truefusion

Err, i don't know if Dreamweaver is capable of creating AJAX scripts on the fly for you, but what you want is AJAX, unless you don't mine using iframes. Dreamweaver should be able to do iframes and making the links to load in that iframe. If you want to go the complex route, go with AJAX. If you want the more simpler route, go with iframes.

Crazy. Thank God no one was reported injured.Where i live at we are proned to hurricanes. So far i haven't been on the side of the storm that carried tornadoes with it, but the possibility is still there. For, i think, the last two years we haven't had any hurricanes stop by, but it feels like this year might be different.

The statistics, though, are only for the W3Schools website. It should be noted that the main reason for visiting the W3Schools website is for—of course—learning about web design. Because of which, i would expect web designers to be the most frequent visitors. Since W3C promotes web standards and Firefox is a standard-compliant browser, one should expect visitors that use a popular, standard-compliant browser.

How about adding why you don't like the things that isn't obvious on why you don't like them so your post won't seem half empty and so that others will have more to write about concerning your post?

For the price, go with AMD. For slightly longer battery life, go with the 45nm Intel processors. And for noticable performance, you're going to want to go with speeds above 2 gigahertz.

Driver problems isn't necessarily the operating system's fault. For example, my Realtek audio driver doesn't allow me to record things properly. Also, your problem may be specific to what sound server you're using. Or it could be that one of the programs you're using is hogging it all for itself. I remember having a similar problem where Wine would take up all the sound until it fully closed, but that managed to eventually fix itself. A similar problem with Pidgin and Amarok, but i don't have that problem anymore.

I don't see the big deal with this "other story" having to do with astrology. But if it came from God, then it's probably prophecy. Also, even if there have been similar events before the time of Jesus, that doesn't make Biblical events false—why people even think they do is just false in itself.Another thing, can we cut down on these topics of yours concerning religion? They're quite repetitive and in an unproductive way, too. Maybe i should just take the time to not post in them.

I've seen your other topic, and i don't see the purpose in engaging in it. If anything, that topic will cause trouble, for a topic like that has the potential to bring disputes (yes, with the bad connotation to it). I don't see the benefit in talking about what i think about other religions. I would rather study and talk about mine, where the chances of me saying something false about the religion is slim to none.

This is probably the best relative verse against your statement: Jeremiah 23:30-32. By the way, the Mayan Calendar has no relation to the Abrahamic Religions. Neither 1 nor 2 in your first post will occur. No one will make up excuses on why the world didn't end on the last day of the Mayan Calendar that relate to Jesus. Many people don't even know about the Mayan Calendar. As Striker9 said, there is no set time mentioned in either the Bible or the Qur'an. What the Bible says concerning the last day is that God is very patient and that the last day will come like a theif.

I'd say wait for her to give the signal. And if she does, make sure it's not wishful thinking on your side. But there's no guarantee that she will.

Maybe. It is uncertain how it would "pop" and whether or not it would cause the matter within to scatter outward at a rapid (or slow) rate. Either way, i'd hate to clean up any mess that would come from it.

This part caught my attention. If i understand this correctly, that means that you're defining a universe as pure nothingness, for you seem to not be considering the matter within but as something that is separate and unnecessary for a universe. If that's the case, then there's no need to take into consideration positive or negative energy to prove that a universe requires no energy, for it has nothing in it to begin with. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Regardless, if a universe is nothing but a "bubble," then it is safe to assume that there are other universes outside of this "bubble," as, obviously, the topic title suggests, each being their own "bubble." But this causes a problem, for we are left wondering, "What do we now call the 'container' that is containing all of these bubbles?" This would also mean that we are capable of figuring out the exact size of our universe, that it only appears infinite. On another note, what would happen if one of these "bubbles" "popped"?

No, sometimes PHP reports the wrong line, even if it's non-existent, where the problem is else where. Salamangkero's suggestion should fix it.

