truefusion

Wow. This is the most creative credit giveaway i've ever seen. Found it slightly comical as well. Something that i suppose would be expected.

Just to make sure of my assumptions, do me a favor and run the following script when ever this error occurs (fill in the needed information, of course): <?php$db_host = "localhost";$db_user = ""; // insert database user$db_pass = ""; // insert password for above user$conn = mysql_connect($db_host, $db_user, $db_pass) or die(mysql_error());$db_name = ""; // any database name will do, so long as it has data in it that we can pull frommysql_select_db($db_name);$sql = "SELECT * FROM `table_name`"; // replace table_name with an existing table from the database above that has data in itif (mysql_num_rows(mysql_query($sql)) > 0){echo "<span style=\"color: green; font-weight: bold;\">Database is working fine.</span>";} else {echo "<span style=\"color: red; font-weight: bold;\">ERROR: ".mysql_error()."</span>";}?>I have not tested the code, but it should work and if valid, i'm expecting it to show green text. I'd do this on my account, but the database has been working for me every time i've tried to access it.

If the script uses PHP's session_start() function, that may be the source of your problem (i would assume so since you mention "session data"). I wouldn't say it has anything to do with the database. The issue may deal with permissons on where the sessions are being created. If you try again later, you may be able to log back in, as this has been occuring randomly.

I've never heard of soakcity, but just by the name of it i'm sure it's a place with a lot of water. Based on experience, your skin will most likely start to peel. Hopefully you've learned from this experience. And you're making a big deal out of appearance. Anyone who is only interested in looks shouldn't be dating. Consider this a coincidence where you can test out the intentions of your date.

I don't think what you're dealing with ever was a database problem. You should be able to access the database regardless of that error through a script that doesn't require sessions. But, of course, there are security implications that come with accessing the database through a script that is executable by anyone.

To whom is this for? Many know what they're getting themselves into, that is why many compress their work so if any illegal copying is done, you receive a bad quality sample—who can work with that? Many could care less about the work they upload. Many don't mind if their work is distributed, so long as they are attributed to the work and no one else uses it for commercial purposes.Even if it isn't posted on the Internet, though, it still isn't "safe." There's no sure way to prevent others from distributing your work without your permission.

Imagine this: You, just finished coming into existence: "Where am I?" An Angel: "You're in hell." You: "What's hell?" An Angel: "A place for sinners, where justice is served." You: "What's a sinner?" An Angel: "One who has committed grievious acts." You: "Why am I here?" An Angel: "Because you're a sinner." You: "When did I commit grievious acts?" An Angel: "It's not that you did but that you would have." You: "What?! How do you know I would sin?" An Angel: "We're omniscient, we know all that would occur." *You get punished* You: "OW! Why are you hitting me!? I didn't do anything!" An Angel: "You're being punished for what you would have done. Remember, we're omniscient." This is what you're implying you would allow. I believe this is a form of reductio ad absurdum. (I'ma try to address this the best i can, as the grammar makes it a bit hard to understand it fully.)Perhaps He allowed your existence to please your parents. I have not come across any Biblical verses concerning why He allows existence though knowing the ways of man. There is no dent in His omniscience. You're probably an atheist because the things you personally find illogical you believe they prove God's inexistence regardless of whether they actually do or not. Who made the decision for you? By God merely knowing what you would do? That means the reason for my death is because i knew i would die. And i wouldn't call it a test, but refer to my reductio ad absurdum argument. [1]Anything that has an ending cannot always exist. The universe, as we know it, is everything that isn't blackness that is within the blackness. If the things that we claim was here before us have been observed to die, then it is safe to assume that everything else will in due time cease to exist at some point. Therefore the universe must have appeared at some point from "out of nowhere."[2]If God is where everything came from, it should be obvious why all the elements of nature can't be like Him. [3]I do not see how being egotistical and having pride that we've been made in God's image has anything to do with this. Perhaps you've read and heard too many things about the religious that you are generalizing far too much for your own good. We may not be able to help that the universe is objective, but we can certainly help what we mark as "true" or "false." And all that have had enough of faith still have faith. I did not mention that i wanted to debate on the "brainwash thing." You started talking about brainwashing. Your constant use of the word "brainwash" (and maybe other words; for example, "heresy," etc) implies that you've been brainwashed (i am using the definition for "brainwash" which you're using), for you are generalizing a lot.

