truefusion

In order to prevent from blocking legitimate links you may require both a white list and a black list. Attempting to block sites from just anyone that sends you an instant message is problematic. As much as it would be convenient to block a message that is spam without having it blacklisted first, it's not possible if you seek to allow your friends sending you links, like of YouTube videos. The white list would be to list users you trust to allow sending messages with links in them. The black list would be in case the user's account gets hijacked, which would at least prevent the user from sending you the same message with the same link over and over and over again, while allowing legitimate links. The script could also have a warning that informs the whitelisted person that they attempted to send a link that is blacklisted.

The Internet Explorer 7 i have on here doesn't seem to be working for me right now (can't even access LOCALHOST/ ), but the Internet Explorer 6 that i have installed on here works; however, your site says to upgrade to Internet Explorer 7. I can see why you mention Internet Explorer 7 specifically. I'll figure out why Internet Explorer 7 isn't working in Wine later. As for the portfolio, interesting gallery script; nice use of the fade in effect. However, there seems to be a problem when viewing the big images in Opera 10 and Firefox 3: the content goes beyond its border and therefore hides part of the gallery. In Opera i can scroll to the right to view the button again, but not in Firefox 3. Maybe you have a bigger screen resolution than i do, which allows for more space; i'm using 1280x1024.

This implies you're using a table for the design, probably due to any generated code from the slicing. If you go with a more table-less design using "float: left," it should be easier to get the desired effect in both browsers.

Read the Credit System V3 topic. For everything else, look in the Xisto Readme to see if it answers any further questions.

Too simple, it needs more. Try adding some sparkles near the top that flow away from the logo to the right. In the same area, centered, in the background add an omni gradient, but with a very low opacity, giving it some form of light or place for the text to "sit." Perhaps stretch the omni gradient till the left edge reaches the left edge of the content area and the right edge to the right of the content area. I also see there's a little red near the bottom, somewhat like a gradient, that'll cause some problems when slicing and coding, as the screen resolution of the user will likely be bigger than the layout, and it'll seem like the layout got cut off there. For the design at the bottom right corner, that may interfere with the text, since they have the same color, so you might want to consider modifying that part a bit. There are other things you can do with the tabs and content area, but if i tell you everything, how would you work on your creative side? Nice design on the site name by the way.

Disney had (has) overpriced items at their theme parks—even the food. I was surprised to see people even buying anything there. It should have been expected to see a decrease in profit when people are more worried on what to spend money on. If they reduce their prices, that might help them a bit. A lot of people may have stopped going, but there are still those that go.

Thanks for providing outside proof for practically everything i've said. The only difference between what i've said and what you provided is that developers actually don't need to do much of anything with their current code. And reading the entire thing implies that Internet Explorer won't pass the Acid 3 Test until perhaps version 10 (which was something i was thinking about before you posted). If Internet Explorer would pass the Acid 3 test, though, and if all websites built based on standards, there shouldn't be any breakage if the Internet Explorer hacks only worked for Internet Explorer 7 and below. Let's consider Firefox: When Firefox 3 came out, was there any breakage with websites that designed their sites for Firefox 2 which passed validation? I can't see how, since Firefox 3 didn't remove standards, they added more support for it. It's like building a set of stairs to get from one floor to the next. If the stairs are incomplete, if some support is missing, then you can only go up a few steps until you add more steps. I'd have to agree with Peter Bright and H?kon Wium Lie, from a developers point of view who likes to see their site be fully cross-browser compatible, there's not much point objectively in not first seeking to meet standards. Personally i'd hate to be forced to go with the starter set (yet that will be the case for some countries, apparently), let alone purchase anything Microsoft. I'ma go with what mahesh2k said, to just advertise Linux to these countries—they'd be better off. I mean, if they need such a limited operating system, that implies they don't have the kind of computers we have, therefore requiring an operating system that won't be a burden on their computers' resources while still capable of being customized greatly. I don't mind what Microsoft does with its operating system, so long as it reduces their monopoly.

The layout looks nice, but i'd recommend, when you get the chance, to design your own layout. The purpose of your website appears to be seeking to promote a business. I don't think the current layout gives that kind of professional feel to it. It looks more like a fund-raising organization to me. Most of what has already been mentioned by others i agree with.

Has anyone ever wondered how we got out of the Depression and other economic crises and how we got into them in the first place? Shouldn't we expect that kind of research to actually help us solve and prevent any current and future economic crises? What was the cause of the others? Was it gathering up money and wasting it carelessly? Is thinking up of new ways to stop and prevent another economic crisis without considering history the better way to go? There are a lot of government authorities which i'd say are getting overpaid. The president himself makes over $200,000 a year. I don't believe the private planes, limo's and other expenses come out of his pocket. Anyone who gets paid to take a bullet for him should be getting paid more. They should lower the income tax or do away with it, allowing for people to earn more and be able to pay stuff off easier. That should help a lot of people. The value of the dollar has already gone down. I'm not sure about other resources, but gas prices have already started going up.

Though i don't expect Internet Explorer 8 to pass the Acid 3 test upon its stable release, i don't think many developers would require changing their code structure. They should have done so already and should have added stuff to prevent future complications by now. Microsoft should try to force an Internet Explorer 8 upgrade, if not for the users, then for the website developers. It's annoying knowing that some people out there are still using Internet Explorer 6. Plus, i wouldn't expect Microsoft to postpone something if it is considered good enough to be released if it'll get them some extra income—just doesn't feel like something they'd do. And if we look at their history, like with the Xbox, Vista and the Zune, even if it can become unstable over time or if it lacks support for something, they'd still release it.

I wouldn't recommend a protein shake, and i wouldn't recommend asking anyone who doesn't know the current state of your body on what kinds of foods to eat. If possible, you should try getting advice on what to eat in that "Boot Camp" class. All i know is that if your training is vigorous, then you're going to need a lot of energy, more than the average amount of calories. Anything can give you energy, but that doesn't mean you should be eating it for energy, since not all kinds of foods contain complex carbohydrates. You'd want to make sure the energy obtained from the food gets put to good use. Eating too many carbohydrates could work against you if everything isn't balanced out. And if you drink any water, make sure the water is "hard" or not too "soft." If you research on water, you'll know what i mean.

If anyone has ever left their Hotmail account inactive for a long period of time, you'll notice that you have to reactive your account in order to continue using it; all your mail, if i remember correctly, gets deleted in the deactivation process and you stop receiving mail. What does this mean? It means Hotmail already has methods in detecting which one of their e-mail accounts are active and which ones are not. And when you request for your account to get deleted, it takes them about a week or so for the account to be removed permanently. No matter how long i've had my account inactive, they've never deleted. But, indeed, the account should be reported, but perhaps instead of having deleted the e-mail, it may have probably been useful to Hotmail if there is an e-mail you can contact to report these kind of e-mails. That way you can just forward the e-mail to them so they can look over the e-mail headers which contain other kinds of information.

You already asked me that in another topic, and i already responded to you in that other topic. I wouldn't change my response, as i currently see no reason to. So rather than repeating myself here, you can traverse your posts to where you last asked me that question.

Correct, assuming it's not fallacious. I wouldn't say that. Logic is too ignorant to do so. This is entirely non-sequitur. [1] If you find something "always existing" illogical, look at your statement which i have labeled number 4 for referencing purposes (i.e. i won't be responding to number 4, as this response is enough to cover both). The Big Bang without God would be self-causation. If there is no Big Bang, then things weren't brought into existence. If they weren't brought into existence and if they exist today, then they must have existed forever if there is no god. You have placed yourself within a dilemma that can only be explained if you bring in a Creator. Your statement implies the universe always existed. But since something "always existing" is illogical to you, then it must have either been caused by an outside force or it brought itself into existence. Since self-causation is illogical since it implies that the object pre-existed before its existence, the only other option you are left with is an outside cause. And since you find "always existing" illogical, this outside cause would have to have its own outside cause, therefore you would run into another dilemma, an infinite regression. Therefore, what's more logical? [2.1] This statement of yours contradicts the statement which i marked as 2.2. Either we always fail at explaining things or we succeed plenty of times—you can't have both. "All failing" encompasses every explanation. If it encompasses all explanations, then the theory of evolution is one of them. [3] It may depend on what this "new thing" is. But, yes, if an explanation is already sustained, everyone, regardless of religion, will adhere to that explanation. No, i have already explained how, in more ways than one. You can follow the logic again. Due to the implications that come from this objective form of evidence, i would prefer to refrain from providing it. However, i'll inform you about it anyway, about a specific prophesy that came true that cannot be argued, "Ah, they read it, therefore they wrote it—it didn't happen," which is an argument unbelievers use when believers state that the New Testament is proof for the Old Testament. The verse (or prophecy) i speak of is Isaiah 9:6. The words i emphasize is "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." So what's so important about these words? In Biblical times, one knew that a prophecy came from God if it wasn't derived from human understanding. This verse is alluding to Christ Jesus. The words i emphasize is mere blasphemy according to the Jewish religion, since it is calling a man the Mighty God. This shows that it couldn't have come from human understanding. These (or at least one of these) phrases weren't used until about 400 or more years after Christ (the other happening some time after), which was derived from the New Testament—of which there was no way for the Jews to predict through human understanding that a new and accepted-by-God religion would come from Judaism, since the Messiah was just another prophet to them, and all the true prophets, based on their history, never brought about a new religion. Only the false prophets brought about new religions, but these were all condemned by the true prophets. Therefore human understanding would show that any new religion would ultimately be condemned by God if it brought in a new god in the form of creation—in this case, man. But back to the words i emphasize: Who are these people that call(ed) Christ Jesus "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." Trinitarians call Jesus the former; Oneness Pentecostals call Jesus the latter; the Doctrine of the Trinity rejects the latter. These denominations fulfill this prophecy. You're begging the question, but you may analyze and collect the evidence i have provided, and perhaps move on.

