truefusion

Okay, "hardened his heart" doesn't necessarily mean that God took away Pharoah's/Saul's freedom of choice... it just means that God made them angry and more stubborn when he made it clear they were doing things wrongly. If you "know" you're right, and I try to convince you otherwise, you will just become more stubborn and "harden your heart".

I suppose hardening one's heart could be a form of "ultimate persuasion," but if it were concerning on whether or not those whose hearts were hardened learned a lesson, shouldn't, for example, Pharoah have learned plenty of lessons? When you are given absolute proof for God's existence, aren't you supposed to acknowledge such things? It was indeed made clear to both that they were in the wrong, for how many times did they say they have sinned? But how can God make someone more stubborn when Pharaoh agreed to let them go and when Moses and Aaron had already left, if not by Pharaoh losing some freedom? Likewise with Saul with the burdening spirit that God sent to him.

 

And goodness, "completely dry" can mean lots of things. It could mean that all the water had run off of the land that was going to. Say I have 20 acres (our family actually used to) with a creek. It rains 2 feet one day and floods the banks, covering several acres. Over the course of a week, all the water has gone back down to a normal level. I would say that our 20 acres have finally dried up, even though the creek is still flowing, just at a normal level. It's just the way people talk. People in the Bible didn't spell out everything in technical language, nor do we now. Genesis was not written as a science textbook, more as a history book. And for the entire earth to recover from such a flood, it would probably take a year for all the water to dump back into the oceans. I believe that the Grand Canyon is a great example of a "flood river". It's still flowing today, but I doubt that Noah heard from North America that there was still some runoff, seeing as how he landed on a mountain in present-day Turkey.

That is all good within a local flood, but my question concerns a global flood. Genesis does not have to be written as a science textbook to still mention everything we have been discussing.

I have attached what i have put together.

 

 

In case you cannot view the attachment, i provide an alternative:

Work can kill outside of health reasons. For example, if you are a police officer or someone who has joined the army and are sent on duty to control a situation where the enemy is heavily armed. In this case health has nothing to do with whether or not you'd be killed—stress could be a factor on performance, but these people are usually trained to deal with such things. Good health, of course, isn't going to spare you from a gun shot, unless perhaps you have super human blood clotting abilities and the shot didn't hit a vital organ—but, of course, that kind of blood clotting is fictional.

My understanding is that you can't cure diabetes.

You can cure diabetes, type 2 being the easier of the two to cure, but it's not as easy of a process as the topic starter is implying, and there may be cases where you cannot cure it—that is, for example, if you were born with a dysfunctional pancreas. For the kinds that you can cure, it would involve mostly a big change in your eating habits, but as with any habit, it's a bit hard to break. I would not in any way recommend what the topic starter is suggesting to try out. The topic starter didn't even get into changing the overall eating habits of the person who would attempt to try this "method" out. Without considering sugar intake from the other foods that the person would be taking, the person using this "method" could in turn be adding unwanted amounts of sugar to their diet, as there is no precaution mentioned by the topic starter in that area.

 

There is probably an assumption by the topic starter that the only intake of sugar would come from that morning drink—in which case would be more believable. However, a lady finger does not contain complex sugars—it contains simple sugars. Complex sugars are simple sugars that are tied together. In order for the body to put these simple sugars to use, it would have to untie them. If they are already untied, like in the case of the lady finger, then the sugar would go straight into the blood all at once, rather than little by little. If diabetes is to be cured, the sugars would have to go into the blood little by little. When a lot of sugar is inserted into the blood and the body cannot handle it all, it will still attempt to try and handle it. In this case the insulin bears no effect because your body is rejecting the insulin. This is known as type 2 diabetes. In this case, the cure is obvious: cut down on the sugar. However, in America, where simple sugars are dominant in, amazingly, all kinds of food that you eat, attempting to cut down on the sugar is a lot harder than one would have assumed—especially since it is generally cheaper to go with these simple sugar products.

 

Type 1 diabetes may or may not be curable. Although there may be other cases of type 2 diabetes, the one i mentioned is the most common one that i've heard about. Type 1 diabetes can be either your pancreas is too tired to work and therefore does not work, or you are born with a dysfunctional pancreas. (There may be other cases, but these are the only ones i've heard of.) In the former case, the cure would be to give your pancreas a rest. I, however, am uncertain on how one would go about in doing that. In both the former and latter case, a transplant may be required. But i wouldn't exclude the possibility of the pancreas in the former case to start working again on its own. When you hear on T.V. that "there is currently no cure for it," this is usually within the context of medicine or other similar, medical methods. In which case this is most often true, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternative steps that can be taken.

