truefusion

This one looks more interesting: much better. Ignoring the banner, all i'd suggest is add margins to the boxes on the left; they're too close to each other in my opinion. The colors appear to be in harmony. I have nothing else to say.

If we examine not only the context but the very passage you bring into the discussion, what would we see? But before we get into that, one question should be asked, if there is heavy rain and strong winds and geysers (there were indeed geysers as implied in Genesis 8:2), do birds take to flight or do they take the time to hide? But coming back to the context, it could be argued that because Noah was 600 years old at the time that the floodgates of heaven opened up, that it took Noah about 500 or so years to bring all the animals God commanded to bring into the Ark to where Noah lives. Assuming the earth back then was what it looked like today geographically, that is a lot of ground to walk, if it can be at all traveled in less than 570 years (i give at least thirty years for Noah, as i wouldn't say that God would pick a child to go out and do what God asks of him). Wouldn't it be easier for God to just bring all the animals to Noah? And if so, does the Bible give way for that? In fact, Genesis 7:8-9 and 7:15 does just that. Geographically speaking, Noah's Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat—where exactly, that is, which mountain is uncertain. "All the mountains under heaven" does not necessarily have to be from God's viewpoint (assuming more than just the mountains of the area existed back then). Since Ararat has a lot of mountains (at least from what can be derived from the text and observed today), it could very well be limited to which is visible by (to) Noah's perspective. Since the waters pretty much covered the mountains, if it were truely to cover every mountain in existence (assuming there were mountains in existence back then that reach the heights of the tallest mountain today), Noah and every other living thing on the Ark would require oxygen tanks—unless the only mountains in existence at the time were only the ones in Ararat. The mountains of Ararat could be climbed without requiring such equipment (or at least many of them), as implied by the text. If these people were limited to that geographical location and had never wondered off to other regions, it could be argued that that was indeed the only mountains they thought existed. The people at the time of Noah were apparently too foolish to actually consider leaving the area. Though by the time they did consider, it was obviously too late for them—like with all judgements. So if all the animals were brought to that one location, and all the people were all in one location also, a world-wide flood would be unnecessary. Even if it were the case that it rained all over the earth, the only part that required so much water was just that one region. If you call that great, then what about what is written in Revelations? Isn't it the case that you will most likely be there to see the Last Day? Unless those people could live up to 900 or so years just by performing such things and eating well, then it's not entirely relevant to the discussion. Since you mention Ferrari, it is obvious that the people you refer to are incapable of living for so long, as it concerns our time. But the question may arise, What is the current, average lifespan in India? And just how many more years do those that practice these things surpass the the average lifespan of those in India?

Though this is not necessarily directed to me (and though it did make sense to me), i am still interested in, or curious about, the implications which jump out at me from your following statement: I'll admit i've never done any extensive studies concerning light and its interaction with matter, so if you'll be patient with my questioning, it would be appreciated. Though i'll be alluding mostly to how light interacts with matter and is observed through the naked eye, and though i understand that "light" isn't necessarily something visible though in either case will always be energy, if light as you discuss it is defined as electromagnetic radiation, that is, for example, the light emitted by the sun or perhaps even a light bulb, anything visibly bright so to speak, then i am curious at the length it is emitted at or how something that absorbs light (i.e. if light by nature must be an infinite amount of energy) does not become or obtain the same properities of light, for example, like Moses after speaking with God (Exodus 34:29). Following your statement that the speed of light is absolute, it follows that light is always emitted at its speed (obviously), meaning it would require an infinite amount of energy since its (")entrance(") into reality in order to go the speed of itself. I am curious as to how something infinite can change one of its properties (like not being able to be any longer visible to the human eye) yet maintain its infinite, energetic nature. Likewise, how can an object (or matter) absorb something infinite without itself lasting forever, that is, without "practicing" decay? But before answering that question, if the object that is emitting light does not within itself contain an infinite amount of energy, then how is it capable of emitting something that by nature is an infinite amount of energy? Or if the object that emits light does indeed posses an infinite amount of energy, then how, for example, can the sun be "scheduled" for depletion or non-existence? Doesn't it follow that anything that produces something infinite must itself be infinite? And that anything infinite cannot itself become finite (over time)? I am uncertain if your courses' studies include how light interacts with matter, or on perhaps heat, etc, or not, but it would be interesting to see what you have to say about this. I do realize i can just go out and attempt to find an answer to all of these questions, that is, that i can just go and research the matter (pun not necessarily intended ) myself, but this way seems more fun.

You should be able to look up your posts in two ways: (1) click on the little drop down on your name located at the side of every one of your posts, or (2) scroll to the top of the forum and click on your username to enter your profile, and in your profile click on the little drop down menu labeled "Options," and pick whether you want to view your posts or your topics.

