truefusion

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.

Now, I would not suggest switching to Mac OSX unless any of the following is true.-Your a Designer
-Want to try something new
-Want to learn something new
-Or windows is making you angry.

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.

One of them is probably faster right? I bet its gnome.. havent tried linux though.

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.

which file system is using in MAC Operating System..?

That would be the Hierarchical File System. I came across it when browsing through the Ubuntu repository.

 

whether it support exe files?

It can't execute EXE files, you'll need a program like Wine or Bootcamp (if that is what it is called) for that.

 

.Net does not work on Mac OSX or Linux. .Net is a proprietary programming language only used for windows.

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.

The Copyright found on it 'Depplain Valley Graphix' is my account name on the website I use them on. It is there so people don't steal it

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.

Feel free to comment and give constructive criticism

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.

I'm thinking I might need to do a script function for the Div's width... I'll see if I know enough JS yet...

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>

If you have a computer and run around all the dirty little infected sites with out any protection you have to expect this to happen...

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 should never be used for layout. Tables are there for tabular data, not for laying pages out.

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>

How can I Know my credots(mycent)...I don't know how to see my credit balance.....please help me

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

But in linux the installation of new application have some formalities...We have to use the utilities of Linux to install a single application to it.

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.

I assume there are more experienced users among that can answer this simple question: About how many replies or posts or both do you need in order to be eligible to purchase a domain name?

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.

Ps. the picture of kde has some apps running in wine...

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.

So in such a case is Google failing to be True ?? Or is there no Technology to overcome this problem or is the Website owner is a looser in this case ???

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.

This seems to protrude quite far into the working space. Wouldn't this get in the way of windows you are working in?

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.

What if you had your entire task bar and start menu appear around the mouse when a certain mouse button is clicked, or when you move ur cursor to one of the screens corners.

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.

It does look nice though, would be interesting to try out. One problem with having the start menu a layer above the tasks is that it makes the start menu harder to click as you can move past it and click current tasks by mistake, Fitts law would determine that they are best put on the edge of the screen.

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.

Thanks a lot for the help, but I do have one more question though: once you click on the Billing & Support tab it redirects to another website where I will probably buy the domain. Where can I find inside that website my earnings so far?

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.

Last example The big Bang Theory. I have heard people state that God could not create the Universe because of the strong scientific evidence of the the Big Bang. Of course never thinking that perhaps God caused it in the first place by setting the laws of physics into place. The Bible starts with the words "In the beginning" interestingly we know that before space existed that there is no time.

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.

 

So if we are looking at the time frame of The Lord an infinite being we have no idea how infinitely fast He may or nay not move. Thus a 24 hour day to God in his frame of reference may well be a couple billion years to the rest of the universe.

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.

 

Onto Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Here is another case of placing our own restrictions on the narrative. We do not know the location of the garden nor do we know how long Adam and Eve resided there nor how long Adam was alone before Eve was created. Bear in mind that before the original sin there was no sickness, aging, or death for Adam and Eve. Thus it is completely possible that the Earth was going through it's prehistory, meteor strikes and all, while Adam and Eve were living in the Garden under God's care and protection safe from the tumultuous events outside of Eden. The Bible states that Adam lived to the age of 930, I believe that is years measured after the fall when time would be of any significance.

Interesting point.

 

There is really one thing you should ask yourself reguarding this topic: wasn't the Bible written by human beings as well?

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.

 

But on a serious note, I agree to the view that 7 days was figurative, not literal. The reason is because there are claims that people lived for 700-800+ years. But who is to say that their calendar is the same as ours? For example, we claim dog years are equal to human years on a 7:1 ratio(Dog:Human). So it is perfectly logical that their time was different.

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.

 

And taking that into consideration, it could be seen that the Christ days were equal to today's on a ratio of ~9:1 because of life expectancy(really, 9:1 is still lower than it should be..). And if that is taken into consideration then in those days, 7 days would be equal to around 2/3 of ONE of our days.

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.

 

Not to mention all the things God put on the Earth...Imagine the amount of time it would take to even think of them. Assuming there was no speaking needed, he still had to *think* of everything there is in the world. There's no way he could even do that in 7 days.

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.

Actually, I've heard from many of my teachers that if you have a good general health, you have better chanses of survival from a hit to a vital orgin since your heart will still go on even tho (for example) if your blood isn't clean or if you have an infection. Good health usually also means that you have a good immune system. When a bullet hits your body, if it doesn't go through you but gets stuck in the middleway, your body will fill the damaged area by a fluid, I don't know wha it's called. Anyway, this fluid protects you from infection but it also causes damage in other tissues, heart, liver, kidneys and other. That's the main reason when someone dies from a gun shot if he doesn't die instantly. That fluid is acid-like and has a low pH.
So yea, good health can protect you dying until you get medical help.

I'd be a bit surprised to see that the person was only shot once. Though i didn't make it entirely clear in my post, during the time i was writing what i said, i wasn't thinking about infections from the shots, but just damaging shots, those directed mostly to the body, not in the arms or legs, since "vital organs" aren't in the arms or legs. In the case of it missing the ribcage and hitting only soft parts, it can be expected for the bullet to go all the way through, therefore leaving two holes for blood to spill out from—this, of course, still assuming it was merely one bullet. It can also be the case that the blood could travel in areas that it will choke the person—but that may require bursting through the ribcage and entering the lungs. Also, if the bullet were to run into the spinal cord, other complications would occur. I wouldn't expect health to save the person from such complications.

The zoomed in nose is awesome. My only real gripe with the overall sig is that the nose/eye doesn't seem to work well with the "complete" picture of the lion on the left. There's just something odd about it! What do you reckon about that, I'd like to be able to have the tongue/yawn/amazing mane(!) somewhere in the sig if possible, is there any way to match the two bits differently?

I think i understand what you mean, that the lion in the background gives a different impression than the nice, laid back lion in the front. The one in the back gives more of a saddened, lonely look. But i wanted to get the nose and the eye in the picture while keeping the lion in the background pretty big or "blown up." Due to the constraints of the sig size, it becomes hard to fit such a big image of the lion without having it in a similar size as the smaller one on the left. Yet, i wouldn't think that multiple lions sitting next to each other looking completely identical to the other would yield an interesting image. I was going for more of a car commercial look, the kind that generally have a black background and rely mostly on the shine of the car, making things appear a bit luxurious, if you understand the kind i'm talking about. I guess i could make the sig a bit bigger and see how it turns out, if you want.