewise, the verse claims that the earth has ownership of this "circle," therefore it is not something that is of the earth itself but something separate of the earth. Concerning Matthew 4:8, it is not uncommon for Jesus to transfigure into a spirit. When one leaves the body in such a way, their bodies are rendered defenseless. Going on to an exceedingly high mountain should have provided some protection for his body (i mean, just reading the Gospels shows that he had a lot of people seeking his life). The verses following and the remainder of their argument i don't have to address, as i've already addressed them. Number 6: Eh, i was looking for an argument in this one, but nothing he said was an argument, so i don't really have to address this one. Number 7: From the title itself i can conclude that i don't have to respond to this, as i already did in my response to number 3—reading further also shows that i need not respond. But i should mention that the verses he quotes do not state that God was frightened. Also, on the part labeled "Biblical Contradiction," it is easy to claim "contradiction" when you take things out of context. Notice how Shem's generation follows after the story of Babel and how in chapter 10 it mentions that Shem's descendants had their own languages. It becomes obvious why these people had their own languages. A "corner" does not always have to be a right angle. For example, when talking about a geographical location, it could mean "a remote area."define:corner But a compass doesn't have to exist for North, South, East and West to exist. But i'm a bit amazed at this response of yours, that is, as it follows from the previous quote i responded to. The second article for number 5 illustrates a possibility of what the "four corners" can be (though, obviously, i don't agree with it). As someone who referenced that web site as a way to expose "inaccuracies" of the Bible, i would have at least suspected for you to drop any arguments concerning the four corners of the earth. Prophecies need not occur shortly after they were written. In fact, since the prophecy i pointed out was talking about the Messiah which had not come yet, no one, who's religion and culture is surrounded by the belief that creation should not be considered God, would call the Messiah the "Mighty God" or "Everlasting Father" in a way that they believe it to be true. That is, if it is said, it would be said within the context of a mockery or some form of rebuke (as seen in the Gospels). Indeed, the prophecy doesn't state about these words being written down; it is more about people promoting it as if those things were true. Disregarding the rhetoric part of the question, to put what i said in a more precise manner: murder, as Biblically defined, is killing the innocent. In the eyes of an omniscient being, no ones' deeds are hidden. Therefore it cannot be said that the person was innocent when God brought judgment upon the person. To say that "you should not murder" should be translated as "you should not kill" (like Dan Barker tries to argue) is fallacious to anyone who understands Scripture. All arguments that use Biblical verses to try and make God look evil are always taken out of context—and i'm pretty close to emphasizing "always;" the reason why i don't is because i'm talking about arguments which i've seen. How did you ever get passed History class?—this is for your ending sentence. Either way, signs, as mentioned before, are different than miracles. Miracles contradict our understanding of physics; signs make use of our understanding of physics, which give the impression of a miracle. I think the way it is said in Greek is similar, but i can't remember. How can you exclude scripture from religion?
  14. truefusion
    You might find JQuery easier to code with or understand, though. Script.aculo.us uses the Prototype JavaScript framework, which is a bit more complex than JQuery. From JQuery's UI package, you can make an element draggable with a few lines of code.
  15. truefusion
    Hmm? I don't recall them advertising that kind of performance. I only remember them advertising page rendering performance, not start-up or GUI performance. Considering the overall program performance, 3.5 is about the same as 3.0. Sometimes they make the kind of performance modifications you were expecting, though you may not see much of an improvement for your system. But they'll be more visible on older systems.
  16. truefusion
    A "one-liner" is anything less than what is specified in the section "Short Posts" in the Xisto Board Rules (what you should have seen upon signing up to the forums). You don't lose myCENTs for one-liners, unless you edited your post and made it shorter. There are many reasons for losing credits. One of the reasons, as already mentioned, is for editing your posts and making them shorter. Another reason is if your post or topic was deleted—whether it be because you posted in a topic that got deleted or if your post itself was deleted. The former could be because you responded to a topic that was marked as "spam." We tend to avoid marking topics as "spam" if it has a significant amount of replies to it, but it is not always the case that there is a significant amount of replies to the topic. The latter could be because you posted a short post and therefore got deleted. Any other reasons could be due to moderator modifications, like adding code or quote bbcode to your post(s) where there should be.
