truefusion

After learning PHP, i found out that i had learned more than just PHP—i learned general programming fundamentals. PHP helped make JavaScript, Python and others easier to learn. Once you learn the basics, you start growing from there. If the project is big, i normally split my script into parts. But how you go about splitting the script requires organization, some form of logical structure. I'd recommend after learning the basics to learn OOP. This will help keep things better organized.

I noticed that even though people get fat, many of them lose the weight later on. It's interesting how plump they become before you notice them losing weight. On some Youtube videos, when i was looking at certain Christian comedians and other Christian related things, if you keep track of some of the people as you browse the videos, they eventually lose the weight. Here are some videos as an example: [1] [2] [3]. If you look at him today, he appears in good weight.

Just read the PHP manual located at the PHP website. That's all you really need. It's written in a way for beginners to understand it even if they have little to no programming knowledge. You'll find yourself going to the manual constantly after starting your own PHP scripts. You can even download the manual from off the website for offline browsing.

Linux requires that you set aside a separate partition for SWAP. It's not like Windows where it feeds off of your main drive (as much as it wants) unless otherwise stated. You pick the drive and how much of it it can take from it. With 256 mbs of RAM, i'd recommend at least 2gigs for SWAP.

There really isn't an objective "best" concerning Linux. Each one does its own thing on some level and is geared toward certain crowds. But if you're new to Linux, then stick with Ubuntu. I'ma assume you meant to say "Vista" when you said "vist," so if you for some reason decide to go with OpenSuSE, then your laptop should be able to run it. OpenSuSE's hardware requirements are a bit more than your usual Linux distro. I suppose the version of GNOME that comes with the latest Ubuntu would suffice for you. I stick with Ubuntu for its repository (though i find Gentoo's repository to be better) and because i don't need to maintain my setup (like Linux used to be).

In either case it would require writing a mod. If we disable PM ability until the member reaches a certain amount of posts, bearing knowledge of that, they'll just spam the forums until their PMs work. The unfortunate part is that we have to show people a message that they require a certain amount of posts before sending PMs, for actual, legitimate users should be informed about it, and it's impossible to determine who's legit and who isn't. And deleting their posts doesn't lower their post count (at least from what i've seen). Unless obvious, it is practically impossible to determine the intentions of those who spam the forum except that they want to spam the forum. Us moderators are capable of disabling their forum account for a period of time, but we wouldn't have much if any reason to do so if we only see spam in the forum and not PM boxes. Captcha won't work, as even in forums that use captcha for registering doesn't prevent spammers. Although my idea does have its own complications, the rules it follows should be strict enough to not affect the majority of PMs. A legitimate member would have to hit all marks. I have a similar anti-spam filter for my website, which looks for certain patterns in the e-mail body. After applying it, i stopped receiving spam, but has not prevented me from sending mail to myself (for testing purposes, of course).

You can install Cygwin if you want, but the programs from there are usually out of date. Depending on how many packages you choose depends on how long it takes for it to download and install. I installed it once, picking practically every package just for the sake of having them. Took hours to download, likewise to install them. I was too new to the whole thing, so i couldn't get passed a blank X server. But if you configure it to work, that'll really teach you some things about Linux, especially if you recompile Linux through it.

I use the GIMP for my graphic editing needs (wants). You're better off going with the original GIMP. GIMPShop is usually out of date. A change in UI environment isn't a burden, it's something people should expect with every program—and you get used to it. People didn't switch to Photoshop, for example, because it looked like MS Paint. People will only miss out on stuff if the deciding factor on whether or not to use or switch to something is because it's new to a person (what program do people know from birth?). You'll find a lot of the same things found in Photoshop in the GIMP. If you know how to access menus and read, then you won't have trouble finding anything. But if you want to continue using Photoshop in hopes of it getting better, your choice.

Yeah, the inline list items is what made it possible to actually work with the block-level divisions. I had and have an idea on how to center or distribute the list items evenly, which includes margins and another math equation. I'll include the code when i implement it. <script type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[var index = 0;var children;var parentWidth;var parentPadding;var childWidth;var visChildren;$(document).ready( function(){ children = $("div#sliderArea ul li").children("div"); parentWidth = $("div#sliderArea").width(); parentPadding = $("div#sliderArea").css("margin-left"); childWidth = $(children[0]).width(); visChildren = Math.floor(parentWidth/childWidth); distribute(); });function prevItem(){ index = index - 1; if (index < 0){ index = 0; } $(children[index]).removeClass("hidden"); distribute();}function nextItem(){ if (index < (children.length-visChildren)) { $(children[index]).addClass("hidden"); index = index + 1; } distribute();}function distribute(){ var margin = parentWidth - (childWidth * visChildren); margin = margin/(2*visChildren); margin -= parseInt(parentPadding)*2; for (var i = 0; i < children.length; i++){ $(children[i]).css("margin", "0"); } for (var i = index; i < (index+visChildren+1); i++){ $(children[i]).css({"margin-left" : margin, "margin-right" : margin}); }}//]]></script>This code evenly and dynamically (as best as it can) distributes the items.

I came up with something that does pretty much what you want. The only problem is getting it to look nice inside the container; that is, centering the objects or distributing them evenly. For that, i'll just leave it to you. And by the way, this script uses JQuery, so you'll need to download that and edit the code to include that version of JQuery.

I can think of a way to form an anti-PM-spam script. They seem to be fond of the words "how are you", "interests" and "profile," and are fond of providing their e-mails and have no concept of spaces after certain punctuations. The concept of spaces part should be "optional," just in case they use better grammar, and should be detected more than once for better accuracy. The URL of Xisto can also be a filter, but it has to be limited and strict in its search; that is, nothing beyond http://forums.xisto.com/. The only problem with these filtering systems is if the spammers change their message from dating to something else. It's hard to detect all possibilities.

When and where did i do those things? It can't annoy you if i didn't do them. I wouldn't engage this topic if i doubted the Bible. I would have stopped a long time ago if i contradicted myself to no end. Who says you don't? Governments do it all the time. Parents do it to their children all the time. If people didn't have such a right, there wouldn't be books out there telling others how to live a better life. Are you implying they shouldn't have those rights?

Changing the environment helps. A virus normally aims at harming the system, not user files. If it can't harm the system, then it can't do anything. Having annoyances like "Are you sure you want to delete this?" doesn't help. For unless this can pick up other programs deleting files, then it's pointless. Anyone with Vista do me a favor: build (or find) a program that deletes a designated file (don't use a program that already comes with Vista) and enable that annoying file-deletion notice. Create a blank document and run this program. Delete the blank document and tell me if Vista complains. I haven't heard of this form of security, but i don't use Vista, so i don't know if Vista requires you to enable permissions for the programs you install and run. I know it asks, "Are you sure you want to open it?" but that's bad security and it should be able to detect which programs were opened by the user and not by a program.

Your statement doesn't follow. If you emphasize love, then you must also realize what follows with love: the good for the other person. It can't be called love if you sit there doing nothing. The majority of people resist acts for their own good—it's common. You can't emphasize love and then tell me not to be loving by saying "accept their ways." I know God will deal with them, that's why i argue against homosexuality. I already mentioned all the complications that comes from this, but if you had read that part when i told it to you, a lot of what you said could have been left out, as this "negativity" that you say i'm spreading implies accusations that i wouldn't commit. I can't help it that other people take it further when dealing with homosexuals, but it's not safe to assume the same for me. And the verse you quote, there's always a misunderstanding of it. If you read what Jesus said about judging others you'll realize that you must first take the speck out of your eye before you can do so. I don't commit homosexual acts, so, according to him, i don't have a speck in my eye concerning what i am against here. I personally don't see my way as unbeneficial for them in the long run (people emphasize the short run too much, which has been known to lead to undesirable consequences); however, you seem to be accusing me of discrimination that has the bad connotation to it. I don't apply the bad connotations to words like "prejudice" and "discrimination"—it helps prevent appeal to emotion and clouded judgment. However, i do realize other people apply bad connotations to them, so it clouds their judgment. Everyone discriminates against something. I don't mind if you accuse me of discrimination, just remove the bad connotation from it. Remove it and you'll see everyone discriminates; you'll see the speck in your eye too. So it becomes even more pointless to argue from discrimination. That's why i choose not to use words like that unless the other party loves to use those words.