First of all, what is this "X window system?"

X window system

And second of all, I think it would have a pretty strong effect on the PC, unless it's a small file. If it was like movies or something it would have to be rendered, stored in the ram, etc. which I know for sure kills processing(on low CPU/RAM) PC's. If people have more high-end systems they will not have any issues.

And Jimmy said HD...So even small files may have issues.

Vista being known as a resource hog, it would be interesting to see how a video wallpaper would impact its performance. I know that you can set an HTML page that contains an object playing a video as the wallpaper, so if WMP can play MKV files and if one has WMP as the plug-in on the web page, then the topic starter should be set. But having something like that running in the background as a web page, at least in Vista, is bound to show its weight on the system—which i would be interested in seeing.

Of course, my desktop environment won't be wasting as much RAM as Vista's desktop environment, and the method used to display a desktop wallpaper is, at least i would think, different than Windows. I can easily switch from image to movie mode with this method. Currently, without any wallpaper, my desktop environment uses 4mbs, that is, when fully loaded and have just finished logging in. So, even on slower systems it may not be so bad.

I personally have 2 GB ram, Vista, 3.0 ghz dual core, so if there was any way I could test it for you let me know and I'll let you know how it runs for me.

My current system has 4gigs of RAM, 2.6ghz 64-bit dual core, and a slightly overclocked 8600 GT gfx card, so if i were to experience any performance issues with having a video play on the desktop, it may have to be due to a memory leak or something unintended perhaps. But unless you're running Linux or MacOS with X, then you would not be able to test out my desktop environment.

To where when you start your PC it resumes movies from where it left on and things like that.

Interesting feature. Noted.

Hmm...I'm going to look into it. I know Maya is used for doing nice animations(My understanding is most CGI scenes in video games are made by Maya too) so is Blender also able to do that?

Yes, Blender has its own game engine built into it. There's also an open-source game called Yo Frankie! The website itself has tutorials on game design in Blender which you can download and watch. I haven't messed around with the game engine, but from the videos i've seen, it should be interesting to mess around with.

Could you tell me which department to submit the ticket to? There are 9 of them and CH Support is the one thats highlighted but I've no clue what that is.

All Xisto related queries should be directed to the Xisto - Support department. CH support is for Xisto - Web Hosting, which is for paid hosting, not Xisto hosting.

Is blender the name of the program, and if so is it open source/free?
Also, would it be comparable to Photoshop?

Blender is the name of the program, and it is open source and free—that is one of the reasons why i can distribute this file without worry of people not being to learn from it. It cannot be compared to Photoshop, however, even though Blender has been known to be able to do image manipulation and video editing. It can, however, be compared to programs like Cinema 4D, Maya, 3DSMax, et cetera.

Does anyone know of something that may do the job?

I do not know of any software for that, but interestingly enough, the video wallpaper concept is something i am planning on introducing for my desktop environment for the X window system. I would be interested in knowing how having such a wallpaper would affect the performance of the computer and general processing.

Mind Creating a short tutorial on how to make one of these logos for a newbie such as me?

I would not be able to touch on all the fine-tuning of the project, i would only be able to touch on the general thing. But i would assume that would be okay with everyone anyway. But i'll see what i can do on formulating information similar to what can be obtained through the Blender file.

I'm assuming that you're saying that God isn't all powerful with his ability to move animals?

The "commentary" i left was supposed to be clear away anything ambiguous or any uncertainty or misunderstandings. Which part of my entire previous post implied or mentioned that i didn't think God was powerful enough to move animals?

 

Animals don't really have a sacred "power of choice" like humans do. For example, God forces birds to bring food to Elijah after mount caramel. He can have them to do anything he needs them to do.

Humans aren't excluded from this. There are many examples or references in the Bible that show God taking away free will from humans. The common examples being the Pharaoh from the time of Moses and Saul from the time of David. It should be noted, though, that this heart hardening occurred before God started hardening their hearts, therefore implying that one of the conditions for God to harden hearts is the person first hardening their own heart.

 

So what I guess the point I'm making is that God would only bring all the animals from all over the earth if it were necessary. It would only be necessary in a worldwide flood.