  17. truefusion
    myCENTs are not transferable—this was a decision made from the beginning. But even if they were, your brother copied and pasted most of what he wrote for your account, therefore not deserving any myCENTs that would have come from those articles. It would be wise to have your brother familiarize himself with the rules.
  18. truefusion
    Yeah, the media misrepresents karma. The way the media portrays it is illogical. I had figured it couldn't have been that way, so i did research on karma. Karma doesn't have much if anything to do with rewards (i.e. desirable consequences) or undesirable consequences. When people think of karma, they should think of only cause and effect—that's it. When you start applying things like "you reap what you sow" or similar to karma (i.e. cause and effect), karma in turn starts becoming illogical. That's because karma isn't a conscious thing itself, therefore it is incapable of rewarding or punishing anything. Instead, you shouldn't be applying anything to karma, you should be applying karma to things. In this way, you can keep things logical.
  19. truefusion
    From a design perspective there are many things that can use some work. I will try to divide them up as i get into them. First Impressions Upon entering the site, i got the impression that the goal of the website wasn't necessarily to attract a wide range of users. That is, it seems more of a local attraction, perhaps around your area, where you live. And unless i took the time to read what the website was about, the site can be perceived more of a fan site about dogs rather than a business itself (as the website was more "cute" than "professional"). It also didn't look much like a website that was hand-coded—looking at the source code somewhat verifies this. I took the time to read some of the text to get an idea of what the website is about (but there should be something that gets the point across quicker). Once i got passed the scrolling marquee, i could pretty much anticipate what was coming next: a long introduction. Without reading it, i can see that it is pretty long, therefore i chose not to dive into it—this is to be expected from many other visitors and such an introduction may be better left for an "About Us" page. Navigation After skipping the introduction, naturally i sought after more interesting places from the website. However, the navigation, while it may be considered cute, wasn't as readable as i expected it to be. The text is slightly blurry on many of them and the animals sometimes get in the way of the text. Also, although i am using a 1280x1024 screen resolution, without scrolling i can only see the first three navigational buttons. Some of the navigational buttons, though, (i.e. after scrolling) only had initials for the text; "FAQ" and "V.I.P." are socially obvious (though entering V.I.P. had "page" for the P), so those names don't necessarily matter. I was expecting to see a button concerning what kind of dog services you offer, but i didn't find one. Having skipped the introduction on the home page, if it said anything about the services you provide, i would have missed it. Site Structure/Design The site seems a bit cluttered to me; things could be better spaced out. The scrolling marquee has text that can be observed before the marquee, and some of its text is better off in the title of the website as a subtitle—in other words, the scrolling marquee is unnecessary. Some of the colors and fonts used for the site don't appear to be consistent or match with each other. For example, the red and blue text; the pink background and the rainbow-colored text; some pages have bigger/bolder/different fonts than others. I noticed some pages can be merged or become children of another page/category. For example, the "Just My Humble Opinion" page and the FAQs page can go under "General Information." You also have your e-mail in a lot of places, including the navigation. You should consider resorting to a simple "Contact Us" page. You may also want to consider making a "Services" page that gets into more thoroughly what kind of services you offer. The home page is generally used as a way to provide a brief glimpse of the website and what users are to expect. Therefore you could briefly emphasize the services you provide, perhaps some "Up to" prices on the kind of dogs you sell, and other information that one can find on your site. The home page acts kind of like a motivator to get the user to browse your website. Of course, one shouldn't go crazy with their home page, attempting to fit everything about their site. The home page should include what you want the user to know about more than other information on the site, not the entire website. Your website seems to consist of only static pages. You can reduce the work required to update your website if you switch to a more dynamic way of doing things. That is, if you don't already have one, use a simple, content management system that has its own template system. Personally, i would suggest a complete site remake. A complete site remake should help make your website more standards compliant too. Of course, you don't have to consider anything that has been mentioned, as this information deals mostly with advertising through your website—your website may not be your preferred way of advertising your business. But it may still be useful for spreading information more effectively.
