truefusion

Check out Gnash. You may not be able to produce any flash movies with it, but it can be useful for making your own flash producer and playing flash movies.

Going with the file names you have provided in this topic, it would go in admin.php, since edit.admin.php will be included.

The code i will show you is similar to what jlhaslip has been showing you this whole time: $mode = $_GET['mode']; $id = $_GET['id']; if ($do == "admin"){ // if do=admin, do... if ($mode == "edit"){ // if mode=edit, do... if ($id == "1"){ include "edit.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... } } else if ($mode == "delete"){ // if mode=delete, do... if ($id == "1"){ include "delete.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... } } else if ($mode == "add"){ // if mode=add, do ... if ($id == "1"){ include "add.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... } } else { // if there is no mode set or if it is set with an "unknown" value, do... include "admin.php"; } } ?> linenums:0'><?php$do = $_GET['do'];$mode = $_GET['mode'];$id = $_GET['id'];if ($do == "admin"){ // if do=admin, do...if ($mode == "edit"){ // if mode=edit, do... if ($id == "1"){ include "edit.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... }} else if ($mode == "delete"){ // if mode=delete, do... if ($id == "1"){ include "delete.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... }} else if ($mode == "add"){ // if mode=add, do ... if ($id == "1"){ include "add.admin.php"; } else { // do whatever... }} else { // if there is no mode set or if it is set with an "unknown" value, do... include "admin.php";}}?> Do you understand how it works now? Note: the code above has not been tested, but should still work.

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

The reason you received the error is because there was no specified resource. The link variable, in this case, is what would hold that information. Such information is usually stored in a db.php file; the file that contains your database connection information.

Why see a therapist? Perhaps they're happy because they've lost the weight. Perhaps they figured that because they are in a relationship, they should consider looking better for their mate, and therefore lose weight. I don't believe it's anything to worry about by the information provided. Whatever the reason, by all means, compliment them on their new look.