If the flood was worldwide, He would not need to bring all the animals to Noah. But i have a couple of verses for you that you would have to explain to me if the flood event was not local but as worldwide as you say it is. We'll start at verses 21 through 23 of Genesis 7 for introductory purposes. These seem to heavily emphasize, through repetition, that any animals under the sea and, if possible, any animals under the ground survived—that is, only animals of the sky and that moved along the ground and humans died. The dilemma i want to point out is in Genesis 8, verses 13 and 14. In verses 13 and 14 it says the earth was completely dry. It took the earth, according to Scripture, a little over a year to dry up completely. This i find interesting, as i would expect it to take a whole lot longer for all the oceans to dry up completely, but if the entire earth was completely dry, then the fish would have died along with all the other animals. The entire earth dried up would have been a very interesting sight to see, but since the Bible's way of emphasizing things is through repetition, and this repetition excludes sea creatures, how did the fish survive?

I am making publicly available the Blender file that contains everything you see in my current avatar as of this post. I am releasing this for educational purposes. You are free to spread it around but for non-commercial use. You may derive from it so long as the intent is not for degrading purposes.

 

Download

You should be able to convert an MKV file to any format MPlayer supports using MPlayer or MEncoder. I've converted many video formats to AVI and MPEG, and have also extracted sound from FLV files, through the command line using either MPlayer or MEncoder. The MPlayer documentation provides information on what codecs you can use and what arguments to pass to these programs. Very useful.

I have a little homepage made out of pure HTML and some CSS. I'd like my HTML page to be coded into my .php "main.php" file, so it has some color and background. Could you help me with this? Thanks to everyone who has offered and replied with the appropriate support.

The statement doesn't seem to be implying the use of the include statement, so i think you may be interested in the HTML heredoc. For example:

echo <<<HTML<!-- insert HTML code here -->HTML;

The HTML heredoc allows you to include PHP variables within them without having to worry about escaping double quotes for the HTML.

Now, I'd like to make the point that God wouldn't HAVE to bring all the animals if your theory is correct. If it was a localized flood - just the southwest, let's say - then God would just have to bring lizards and jackalopes and such to Noah. He wouldn't have to bring animals that lived in other parts of the world. Why would God bring all the animals from the entire world if he was just going to flood a single part of it?

I think you already asked that question (which i already answered), but perhaps this is a paraphrased form. Anyway, i think there are a few points to be made out first since it'll be the premises my conclusion will rely on: (1) God doesn't go back on His Word. (2) God declared the annihilation of the entire species on the planet and the birds of the sky, not under the planet (i.e. e.g. in the ocean and perhaps also anything that live deep underground), with some exceptions. (3) God found Noah righteous (at least compared to the wicked nation that was destined to be wiped out), therefore Noah and his family was (were to be) spared. (4) It took Noah, i would say, at least 50 years to build the Ark. (5) Noah was ordered to bring into the Ark (note: not necessarily go around the world picking up these animals) animals that he was not allowed to eat—whether they were clean or unclean—and some for those animals and him and his family to eat. (6) God brought all these animals to Noah before the flood event started to occur. (7) They, Noah and his family and all the animals brought to Noah, entered the Ark when Noah was 600 years old. (8) It took a little over a year for the water to dry up from the earth. (Conclusion:) Following from the premises, if all of them prove right, then it is a local flood.

 

But to add a few notes along side some of the premises, i'll bring some keywords in for analysis. Starting at Gen 6:7, God does not mention any animal that live under the waters or ground. Why the exclusion? I would say this provides insight of what is to come. Then in Gen 6:8 we see something that we have expected from Gen 6:7: an exception—in this case being Noah. By this time Noah had already three sons. In the verses to follow from where we left off in Genesis 6, more insight on what is to be kept alive is shown. This insight will allow us to determine what is actually meant by "under the heavens," "destroy," "(on) the earth," et cetera—that is, they all contain observable exceptions when observing the context. In Gen 6:19, God does not command Noah to go around the earth picking up the animals that are to be saved. Instead, God only tells Noah what he is to take into the Ark. In Gen 6:22 it mentions that Noah did what was commanded of him, but is that said concerning the future or present? That is, is the text informing us ahead of time or as it occurs?

