nolan

Personally, though I don't necessarily believe that any particular restaurant promotes obesity, I like when places come under attack for being "unhealthy". I'm biased, however, due to the fact that I've been a vegetarian for several years, and most of the places that do come under attack tend to have very few (if any) vegetarian options to choose from. If talk about their menu being "unhealthy" catches on and spreads, however, the restaurant is more likely to implement healthier menu options (and possibly vegetarian selections, as well).

The problems associated with any classification of people tend to fall on the shoulders of the visible majority within that group. At least 3/4's of the teenagers (and not teenagers exclusively, mind you) that I see lack anything resembling an appropriate level of judgment, have a horrible sense of their priorities, are arrogant, and place no value upon education. In short, they're either dime-a-dozen rock stars with their heads in the clouds who think the world farts rainbows, or they're gangster thug wannabes stealing car stereos from one another just to blast them at full volume while driving aimlessly through store parking lots, because that's what being "cool" is. I do acknowledge, however, that there are many good teenagers out there who are trying to avoid those paths. I also acknowledge that many adults never leave those paths behind. I see just as many (or more) arrogant (and ignorant to compound matters) twenty- and thirty-something year olds as I see arrogant teenagers. Part of the reason for that, however, is that we've been living in the "ME" generation for quite some time now. We raise kids to be so self-important that they never develop any sense of humility. No one can cede to an argument these days -- they always have to be right -- and no one is willing to lower their voice in order to allow another voice to be heard, because doing so seems to imply a sense of ascension in their minds. In the end, the most that I hope is that "good" people (by my own subjective reasoning) will be able to work their way through all the clutter, and that those who truly wish to escape from the path they're on will be able to do so with as little ill consequence as possible.

1. This is one of the most cretinous, myopic things I have read in a while. Even though a woman's body may be designed to bear children, that in no way implies a requirement to do so, much less as a result of unprovoked circumstances such as rape. I take it you would hold a much different view if your wife or daughter were the ones placed in such a situation. I question whether you could imagine such a thing: A person you love comes home beaten and bloodied from a violent rape and then, by that logic, they should be forced to bear the child because that's one of the things their body was designed to do. Nevermind the fact that the person might barely make a enough of a living to sustain themselves, much less a child. And if you were going to argue such a mindless point, it could be argued with equal merit that one of the many "purposes" of a man is to support/provide for his family, which is not the case with rape. 2. I am not a religious person, but many religions consider the body to be sacred, or consider the act of killing (legal or otherwise) to be sinful or dishonorable. The number of religions falling into these categories greatly exceeds the number of religions that believe in some form of reincarnation. Therefore, even though I'm not religious myself, I recognize that many would not consider the argument to be without value (or as you said, "mute") on a religious ground.

[1] There was no support, material or immaterial, so again the point has no merit.. You could argue immaterial support if I had broached the topic myself, although I did not, so that would be foolish. Nor had I, at the time, given any form of approval to the idea. I did detail considerations that would need to be made within the general subject, just as a man with hearing might consider the world of the deaf. This does not lend support of any kind to a particular idea. Part of a debate entails considering varying viewpoints and the intricacies of each. Doing so does not mean you endorse a particular notion, however, and for one to assume so would be misguided. [2] "Christian" and "crusades" go together in the term "Christian crusades". The events are not referred to merely as "crusades", so the response below is irrelevant. Further, if you want to argue that the point was merely to "reclaim land", the end would be restoring land to Christian control, which reverts back to the original point that I had made. Controlling land inherently involves having influence.