Wow, i don't think i've ever seen someone praise Windows concerning viruses before. This is the first time i've seen someone give a reason on why they didn't pick Linux because of its viruses. And i wouldn't say that a person is stupid because they downloaded a strong virus. Not to say that anyone is stupid, but the one that downloaded the strong virus is equal to the one that downloaded a weak virus, because it is uncertain of the virus' strength until after getting warned by your virus-scanner. When you pay for something, you place faith in the product that it'll perform well to fit your needs. If i were a consumer and purchased Windows, i would expect it to be on a level that is satisfying, without having to worry about problems that are known issues by the developers (or distributors) and that were caused by the system itself. And if any problems are found, i would expect the company selling the product to be able to help me solve the problem regardless of my knowledge in computers. Linux doesn't need to worry here, as it is shipped without warrenty. Interestingly enough, although it is shipped without warrenty, problems concerning the distro of Linux end up getting fixed; and in many cases, in good timely fashion.

I'd go with the browser call, assuming the client can still print offline. But i am left wondering, what is the purpose of PHP here, then, if it's more related to a desktop application?

Anything and everything you can learn about PHP can be found in the PHP manual available on the PHP website. It is the best form of documentation i've ever ran into. For JavaScript, once you get the hang of PHP, you'll notice the syntax is quite similar. This is enough to get you started, for you'll understand things quicker. All you'd have to do then is figure out how certain things are committed differently than PHP, etc. Purchasing a book on advanced JavaScripting will be helpful afterwards. For desktop applications, i'd recommend Python or C. Thanks to open-source software, you can get a sneak peak of how things are done. You may not be able to understand it, as the syntax is different than PHP and JavaScript, even more so Python. But Amazon has some nice books concerning them; just check out the user reviews. But with Python you should be able to learn the language via the Python website.

If the dialog box is the same one when you hit Ctrl+P on the keyboard (which i'm sure it is), then it is best if left that way. This allows users to pick the printer they want if they have more than one printer to choose from and it also allows them to modify the page margins, how many pages they want to print, etc.

It is unjust to punish someone when they've done nothing. Imagine if you got sent straight to where He would send you before having the chance to commit a grievious act. What would you do? You'd ask why are you there. What would be the answer to your question? The things which you would have done if you had the chance. You wouldn't accept that, would you? You'd most likely take the time to argue for your freedom. [1]Because you've committed them, obviously.[2]His purpose for life is not to give people a chance to commit sins. But why did you so choose to commit them? Why must've He appeared "one day," in the sense that He never previously existed? Also, your analogy about the magician doesn't help you much, for the magician obviously previously existed before appearing after dissappearing from his act. Thank you for taking the time to prove it. But in all seriousness, define "nothingness." For the only definition i can derive from it is "nothing visual," which doesn't prove your statement. And concerning science being the "real truth," although many things in science can be proven from an objective viewpoint, a lot of other things can only come from faith. A non-priest can be holier than a priest; and a priest can be holier than a non-priest. It all depends on the person. Why emphasize on one religion?

PHP is for server side scripting, not client side. In order to achieve this, you're going to need java script: window.print()

Many people have overcome their addictions by allowing God to change them. For no temptation can overcome one with faith. When one has an addiction, the slightest form of temptation is enough to get them interested. There is no shame unless caught in the act and humans can be made ignorant. But some bear no shame regardless. Admitting that they have an addiction is one step forward in the right direction and obviously the first step to solving a problem. Anyone can talk to a friend or a psychiatrist about it, but what do they have to keep them under control when alone? Are you going to take their internet away? Are you going to keep an eye on them 24-7? As a dog returns to its vomit, so does a person return to pleasing themselves who are overcome by a desire. [hr=noshade] [/hr] You do know what happens when things go overboard, don't you? Things like this: click here. When a person believes they have a serious addiction that will only cause problems in their lives, one does not in turn tell them to continue. Because of them constantly practicing such selfish non-sense, they'll only get bored of it and seek pleasure to a bigger degree, which can lead to teenage pregnancies. Rather than being productive, they're only waiting to be alone, when no one is around, so that they may spur their addiction. Let's assume that they manage to find time to interact with others and they obtain a lover. The relationship is bound to fail, for selfishness was practiced to a big degree due to their addiction. Just like those who love money keep on wanting more, so do those that love sexual pleasure. It's not about the person's health, it is about their life.