Finding the best source of objective information is not so easy. One thing that makes it easy to find is knowing what it is meant when something is "objective" when it comes to truths and facts and similar information. Does the information change from person to person? Then it's subjective, sometimes running along the lines of moral pluralism and other forms of subjectivity. Does it hold true for everyone no matter what? Then it's objective. Even dictionaries say it's not necessarily a union between a man and a woman—it's called figurative speech. It became like that due to the socialism of the peoples, the kind of dedication and other emotional attachments to either their work or what-have-you. "He's married to his work," for example. [1] I'm pretty sure the reason why that occurred is because people did accept the fact that people have those kinds of feelings, for if they didn't acknowledge their existence, that wouldn't have happened. But it doesn't follow that accepting ("accepting" as in allowing it to happen) such a fact would allow society to move forward. Then again, it may depend on the kind of "moving forward" you are talking about, for there are plenty of ways of "moving forward." [2] Normally it takes a lot for something to gross me out, but i don't think it would cause other countries to join in. But if you want my point of view on the matter, go back and read my number 7 in my other post where i responded to you.

However, by stating in an example things related to religion and husband and wife, the intentions of the definition are therefore made clear—even if they use general terms in the definition itself. These examples are common and help provide insight in case the definition used is hard to understand. The thing about dictionaries, though, is that definitions tend to be dependent on the current times, therefore definitions are bound to change as societies change. That's why slang is included in certain definitions, though slang was never part of the actual definition before. Two or more sources who have the same authority but contradict each other shows dependence on society (since it is socially related) and cannot be deemed as completely reliable. Due to many places now allowing gay marriage as defined by the gay community, it should be expected that the definition of words relating to marriage will change. A perfect, parallel example to this would be with the word "religion," where atheists try to argue that atheism is not a religion. You'll notice how dictionaries are including definitions that trouble many atheists. Therefore it should be evident that dictionaries aren't the best source for objective information. Both grounds have equal complications.

The link format you're talking about is known as a "Permalink." You sound like you're trying to modify either an existing forum or one you've made or are making. Either way it would require some source code editing. But these popular forums are most likely to have this feature as a modification. Mod_rewrite isn't something that is easy to understand without some knowledge of regular expressions and .htaccess files. Also, if your server does not have mod_rewrite installed, it would be work in vain. I wonder if it's in the same format i use for my site.

[1] That doesn't follow, since i wasn't the one that wanted the definition to be changed. My statement included gay marriage, just not the one homosexuals are arguing for. You're saying i said things i didn't. And by the way, "union" back then were attributed to children also, in that what was once two (man and woman) now became one: a child. [2] The law doesn't prevent them from living together—neither am i saying they can't. They have every right to live together; but the right to marry never came from a government authority. The word "union" in the way you use it here can take up different definitions. But don't worry, i won't talk about beastiality. [3] From the source of where the right came from. Just because there were gay relationships back then doesn't mean they were married. Chances are they didn't even bother with marriage. The Greeks back then did things that we today would abhor. They would place (new born) babies on a hillside for it to die all because they didn't want the child. It was their form of abortion. It should be safe to say that looking to them for morals is not a good idea. And i have no idea what statement of Nietzsche you are referring to; he said a lot of things. [4] I don't recall people arguing for nude beaches; then again, such is (more) common in other countries (and yes, in some countries those still go on). But i'm not sure what you're implying with your statements about crude sexual acts. If you're saying i don't want gay marriage as defined by the gay community to occur because i would find it disgusting, brutal and such would turn homosexuals into child molesters, then i can tell you that's not the reason why. (Read my number 7 to know why i don't want it.) But i'm amazed your statement includes nudist colonies that allow children—didn't know such a thing existed, though they shouldn't. [5] No, you just didn't follow my statement; you implied it was illogical and (or) inaccurate, which led you to believe i "flipped" my statement. I know what "everyone" (assuming it excludes me, of course) thought about the term "marriage." But "everyone" thinking that doesn't make it absolute. [6] I already provided my reasoning. Prejudice is to be biasly against something. So it then follows that these things are prejudice. You can't allow someone to do something if they weren't previously restricted, prevented from doing something. It wouldn't be allowing then, for they don't need permission. Therefore restrictions are relevant to the gay marriage homosexuals want. [7] It doing harm to me i consider it irrelevant, since i know it doesn't harm me; i am merely seeking their own good. I don't really care if people say i'm pushing my beliefs here, but i am convinced of an afterlife that would obviously be unbeneficial and undesirable to those who practice homosexuality. What's better: things desirable in this life or the afterlife? I realize all the complications; sure they'll argue that there is no God—they have to, it's not optional (though they may believe that it is). For in order to support their homosexuality, they have to get rid of and deny anything that stands in the way. Even homosexuals who call themselves Christians continue in their homosexuality (though some actually do change), saying, "Christ accepts who i am." I know they could care less, but everyone could care less if they believed otherwise. They could live together (considering everything i said, of course), but they should consider their arguments against God, for i have found them to be fallacious. [8] Likewise. [1] That's why it's better to go to the source. I can pull up definitions too (though you didn't state your source, so i'd be justified in claiming you made it up) that state man and woman, just like you imply there are: married. I could go further in my argument by stating: "Note the second definition is figuratively, therefore the definitions you show could be assuming the term in its figurative state." Other definitions have the word "God" in the primary definition while the others include reference to religion: marriage. So following the logic, the actual definition cannot be decided by use of a dictionary, therefore requiring other sources. [2] Yes, in order for there to be a truly free (without restrictions) society, there cannot be any discrimination. [1] I provided a reason in the beginning and afterwards. [2] Irrelevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is because you contradict yourself in your first statement and because of the way one argues for the gay marriage that homosexuals want: people argue, "Why prevent two people that are in love to marry?" Therefore maturity is irrelevant. You would have to allow everything that wants to get married to get married if it were due to love—be it a person and an animal or what-have-you.