Where there is disagreement, there is debate. [1]People had the ability to verify the information presented to them, just like they do now. Because of this, it cannot be dependent on the size of civilization.[1:2]Actually, i'm more inclined to ask how it became a compilation of many beliefs. I cannot see how it can have believers but practitioners. And because it's a compilation, i can understand why not a single Hindu can fully know about their religion. [1:3]You claim as a fact and refer to two mythical figures. But Jesus Christ existed on earth, you can even visit the locations he walked through, and there's more empirical proof for many figures in the Bible. [1:4]Whenever two (or more) religions mention an event that can be compared and contrasted with each other—that does not make them false. What makes them false is how they add up to reality and logic. The event could still have happened, but only the way that the one proven to be true has said how it happened. [1:5]But as it has been said, the end will prove the truth. [1:6]Just because it has been said that it was revealed by a divine being does not mean that this divine being was God. There are, also, beings known as angels. Even the angels have laws which they have to abide to. [2]Karma is known as a law, and with each law, something before it had to have established it. Judging requires a thought(-out) process. Without some form of previous conscious, there can be no (universal) judging system. When another law (by law, i'm also implying truth or fact) is present and contradicts a previously established law, one must overcome the other. And an absolute law cannot be contradicted. Karma is said that it can be summarized into this: "Do good, and so be rewarded with good; do bad, and calamity shall come upon you." If that is false, then correct me. There is a known fact in the world: good people also receive calamity, and bad people also receive good. So, unless Karma is "lazy" though it is a law, then there is a Being that has full control over what is said to be Karma and allows things to happen. [2:2]It matters to me, because it is my way of verifying truth or what is said to be true. [2:3]Although I cannot see how it can be more consistent, whether on life or itself, than what has already been revealed, but if it were more consistent, i would be inclined to believe it. And in order for it to be more consistent, it cannot be by just anyone, for no one knows about everything in the universe. So if it were by a human, it would only include what has been made known by mankind or Science—and this wouldn't be enough to persuade me. [2:4]By providing psuedo-Science, that would already push me away from it. And i am not sure what you are attributing Muhammed to. [3]Animals have not been given laws to abide to, or at least there is no reference that says that they have. Because of this, there is no condemnation for animals, for as it has been said, where there is no law, there is no sin. [3:2]To answer your question: God cares for His creation—whether or not they care for Him. And if there is a similar civilization as ours outside of planet earth, then i'm sure they bare witness of God's existence as well. God has made it clear that He cares for His creation. There is no verse that says that He doesn't. No one can claim that He doesn't take into consideration anything other than humans, for the text says that He takes care of His creation. [3:3]God is good; it's impossible for good to exist before God. And if religion has the biggest ego, then it must also promote it. But then why does religion promote against it? My religion promotes that no-one is better than another, to proclaim how evil you are, to seek peace and love, that salvation is not by works but grace—all of these contradict the ego, for unless you do away with the ego, you can't come to repentance. [3:4]The security you speak of or imply cannot be obtained in this world, therefore one other path can be taken. It is not wrong to seek security. How it became wrong in some people's eyes is beyond me. But this path could not have been created by human will, for then it could not be reachable. [3:5]So you admit atheism is a religion. But no one asks for ours either. Many just assume what we or others are, and some already know what we believe in, so there's no need. [3:6]Why my religion is preached is not for a sense of belonging, especially in areas where they are persecuted for their beliefs, but to bring the knowledge of salvation to others. [3:7]People do need faith, it brings them hope and secures love. Hope and love is another thing people need. Hope prolongs life, and without love, people become hateful. These three work together. [3:8]Not necessarily. And consider these verses: James 2:14-26. Prayer alone is perfectly fine if you are incapable of helping. [4]You don't have to believe in it in order for it to be true. And you're right, i can't pack all morals into one. But absolute morality is realized when one properly contemplates on (their) actions. If one gives in to their lusts, they cannot properly contemplate on things. One reason the Bible gives against incest is that it disgraces one's family members; there are more reasons, though. And marriage is a whole other area, which i'm not going to dive into, for it requires considering a whole lot of things. [4:2]Have you ever taken History class? [4:3]Well, they were within walking distance. The interpretation you heard concerning this is wrong. You see, Noah only needed to bring in 2 of each kind, both male and female, of the surrounding animals. God did not flood the entire earth. Here's an interesting article concerning this: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html Note, even the Qur'an agrees that it is a local flood. [4:4]I'm sure it wasn't hard, since it was just the surrounding animals. [4:5]How does that make God insecure? What harm can man cause God that God should be insecure? Perhaps i should ask for your definition of "insecurity." [4:6]He did not live for another 930 years. But he did get a feel of immortality; he was eating from the tree of life before he ate from the tree of knowledge. As we see further in the text, in Genesis 5, the years of people keep dropping. From this, we can state that it took a while for the effects of this experience from immorality to wear off. [4:7]This implies two things: (1) Only Africans can live for that long. (2) The East contists of only Africa. Therefore i do not understand why you stated origin from Africa.

The images, according to the webpage, should be located in the style directory. Are they in there? Was that your intentions? And i'm not sure what you mean by "the template is disturbed." Are you using a CMS for your site? I've looked at the site in three different browsers and they look fine to me, even though the images don't show up. I'm not sure what kind of advice i can supply here. What were you going or hoping for your website?

One of the main reasons why Firefox is loved over Internet Explorer is because of Firefox's extensions. Extensions extend the user's browsing experience. Since you mention Internet Explorer 6, another reason is because of the tabbed browsing, where it places all opened webpages into one window. Others like the fact that it is standards compliant—mostly web developers. I use Firefox for its error console. But Opera is my #1 browser.