  20. truefusion
    There's some talk about search engines not "liking" frames, but i'm not entirely sure what frames do to search engines. But there are better ways to achieve similar effects. For example, when using frames, the navigation is often placed on its own, separate page. What does this do? What if you want to view the page in a new window or tab? The navigation is now gone. The better way of going about it is to use server-side scripting for a template system. You could also use AJAX to dynamically include content from other pages into the page that is currently being viewed. But what about disabled users? Can the software that helps them browse the Internet work well with frames? But this concerns desktop and laptop computers; what about handhelds? How would frames be useful for those?On an aesthetic level, the border (though can be "removed") makes things look ugly or old. Some websites still use frames, though these pages (at least now-a-days) are often pages that not many people would be interested in. There are probably other reasons why not to like frames for your website, but i can't think of anything else right now.
  21. truefusion
    Natural selection can yield either beneficial or unbeneficial changes within a species, that is, as described in the Origin of Species. When it provides unbeneficial changes, this, according to its definition, will yield to the species death. Therefore you have basically evolved to your own doom, without your consent. Likewise, without your consent, you can evolve to your benefit. Obviously, you would accept the beneficial one, and by the time you notice that you've obtained a biological change that leads to your doom, you'll probably be dead by then. Regardless, decay when applied to organisms is always a biological change, therefore, in other words, you are evolving to your death.
  22. truefusion
    I didn't take the time to fully understand how the auto value works. All i know is what it does when applied to block-level elements. "Auto" tries to take up whatever space is available within the element (or parent; note, all elements except HTML have a parent element) it is in, in the direction it is pointed at—with perhaps the exception of top and bottom. When the left and right margins have a value of "auto," the element will be horizontally centered. As you noticed, "auto" margins only work on block-level elements—which means, interestingly enough, that images are not block-level elements. If you want the contents of other elements to be pushed aside just enough to not interfere with the image (or any other element), then you would have to use the float CSS property. When an element is positioned absolutely or "fixed" at the position, it's Z axis will be different than the other elements. Therefore it is seen as if it is on top of other elements. But because it is merely—if you will—"positioned in space," it has no boundaries to use for measuring against other siblings. This is true for any element not relatively or statically positioned; each of these elements will be given their own Z axis—if they can be given a name, you can consider them as "top-level" elements.
  23. truefusion
    There are about two ways to deal with your problem (assuming i understood what you want), but since i don't know entirely what you're trying to do as a whole, any other layout difficulties will be left up to you, at least until you provide more information.Here's one way: <img src="image.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; display: block;" /> Here's another: <img src="image.jpg" style="position: absolute; right: 0;" />
  24. truefusion
    The definition of natural selection implies that the reason why you died was because you just so happened to be given an evolutionary process that led to your doom. In other words, you evolved to your own doom; "death" itself was an evolutionary process. This implies that death can be avoided. But in order to survive death, from the theory's perspective, you would require an evolution that prevents death. In which case would contradict this part: But this perspective of yours wasn't practical to begin with. That is, if the theory concerns survival of the fittest, why then should the more experienced be eliminated just so the younger, inexperienced side be given a chance? On the contrary, that's not the case; the theory does not suggest considerations for other species or subsets of a certain species. Even so, it wouldn't be safe to argue, at least from the theory itself, that certain species were specially chosen, due to how random the process is perceived as. And i wouldn't call it safe, either, to suggest that the reason for their death was to keep the earth's resources in check—even if the earth's resources gets balanced out as a result of it. Life need not include the theory of evolution in order to claim that life is predestined to end.
  25. truefusion
    The align attribute for the image element works exactly the same way as the float CSS property. However, certain values for the align property require more effort in the CSS than it would have been if simply sticking to the align attribute (e.g. bottom, middle, top ...).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept