truefusion

Just to provide another suggestion, you could create an image with your e-mail on it and just use that for the e-mail section when requesting for hosting.

There are about three things i see here: (1) In order for this to be possible, you would have to have been placed on earth (or wherever) at a predestined age. For imagine if a child who is one hour old, of what would their mind be? They still exist, but their mind says otherwise. The child would die, for its body cannot survive with a "dead" mind. Therefore, it would have to be at an age where the person bears conscious of their own existence and is capable of maintaining themselves. (2) What if one person had a time-reset at 10:30 PM, that would mean they would have their memory reset to 8:30 PM. Now let's say another person existed and was living with that person, but this person's time-reset was at 9:30 PM. That would mean one is able to tell the other person that they did something that they don't remember an hour ago. I'm not entirely sure how to phrase that, however. But i think you can bear some insight on what i mean. (3) This one relates to number 2. It's more relative, however, to the person rather than a third party telling them what they did. Let's say someone writes notes of what they did, you know, a journal. Within this two hour time period, they took the time to write it in in a new page. After the time-reset, the person goes back to write in the journal. But wait. What's this? What they wanted to write is already written. Is someone playing a joke? But how is that possible? Is someone capable of reading my mind before i even think up something? ...Anyways, you get the idea. And think of the possibilities where this could lead to! People may be too confused to advance in anything. And imagine hygiene. Nice topic, btw.

[1]Actually, if we look at the pattern, you kept switching from undecided to decided. Let's examine post #6 of this topic. In the second paragraph (i'm not going to include the first, since it leads and connects to the second), first and second sentence, you imply: decided. Second paragraph, 3rd sentence to the end of the 3rd paragraph, you imply: undecided. 4th paragraph, you imply: decided. 5ht paragraph, you imply: undecided. 6th paragraph, you imply: decided.[2]I, too, would have personal feelings if someone abused or killed a loved one. [3]And the court asks for beyond a reasonable doubt. [1]Although i did imply that it is not, there are some (although many) things that humans can't cure, and sometimes they make things worse when trying to help. Like you said, "potential"—not absolute. I'd rather allow the death of someone than place them in another jail: the psychiatric ward. Like you said, just the mere experience of prison could mess them up for life, especially if it requires years upon years just for them to be proven innocent.[2]Hope in this subject comes in many different forms: (1) A person suffering severely may hope for death. (2) A murderer hoping to get out of jail to commit the same crime. (3) The innocent hoping to reclaim their integrity (i.e. be proven innocent). (4) The hope that a murderer can change their ways. (5) The hope that the one believed to be innocent be proven innocent. [3]If punishment means the truama received in prison, then why add insult to injury by inflicting extra punishment that is allowed by law? [1]Did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule? (I say this here because i would like some feedback on it.)[2]Do you have avatars and or signatures for others enabled? You are decided. [1]This is a debate. That's what you do in a debate, no?[2]If i were to post everything i believe in, that would be for another topic. Also, i can't post everything i believe in off the top of my head. And, concerning this topic, did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule? [3]What shall i post besides what i haven't already posted? Indeed, this topic would be going no where if someone didn't comment on someone else's post. What do you think happens in congress when they plan on passing a new law or bill? Does everyone just state what they believe? Where would that get them? No where, for no one has actually discussed the topic at hand. [4]I stand up for my beliefs all the time. There are hundreds of people out there who attack my beliefs all the time and they make their attacks public, so i join in to defend my beliefs. [5]Did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule? Will you consider all that i am mentioning in this post? [1]I don't ask for the opportunity, and this should be expected in a debate.[2]This post of yours i'm addressing, is this not what you want? Are you not poking holes? [3]I do like a good debate. However, i find it a bit dissapointing when the topic-starter does not engage in the same topic they started. It makes you wonder their reason for posting.