That would be any distribution that its ISO image can fit on an average 700mb CD. Such distributions take up about 2gigs; any bigger and they would require a DVD instead.

Logic may not necessarily be good at pointing out what is true, but it does a rather good job at pointing out what is false. For example: if the truth is impossible for anyone to know, then how can you state that that is the truth? So how can you be so certain of your own statement? Obviously our beliefs come from personal experiences—it's even implied in your beginning statement. So what kinds of knowledge are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a posteriori knowledge. So how can there be two contradictory experiences (even though you say believers have never experienced what they believe in, even though experience is what caused many of them to believe in the first place; and assuming unbelievers experienced atheism, if at all possible)? Since logic is useful at determining what is false, we use it therefore. People like to think themselves as seekers of truth, that is why debates form. If we eliminate all falsehoods, then we get closer to the truth. Because of their experiences, people will yield towards what they find to be true. But which side is closer to the truth? Due to ignorance, we are not capable of denying every single possible god. Although not being able to deny a god doesn't mean they exist, it's not logical, therefore, to try and continue to deny the existence of all kinds of gods. Atheism denies even impersonal gods. It is obvious through logic that this denial is faith-based. As it has been discussed earlier in this topic, self-causation is illogical, therefore something either always existed or was caused into existence. Science has become to be known as the "seeker of truth." So if there is evidence that suggests that matter did not always exist, belief in a god becomes more justified. We also know whatever ceases to exist cannot have always existed (even if it existed for a pretty long time). The truth is nobody knew a lot of things and a lot of us still don't know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we still don't know about what we didn't know back then. If we don't know, perhaps time will help. It is written that Christ will come a second time while we are still on this planet. Indeed, all we need is time.

Please read the pinned topic to see your requirement(s) in Request Free Sig Or Banner section. Click here In the mean time please improve your post quality and continue to contribute quality posts.

If the Linux LiveCD doesn't mount the hard drive automatically, you can mount it manually. The basic NTFS support in Linux only allows you to read the files, which is enough for you to recover the files you deem important. Since the file system is NTFS, the process to getting such a partition mounted requires editing the fstab file. This is normally done by the installer, providing all the permissions needed for accessing such a file system. Just find a tutorial that works: search:mount ntfs ubuntu

That's why it took a ritual (which occurred by accident) to bring "him" out. :9 My God is logical because He did not create Himself—He always existed. If you find the phrase "always existed" illogical, then life itself is illogical. For if it came from nothing without divine intervention, then it basically caused its own existence. But if self-causation is illogical, then we are left with two choices: either God created it, or the universe always existed. If science has evidence that suggests that it didn't always exist, then we are left with one choice: God created it. The term "God" is a being that can create things, not merely manipulate things—humans manipulate what already exists. In order to be able to create this universe, it obviously requires a large amount of intelligence and power. Omnipotence is that which there is nothing greater than. Since there is nothing greater than God, everything is below Him, therefore He is not restricted to anything. That means time is below Him. Anything restricted by time has had a beginning. This in turn implies that He is omnipresent. Since He created all matter, He in turn is omniscient, bearing knowledge of everything. Therefore, God meets everything that is expected of His qualities. This should pretty much answer your question.

Actually, i already ate the big boss FSM a few years back, so "he" can't be the creator of FSMs—after all, you implied that "he" created "himself" with "his noodly appendage," but we all know self-creation is illogical. I caught "him" by accident when i was figuring out new ways to catch FSMs. "He" was more nutritious than "his" smaller parts—but that should have been expected. I'm not going to give away my secret, though, on how to catch the real good FSMs. I use other methods when displaying my FSM-capturing talents to those at the FSM parties i throw, which is enough to keep themselves fed. The people i invite to these FSM feasts that i ordain are not limited to friends and family, they include homeless people from the streets. So, yes, they are for poor people too. A nice, big pan of organic pasta sauce, and these FSMs come in the herds—i could feed the whole block. But since more than what we can normally handle come along, what do i do with them? I opened up an all-you-can-eat FSM restaurant. I have more than enough money for retirement. I started an institution on researching FSM. We're working towards whole grain FSMs—we can't be havin' these simple carbs all the time. I'm currently working on a book called "Fishing for FSMs." It's half a cook book and half a guide to being successful in hunting FSMs. I recommend you getting yourself a copy once it's published—there's very good information on the nature of FSMs and good health tips on healthy FSM dieting. For other information relating to FSMs, you can visit my website at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and you'll find just about anything and everything on FSMs. Good luck to you and happy FSM fishing.

Yeah, you don't need to create a temporary variable to mess around with the DOM. insertBefore() and insertAfter() does all the moving in the background, so you don't have to remove and append elements. I tested it out with my script and it works on the first click. I've also been doing some extra modifications to my script to distribute and resize things more evenly for when there are multiple elements with different sizes. So far i got the parent's and buttons' height to resize based on the tallest child. Some bugs are still present and need to be fixed, though.

I've caught FSMs before. After catching them i'd go inside and place them in boiling water, to serve to the family. I made sure to catch more than one for the following days. They're not that hard to catch once you get the hang of it. The trick is to use only organic pasta sauce—they can smell that stuff from a mile away. In fact, i didn't even have to leave my home to catch them. You see, they lack sweat glands and require a place to cool off and they only accept organic pasta sauce. Is like a pig and mud, only you can eat them while they place themselves in the "pond of pasta sauce," which i call a sauce pan. On good days, i throw a party and invite plenty of people. We have lots of fun. They enjoy watching me catch FSMs, and we share stories about our adventures with FSMs. Now, even though they have the word "monster" in their name, they don't normally come in that size, that's why you have to catch more than one if you're planning on feeding the family. However, my friend Bubba did catch a monster of a FSM. He took a picture of it and got in the book of Guinness World Records.I have pastafarians and noodlelovers come to my house all the time, preaching to quit eating their god. That's how i met Alex (galexcd). I think he was the only one out of all of them to actually profess to me that his god tastes good, especially with some salt and pepper. Oh, wait, did he tell me not to say that out loud? Oh well, i can't remember. Anyway, if you're ever around the neighborhood, i invite to stop by—we'll have lots of fun and catch lots of FSMs.