 

Gen 7 takes place when Noah had already finished building the Ark and when Noah is then commanded to go into the Ark with his family and the animals, so Gen 6:22 appears to be informing us ahead of time. In the beginning of Genesis 7, God informs Noah that he only has 7 days to prepare himself, his family and all the animals before the flood. This shows that God's command in Gen 7:1 is not a command that is to be accomplished on the very day it was commanded. Furthermore, Genesis 7 implies, due to God's command, that the Ark had already been finished being built, and that there was no one or animal inside it. 7 days is a very short time to prepare everything if the animals were not taken to Noah. Thankfully, Genesis 7, verses 8 and 9, declares that the animals came to Noah. Gen 7:7 implies that one of the techniques used by God to bring the animals to Noah may have been natural—that is, by scaring the animals to move to one location. This allowed Noah to accomplish his task before the 7 days were up, for the text mentions a couple of times that Noah did everything God commanded (Gen 6:22; Gen 7:5).

 

Then enters Genesis 7:10. Given the information mentioned, the flood was local because the animals destined to die weren't spread throughout the earth. The text does not allow enough time for Noah to go around world picking up the animals commanded of him. God never commanded him to even go around the earth doing so; God only commanded Noah to bring such and such animals into the Ark.

The error occurs mostly when OpaQue has been modifying things again (i don't see how it can occur on its own). Albeit he may not always be aware of the errors, as things probably worked over on his "test bed." But it is quicker to contact OpaQue through support tickets; but jlhaslip already sent one over.

Ash, Posting this error report here on the Forum is just another sample of you spamming the Boards with crap.

That's a bit harsh, dude.

We're going to need more than just the error message and the line number, as the location of the error isn't necessarily on the line given, and for other obvious reasons.

What amazed me a bit about the contest is that the Opera browser wasn't mentioned at all, yet Chrome, being newer and still in testing stages, was included in the contest. It would have been very nice to see how Opera stands up in security between the other browsers.

If all C commands still work as normal C does, it should be fine then...But if it's an "upgraded" version that uses new commands as well as old, it may not have as much control. It'd be just like taking a jump from C++ to C#. C# is much easier to use but C++ has more control. Both can use the same commands though as far as I know. The only diff is in C# you don't have to tell memory locations for arrays and stuff, it's done automatically.

C# is like the Microsoft version of Java, so to speak. It may compile to bytecode, but that's not necessarily machine code—you still have to run it through a virtual machine, therefore making C++ programs perform better. Java and C# may be a bit more convenient to program in than C, Objective C or C++, and while the programs made for Java may not require you to recompile your program to be able to use it on another system, i'd still pick C++ over Java and C#. But on the topic of Objective C and C++, both of them are upgraded versions of C, meaning all C programs are basically legal Objective C and C++ programs. C++ used to have the name "C with classes"—not much of an appealing name. I prefer OOP over procedural programming, and coming from a PHP background, the C++ and PHP syntax are quite similar, so i pick C++ over the others.

Yessss, but then you have to agree that there were only 14 sheep. You made it sound as if there were 16 of every species.

Ah, yes, i see what you mean. Looking back at my statement i can see how that could be taken differently than what i meant. To correct myself to make it appear more of what i meant at the time, just replace the relative parts with the following:

I would find it more probable (which implies more logical) if God brought the animals to Noah rather than have Noah go all around the world picking [7 pairs of every kind of clean animal and 1 pair of every kind of unclean animal] just to place in his boat, the Ark.

There cannot be enough time for Noah to build an Ark and go around the world picking [7 pairs of every kind of clean animal and 1 pair of every kind of unclean animal] before he turns 600 years old.

RewriteRule .*\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp)$ - [F,NC]RewriteRule .*\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmpjpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp)$ - [F,NC]

That is everything in my .htaccess file in public_html. Could I get a little more help please?

The F flag in the square brackets at the end of the RewriteRule says—given the regex—if anyone tries to directly access the images, they are to receive a 403 error. Interestingly enough, rvalkass got a 500 error when accessing them directly. This seems to imply that perhaps this isn't the .htaccess file in question, although it does show that you are not allowed to access the image files directly. If you are providing the absolute URL of the images that you want to have displayed anywhere on your site, then that would be the reason why they are not showing up, as you are apparently not meeting the "requirements" of perhaps some RewriteRule somewhere.