Your statement implies that they previously had the right to marry the same gender. They never had that right, so it can't be "restored." But does that mean they are not equal under the eyes of the law? No, for they still have the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, they just want a different definition for it. If we follow the logic, what does marriage involve? It's a unity between a man and a woman. So it follows that gay marriage would be the unity of a homosexual man and a homosexual woman. But imagine if people had all the freedom that can possibly be given. In order for a country to be truly "free," all restrictions have to be removed. Restrictions maintain order; remove the order and you are left with chaos. Think about it, what's prejudice? I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for murder. I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for stealing. There are hundreds of things the law is biased against. A truly free country cannot exist, for that is to be free to do whatever you want.

Because the right to marry never came from any government—it's a religious right. Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, so long as it's between a man and a woman. They ask for the right for gay marriage, but they had that right the whole time, they just don't accept the definition and try to change it to be of (or include) the same sex. They try to get government support for their definition, but separation of church and state prevents the government from doing anything about it. So in order for them to move a step forward, they have to drop this separation. However, due to the implications that would come from such a thing, it is therefore an undesirable thing. It's really a battle fought in vain.

I came to believe due to sound answers given to me for my questions. Everyone has questions about my religion, Christianity; once answered properly the doubts are removed—assuming you're reasonable. Since i had, therefore, nothing left to ask against Christianity, all that was left was to accept or be apathetic and walk in ignorance. After hearing the Gospel preached to me, it moved me enough to repent and accept Christ Jesus as my Lord. So one night i had done so before i went to bed. The next day i woke up and didn't really feel any different. At this point a lot of atheists (or unbelievers) who have done similar would quit and say, "Ah, as i thought—nothing." However, that wasn't the case with me. I said to myself, "Perhaps i didn't do it correctly?" So that night i humbled myself more than the previous night and prayed again before i went to sleep. The next day when i woke up i felt different—completely different. I was filled with pure, indescribable and indestructible joy—nothing could put out that joy. Everything was different, the way i perceived things. This was (and still is) my absolute proof; it was unexplainable (and yes, a few thoughts went through my head on what else it could have been, but none of those "alternatives" fit). That amount of joy lasted for the whole day. This rebirth caused me to get into the Bible and Christianity more. I'm not sure how long it was, but it was a pretty long time before i ran into certain verses in the Bible that got to me. I had never read or heard of these before; it was the first time bearing knowledge of it. The verses were 1 Peter 1:8 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Wow! That was written? Who needs to ask for proof when it is more than given? Nevertheless, many who have been given their proof still continue asking for it. Yet when things undesirable happen, many start to doubt—some even get angry at God, like as if it's His fault. "God should be intervening; where is He?" they say. Troubling times causes us to be irrational, mostly due to emotions. It promotes forgetfulness—they forget one known fact: God is a Fortress; though there are troubling times, it won't affect those who have and live by faith. Some people even blame God for all things undesirable, like as if it's always Him. But it doesn't follow that all things undesirable are not beneficial. Some people blame God because they see themselves as good people; "Bad things shouldn't happen to good people," though one that needs to repent is obviously not a good person, but they assert that God is unjust anyway. Some people are "microwave" people, wanting things to happen instantly, and when things don't, they start to doubt. And there are some that are only in this for material gain. One of the things that keeps my faith going is logic. I can see some people being stumped or confused by that. Through logic i realize that if morality was brought up through logic, morality would therefore be made up. Nevertheless, people need some kind of reasoning to act. Ironically, even if reason is provided, many still don't act. Though we claim to be logical beings, we are more illogical than logical. Through logic i realize that without God, there cannot be absolute morality. Through logic i realize that because we find actions of a follower or followers of a religion bad or unwanted, it does not follow that the religion is therefore false. Through logic i realize that just 'cause we don't like something, doesn't mean God doesn't exist—that would be an appeal to consequences. After all, things that happen today can be observed in the Bible, yet you don't see the Bible claiming that God doesn't exist. Through logic i realize that just because certain religions have similar events, it does not follow that they are all therefore untrue. Another thing that keeps my faith going is knowledge. Through knowledge i understand God is never-changing and doesn't lie. Because of this knowledge, it follows that God would not cause into existence more than one religion that contradict each other (all for the sake of worship). Through knowledge i understand that God is a god of order and that the universe is full of order. Through knowledge i realize that omnipotence means that which there is nothing greater. Through knowledge i understand that things outside this universe does not require a beginning. Through knowledge i understand that things in this universe have a cause. I believe because i can't deny the evidence and because of personal experiences.

