truefusion

Go with the brandname SpeedStream. The one i have is pretty rough—it took a lot of hits and still works perfectly. I'm pretty convinced of this brand and recommend it fully.

There's a motherboard on Newegg that can support up to 128gigs of RAM. The layout of the motherboard is pretty interesting, as they manage to fit many things on it while maintaining its dual-processor support. But i don't think with today's RAM you'd be able to fully max out that motherboard. The price isn't that bad; i think the price was around $350 for the motherboard alone.

Looking at your code i will have to ask you something: Did you escape all quotation marks, whether double or single? Or was it the forum doing that since the code was placed within QUOTE bbcode?If it was you, then you're not supposed to escape them everywhere; you're only supposed to escape them when they conflict with each other within a string. See if that is causing problems. But if the original code doesn't have all those quotation marks escaped, then it would be due to a database error, since that condition of the script is supposed to give out that warning if mysql_fetch_object($r) returned FALSE or returned nothing. Since you have the @ operator, in PHP that is supposed to suppress any error messages, therefore returning nothing.

You should also add: And if you have the money to afford an Apple computer. Personally, with the kind of prices they dish out, i could build myself a dual-processor (not dual-core) computer that could support up to 64gigs of RAM with a very good graphics card with that kind of money—even if we were looking at the refurbished, Apple systems. Of course, this kind of computer may not be as compact as an Apple computer, having everything inside the monitor or what-have-you, but it would have a nice case bearing good air flow anyway.

GNOME is more lightweight, yes, but both will perform as fast as the system will allow it to. I'm not sure how many processes GNOME runs on start-up since i'm not a GNOME fan, but KDE makes use of a lot of its own daemons. You don't need to install a Linux distribution to play around with these environments—albeit, it may be a bit troublesome trying to run it in a Windows or Mac OS environment. Systems about up to 5 to 7, maybe more, years of age shouldn't have any trouble running these environments. Anything lower and we might recommend XFCE or LXDE instead.

You can check out MonoDevelop. It's an IDE, so it's bound to come with its own compiler, otherwise i would not see how it could advertise in the way it advertises. I cannot say if it has a smaller file size, though, as i don't use either programs, but you can check it out for yourself.

That would be the Hierarchical File System. I came across it when browsing through the Ubuntu repository. It can't execute EXE files, you'll need a program like Wine or Bootcamp (if that is what it is called) for that. You may want to look at Mono then. Seems pretty popular and appears to support enough to actually make people want to use it.

PHP relies heavy on HTML for web development, so unless you already know enough HTML to get by, you should consider XHTML and a little CSS. However, if you're just going to go into PHP-GTK or PHP-Qt or command-line, then you can dive right into PHP without worry of not knowing XHTML and CSS. Since you have already done some HTML work in the past, you should at least get into XHTML to refresh your memory and update yourself on some of today's syntax, and then move onto server-side scripting.

If by "manipulation" you mean what i think you mean, did you create the original as well? If not, then i don't see why you would want to put a copyright on it, as doing so would be illegal if the original author did not first give you permission. The colors are very warm, but i think perhaps a bit too warm. Though it could be my settings, at 2.500 gamma settings the picture is overall dark, which makes it hard to see most of the image; but i can understand if the intent was to give the impression of night time, that is, a sense of realism, although the mountain top is pretty bright. But i think the best, or better, way to judge "manipulation" art is by comparing it with the original.

Here's an updated version of the code you have provided. I removed all the unnecessaries. It doesn't yet do 100% height, but a workaround can be implemented later (as i find it quite annoying trying to work with 100% height, so i didn't try to here).<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ xmlns="http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><title>Imagaeon Branding</title><style type="text/css"><!--body { margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;}p { padding: 0 5px 0 5px;}#SiteHolder {}#BannerDiv { height:92px;}#ContentDiv { background-color: #CC9900;}#BkgDiv { width: 80%;}#RightbarDiv { float:right; width: 20%;}#RightShadow { height:25px; width: 100px;}#FooterDiv { width:100%; height: 30px;}--></style></head><body><div id="SiteHolder" style="background-color:#99FF00"> <div id="BannerDiv" style="background-color:#FF0000"></div> <div id="ContentDiv"> <div id="RightbarDiv"> <p>asdf</p> </div> <!-- // End of RightbarDiv --> <div id="BkgDiv" style="background-color:#33FF00"> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> <p>asdfaf</p> </div> <!-- // End of BkgDiv --> </div> <!-- // End of ContentDiv --> <div id="FooterDiv" style="background-color:#999999"></div></div></body></html>

Interestingly enough, if you were to visit those same websites on another system, like Linux, you would most likely not have to deal with the inconveniences that plague the Windows user. Of course, i don't mean to imply that one should make the switch so that they can do foolish things.

Automatic USB mounting by the desktop environment or file manager is mostly done through D-BUS. HAL is usually used for CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives. Without a desktop environment or file manager, you would have to mount these things manually if there isn't already something in the background doing it for you. I am uncertain of the methods you are using to "detect" if it has been automatically mounted by the desktop environment or file manager, whether it be through a little notification or what-have-you, but you need to provide more information on why you believe it is not getting mounted.

To the topic starter: it is impossible to make a table that is 100% by 100% if you are following standards. But your current mistake is positioning the layout structure as absolute. In this case you are giving the effect of the DIV as appearing to be "floating" in mid air—at least by design. Due to this, the browser is incapable of determining what is "100%" width and height for that specific DIV element. You should remove "position" from everything in the CSS if you want better results. Albeit, you still won't get 100% height no matter what you do, even if you were to give the HTML and BODY element 100% height. Tables as structure support isn't a taboo, even in a standards compliant world. They just don't want you to go all out with them. There's currently no way to visually obtain the same result as a table using pure DIVs and CSS. Ironically, when people attempt to achieve such results they end up producing code that looks like a table anyway. Here's an example of such (see the similarities): <table><tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> <div id="container"> <div id="left"></div> <div id="content"></div> <div id="right"></div> </div>

I mention how to view your current balance in a post in another topic. (Click the link to view that post.)

Would you rather, like in Windows, search all over the internet just to obtain one simple program than just search in this one, small utility for a similarly functioning program? I'll agree that source-based distros and maintaining your own set-up is annoying and time consuming, but binary-based distros take care of all of that. But, at the same time, compiling from source and manually maintaining your own system teaches you a lot of things. And this knowledge decreases the amount of instances of someone asking for help on a matter. So, in a sense, you can say this method allows for independence.

Are you referring to the old credit system? If so, i would be interested in knowing the topic or page you saw with that kind of outdated information.

SSI, whenever i would hear about it, is normally within the context of SHTML. But i don't think PHP would be as useful as it could be if it could not include any files within other PHP files. All the scirpts jlhaslip mentioned and other scripts i have seen ran here on active accounts. The only site that quickly comes to my mind that uses PHPBB3 on their Xisto hosted site is http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

While KDE4 may have a similar feel to Windows, it also has a kind of Mac OS look to it. In fact, in KDE3 it is possible to have a panel that imitates the tool bar on the Mac OS. For Mac users entering a GNOME environment, they may get a form of nostalgia when observing that the default set-up has the menus at the top, while the task bar is at the bottom. But i would say that is about as far as it goes with GNOME's default set-up concerning the Mac OS. Unless of course you go all out in customizing GNOME to get that almost identical feel to the Mac OS by going with the same techniques as Mac4Lin. Actually, the picture looks more of KDE4 being ran on top of Windows Vista. I say this for several reasons: (1) It's actually possible to run KDE4 on Windows; (2) the only way for a Linux user to be able to download Chrome for Windows in a Linux set-up is if they download one of the snapshots, which does not even run on Wine without having access to a Windows setup; (3) all except (what appears to be) two processes end in EXE—and Wine doesn't open up so many just to run itself and the Windows program; (4) the KDE4 system monitor is not by default laid out in the manner shown in the picture—it would require a lot of source code hacking to get it to look like that; (5) the GUI theme in Dolphin, plus the window manager theme, does not reflect the original Oxygen theme: that is, look at the dock widget labeled "Places" and you'll see that the buttons for closing and undocking reflecting a Windows setup, likewise the highlight color for "Home"—that is, the highlight color is not a gradient like in the original Oxygen theme.