Although i agree on the fact that an innocent person may be put to death instead of the guilty, before i go on to state a modified version of the system, however, i feel i should address a few things first. But before i do that, to those who state, "You don't have the right to take away someone else's life"—perhaps you should be saying that to the murderers instead. And should people, then, be allowed to take away their own life?—for that's what you are implying. Would this subject be off topic, though? We seem to be in the topic of taking away life, so i don't think it would be. And i don't believe people should be allowed to take their own life, and i bear more reasoning than "it is against God's Will" or as some would say it, "it goes against nature." (I quote this part because this basically summarizes your post in a few sentences.) You imply in this section that if one does not have doubt, then they might as well go on ahead and take away life, and that life in prison means life in prison. You, also, state that the guilty should receive some form of punishment (i.e. suffering).For the former: I shall use the same argument as stated against me: What if they're actually innocent and are proven so later on? Also, life in prison doesn't necessarily mean life in prison, especially if they're let out early for "good behavior." For the latter: However, the guilty is determined by the court, of which the one declared guilty could be innocent. If the guilty who is really innocent receives a form of suffering, that could affect them mentally. If they are later proven innocent and have some scars remaining of which was inflicted by the state (or whatever or whoever had power over them during their jail time), if mental, how are you going to give them their life back? Psychiatry? Pills for the rest of their what-is-now free time on earth? If physical, would you recompensate them for a (good) period of their life? Remember, there is more than one way to take away life, both literally or mentally. Also, physical pain can lead to emotional pain. If you're going to allow some form of suffering to the one declared as guilty, then you are being more inhumane than giving them "the easy way out." If you're going to be completely humane about it, then treat them as if they were royalty. Indeed, praise them for their alleged deeds with support. There's one problem with this: people have been doing such for a long while now. You see it on billboards, you see it on signs, you see it on the side of bus stops, you see it on T.V.. What form of media haven't we seen it on? Rather than doing what we are already doing, we should be trying to figure out how to do such a thing more effectively. For if this is what we call being effective, then it is obviously not working. Remember, people will always choose their own ways in doing things. When people are free to do what they please, they are bound to commit non-sense. As it seems, the only way to do so is to get rid of free will. However, people want a sense of freedom, so it's a bit of a loop. Although this would initially do away with the argument, "You don't have the right to take away someone else's life," it implies that people have the right to take their own lives. But it could be taken advantage of, if allowed, however, and you might still anyways put an innocent person to death. For one without hope may consider the death penalty. And a truly guilty person may realize that life doesn't really mean life in prison, and, if and when released, be free to commit the same crime, for a dog returns to its vomit. And if we still allow them to choose afterwards, things may just repeat themselves. [hr=noshade] [/hr] Now to address the issue of the innocent being put to death, we shall make a modification to the current system. Since Science is said to advance every ten years, although that number should have reduced by now for how many times Science has advanced, a cause for the innocent being declared guilty could be due to the fact that there wasn't an increase in technological advancement. There, of course, could be other causes, like false witnesses or evidence, but that may be a different story. When a person is placed on "death row," by law, they would have to wait 10 years before any further action is taken for them. When 10 years pass, by law, their case would be re-opened, [loop]only this time, any new tools brought about by technological advancement will be used, if any. If none are present, the case will still be re-opened for questioning. During this time, they are to look at the facts, etc, again, and have another case deciding the guilty's fate.[/loop] If they are proven guilty, they shall be placed back on "death row." If proven innocent, they shall be released. If placed back on "death row," they shall, by law, wait for 7 more years. When the 7 years are over, by law, the case will be re-opened, and everything will loop again. If found innocent they will be released. If not, back to death row. Afterwards, by law, they will wait 5 more years. At the end of the 5 years, the case will be re-opened, etc... If proven guilty, however, they will not be placed back on "death row" but be sent directly for death. This gives a total of 23 years for outsiders to try and prove this person innocent. This is, of course, a fresh idea and is open to debate. If any fairness has not increased in this, however, please provide a sound reason; however, i don't see how such an increase is not present. If you bring about money issues that could be involved in this, well, i'm sure we could put those what-would-be-used-otherwise "2 million" dollars into investment here.

Did you compile Apache or whatever server program you're using with Perl support? The location you provided doesn't necessarily mean that's where the libraries and whatnot are installed in. I think in order to use Perl in a PHP script, you need to first create an instance of the Perl class. Did you do this? Do you know how to do this?

The mail function provided by default in PHP is more than enough to fit all the needs of a programmer concerning this. In order to get other mail functions, you would have to install some PHP mail modules into your server or when compiling PHP from source.

Since you said it, i'll put it in quotes: Does every other poster have to follow this requirement, too? If we consider what humane is, we can very well be kind to the convicted. Indeed, we could give him a full course meal every day till his/her day comes. We could also, rather than making them suffer through the whole ordeal, provide comfort during the execution: quick and painless. No electric chairs, nothing that'll allow them to feel pain in the process. If you believe being humane means being kind to the person (or animal, although we're not talking about animals), then wouldn't you say this is quite kind? Did you know that most of the people waiting on death row die a natural death before being executed? However, there's a philosophy known as Justice. There are differences between the intention(s) of the murderer and the intention(s) of the one providing justice. The murderer tends to act on wanting to place misery into the victim(')s(') li[fe/ves], while the latter acts based on wanting to end any further misery. Your statement implies that both are equal, when that is not the case. However, if the one providing justice does it for the same reason as the murderer, then the one supposedly providing justice is as equally guilty as the murderer. The murderer did away with someone who was innocent, while the one providing justice is doing away with one that is proven guilty. Let's ask a few questions: How many people do get sentenced to capital punishment? Is more money truly wasted on capital punishment as it is wasted on life imprisonment, as you so imply? How many people do truly get life imprisonment? What's the average age of people found guilty for murder? What are the mental effects caused by life imprisonment? (: I place this question with higher priority than the others.) 9 years? Don't you think that's more than enough time to find a person innocent of the crime that has been attributed to them? I'm quite sure a lot others have wasted more than 9 years waiting for their end—especially if the government wants to save some money, which i'm sure that's a top priority of theirs. Not if the ones included were the ones that were performing capital punishment. For even in the begining of your post, you equal the ones committing capital punishment with the murderers. And like you've said, "during the years.*" I don't support murder (2), i support justice (1). (Note: these references were made to correct or imply a different definition, not to state that they both mean the same.)

[1]God is not subject to this dimension of time, for He created it. God, also, cannot have the title "creation" attributed to Him, for He bears the title "Creator". It's illogical to attribute "creation" to "creator." And it's illogical to say that the Creator is subject to His own creation. To say such is to consider God a human—of which He isn't.[2]Refer to number 1, and because this dense matter is subject to the same dimension of time that we are. And everything that is subject to it has had a beginning. [3]Because the Big Bang have had to have been created according to the laws of Thermodynamics. It is purely logical to think that God is the source of all energy, matter, life, etc, for from where else could it have come from? As i see it, the laws of Thermodynamics give way for the case of God. Also, refer to number 1.

Sure. CSS: ul.header, ul.col {list-style: none;margin: 0;padding: 0;}ul.header:first-line {text-align: center;font-weight: bold;}ul.col {border-top: 1px solid black;}ul.col li {display: table-cell;width: 150px; //change the width to whatever you want.} For the example, we'll use a 3-row, 3-column unordered list-table. Unordered list HTML: <ul class="header"><li>Header<!-- Row 1 --><ul class="col"><li>Column 1</li><li>Column 2</li><li>Column 3</li></ul><!-- Row 2 --><ul class="col"><li>Column 1</li><li>Column 2</li><li>Column 3</li></ul><!-- Row 3 --><ul class="col"><li>Column 1</li><li>Column 2</li><li>Column 3</li></ul></li></ul> Please note that this code has not been tested, but it should work for the most part.

Some have taken advantage of unordered lists for situations like these. They make use of the table-cell value for the display property for list item elements. They, then, adjust the width to make it look evenly distributed.

Check the body element, does it have an onload attribute to it? If it does, remove it and try again. The only thing i can think of is that there is JavaScript in the HTML page.