I would say most of the problem comes from those who are "hardcore" vegans: that is, they avoid all animal products, like eggs, milk, et cetera. These animals products, which doesn't hurt or kill the animal, is where most of the proteins in the vegan's diet would come from. Exclude them, and you'll have very little choices for sources of protein, mostly limited to beans—which cannot provide you with all the essential proteins. The next problem may be the amount of calorie intake, as it is bound to not be much. I haven't done much research on the fats found in vegetables, on whether or not they help produce cholesterol, but cholesterol could be another problem, since a lot of the functions of the body rely on cholesterol, to even the functions of the brain.

 

The higher chance of death for vegetarians i already knew about, but you wouldn't expect to hear about it from vegetarians, at least not from the "hardcore" ones. Nevertheless, any bad health choices can lead to early death—and it doesn't even have to involve food.

I think that although linux is secure, windows is the most secure. Why?
Windows took 3 days and a 3rd party program to be hacked, I believe it was some adobe product.

The 2009 Pwn2Own contest showed, on the first day of the contest, that Windows got hacked due Internet Explorer 8—although the Mac OS got hacked first. Internet Explorer 8 isn't a third-party program. But since you mention Adobe, that means you are referring to one of the past Pwn2Own contests, but i haven't gone through the Pwn2Own history to know which one exactly; i only remember about the one that Windows got hacked without any mention of third-party software and where the Mac OS got hacked due to the flash browser plug-in.

But the most secure OS is said to be OpenBSD, which isn't part of the list.

Thanks, I am trying to learn webdesign so I dont have to keep on asking so can you tell me how this code works (whats happening, etc)? sorry for being difficult.

Let's look at it step by step. We'll start at where it gets activated:

<div onmouseover="fade(this);" onmouseout="return false;">
<img src="" alt="TEST"/>
</div>

As the attribute suggests, fade() gets called when the mouse (or cursor) hovers over the element. You'll notice the pointer or variable called "this" being passed in the parameters. This variable points to the position in the DOM of the element of the attribute, in this case being that DIV. We pass it in to the fade() function to make our job easier. To also make our job easier, we declare a global variable called "img":

var img;

Note that in JavaScript you don't necessarily need to end the line with a semicolon, i merely do it for good practice in case i code in other languages that require such a thing. This global variable we use to store the reference to the image that we want to fade. Since it is a global variable, we are therefore capable of changing its value within functions. Going back to onmouseover, the function fade() gets called. In order to be able to use the reference "this" within the function, we have to specify a name for the variable that will carry the same value, in this case being "id." This allows us to track down the image element easier that we want to fade in. We then call a method that traverses the DOM starting at the DIV element that the variable id is pointing to, to find any child image elements. This method is getElementsByTagName.

 

Since we expect the image to be the first image it finds, that is, due to the way we coded the HTML layout, we append the index 0, since getElementsByTagName returns an array. From there we state a for loop to make the fade effect appear to be occurring within one second—that is, if you do the math. The setTimeout function takes two parameters: the first is the function you want to call when the time in milliseconds from the second parameter is reached. Since the for loop happens rather quickly, the for will finish before all the setTimeouts return. The function we want to call is setOpacity(), and setOpacity() takes one parameter, which we have the for increment the value that we pass to obtain a fade in effect. The setOpacity() function is made to support standard and non-standard (i.e. Internet Explorer) browsers. Since the value of opacity has to be a double or float (what-have-you) for standard-compliant browsers, we divide the value. For Internet Explorer we require a whole number from 1 to 100, so we multiply it by ten so that it'll fade within one second evenly.

 

Since during testing of the script, moving the mouse out of the DIV element caused the fade in to occur again, we return false on mouseout to prevent it from having the same effect occur twice. And that should pretty much explain the entire process.

This was the first method I tried, However the gradients looked awful in a gif image and messed up the glowing effect...

Luckily in your case you have made it easy to work with. If i'm not mistaken, there's really no way to fade a background image without it affecting the elements and text within the element holding the background image. But since the text is above the image, that means you can have the image you want to fade in upon hover under the text without also fading the text.

<!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"> <!-- var img; function fade(id) { img = id.getElementsByTagName('img')[0]; for (var i = 0; i < 11; i++) setTimeout('setOpacity('+i+')',100*i); return false; } function setOpacity(value) { img.style.opacity = value/10; img.style.filter = 'alpha(opacity=' + value*10 + ')'; } // --> </script> </head> <body> <div onmouseover="fade(this);" onmouseout="return false;"> <img src="" alt="TEST"/> </div> </body> </html>

You can work off of this if you want.