It not making sense doesn't necessarily make it false. It could appear false by the observer, but there could be some information the observer doesn't know about or isn't considering. Plus, we're warned about many things; how many people you know take every warning to the dot? Even if they were warned about it, look how you confronted the issue: you didn't believe. It not making sense just means further research should be done about it before concluding it false. Why? Stomach problems? I know if i mix in certain drinks in my stomach with certain foods, i'd be repenting later on. But it's not always the case if i change, say, the drink.

You have still yet to provide sources that prove what you're talking about. But let me go into further analysis of "circle of the earth." What does that mean? It means the earth owns a circle. How can the earth own a circle? Does it relate to circling the earth? How can one circle the earth if it's flat? "Have fun falling off." Or perhaps they'd run into the great ice wall. "What's this? An ice wall? I can't climb that... What a waste of a trip!" And if it doesn't relate to circling the earth, then what? Does it relate to an imaginary line that circles the earth? What? It doesn't have to explicitly say "sphere" to mean it. Assuming they care about the measurement of "pi" (whatever it was at the time of Solomon) as much as you imply they do, how could they even come up with the measurement of pi without measurement? Therefore the measurement is relevant. You are merely forcing a number that didn't exist during the time of Solomon just so you can say their measurement is inaccurate. You claim there's a problem. Yeah, you're avoiding the punctuation used by the translation. You avoid the comma and the semicolon. Look at the verses again and follow the logic of the structure. How many sons did Neariah have? 3. How about Elioenai? 7. Shemaiah was included because it wasn't about him, it was about Shechaniah. That doesn't follow. Ignorance of the language structure, other culture related information, methods, along with lack of sources during the time of these other translations, doesn't make Scripture false—it can make the translation false on some level, though. And to claim that it is no more accurate is to willingly make yourself ignorant of all the manuscripts we have—which weren't available to them at the time—and all the Bible study and third party references that were considered in order to publish an accurate translation. Bring them back, they need to hear this.

How is it bad for your digestive system? Does the body perceive the food as water and therefore attempts to pass it through without digesting it?

In the language of the time, the word "circle" did not exist; "circle" is English. But let us examine the phrase "circle of the earth." What is that? Look up the word equator. If you run off of only the word "circle," you'll only conclude inaccurate statements; you have to consider the entire usage. And i don't see how you can see it is illogical to wrap a sphere with a canopy. How would one do it? The same way they would with a flat, circular surface. You say all references to the phrase in question implies a flat surface. You consider the entire phrase here rather than the word "circle" alone, yet you didn't even point to any reference to show that it implies a flat surface. Do you know what a cubit is? Do you know what time King Solomon existed in? A cubit was known to be the length from the tip of your middle finger to the elbow. People come in different sizes; and King Solomon existed over 650 years before 250 BCE. You excluded Shemaiah. 6. It's fourteen. Use a more accurate translation; the sources and knowledge of the Biblical languages weren't as abundant back then as they are today. Using the 21st Century KJV translation doesn't make it accurate. If you knew about the goals of the KJV translators, you would know they try to keep it as faithful to the original (and understandable) KJV as possible. Read the preface, and you'll know. (The KJV that came out in 1611 is hard to understand, since the English is older than old English.) You're in luck, they don't. You can stop doubting now.