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

JavaScript and PHP both handle things differently. In JavaScript, variables outside a function can be used within a function and vice versa. JavaScript also doesn't need to be in a specfic order in order to pick other functions up, where in PHP everything is read from top to bottom. Like jlhaslip said, the variables that hold these arrays, declare them as a global. To do so, at the begining of the function, type in global then the variables afterwards, for example: function GetHP($raceIndex, $mjobIndex, $sjobIndex, $mainLevel, $subLevel) {global $arr1, $arr2;//rest of the coding...}

Yeah, by the description given, the only solution is getting a new RAM stick. You don't necessarily have to get another 1GB stick of RAM, just make sure your motherboard supports the RAM stick you may plan on getting. Not all RAM sticks will work on your motherboard, so figure out which speed this RAM stick you're mentioning is (e.g. DDR 667, DDR 800, etc) and purchase that. The RAM stick should say on its side what kind it is.

You can find this information in the front page of the Xisto.com website on the right side.

Although the str_replace function is one way to filter out certain words from strings, the example you provided would not work if actually used on a site for the following reason: subject parameter is not set. I'm quite sure PHP would output an error similar to that if tested. For case insensitivity, you could use str_ireplace.

Here's what i came up with. In the file attached is the source SVG, which can be resized to any size without losing quality. You just need an SVG editor, like InkScape. pH.tar.gz

http://freerice.com/ Feeding the hungry is as simple as a click away. 10 grains of rice per word may not seem like much, but the site donates based on revenue brought in by its advertisements. Meaning, more visitors and players can increase the amount of grains per word. Also, getting over 5,000 grains a day is not hard to do. Kindly join in on the fun!

I think, since you can purchase credits (link), it is unnecessary to ask another user for a loan for credits.

