truefusion

I've only gotten into the basics of Java, and not necessarily to actually make Java programs. Java and C++ are quite similar with a few variations here and there. Because of which, i am merely in this for the sake of C++, to help me better understand C++, since it is quicker to learn a program with simpler ways of doing things than it is to just dive into a complex programming language. So, unfortunately, i cannot provide you with any example code for Java.

I don't necessarily have a favorite. Back when i used to play StarCraft i would normally play the custom made maps, as i was never really good at real-time strategy. I would also make my own maps. I was mostly fond of maps like Special Forces, so i made myself a big, Special Forces map which may have introduced some new things, like music and the ability to purchase both Terran and Protoss—which i coined as "TerraToss"—units, and a concept of "shared money" where the computer unit that helps you out, all of its kills gets converted into money and that money gets spread throughout the force. Therefore, since new people would die quite quickly in my map before they even got a chance to explore the map (the map was a bit more difficult than other Special Forces map), they would eventually be able to purchase more units without having to quit and restart the game. Some people liked the map, others didn't (mostly due to early death). But StarCraft 2 is looking more interesting. The kind of maps you could build in StarCraft 2 i'm expecting to be insane.

MyCENTs do not convert into Xisto dollars if you have a warning. When the warning is removed, then when the script runs again, it'll convert your myCENTs into Xisto dollars.

You can usually find those kinds of software in the programs section of stock retail stores like Costco or BJs, Sam's Club, et cetera. But i don't know if there are any of those places in your area or country. Otherwise, you can check out the Home Improvement Software section at NewEgg and pick out whichever one seems good to you.

You can try out my shoutbox script. Its project page is located here: tfsbox. If you don't want to use the latest beta, you can choose the latest stable, version 3.2. Version 4 of my shoutbox, currently in beta, is the only current version that supports MySQL, though. The preview/test run page shows the latest beta, so if you choose the latest stable, expect a slightly more simplistic interface.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

Although they'll have to look at the source code to take the image (though why would they want to take the image?), C-Panel has a way to prevent hotlinking. But you'll need to do research on the clear property. Even if you were to use jlhaslip's code, i can tell you right now, from experience, that won't get you the results you are looking for. If you run off of what Saint_Michael provided and use the clear property, then you'll get better results. By the way, the CSS property line-height is for text, that is, the spacing between the lines of text.

This part is debatable. We no longer live in an era that runs off of source-based-only distributions. Sure there are distros like Gentoo, et cetera, but Linux is about choice—and it's better to know about your system anyway. On my Ubuntu system i don't worry about maintenance. In fact, that's why i stick to Ubuntu over all the other distros—things generally work out of the box, rarely, if at all, requiring me to go searching for drivers, et cetera; and all the drivers i've ever needed were in their repository anyway. Also, on a Windows machine you still have to worry about what anti-virus program and firewall you'll need to protect yourself with and the self-degrading performance of a Windows machine—that is, you have to defrag every now and then, which isn't entirely consistent in maintaining performance. I've been testing out Jaunty, that is, Ubuntu 9.04, and they've really outdone themselves in performance with this version of Ubuntu. For an alpha 6 release it's been quite stable. But to modify the list, i'd place Linux in second place with Windows if not altogether switch Linux with Windows.

Java has a way to read lines from standard output. You need to import BufferedReader from java.io in order to read the lines of a standard output. I don't know Java enough to write you an example, but you can look up examples on how to implement BufferedReader to fit your needs, over the internet.

They say structs and objects are basically the same except that objects allows for private and protected members, et cetera. You'll want to have such a feature if, for example, you were to be working in a group project. Also, C++ allows for overloaded functions. I find these quite convenient and wish that every language had this ability. I've only heard bad things about C++ from C programmers, but from people that teach programming, i've seen more that are for C++. I say go for C++ just for the extra language features.

All you need to connect two computers together with just one ethernet cable is a crosswire cable. Normal ethernet cables won't work. With a crosswire cable you won't need to buy any extra equipment if both computers support ethernet connections. Do note that it may take a while for each computer to assign themselves addresses when using a crosswire cable. But once connected, you will be able to access one computer from the other computer and vice versa.

I think this one means: Run Process 1 on Core 1, then Core 2, etc; then Run Process 2 on Core 1, then Core 2, etc; repeat until finished... While this one would mean: Run Process 1 on Core 1; Run Process 2 on Core 1; repeat until all processes are ran on Core 1, then run all processes on Core 2; continue till finished...