Running off of a previous thought, i thought, even if there was such a feature in Windows that monitors a program's actions as strictly as that, there are still further complications to worry about. We all know that in order for a program to take into account previously defined settings, it would have to store it somewhere for later accessing. This usually involves the registry or INI files. I'm not 100% sure how the Windows registry works, but chances are some parts of it are accessible to the user regardless of permissions, which are only to be accessed by programs ran as that user, and by the administrator. But that is all that is required to exploit the security implementations placed there by Microsoft—if such a strict monitoring system were to be implemented, of course. Since viruses (at least as far as i understand Windows or the initiating of programs) can only run with the same permissions that the currently logged-in user has (lest the obvious security (i)(co)mplications that come from it occur), it can affect anything that that user owns. A pop-up that informs you that a program (the name of the program would (should) be found in the title bar) is attempting to modify certain files when you did not inform any program to do so—and when you weren't even using a program that has that capability—appears, it would catch people by surprise. If it were me, it would certainly cause some worry. If the titlebar didn't have the name of the program, people could confuse any current program that they were using at the time of the pop-up with the unidentified program action. If confusion (as in thinking that the action is legitimate) or apathy forms in the user, the chances of the user allowing the act increases. So what are all the complications so far that can be derived from this? Predefined program allowance; that is, Microsoft giving file access permissions to their programs upon installation of the system. This should be expected, but if a lot of thought isn't placed into it, it can be something that can be exploited if the program somehow manages to run as the system. Virus integrating itself into an already accepted program (and then giving itself all the permissions it needs to run alone). This is common, due to exploiting another program's security flaws. Virus running as if it were another program, not related to integration. That is, if the operating system is incapable of detecting if the program being ran is the same as the legitimate one that was ran previously, whether through MD5 hashing, or whatever method. User apathy or confusion. (Already explained.) User incompetence and ignorance. (Should be self-explanatory.) There are probably others, but we'll move on from here. So when dealing with security exploits, though it is impossible to do away with completely, current technology can prevent a good majority of problems from occurring if thought out properly. All the tools needed to prevent security exploits should be embedded into the operating system itself without having to find third party tools to fill the spot. For example, one shouldn't need SpyBot S&D to track registry modifications—especially if they've never heard of the thing. There should also be plenty of documentation on the matter that the user should be introduced upon first starting the system, or having a little icon in the system tray "just in case," or somewhere easily accessible, to do away with ignorance and incompetence. This information shouldn't be limited to the operating system either. This information should also be included in the manual pertaining to your computer (if you purchased a pre-built computer) or operating system. I am not entirely certain on the current condition of Windows and security, but a lot of asking doesn't help much if the program, after running, is given all permissions the current user has without the user's consent. This is not limited to Windows, though, and can be found in other operating systems. However, these kind of complications cannot be found by, say, looking into the source code of the program being ran, since the majority of programs available for proprietary operating systems is closed source. Asking more, more logical questions (or replacing or removing the illogical ones) implies that the user requires to know their computer more than a lot of the people who use computers today. In the case of Linux, this is inevitable, though not necessarily with a bad connotation to it—and by the looks of it, should be kept that way. This also means not calling a friend or technician (or calling them less) when you've messed up your computer. Since i'm not entirely sure how UAC works in Windows, all talk i've seen about the annoyance it brings either implied or explicitly mentioned that the pop-ups occurred when the user performed an act via either the mouse or keyboard. One of the complications listed is a program exploiting another. I haven't heard any complaints about this that's related to UAC. This means one of about two things: either Windows allows these kinds of actions since the parent is already considered "accepted" by the user, or Windows users actually were thankful for Windows informing them about such a problem, therefore not provoking complaints. The latter doesn't seem more probable than the former ( ), especially if we consider the exploit of Internet Explorer that dominates all versions of Internet Explorer from version 5 and up, and if we consider some Firefox add-ons that have been found to exploit Firefox. So there is obviously a security flaw here. In the case of file tampering, the majority (if not all) users don't do research on the matter unless forced to or by curiosity. These pop-ups should at least cause curiosity to new users, even if the curiosity doesn't lead to reading documentation. There should also be on these pop-ups a button that leads to the relative section(s) in the documentation. The documentation itself would, of course, have to be organized well, with proper headings and titles. It should follow that the tables of content should be visible upon navigating the documentation and that there should be a way to search through the navigation and entire documentation. The documentation should also be straight to the point without much idle talk. Though boredom may be inevitable when reading the documentation, it can at least be reduced. Whether or not it is safe to assume that Windows can properly detect if a program was ran previously and accepted is beyond me. But if it merely runs off of the file name or the Window Title, or other information that can be mirrored easily, then there requires better detection methods in determining whether or not a program is legit or not. Otherwise, a program can mask itself as a system program and be accepted. If the same program is not allowed multiple instances of itself (without permission), then if the trojan program somehow manages to run before the legitimate system program, it'll prevent any legitimate instance of the actual program from running. So we would then be faced with more complications. I'm not sure what Microsoft has up its sleeve, but if any of these have not been considered for future (or current) releases of Windows, especially the complications with the most concerns, then we shouldn't expect from advertisements that say Windows has become more secure to be as accurate as it implies. From all the talk that has been going around, it's more of "Windows has become more annoying," even if these annoyances can be restricted. Some annoyances may be necessary, but that doesn't mean all of them are. (And yes, i do think a lot. )

I have a couple of tutorials on how to install an Apache server with PHP and MySQL support manually on my site: one for Windows and one for Linux. They are a bit out of date, but they can still provide insight on certain matters.

I use Opera, currently running the latest snapshot of version 10 (i tend to live on the "bleeding edge"). Firefox is my secondary browser for temporary sessions. I make use of certain features of Opera that some people don't normally use. This usually involves Site Preferences. I look at the source code of websites that i normally visit that have undesirable layout structure, and i apply a custom CSS file to the site. I removed ads, created drop down menus, etc. Since DragonFly was introduced, i can now modify a page "on the fly" (pun intended) before making the actual changes to file, and it provides insight on how Opera styles elements by default. Can't wait for Opera 10 stable.I'm also waiting for Qt 4.5. Webkit was introduced in Qt 4.4, but 4.5 will support browser plug-ins. With Qt4 i can make my own browser. I've already started, though, but its current purpose is only for taking screenshots of entire web pages.