The QUOTE limit is part of the IPB script; to get rid of it is to modify the script itself; however, i say this bearing ignorance of the features provided in the Admin C-panel for IPB. If you run out of QUOTE bbcodes, use CODE for the others. [1]If proven, can it remain a theory? Organized religion is more than willing to accept microevolution. Macro, on the other hand, is capable of being, if not already, a contradiction to these religions. Although the universe was already there (assuming we are taking up the assumption that nothing, pure blankness, was the universe at the time), there is still a need of an explanation on how this hot mass of energy was present. One may even attribute this energy to God Himself, that is, this energy being God. Self contradiction: weren't we here or were we in the ocean?—pick one; you can't have both. I don't know, some dictionaries give off a definition for 'organism' which could be attributed to virii. So, the theory of evolution is a group of theories, not one whole big thing? (Seriously speaking.) if [1], then [2] is quite possible. I guess you would call this (if it had a name), "forced evolution." Do you see what i see? You imply that you know the mind of a neanderthal; however, that's beside the point. If a being is capable of hunting, which i'm quite sure a neanderthal must have been capable of doing, then this "organism" has the capacity to learn, especially if we were to take up the concept that a neanderthal invented the wheel (but this concept implies that the thing known as "tools" was not present, nor was its need to be, during the time of the ancestral ape {sorry, i'm not too keen with terms on this matter} before the neanderthal was present; which would contradict your following statement:). a) Apes do not require that adaptation, as they can already use tools for all their needs, and the other species simply weren't lucky enough.If we were to consider that the apes you are talking about bear the same working mind as of the apes today, then (1) the tools would be few if any, (2) the tools would be pointless to use, for what kind of great tool can these beings create that they can't already do by hand? (3) (if number 2) the tools would therefore be useless. But your statement implies that these apes were more intelligent than the ones found today. If that were so, then the neaderthals that came after them would or should have been smarter than these apes, which gives reason to believe that one could very well be capable of teaching the English language to a neaderthal. This is the straw man argument which creationists use. Remember, there is a thing called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and EVOLUTION IS A FACT. NATURAL SELECTION IS A THEORY, and NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT A LAYMAN THEORY! IT IS SCIENTIFIC THEORY! There is a difference! It wasn't a guess, it actually has much data based on observations to support it, OR IT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTED AS A THEORY BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.The word "evolution" implies both micro and macro. Macro, if i'm not mistaken, requires natural selection. But, according to the theory, in order for macro to occur, micro must first occur. Therefore, natural selection must first start off with microevolution. Therefore, natural selection applies to both micro- and macro-evolution. Unfortunately there are arguments against creationists, sorry. Fortunately, there are arguments for creationists. Phew! Sorry? For example, if the six days were metaphorical and they actually represented periods in which the universe developed, we would have land based plants before we had enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to support them.Hmm? I don't understand why there wouldn't be enough carbon dioxide to support them. For if things were under developement, they would take on a process of which they start to occur. And since there is an Intelligent Being behind this process, things would work out accordingly. [1]1Co 15:41 shows an easily observable event. Stars can be seen to have different magnitudes by simple observation of the sky, and it implies that the sun is not a star, which is false.[2]And Jon 2:5 implies that there are weeds on the ocean floor. Nothing lives there outside near the sulphurous crags which are not mentioned.[3]Jon 2:7 ignores the fact that you would never be able to go down into the bottom of a mountain unless you were to jump into a volcano. Mountains are upheavals of the continental crust due to the shift of tectonic plates. You would have to travel through solid rock and dirt to get into the bottom of a mountain unless you wanted to fry in molten rock after going through the mid-atlantic ridge.Let's make references to these 3, shall we? 1Co 15:41, Jon 2:5, Jon 2:6 (note: i changed this one to Jon 2:6, for 2:7 talks not about mountains).[1]How does it imply that it's not a star? If the verse started off as "the star" instead of "the sun" and ended the way it ends, would it make sense? Why would one speak in a way that is not understandable to others, even more so when Paul, the author of 1Co, says in 1 Corinthians 10:15 that he speaks to sensible people? [2]Jon 2:5 does not imply that there were weeds on the ocean floor, he was inside of a fish at the time (Jon 2:1). It is quite possible for there to have been seaweed inside fo the fish when he was in there. [3]Jon 2:6 does not ignore such fact. Jonah speaks in a poetic form here. The "roots of the mountains" can mean any side of the mountain that is under the sea. There is another little thing, from a novel called 1984, which you might be familiar with: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the future controls the present.For all you know this could be a 2007 year old lie which was based on a character used by the original apostles to teach morals, but ended up as a tool of control by the churches, and completely lost after the middle ages.Within context, that would mean these people had the ability to control the past, for, by the way you're saying it, they are controlling the future, which is now the present. But that's impossible for a human. Here is another quote by Carl Sagan which you might want to think about:The second quote you provide by Carl Sagan does not refute anything. Just 'cause a human would not take the time to care about what would appear to be a tiny little spec in God's view, does not mean that God Himself wouldn't either. Remember, God is not a human being and never will be.

Note: It is more secure if you use this code: <?php$id = $_GET['id'].".html";if (file_exists($id)){include $id;} else {echo "The requested file does not exist.";}?>That way, you don't have to type in .html at the end of the URL, and just the name of the file instead. Plus, if you use the other code, you'll get the same effect as if you were looking into a mirror that's infront of another mirror if you were to include the same page, example: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ (let it load for like 7-10 seconds, and you'll see why—be sure to stop the loading!).

I'm not really sure why your old code would work on the other server and i don't see how it could have, but mine worked because i told the PHP script to place what it gets from the GET method into a variable—the variable you declared. Without it, the script shouldn't (although more like can't) work the way you want it to.

Similar to how i did to mine. In your code, you're outputting the file directly. You have to turn it into a string and add 'true' to the return parameter: $source = show_source($file, true);And in my script, pretend $contents is $source, and remove $handle = fopen($filename, "r");$contents = fread($handle, filesize($filename));fclose($handle); Viewing the source is dependant on your browser. If you run into a 403 forbidden error page and you view the source, you'll just see the HTML of the 403 forbidden error page.

Try this: <?php $id = $_GET['id'];include ($id);?>I saw this from the start; you didn't have to provide us with all that code. Note: this simple code is a security flaw.