I don't see how Google would fail "to be true" in this, but the solution would be simple in this case: don't log into your adsense account on such a network if you are worried about the whole school clicking on your ads. Albeit, why would anyone bearing that knowledge would want to log into such a private account on a public computer? Plus, in reality, the chances of all 6000+ students visiting your site and all of them clicking on your Google-hosted ads are slim, so there would be no need to worry. But if you know the IP address of the school, you can use server-side scripting to show the ads to everyone but that IP address. In that case, though you'd be losing potential clicks, you would at least remove any worry of all 6000+ students clicking your ads off your back.

The example was all done in the GIMP and not an actual screen shot, but the actual panel will (should) be about as tall as KDE 3's panel. I don't think it would get in the way in an unproductive or unintuitive way. The menus when clicked on would indeed overlap the windows, but after clicking on a shortcut, the menu would close back to its original state. I may also introduce an auto-close feature based on whether or not the mouse is any longer over the menu. But i could also take an approach similar to GNOME and place the start menu above with the task bar below. Interesting idea. I could have somewhat of a pie menu appear upon, say, Meta+MiddleMouseButton, but i am uncertain on how that would affect windows, as some programs have their own mouse shortcuts which may activate at the same time as the menu. But i could just limit it to the desktop (like some DEs do). Having it appear when the cursor pushes onto an edge seems a bit time consuming compared to the rest; and if it is to appear instantly upon touching the edge (i.e. without a push), that could become inconvenient. But if i were to implement a kind of pie menu, it would have to be its own separate plug-in. I did think of having it placed under the task bar by user's decision (i.e. by setting that in the settings). I was also planning on having keyboard shortcuts for the menus, like perhaps Meta+F#, or Meta+the_first_letter_of_the_menu_or_whatever_letter_is_underlined. Fitts's law looks interesting; i will have to check it out later.

I have attached what i could make out of your description. That is, to me you have requested for something pretty simple, so if you're looking for something more complex, you'll have to describe more.

One SEO trick that you can even gain insight on by looking at the links here at the forums is having a script handle all (external) links. Why would you want to do that? By handling all links that don't already lead to somewhere on your site you give yourself the ability to redirect anyone with specific user-agent headers to wherever else you want. Meaning if your script were to notice that the Google bot is requesting to access an external link, you can redirect the bot back to your home page or index page of your site, keeping the bot constantly crawling your website for "all eternity." I am uncertain, though, if this goes against any rules over on the SE's side, or if the bots have been designed to be aware of such techniques, but it's an interesting technique nonetheless.

Upon signing in, in the Client Area, in the box labeled Account Statistics, you'll see your Account Credit Balance. This is the amount of how much money you have to spend, which you have earned by posting here at the forums.