[1]The only way to claim this as a fact is to die and come back to life: as it is, Jesus Christ has done so, and his teachings contradict all of yours. [2]Please do not use capital letters for your gods. There is more than one in your personal world, and by using capital G's, you attribute one of them towards my God—the One and Only. If you're going to equate my God with yours, then you must be consistent with the information my God has given about Himself to the entire world. Therefore, kindly use "g"'s for your gods, for you are clearly speaking about other things. Also, consider this (from top to bottom): Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-13. [3]There is no fear for those in Christ. And even unbelievers don't fear bearing knowledge. There is no understanding of what evil is, and because judgment may not happen in their lifetime, it adds to the comfort. But many don't understand that this waiting on God's side is grace within itself. [4]Here's a known (and irrefutable) argument: Wait, just like we wait. Then you will see whether or not it's "false." [5]There can only be but one Creator, for in order for the universe to have been built with such harmony with two gods, there would require cooperation from both sides. If even one of them decided to lean off by even an inch, that could cause a imbalance; which Science has shown that even such a tiny imbalance would be disastrous for life. And from what i've seen in religions that contain more than one god, there has always been at least one form of disorder between two or more gods. And i will agree with you that my Creator is always loving, but He is also a God of Justice—there is a time for be-ing loving and a time for be-ing just, and He knows the best time to be either one. And there is nothing to fear for those whom accepted God's Grace when it was offered—and God doesn't just offer it once. [6]This is not only inconsistent with life, it is also illogical. For if we had the ability to "map out" who we wanted as parents and our chosen said parents allows that choice to be made, then there would be no parent in the world that leaves their child in the dumpster, there would be no parent that treats their child worse than the floor they walk on. Shall i keep going? For according to you, they came to this agreement mutually. [7]If there were a maximum, then there would be no limit unto our spirits that were predefined by the Creator. For if such a maximum could be reached, we could not only become equal with our Creator, we could also surpass our Creator. If we can surpass our Creator, then why even dare call Him our Creator? Also, why would a Creator allow such a thing, especially bearing knowledge on how humans use free will? As it is, we can't even detach our spirits from our bodies without Divine help. And in the spirit world, no one can help those who God prevents, and no one requires help from whom God has accepted. [8]As mentioned before, there's no way to detach ourselves from our bodies without Divine help and it would not be smart on the "gods" side to allow such an advancement on the spirit. A god that is not wise is not a god to me. [9]Back to the ending of my #2. [10]Actually, death is more like a blink of an eye, like a nap which you wake up from only to find that so much time has passed. Life, however, is no where near that—especially if it's as eternal as you say. But anything that has been created can be destroyed; anything that has been given can be taken away. [11]Then why do i find God's Word to be consistent with life and logical? And as i have said before, wait for the end and see for yourself if it is as blissful as you believe. To believe that the afterlife is blissful for everyone is to believe in a god or gods that are unjust, in a god or gods who accept evil and even reward it! It is to admit that you do not believe in evil by actions except maybe through definition—and this means nothing. You cannot reward evil, this will only increase the troubles of this world. [12]You have defined "home," previously, as the spirit world, the place where our "god and goddess" is waiting for us. But you mention here that people do not know or forget about it due to the troubles of this world although they tried to get there at least once in their life. How can they not remember about it if they tried to reach it but couldn't? But you say accomplishing a goal is what gets them there. But you also add that even though you have accomplished the goal personally, you still require death to fully accomplish it. But you also say that we are fully capable of detaching ourselves from the body without Divine interference, and you imply that death is not required in this process but later go on to imply that it is. One more thing, why would they be waiting for us? Why don't they just create us where they are? Why go through this world first? You have declared that it is because of our own will. But if it is our own will, why would we want to return? Why not just stay here? You mention a pattern that is followed: when one goes back, they return to start another goal. Which means they don't really consider the thought of their "creators;" they are selfish in this sense; a human thing, though. However, have you considered the law of entropy? What happens when they want a world that previously existed? Why not just not create this world whatsoever and just leave the spirit world the way you say it is? [13]Would you claim double standard? Perhaps you should consider what i have mentioned. Nothing gets into my heart without getting passed my mind first, because of this it is most likely to stay. Life, as it is, can only be obtained through grace.

I personally listen to ChristianRock.net. Interestingly enough, Amarok has it in its Shoutcast's Rock category. I'm actually amazed at all the bands that are considered Christian. I never would have known they were Christian if they hadn't mentioned it.