Normally Wine "registers" itself with the appropriate file extensions, which popular file managers pick up and display the option to open up the program in Wine. But to run a Windows program through the command line you type in: CONSOLE wine /path/to/file.exe Do note that Wine doesn't support every single program available for Windows, and some programs may require a workaround to get it to function properly. Be sure to see if there is any information for the program you are trying in the Wine Application Database before attempting to run it through Wine.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

Isn't the speed of light observed also (though the speed of light may be measured hypothetically in free space)? But to better explain what i mean, i'll use the example you provide but change one of the objects. That is, let the ground be the ground and have the car i'm in be the slow car, but change the fast car to light and have its speed be the speed of light. That is, relative to the ground i'm going 50mph and light is going approximately 669,600,000mph. My speed relative to the speed of light is 669,599,950mph slower. Being the scenarios similar, i don't understand why the cars aren't themselves constant or why the speed of light still remains or continues to be considered a constant. That's what i thought—even though once you reach zero you stop getting closer to the speed of light; which means you can't call anything that follows after it absolute.

Without looking at the source code, i can only provide general statements: that is, SQL injection and XSS is the only things that generally cause problems for developers in your case. Exposing the source code could also pose as a problem, as it may expose any other flaws. So, keeping your source code hidden and doing research on SQL injection and XSS is the only way to help yourself further.

Some people argue that they pick radiation over natural alternatives because it brings in the cash. That is, since chemotherapy has a low rate of survival, if you convince the person that it'll help better than any other alternative, then you gain a lot of income. As evil as this may sound, it's not impossible for people to be this evil (9/11 anyone?). Another argument is because of what is being taught in schools. Many of the medical schools here in the States teach that natural alternatives are non-sense and bogus and cannot possibly help and therefore should not be considered over the over-the-counter or prescribed medicines. Others just don't teach about natural alternatives; very few actually do, though. Third-world and second-world countries do not really teach in this fashion. At the same time, if you were to visit these other countries, you may find them to be healthier than America itself. I mean, isn't America the number 1 fattest country? Yet, supposedly, we have the some of the best (or better) schools? But to get to whether or not Vitamin C should be considered: In order for Vitamin C to take effect, the body would have to have the proper amount of resources in order to be able to put that Vitamin C to use. Therefore you would have to be a bit healthy yourself, in which case may prevent other cancers from forming. Some argue that the reason why cancer occurs is because of oxidation, therefore Vitamin C, being an antioxidant, counters the effects of the cancer. The reason why not many appeal to this is probably because of lack of research. Then again, if people are teaching that natural methods are bogus, a cycle may form that prevents funding for research, therefore forming a dilemma. But if you were to give a person Vitamin C, this Vitamin C would be better off it if isn't synthetic—that is, if it wasn't made in a lab but found in nature. Concerning the argument your friend gave you, have them do research on the survival rates of chemotherapy. And if you die afterwards because of it, then what was the point of the chemotherapy?

Does that imply that the speed of light cannot be determined without a reference point? I know the speed of light was (is) in the implied equation itself, but if these objects require a reference point, doesn't it follow that in order to determine the speed of anything else would itself require a reference point? Or perhaps better put: Why does the speed of light not require a reference point while everything else, as implied, does? So m always equals rest mass? But now you've introduced rest energy. How many invisible or hidden adjectives are there? And how does this word game fit into the all the equations that have been mentioned? Division by zero, at least from my knowledge, can only have three values: undefined, 0 or infinity. That means infinity is in the minority, and the reason why it's even considered a possible value is not because it is logical from a mathematical standpoint—that is, you really have to play around with everything in order to even consider the possibility of infinity. So wouldn't it be special pleading to go with infinity? What objective arguments are used to pick infinity over the others? If i were to assume that infinity is picked for the sake of progressing (since undefined or 0 is bound to prevent progression), that would be fallacious because anything following it would not be entirely accurate. If it's not entirely accurate, then we cannot claim anything following it to be absolute. So what's the reasoning behind choosing the minority? Given the equation, isn't the reason why it has no energy is because its rest mass is 0? Or are you flipping the equation around? But mind doing the non-simplified equation for me? But if the photon doesn't exist, how can it still have relativistic mass? That would mean it would have to be brought into existence (i.e. created) and would have to be in motion the very instant it was brought into existence.

I think the terminology used here makes things too ambiguous to correctly or properly discuss any situation involving or arising from it. That is, "basic" and "advanced" are not defined (enough) to form a definitive black and white picture. What distinguishes "basic" language from "advanced" language? Or (and) what distinguishes "basic" science from "advanced" science? Even if we were to use the examples in your first post of this topic, the examples themselves do not paint a picture that allows us to derive meaningful definitions for "basic" and "advanced"—but it does practically lead us back to my previous statement.