Ironically, the Big Bang theory actually implies an intelligent, all-powerful, supernatural being. Since it is logically impossible for anything to cause its own existence, if there is truly overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang theory, then in turn there is overwhelming evidence for an intelligent, all-powerful, supernatural being. The reason why these three qualities for this being is necessary is because complexity implies intelligence (i.e. the universe is complex), omnipotence means you are above or greater than everything else in existence (therefore making you the greatest), and supernatural basically because of the same reason for omnipotence. I would have mentioned about this in my previous post, but i didn't want to rely or imply any dependence on how long these "days" were. But since my previous post is over and done with, i'll will say a few things about this. For one, this is mentioned a couple of times in Scripture: Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Peter may be alluding to Psalm 90:4, though—but that is uncertain. For two, i will place emphasis on verse Gen 1:14, for in it is when God declares that the sun and the moon is to be (or should be) used as a measurement of time by humans. Notice that the word "day" was mentioned a few times previous to Gen 1:14 (Gen 1:5; Gen 1:8; Gen 1:13). What does this mean or imply? It means that these "days" do not bear a human-relative definition. Interestingly enough, it should also be noted that neither do the words "evening" and "morning" bear their human-relative meanings, for the sun and the moon was not at the time being used as a measurement of time by God, neither were humans in existence during these "days"—that is, until the last day of creation. Therefore it follows that these three words are figurative in their entirety, for this is obviously from God's perspective. Interesting point. The truth-value of something is not dependent upon who wrote what. For it can be said of the same thing for any book in existence. So the question is really a bit irrelevant to the topic. The probability of something can always appear logical, but that doesn't make something true. You would have to also consider the gradual decline in years of the average lifespan as recorded in the Bible. It could be argued that the effects of the Tree of Life took that long to be removed from the system. It could also be argued that due to each generation bringing in more sin than the previous, that is what caused a lower lifespan, hence statements like Gen 6:3—emphasis on footnote. So it is perfectly logical that their measurement of time was practically the same. The lifespan expectency wasn't as low as some people like to claim it was (is). Excluding martyrs, many of the disciples and apostles of Jesus lived to be over 70, some going over 80 years of age. You could probably argue that your ratio still stands, since we are still talking about years. However, it is said that at the age of 12 Jesus was questioning the teachers at this one temple at Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-48). Following the ratio, that would make Jesus less than 2 years old. God isn't limited to time, so it can be said that any train of thought is instant. However, your statement implies that you are bringing God down to a human's level. But even if we do that, we can see that He'd still be able to form a fully functional universe as He is creating it. For example, let's consider a competent programmer (we say competent because it should be obvious that it is not safe to assume that God would be in any way incompetent). One day this programmer decides to give himself a pretty big task (even though, due to their compotence, it may not seem as big as someone else might see it as). His computer can hold an infinite amount of memory. For each day, the programmer decides to construct and compile one piece of the overall program—these parts of the overall program took from evening to morning to compile. It took the programmer 6 days to construct this one, big, uniform program. I am unaware of you ever programming anything, but this analogy can fit very well within human-relative situations.

Unfortunately, neither of the members that posted about 3 years ago are any longer active. Nevertheless, in response to the topic, proper or basic analysis of the text should have provided a decent answer to anyone asking about dinosaurs concerning the Bible—and without even declaring the "days" as metaphoric. Starting at Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth is already in existence before the First Day and that it was a water world. This allows for any amount of time before the First Day. The Bible only mentions things insofar as it finds it relevant to the story, therefore anything that could have existed before the First Day is irrelevant, so there is no mention of it—except perhaps what could be obtained from Genesis 1:1. But if we analyze a bit on what a water world at this point may mean, we can obtain some insight on how some of the dinosaurs became extinct and how the earth looked several thousand years ago. A water world implies that most of the dinosaurs could have become extinct through a worldwide flood. However, in Genesis 1, verses 6 through 8, we see God introducing the "sky"—in other terms indicating our atmosphere; so perhaps another form of suffocation may have been used. Moving on to Genesis 1:9 God causes ground to appear. If we assume that most of the dinosaurs became extinct due to a worldwide flood, Genesis 1:9 may imply that the earth was a bit smaller during the time of the dinosaurs than it is now (though it may still imply it without a worldwide flood). The reason being that there is no mention of any loss of water during the gathering of the water. And when you push water aside within a container to make room for something else, the water raises. During this time when "new" ground starts to form, any of the already dead dinosaurs, or any that may have been still existing, would in turn be buried by the shifting earth, therefore making it possible for archaeologists to find dinosaurs buried within the earth's crust. Following from the above, this gives way for even a literal interpretation of Genesis concerning whether or not these "days" were in fact 24-hour days. For, as you'll notice, not one part of my analysis relies on whether or not these "days" were 24-hour days. It doesn't necessarily matter to me if you don't entirely believe what is written. In fact, many unbelievers don't even accept this analysis i have provided. It may be due to them not wanting the Bible to appear plausible or logical—especially if it harms the theory of evolution; but that is up for debate. Whatever the case, the entire Genesis creation is highly possible with or without dinosaurs. I won't go into further analysis on the other information mentioned within the text, as it appears unnecessary given the topic, but this should do away with any doubt concerning the text and dinosaurs.