Your post is self contradictory (or, i should say, hypocritical), as the only reason you don't like it is because you see it as a forcing down of beliefs on others. Tell me you were the one that wanted school before even figuring out there was such a thing. Tell me you asked to be taught what you learned in school. Tell me it can't be said that you were "brainwashed" by what you learned in school. Tell me you didn't need to learn what you did in school in order to pass. Perhaps you shouldn't agree with the methods taken by schools in general. Why are atoms and ions more acceptable to you? There's nothing wrong with believing in (or learning about) God or the Bible; however, there is something wrong with disliking or hating things without good reason.

You might have to ask OpaQue directly for you answer, i am ignorant of the reason(s).

It could be anything on why she's not as active with you as she used to be. If you already told her that you care and will help her in whatever she needs help in, saying it over and over again isn't going to make it more true and it's her choice to take you up on that. I know you're worried, i would be too if i were in your position, but it can really be anything and would be best if no conclusion-jumping occurs. This is a bit of a touchy situation, so advice on the matter is a bit difficult, and you've probably already come up with some ideas of your own, but during your recent conversations, has there been certain times where the conversation has been more lively? If so, perhaps you should talk a lot less or not at all outside of that time until things become "normal" again. If she asks why you've been slightly quiet, then tell her your concerns.

According to what i've heard, you have to first be hosted in order to receive your free domain. Sorry. http://forums.xisto.com/topic/46612-free-domain-name-free-domain-for-life/

By "enough?" do you mean "enough to get my site deleted?"? If so, then it would depend on what the contents of the .doc file is, i suppose.

Due to the way the credit system is designed, when you apply and get approved your credits get reset to a specific number rather than subtracted. That is why we recommend users to apply for hosting once they have enough credits and not to continue on after they've applied until after they're approved. I'm not sure if this design will be re-designed in the future, though.

Well, you also need to know how to install the forum script after uploading it to be able to use it. You might want to run a local server for testing purposes. WYSIWYG and FTP software is up to you. But for stuff found in Fantastico! you may be better off getting the scripts from their relative websites if there's a newer version out there of the script than the one in Fantastico! But check the developer logs for these scripts to see if the newer version, if any, offers any security fixes. Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) should answer your question.

How were these undeletable files created? If they were created through means other than FTP or Cpanel, that could be why you can't delete them.

[1]Here's the same logic used: I refuse to believe in Science books, updated several times by man. [2]Here's the same logic: Have fun getting brainwashed by Youtube videos. [3]M'ks. Can i quote you on that, too, anytime in the future? [4]You can believe in anyone or thing, just be reasonable in your choosing. By the way, your post appears to be full of emotions. I don't know any one that curses for the fun of it. [1]Even if you played teacher, you wouldn't be able to prove it with only words; although, seeing isn't necessarily believing. Also, most, if not all, of the things you learn in school requires faith and the acceptance of predefiined variables. Example for the former: Have you ever seen Christopher Columbus? Example for the latter: What if "3" had the value of what we have accepted to be "2" and what if "2" had the value of what we have accepted to be "3"? [2]Seems like you decided to play teacher. Regardless, they can have all the similarities they want, that doesn't mean one came from the other. [3]In another post, i heard you were once a Muslim. I would have expected for you to know that the Qur'an actually mentions the fertilization process. Therefore, it cannot be said that people back then didn't know what they're talking about. Don't believe me? Here are some verses: 23:14; 40:67. Search for "embryo" for more verses. Also, the Bible in the Book of Ecclesiastes talks about God placing a spirit in the child during development. [4:1]Not necessarily true. Even with all the faith in the world in God, that doesn't mean God exists. And not believing in Him doesn't mean there is no set destiny, for even with all the faith in the world in no God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. [4:2]Him acting upon His knowledge is no different than a human acting upon their knowledge. Indeed, if i knew someone was going to commit an act and they do indeed commit the act i knew they were going to commit, that means they have no freewill, for i knew about it beforehand. [4:3]He can be perfect and not be omniscient at the same time. [4:4]This part is somewhat self contradicting, as it starts off assuming that everyone that is born will go to hell, then it goes on to include heaven. But view what i said to 4:2, again. [5:1]Could be for many reasons. One reason is to increase in faith. [5:2]Because He is known as Provider. [5:3]Because He's the only one that can truly forgive people. [5:4]Because we forget what has been promised by Him? [6]Interesting that you quote that. I have been working on refuting them all, since it was given to me by another atheist. I've read them all too: that thing is somewhat unjust. Somehow it managed to pop out with, i think, 70,000 kills out of nowhere and it directs killings caused by humans to God. Also, it assumes God was unjust. It chooses to forget a few things too, but i'll just leave it for my little project. On another note, it's pointless giving verses from the Bible to a Muslim—the Bible doesn't equal the Qur'an, nor vice versa. [7:1]At least you have taken the time to say that you were wrong about it. [7:2]Unbrainwashed, eh? That would exclude everyone.