The JavaScript code you are requesting for requires you to manipulate the URL in order for this to be done automatically. The reason for this is because JavaScript cannot (at least to my knowledge) pick up POST and GET variables. So you would have to modify the action attribute of the FORM element to include the birth date that was used previously. You would also have to make sure the script allows itself to be stopped through at least a confirmation dialog. I could write this script, but i don't see much of a reason to do so, as there's not many ways to run custom-made JavaScript on a page that the "hacker" doesn't own. Remember, we have to assume this JavaScript attack is not built into this user management system itself. Therefore the only way to actually even be able to get JavaScript to run and affect a remote location is if the browser the "hacker" is using uses an extension that allows them to do so, or if the "hacker" successfully accomplished a XSS attack—but i don't think an XSS attack would work in your case. Just implement a lock down feature for your script, and you should be better off. Perhaps also include a captcha.

I wouldn't necessarily say that these Unix-like operating systems are pretty much interchangeable core-wise, but i think this can be better answered if you were to do research on the kernels that these operating systems use. The Mac OS X kernel is called XNU. The Linux kernel has no special name to it. Windows NT is the kernel used for Windows today. Further research on monolithic, microkernels, and hybrid kernels is recommended.

Internet Explorer 8 (unfortunately) will allow web designers to include IE code in their HTML to force Internet Explorer 8 to render just like its older versions. They say it's to help ease the process when migrating your code to Internet Explorer 8—but, practically, i doubt it will be used for that purpose. The IE devs have been purposely holding back on passing the Acid 3 test, giving the excuse that their deadline didn't allow for it. But now that Internet Explorer 8 is finally out, i wonder what other excuse they'll give.

The header (<head>) is the better place to put it, and you'll need it to occur on onLoad: <script> function init() { window.resizeTo(1024,768); } window.onload = init; </script> Yes, if you need it to occur shortly after the page has loaded, modify the above function to include a timeout.

Have you tried having the program exit full screen mode and then hitting Alt+F4? Maybe the program wasn't designed to pay attention to whether or not it is in full screen mode before it exits, therefore not telling Windows to bring things back to normal. Either way, perhaps shortcutting should be avoided until you find out the reason why that is. I suppose one way to test to see if it is the program and not Windows is to try it out with every program that allows to be full-screened. If a certain program doesn't mess it up, repeat and see if it does this time around. Do this about three times. If nothing messes up, then move onto the next program. Repeat.

Actually, you don't need JavaScript to "hack" that. Just merely knowing the person's e-mail address and having been informed of their birth date, the format the date is supposed to be in and any other information required to log in—which doesn't seem like much from what i am reading—is all that would be needed. You wouldn't need JavaScript to get by that. Trying to force your way in with JavaScript, in this case, would take a while, as an automated script that doesn't have any e-mails of the registered users is really pointless. What you need to do is change the default password generation to something that doesn't relate to the person personally. In the end the person will still get the random hash sent to their e-mail anyway, so having a simple, default password is not an approach that should normally be taken. You want the default password to be somewhat complex, not simple.But if you still want to go with this approach, that is, with birth dates, then you should consider implementing a system that keeps track of how many times the user attempted to log in. After a certain time, the user is prevented from logging in for an hour or so, even if they get the password right during the lockdown.

<script>window.resizeTo(1024,768);</script> Do keep in mind, though, that not all browsers allow for every single JavaScript action to occur. For example, in Firefox and Opera you can limit what JavaScript can do, and one of those things is preventing JavaScript from resizing the window—users can get annoyed when their desires are not met, so they turn these things off.

Having the option to remove (disable) it doesn't mean it won't be pre-installed with the system. Even if we were to assume that it won't come pre-installed, you would be left with a dilemma for internet users: how are they to surf the web? Microsoft isn't going to sign a deal with these other browser developers. Knowing them, since you would no longer need Internet Explorer to update the system, they'd just supply you with the option to install Internet Explorer through their update system. In either case, it wouldn't be smart of them to do either, therefore they'd just ship Internet Explorer with Windows 7. Also, this has already been known in the forums a while ago: here.

The banner is a whole lot better, indeed; though that grey text border doesn't seem to fit too well. Other than that, the rest that seems a bit off that i'd personally change would be the color of the "splitter" (i.e. the border that separates the banner from the context), the background color of the box where "Linkki" is, and the blue color on the tip of the active tab. I know picking well matching colors isn't exactly an easy job, but if you can master it, then you can make very nice and warm designs. That's because my personalized Blender settings has it on the right. The "factory settings" has it in the bottom. I love how Blender allows me to change the layout around for personal comfort.

Stefan, you do realize this is old news, right? In fact, Internet Explorer 8 stable came out today. Internet Explorer 8 RC1 came out a long time ago—it's no longer available. You can even read about it on the IE Blog here