Why is its relativity to the earth considered? ...to avoid confusion. Okay, let's see if i can add these things up. For simplicity's sake, let's stick to the ever-so-common E = mc2 equation. Is it safe to assume that m here would = rest mass xor relativistic mass? Assuming it is, that would mean in order for the photon to reach the speed of light it would have to be at rest and bear 0 energy (i.e. E = 0), because anything multiplied or divided by zero is zero. However, you mention earlier that the photon carries energy regardless... But if it is at rest, how can it reach the speed of light? And how can it still have energy though E equals 0? And when it is in motion, in order to reach the speed of light, it would require, as noted earlier, an infinite amount of energy. But, likewise, as noted earlier, energy is a finite resource. Therefore the photon never reaches the speed of light? Or is it that it really isn't the photon moving, but rather something else that is going the speed of light is pushing or pulling the photon (like a person in a vehicle)? Or is it that the statement "in order for the photon to reach the speed of light" is merely theoretical in its nature (i.e. merely allowing it does not necessarily mean any actual moving)? Or is it that m != (rest mass and relativistic mass)?

I suppose a next example could be Samuel, as he was chosen, or made a prophet, at a young age. But i think the emphasis is better placed on the task or "burden" placed upon the individual, that is, on whether or not it could be successfully performed by a child or an adult. In this case, we can observe with either David, Jesus, et al, that the tasks were simple or there were none at all when they were small. In the case of David we have Goliath, but i don't recall God telling David to go out and take down Goliath—that is, it was David's choosing. Interesting statement. I don't have any outside knowledge or information concerning for or against the former, but mentioning Moses seems to counter the former. If the flood was truly a world-encompassing event, and mountains formed due to extremely strong geysers or "fountains of the deep," then to say that Moses wrote about the mountains of his time for Genesis for the time of Noah is to say that Moses made an observational error. An error in any case you should see everything undesirable about it. Therefore either there existed mountains back then before the time of Moses and it is God providing revelation to Moses, or there is an error in the Bible concerning Genesis for the time of Noah which was caused by human assumptions. And if there were mountains during the time of Noah, then it would follow the point that i have been for during this whole discussion. I already mentioned that the animals on the other side of the globe were brought to the location. And it wasn't just 2 of very kind. God ordered Noah to take male and female (i.e. the 2 for each pair or "kind" that you are referring to) of 7 clean pair of animals and 1 unclean pair of animals. I'd rather not be in any city during that time. But i can't remember whether or not those who are written in the Book of Life are to be taken up before these amazing events occur. So even if you were resurrected, or "woken up" (to be more Biblically accurate), you would probably be observing it from afar.

The left navigation fits; that is, it doesn't require any more work on it except perhaps if you are going to apply an eye-candy style to them. As for the banner, it seems like you have a Dodge or Burn layer blend applied to it, which is causing pixelation mostly on the highlight of the text. I believe it is also the cause for the mismatching blue. I normally go with Overlay, but the color should be similar to the ones already used, and since the banner is more in the dark area of the layout, a little shine effect, which shows the light as if reflecting from the top, may be fitting.

I think the dilemma is more severe than what you make it out to be. I see Literature as the ability or knowledge that allows for any form of writing (looking up the definition actually fits with the way i see Literature as). That is, without Literature, there would be no Science books. Therefore, you should be able to see the dilemma. That would mean Science would not be able to thoroughly explain something; people would have to guess from any available math problem and (or) rely on word of mouth, or would have to rediscover things, et cetera. Yet, since we have to pick one and dump the other, if we pick Literature, there would be no technological advancement, et cetera. For the sake of history and convenience, i'd go with Literature in this case.

So the particle you mentioned in the area where i quote you in my previous post is not necessarily this photon? And does the adjective "rest" change the meaning or state of "mass" like it appears to be doing? I ask this because "rest," as commonly understood by that word, implies that the photon would not be in motion—that it is "standing" still. However, i also realize that science doesn't necessarily apply commonly perceived definitions to words (e.g. the universe is expanding—"universe" being the keyword). But that would mean that when it is in motion, it bears mass (assuming it can actually stand still in one point in time); and if it bears mass, and if it goes at the speed of light, won't we be back to where we started from? But if "rest" doesn't change the state (or meaning) of "mass," then why is "rest" used? Or perhaps better stated, What would "rest" mean here then? Interestingly enough, if "rest" changes nothing, and if it has no rest mass, applying it to E = mc2 would mean E = 0, since anything multiplied by 0 is 0. However, since you state that that equation is only half of the actual equation, E becomes actually something that is greater than zero (which, due to the time required to do the math, i won't even attempt to do the math , but it appears obvious, at least to me, that it would indeed equal something greater than zero, even if it is less than 1). This implies that anyone who doesn't use the full equation is generally in err or not entirely accurate. Of course, this part may become irrelevant if "rest" is defined in a way that affects the state of "mass." But i believe you can see the dilemma anyway if E were to equal 0. In either case, i am finding the whole array of terms interesting, especially within the context they're being used in. That is, i find it interesting that you can give energy to this photon without affecting its rest mass (if i understood it correctly). Also, bearing in mind that a photon is not infinite in energy, supplying it with infinite energy (if at all possible) would, at least in theory, change its state, therefore making it no longer a photon, at least by what can be implied by the definition given.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.