[1]I cannot surround my judgments on definitions alone, for even i have to check and see if they have defined the religion properly according to the religion's standards, etc, itself; and i can't consider generalizations. However, there are things that separate religion from practices and things that are beyond practices. One does not need to believe in good in order to act good, or i should say, one does not need to believe in commands by these religions in order to act them out. There are statements in my religion that goes beyond practices, that are spoken as a fact. By not believing in them, you cannot be considered a follower, at least by my definition, of this religion, for then it'll be just something on the side for you, nothing of importance. Many religions, i'll admit, agree upon many things, mostly concerning the ego, but like you said they each have their own doctrines. As for the denominations of Christianity: Each agree to what is clear. Somethings in the Bible require extra reading in order to understand what they're talking about. This is why many speak out of ignorance when they feel they have interpreted one part of the Bible as correct as they imply, but their ignorance is later shown. However, some are just forgetful. Think about this: Isn't the God with power the only one that can spread the belief of Himself to the majority of the earth's population, as the charts show? (Not to say the i believe the charts are 100% accurate, for that study could have been taken years ago.) [2]I have studied Buddhism, i found that it implies a Divine Being. But the irony is that Buddhism is not a theistic religion, it's more atheistic than anything, yet it implies a Divine Being. How is this possible? I have taken the time to study many religions—even those that contradict my current faith. I have questioned them as hard as i questioned my current faith, and this is what i have found: my religion is more consistent with reality and logic. Some followers of my religion may even be inclined to say that i have tested my religion to a dangerous level, but this adds more to the reason on why i believe what i believe and will argue for it to whatever extent. [3]Because of how hard i have tested my religion, i am inclined to bring people to God via Christ, for i believe grace is the only way mankind can obtain salvation. However, i also take up this one part in this one verse concerning this matter, Eze 3:27: I am fully content with, "At least i tried." But expect me to defend my beliefs when slander or false things are be-ing talked about it. And morality based on physical matters should not be your only basis for judging morality, for things can go beyond the flesh. I mean, is it okay to slander and debunk someone for the sake of entertainment, to just get a few laughs? How many people have committed suicide because of their emotional abuse received from others? To add to this, there are two kinds of faith: good and bad faith. If bad faith is something that they hold dear, though it contradicts your belief in "so long as it doesn't physically hurt others," is it okay to continue to respect their faith when you bear knowledge of their faith? Couldn't one argue, "You are just like them for allowing them to continue"? Here's my philosophy: If you're going to replace faith, replace it with a good or better one—don't let them wonder around without any faith at all. People need faith, or else they'd wander life confused and lost. [4]I would fall into the 33%. No, even out of religious terms. For the sake of discussion, i shall—for now—consider what most atheists consider: that athiesm is not a religion. With that said, don't even atheists believe in absolute morality? Don't even they believe in a morality that everyone else considers as true? If you were to ask them, some may say, "It was done to me, and i didn't like it. That is why i consider it bad." As for Hammurabi's code: Hammurabi, according to Wikipedia, existed within the late 1,700s of B.C. With the information provided in the Bible and with the dating of these manuscripts, it can be said that the time of Abraham and those before him existed far before Hammurabi. During, before and after the time of Abraham, God was disciplining people for their sins, so absolute morality existed during these times, etc, as well. And there's also Gen 3:5.

[1]Although some religions are just a practice, Christianity isn't "just a practice," for if it were just that, then there would be no drawbacks, there would be no reason to try to obtain followers, everything would be just a concept, a thing that was started for the sake of giving people something to do. [2]This isn't possible, for people come to the faith, not the other way around. If that were so, then everyone would have a book that they are the author of, of which they follow, everywhere they go. There would be no mainstream religion, everything would be merely an opinion—nothing that can be established. Everyone would have the right to do whatever they want, for there are "entitled to their opinion."—even then, this statement would just be an opinion. However, there is absolute morality.

There are three drawbacks that are involved with this: C-Panel is not made and developed by Xisto. WYSIWYG editors in this sense is not supported by all browsers. There are problems that WYSIWYG editors create that can only be solved by diving into the coding itself. It is better to create your files offline on your computer for the following reasons: You have a back-up of your site. You can assure bug-free pages before it is publically accessible. You have the ability to choose which WYSIWYG editor you want with the features you seek. Xisto supports FTP, so this is an advantage for those who have their sites on their computer. If you need help with your webpages, you can ask for it here in Xisto.

It wouldn't, or i should say, shouldn't give you the 5. It's purpose is to return the remainder—nothing else. You see this in PHP, too, since PHP is based on C, as well as other programming languages.

[1]The water itself does not expire, per se, but it does "expire." The water you find bottled in stores is purified; that is, they remove the harmful bacteria from it. The expiration date just informs you how long you have till these harmful bacteria return. [2]I'm quite sure they do. If dreaming required the ability to see things, through whatever sense, they should be able to form their own image of an object based on the feel of it or the sound of it, etc. This should provide their brain with enough information to form images during their sleep. But, regardless, it's best to ask them. [3] And it's spelled "pi." [4]This may depend on what brand you buy, for there may be a pack of hotdogs that contain 10 hotdogs in them. And i'm sure there are packs of hotdog rolls that come with 8 hotdog rolls per pack.