[1]M'ks.[2]The Book of Job is quite an interesting book—i'm still trying to fully comprehend it—but there's a lot of things to learn from it. The death of my mother causing family problems is something to consider, as it proves we were all dependent on our mother—so, in a way, we were but a burden on her. Of course, your statement assumes i would have no father, and at the same time doesn't do away with the chance of having a father. We, being believers, have nothing to worry for our mother, as due our faith. [3]God doesn't need to give a human power in order for such an event to occur. In post number 3 of this topic, you ask, But God didn't originally plan for one to go to hell. Knowing that one would eventually go to hell doesn't mean it was part of His plan. Indeed, there are many plans God caused into effect that prevent people from ever entering hell—it's your responsibility for acting reasonably to these things, not Gods. I'm not really sure what words you mean, but i'll see what i can do. M'ks. Actually, just like you with capitalizing all letters in a word, so do my statements bear no emotion in them except where obvious. By "obvious," i mean things like exclamation points, !, and emoticons like this one: . But the context of the parenthesis still stand according to you. Yes, it doesn't make sense because the one that committed the act (i.e. the hot-stove toucher) is angry though they knew of the consequences (i.e. their hand getting burned). God was not the one that ate of the Tree of Knowledge, therefore it cannot be said that God's anger towards the sinner is non-sense; God cannot sin against Himself. Remember, eating the apple is the exact same thing as touching the hot stove in your analogy: in your analogy Eve is you. Sure, God knew you would burn yourself with it, but He never said not to burn yourself. You getting angry 'cause you burned yourself is the exact same thing as Eve being ashamed of herself for bearing knowledge of good and evil for eating the apple—both are emotions caused by a past event. What i was trying to point out is that though these things were already set in place (the stove and the tree), the events that followed were not caused by God but by the imperfect humans. Also, God is known to ask rhetorical questions (i.e. questions that answer themselves because the answer is so obvious). Indeed, i caught your drift, but tossed it back. Did you catch mine? Mhmm, i noticed a similar comment in your other posts. [1]Yeah. Interestingly enough, the Bible answers this question. It says that Jesus was there before all things after him came to be: Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:1-3.[2]Did you gain this "fact" from Youtube videos? You seem to be disregarding our statements concerning who indeed wrote the Bible. [3]Micro evolution has been proven, but not macro evolution, which is what the theory of evolution runs off of. However, evolutionists tend to commit to the fallacy of appealilng to probability when concerning such events. But i already knew that according to the theory of evolution the monkeys alive today were from the same ancestory that we are from.

Nice clarity and contrast. The style on the text on the first sig works well with the overall sig. The second sig has a nice outward feel to it with the "foreground" objects, but the text doesn't seem to have that same feel to it. Well done sigs, though.

You have some really nice stuff. But i'm wondering if you've performed different styles for sigs before. I see that you're capable of doing other stuff than sigs, but i didn't see any large pieces in your Photobucket like you say you specialize in.