Nah, they'll continue complaining. Why? They don't live in the U.K. And for those that do, you should expect them to be complaining more than the ones that live in the U.S. Will we be seeing you guys coming on over? Gas is cheaper.

Back when i first started learning HTML, the only browsers i knew of was Internet Explorer and Netscape. Netscape at that time wasn't as appealing as Internet Explorer, and turned me away from it because of that. But the web design class i took was all about Internet Explorer. One of the teachers was one that was certified by Microsoft, so that could have played a major role in what browser to design for. But even when that teacher retired and a new one came in, Internet Explorer was still dominant in the class room and there was no mention about any other browsers. It wasn't until after a couple of years later that i learned about other browsers. Memory here is a bit faint, but Opera pulled me in. For my websites i choose to design for Opera, because i feel less limited in Opera. Thanks to tests like the acid test, i can verify whether a display error is because of my code or the browser. It took Firefox 3 just to implement CSS features that Opera, when only Firefox 2 was out, already had. Opera also supports more HTML 5, from what i've seen, than Firefox. No need to include Internet Explorer in what kind of CSS features it supports, as it should be obvious. But even though Firefox 3 improved a lot in CSS support, it still doesn't render everything like one would expect it to. But there's one minor bug that was introduced in Opera 9.5 that deals with outlines (or borders) where it overlaps elements and makes things look ugly, where in Firefox it looks fine, and wasn't fixed with Opera 9.51. But in many cases, if not most, building for Opera will in turn make it look the same in Firefox.

[1:1]If there is a reason behind it, can it be called blind?[1:2]Proverbs 12:10 [1:3:1]Proverbs 31:30 [1:3:2]Leviticus 19:18 [2]So long as one believes in at least one god, they're a theist. [3:1]I know it doesn't. But that doesn't make it objective; i can still argue subjectivity. [3:2]It's really neither of which you say it is. You are just merely arguing from physicalism. Prove to me that the person is really feeling pain if i were to do that, for i can only be sure of my own existence. [3:3]Religion may not be, but God is required. [3:4]Refer to the ending of my last statement in 3:2. [4]An atheist can be a spiritual being; them not knowing that they are doesn't make them non-spiritual; them believing that they aren't does not make them non-spiritual. It is not hard for a spirit to be entrapped in a natural object. Also, a being being supernatural does not make it unbelievable, for if such statement were absolute, everyone would not believe in the supernatural; logic cannot do away with a spiritual realm. [5:1]What He permits and doesn't permit does not do away with His benevolence. It is better to limit a being that will use things for their own satisfaction. [5:2]By the definition which you are implying to the word "brainwash," in order to be "morally correct," one must refrain from talking with others, lest they make another person believe something that the person speaking believes. [6:1]Supernatural doesn't mean supreme, it just means it's not bound to the natural. A spiritual being can be bound to the natural but not a supernatural being. Atheists can worship Satan 'cause Satan is just a supernatural being. Atheism doesn't include any supreme, supernatural being. [6:2]Supernatural is above natural, so the natural has no power over the supernatural. [7]It's a way of showing thanks. Actions speak louder than words and you can't repay God with something He can cause into existence. [8]Refer to my 3:4. [9]Yeah, it promotes researching in animal lifestyles. Doing such research will show that animals do not care about the survival of their species, the most they'll care about is their children; even then, some animals will leave there children. [1]Yes we were. [2]If there was any assumption started, it was not from me, for i was addressing a point made by someone else. I used deductive logic to prove that their reasoning does not disprove the existence of God. And as i've said earlier, logic cannot lead to the disbelief in the existence of a god. For this reason, atheists run off of faith concerning the existence of a god. [3]You're arguing from physicalism again. [4]If only it was our history. The theory of evolution tends to appeal to probability. But define "civilization;" a group in a location? By then it would be a natural occurance, probably by the thought that it is safer to be in numbers. Therefore to be civilized cannot deal with "civilization," it is the ability to act beyond the ways which animals act. So, as it is, we did always have it "under our belt." [5]I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. [6:1]I know it can, but in my statement, as i took the word from the other person, i said "species," which means the entire species. One alone isn't the entire species. And this one was most likely its own child. [6:2]What religious document is it trying to refute? [6:3]Can't this question be perceived the same way you perceived my statement? [7:1]Depending on the events at the time, i may act like an animal. But consider my 7:2. [7:2]Is this directed to me? 'Cause in the section you quote, i say "By your own words..." and continue on.