I would like to suggest a modification to the posted code: <?php$title[] = "This will be more fun that that time - never mind...";$title[] = "Another random title... neat eh?";$title[] = "I've got wood... in my fire place...";$title[] = "More ranom titles? Cool!";echo $title[array_rand($title)];?> Also, it is best if this is not used for the TITLE element in HTML. I hear random page titles decrease your ranking with search engines.

This Sig battle's winner is Saint_Michael: he got best out of 7. Congratulations, S_M.Closing topic.

I had taken the time to study the Qur'an in the past, and i will agree that the Qur'an preaches against many things of which those who claim to be its followers have been and are doing. Although the Qur'an speaks against the crucifixion, one of the core beliefs in Christianity, i have in the past argued for the Qur'an when others have claimed that it preaches things that it doesn't. There are many cross-references between the Bible (both OT and NT) and the Qur'an, even if they both speak against each other in other areas; indirectly for the Bible, for the authors of these books, letters, etc, existed before the Qur'an. I cannot speak against what is true, what i believe to be true and what both the Qur'an and the Bible agree upon, but i will defend my beliefs—even if it makes me appear like i'm attacking a religion; although that is not the case, for defense can be confused with offense. [hr=noshade] [/hr] In the end, the situation was most likely to have been caused by people. The company obviously means people. Their background is, again and obviously, people oriented. Therefore, you cannot blame the situation but the people involved, for the effect was the situation and the cause is the people. People normally blame other things because they don't like blaming themselves unless there's no-one else to blame; this is also known as pride, and only causes trouble. As we know, every problem has a root, and you state the root is the ego, and the ego is relative to the person. A person, through faith, is capable of diminishing their ego to the point where they start working in humility and love. However, it has been shown that if it is through human effort, it won't last long; usually fails after a day or hour, etc. And i will agree, through love one can help others show the same compassion for others as they have been shown by others. This is the basis for Christianity: God loves us, and by this love, we love others. Also, guilt can be a good thing, for it bears humility, and this humility bears repentance, and repentance bears change. I'm not a believer in Karma, for bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people; and deconstructing the definition of "good" and "bad" wouldn't incline me into believing it, for i believe in absolute morality—and absolute morality exists, you see it in the world. And, as it is, Karma acts like a law or it is implied that it is a law, and with every law, there must be a being that put it in place. If you were to merely label "good things happen to good people, and bad to bad people" as "Karma", then you must give a name for "bad things happen to good people, and good to bad people." Would it be "Contra-Karma"? Or, perhaps, "Anti-Karma"? Then i would consider "Karma" as something that exists only by definition, but there is, to my knowledge, no name for the complete opposite of Karma. If you mean "original sin" by the sin passed down via Adam, then this isn't 100% Biblical. "Original sin" is the first sin to have been commited by humans; there's also one for angels (which these angels are labeled "fallen angels"), but that's a whole other topic. Here's a good article concerning this matter: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html Therefore, Christianity agrees with Islam here, that we are all born sinless but later go on to sin.

I heard about this on the radio when listening to MPR News, a couple of weeks ago, i think. I found it interesting that they were actually holding a contest for this and giving away a piece of hardware. I was surprised as to how confident they were with their security system. There's no such thing as a 100% secure system. Or are they trying to prove that it may be possible to build a system that's 100% secure? Either way, i wonder if we'll hear about the winner.

What browser are you testing this in?

You're either looking for AJAX or PHP's include function. If you don't mind the page reloading, then go with PHP's include function. But if you do, then AJAX is what you want.

Although your script would work without the need of a server-side scripting language, and the munged up e-mail would still be viewable by the user if JavaScript is disabled, according to this webpage (link), they do not recommend munging up e-mail addresses, because there are already spam bots out there that look for these munged-up e-mail addresses, which defeats the whole purpose of this script. There may be spam bots that can read images with an e-mail address on them, but it seems like that is rare, if any. However, security can be increased if you warp the text on the image while still keeping it good enough to be read by human eyes. Because, i'm assuming, reading an image is the same as having a PDA type letters out by writing on the screen with an attached pen (like those things you see in super markets or when you get a delivery). Warping the text would make it very hard for the spam bot to translate the warped text accurately.

Yes, it's possible to do that, and i have thought about it, but i figured, why have the user click twice? Instead, i've been trying to figure out a way to make it load in a way as if you've already clicked on a mailto link without leaving the page, you know? But i'm not quite sure how to go about it.—made it possible.

Is this similar to what you want: http://www.xboxlc.com/?