[1] It is very relevant that this is a forum, as it is the only reason this topic came up. As I've mentioned before, one can be personally convinced about something without having to support it publicly. That was the whole point. You had mentioned that I was supporting evolution (or something along those lines) by posting that I believed evolution to be true. People have sense enough to determine and maintain their own beliefs regardless of me posting about mine, and at the time, I had not posted any arguments -for- evolution. The definition for "support" from Princeton's WordNet can be found at http://definr.com/support/. Item #2 is probably the most relevant. All that being said, again, personal conviction is irrelevant for the point in question. [2] You need look no further than the very definition of the term, which did not arbitrarily arise. If it is your belief that the term was formulated by those trying to suppress Christian beliefs or to misguide others, so be it. Alternatively, see: http://definr.com/christian/ and http://definr.com/crusade/. One thing to note (for the sake of accuracy) is that the definition of the term 'crusade' hasn't remained stagnant over time. It takes its roots in the Latin cruci-, or crux (oldest forms), referring to a cross. With this in mind, the term originally bore a meaning more along the lines of "a war for the cross", although that meaning can still be assumed in current definitions/contexts. (Neither of these are quite accurate, but they're close enough for all intents and purposes as a reference: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crusade and http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/.)

[1] Things "popping into existence out of nothing" would imply everything needs a beginning. You're contradicting yourself. [2] A lot of different theories, actually, and I've not mixed any of them other than to say that I firmly believe in both creationism and evolution. [3] Nothing definitively does. Hence my point. And yes, you likely are wasting your time. [4] But wait, you just said they don't give an explanation for the most important thing necessary to disprove creationism. Again, contradictory. And feel free never to repeat yourself on my behalf; an argument failed once isn't rectified through repetition. [5] I have a very good grasp an a variety of theories. I assume that what you've gathered about them reaches to about the level of a highschool lecture. Also, feel free to ignore whatever you wish. I am not your parent, so I will not attempt to force anything down your throat, and you ignoring me is the least of my concerns. It does not harm me if you do, nor benefit me if you don't. The origin of matter is, however, very important when attempting to disprove creationism with -any- theory. [6] Please present the quote in which I said what you've accused me of saying, as I don't believe it exists. I merely pointed out that not all creationists are clueless to scientific principle, and some are, in fact, most renown for their accomplishment in the field. Furthermore, this is not an academic debate, and I've sat in, facilitated, and contributed to many. Industry and field research conferences are greatly different than the highschool debates you may be accustomed to. [7] You're borrowing another point from me here, and it was a point you argued against previously. Quote: "And telling that things are impossible to understand because we don't have an explanation now is kinda dumb." I take it you've had a change of heart, and that's forgivable, although for the record, at the industry- and university-level, contradictions are highly frowned upon. [1] This is a forum. The context is inherently public. Again, self-argument is irrelevant. [2] War does not begin nor expand without purpose. (There is also a difference between crusading and war, but I'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity.)

[1] A correction to your line of thinking: evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism. As you yourself have mentioned, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I firmly believe in evolution, as well. As for evidence of a "thing popping into existence out of nothing", the question of how the big bang came into existence is still unanswered, and no definitive (provable, if you will) answer exists for the origin of matter in any contending theories. [2] I've already mentioned that evolution doesn't explain the creation of matter. I do not want an all-in-one explanation, nor did I ever imply such: doing so would imply narrowing the possibilities, whereas considering creationism possible (and even likely) serves to expand the array of possibilities. (It is the opposite line of thinking that is constricting.) As for your other point about "nothing" coming from "nothing", I'm not sure you have a grasp on what "nothing" is. If what you mean by "nothing" is lack of material structures of any form, you have no proof that such a concept exists or ever has, so yes, it is a limit on human intelligence (not just your own). [3] Au contraire, mon ami. Einstein and Darwin were both scientific creationists (new term, old meaning). You don't have to believe me (nor do I expect you to), but if you read a halfway decent biography about either (preferably including personal letters), I'm certain you'd realize as much. I assume you have not done so. I'm not sure what "quote-mining" is, nor do I particularly care. As I've mentioned, you can read their correspondences for yourself and uncover your own interpretation of them (in context). As for the complexity argument that I've mentioned, it's no more than a paraphrased version of one made by Newton years ago. If it strikes you as "dumb", maybe that's more a reflection of your own views than of the matter at hand. Finally, as for some concepts being impossible to understand: it takes a certain level of humility to accept this notion. That being said, I don't expect it to come natural (or even possible) to some.