Ah, consider timestamps like sonesay said. All posts and user sessions would have to have timestamps. I'm assuming you have a column for the users table and the posts table that deals with timestamps.

By "view new post," do you mean clicking on a link that is next to the topic name that shows you the very last post? If so, i would assume that the easiest way to achieve this is by first getting the topic id, getting the last post's id in that topic (limit to 1 and order by descend), and calling a php script that only shows that one post.The more advanced way, which i think is how IPB boards does it, is done by getting the topic id, getting the number of posts in that topic, obtaining the forum's setting for pagination, getting the last post's id, doing the math for the pagination, and use a header to direct the user to the proper URL. This assumes that all your posts have a name attribute with a value of its id.

I remember the BBC writing an article about chocolate, it was nothing important and it implied they had nothing better to do. This article is similar—it's nothing important and nothing to be worried about. I mean, what does having my IP address, my user id and my video information do to me? Youtube and Google already have that, what's another company? I have nothing to hide or be afraid of. People viewing the content can't be blamed for the content, except maybe if they've downloaded such content (see Firefox extentions). The only people that should be worried are those committing acts against already established laws, however little it may be. Are you one of those people that have uploaded illegal content, electriic ink?

A religious person can include an atheist. It is not hard for a theist to understand that atheists don't believe in any god. But a person that runs off of logic cannot deny the existence of a god (read ahead, or below, for proof). Man is ignorant and for this reason it is impossible for man to bring up evidence against the existence of a god. On another note, i would never teach my child about Santa Claus, but teaching my child about God should be first priority. The first sentence you state is quite a premise. But this quote is subjective. "Existence" in this case is limited to a human's perspective. A god does not need to interact with the universe, therefore if such a god was made of energy that is detectable by our technology, it would not be detected. But let's accept that God (as i know Him) interacts with His creation. How does that mean that He is made out of energy that is detectable by our technology? You imply that if He wasn't, He would not be detected. You say we have not detected Him through our technology. Therefore He is not made out of what you believe He is made out of. Foolishness is irrelevant here. I don't see how atheism isn't subjective. A person that makes up their own way of life lives in subjectivity. Animals are uncivilized—being civilized is what makes us different than animals; to live as an animal is to be uncivilized. Animals are not bound to laws (i'm not speaking of physical, universal laws; anyone can obey physical, universal laws without even trying; people even do it in their sleep), these laws that we're bound to that animals aren't is what promotes civilized behavior (assuming they're not foolish laws). Wow, an outrageous premise in the first sentence. In a world of subjectivity, nothing is greater than the other. You say it is unnatural to be selfish, but your proof for it doesn't support it. Even animals will place themselves above their own species when their own lives are at stake. You think they care about their own species? So long as they themselves are alive that is all that matters to them. "Survival of the fittest" anyone? Also, in the case of theism, placing whatever or whoever above whatever or whoever is dependent on the religion. By your own words, the mere fact that you are willing to act as an animal places you below others. You say place the interest of others ahead of yourself for the sake of your own species, yet you care not for the interest of those that have harmed you, whether they did it indirectly or directly; and, ironcially, you most likely support abortion. Atheism's morality, along with theism's morality, cannot be defined in a general sense. The only thing that can be generally defined is whether or not they believe in God or a god. Theism and atheism in this case (i.e. in general) is no greater than the other. By your words, you are a religious person; by your definition of "force," you have committed the same act. Faith cannot be done away with; everyone bears faith.

I recommend Red Alert 2 and its expansion pack, Yuri's Revenge. I haven't played Tiberium Wars, but i'm not a fan of RTSs that try to make it as 3D as possible. Red Alert 2 is one of the best (if not the best) Command and Conquer games. Careful with multiplayer, though; people tend to play at the highest game speed—ruins the fun.

Maybe index returns a value that can be matched to the frame's node (i'm not sure why it works), but consider using IDs as an alternate solution: parent.document.getElementById("id").rows="%, %";

Here you go.

Try placing "document." between "parent." and the frameset's name: parent.document.frameset1.rowsIf that doesn't work, then when you try to call the function, check out Firefox's error console.