The earth's rotation-speed argument was one explanation given that i've heard, from a scientific viewpoint that is. It would explain how they lasted so long, since time was based on the sun and the moon's appearance, and if you see them more often than we do today, then they could have lasted a very "long" time. The other argument i've heard is that the atmosphere back then could better support life than today's. I'm not sure if natural gases can undesirably affect the atmosphere, especially to the point where it caused the lifespan of mammals (or more) to decrease, but i feel that the argument on the speed of the earth's rotation is easier supported or more supportable. These are the only arguments i've heard that can be scientifically validated.Your argument that seeks to support the flood event on how it affects the earth's rotation is invalidated by Biblical principles. That is, the flood wasn't a world-wide event. At the time of the flood, the people weren't located or scattered throughout the earth for there to have been a world-wide flood. They were all conveniently placed in one location somewhere in the East, therefore not requiring a world-wide flood. The Abrahamic religions agree that it wasn't a world-wide flood, especially since the Hebrew word that is rendered "world" does not necessarily mean the entire earth. It can also mean just the people on the earth, and other things. These definitions fit for the flood event. To determine which one is to be considered above the others depends on the context, in this case showing that they were all located quite near each other, since the Bible goes quickly from Adam to Noah.I have not fully thought on how they were able to last so long, that is, from a viewpoint that science can place "under the microscope," but if the speed of the earth's rotation shows to be better than any other explanation i can come up with, then i don't see the point in trying to figure it out.

Interesting site. Yeah, i use it on my website (except i don't end it in ".html"). It's a built-in feature of PHP, which helps save resources that would normally be wasted by mod_rewrite. What it is doing in the background is passing arguments to the PHP script as if it were a CLI script. I should mention it is search engine friendly. Here's how you can implement it: $file = substr($HTTP_SERVER_VARS['PATH_INFO'], 1);If you have a URL like /index.php/html/1, you could use it like: list($category, $page) = explode("/", substr($HTTP_SERVER_VARS['PATH_INFO'], 1));

This question appears to be slightly different than what i expected from the topic. If i understand you correctly, that means you want to copy the log-in form of your forum to somewhere other than the forum itself. If that is the case, then the work is cut out for you. Just look at the source code of the forum and find the form element, then see if the action attribute contains any session variables. If it does, remove it and copy whatever is left onto anywhere you want on your site. If this is not what the question is asking for, then i can only think of two other possiblities before dropping it altogether: (1) make an extension to the forum that extends to the rest of the website, or (2) make a user-management script from scratch (this, however, seems to already been discussed). If number 1, then we may be able to help further. If number 2, then i suppose it is to be dropped.

Tables and databases are different. A database should provide you with the space for any amount of tables so long as you have the web space for them. You can use one database for many scripts, assuming they allow you to prefix table names, or else they're bound to overwrite each other. But in response to the topic starter: you can increase the amount of MySQL databases you want for the Logic Plan. This will, of course, increase the price a bit, but you'll be able to customize the package upon ordering.

It may be a bug, but i wouldn't know; Opera has its own way of dealing with webpages than from other browsers. Instead of taking the Microsoft approach, having websites build for the browser (i.e. Internet Explorer), the Opera devs make Opera work for websites. I'm not sure if the same methods are taken for mobile Opera since i don't have a mobile device with Opera on it, but desktop Opera is bound to have multiple ways of dealing with websites. However, i've only observed one method, and that's their JavaScript file, browser.js, which is located in the Opera profile of your system or account. Mobile Opera should have a feature to report a site problem, though.

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

I've had an experience once where Windows XP showed that i had around 60 gigabytes less than what was advertised. It was a 200gb HDD which i was reinstalling Windows XP on, and i couldn't believe just how much of the HDD i couldn't access. I thought i had been seriously ripped off. Interestingly enough, when i partitioned the drives for Linux and installed Linux onto it, i regained about 50gigs back. So this implies there may be more things to blame on how the size of the HDD that can be used is calculated.

I have been currently living on the "bleeding edge" with Opera by using it's latest snapshot build of Opera 10. Opera 10 uses an improved version of Presto, Opera's rendering engine, and it renders pages quicker than its predecessor. It also seems to handle cache slightly better also. Concerning Opera, in its settings you can tell Opera how fast you want a page to be rendered, whether instantly, in a second or more (i tend to have it for 2 seconds), though the page would get rendered whenever if it took less than the defined time minimum. Concerning Flash and SVG, although these don't really concern page rendering speed, i haven't done any testing on SVG; however, back when i was using the stable version of Opera, Flash would work better than it did in Firefox 3. In Opera it may take longer to load the plug-in, but it worked. In Firefox i would often either have to refresh the page to see the video (as the video would go blank but you could still hear the audio) or kill the Flash plug-in process because merely refreshing no longer helped and then refresh. So, concerning speed, i would say Opera wins, and not just concerning page rendering, as even with all the built-in features of Opera, it opens up either as fast or faster than Firefox without any add-ons. However, some lag may be experienced in websites that use (heavy) transparent elements.

My memory wasn't so great when i was attempting to explain it from memory. But i managed to find the article concerning whitespace here. This should clarify everything.

Works for me. However, i uploaded it to my website just in case it for some reason still doesn't work for you: click.

A new CPU may or may not imply a new motherboard. Unless you're willing to change the motherboard along with the CPU, then requesting for us to name you whatever processor would be suitable for gaming and video editing shouldn't be favorable. If you're not willing to dish out extra resources for a new motherboard (and perhaps anything else that the old parts wouldn't be compatible with the new motherboard), then you'll have to provide us with all the processor types your motherboard is suitable for. That is, INTEL or AMD? What socket? Et cetera... But if you don't mind wasting a little more, then we can start naming processors at random.