This is kind of a double-edged sword. Relevant link exchanges can certainly help draw the kind of visitors you want to your website, but most link exchanges are horrible at matching content across sites. If you participate in one of these link exchanges, you'll (a) possibly get hits, but by poorly targeted viewers and ( likely have your search rankings impacted in a negative way for lack of relevant linking. A better option is to simply communicate with other site owners in the same industry as you and find ways to work together to incur a mutual benefit from traffic visiting either page.

If there's "zero" evidence behind creationism, then there's an equal level of evidence for any other philosophy. With any theory that attempts to explain the creation of matter, you always start with something already having existed that can't be explained with certainty. Whether it's God or a big bang, trying to define the origins of either is (a) impossible or ( only suited to lead to further uncertainty. If you choose not to stand behind creationism, then you stand behind a theory that, while it may seem peachy scientifically, fails to address the most important questions, such as "how did thing x begin?" Some of the most popular scientists who have contributed to modern scientific thought and methods were creationists. Scientific creationists, but creationists, nonetheless. This includes Albert Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and countless others. Surely none of them had proof for creationism either, but they also understood that there were far too many things that humans could never understand. The universe is certainly too complex to be arbitrary. One single living creature is too complex to be arbitrary, and schematics don't derive from nothing. In this sense, the proof is not in some scientific equation, but rather the fact that science has failed to reach beyond a certain threshold. [1] The context of the alleged support was public, so self-argument is irrelevant. [2] I mentioned that there wouldn't be "much" of a debate. People will always argue over whatever they want to. (This was part of my point when mentioning the fact that people still argue about whether or not the moon landings or Holocaust ever occurred.) An argument that can be decided definitively with scientific proof, however, would be foolish to be debated, unless there were some concern over the methods of that proof, which would derail from the original argument and create one anew. [3] I hold action and consequence above any motive. The same article also mentions (among many like statements):

[1] I think you might have gotten off track with regards to what this point was referring to. Looking at the original posts, this response doesn't make sense to me. My original point was in saying that I do not have to argue the position of evolution to believe in it, which I stick to. [2] It can't be definitively concluded that God exists, much less the other things you've mentioned. They make sense if that is what you choose to believe, just as it could make sense to someone else that this universe is some demigod's science project (and if it doesn't make sense, firm followers will always find a way to give it sense). As I said, if God's existence alone could be definitively proven, there wouldn't be much of a debate. As it stands, however, it's open to interpretation. [3] Anyone can choose not to believe anything they want. There are those who say the Holocaust and moon landings never happened. It's a right that they have. Unfortunately, it is highly disrespectful to those who lost their lives during tragic events such as crusades or the Holocaust. If it were I who wished to research these events, I would probably start with a Google search along the lines of "christian crusade violence" and then thumb through the natural garbage that would appear. Even the Wikipedia page references a couple of the larger episodes of violence witnessed during these periods (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/). [4] Again, I'm not going to list anything that can be just as easily researched by the reader. If a reader does not feel they should perform their own research, so be it. I do not have to validate through references, nor anything other, a personal view that I hold, nor will I. I believe it is wise for individuals to look outside of their firmly held beliefs in order to obtain new knowledge, but I understand this is not always their desire, and I would never steer them to that end. [5] It's a subjective topic, but correct, inaccuracies are not credible. Other things can make a resource lose its credibility, as well, however. Lack of attribution, undocumented alterations, copying defects that can alter the meaning of a work (in both the large and narrow senses), etc. It is for these reasons, as an example, that most universities do not accept the use of Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, regardless of whether or not it can claim 99% accuracy, etc. On an unrelated note, I hope that everyone following this thread, regardless of faith, has a happy Christmas holiday.

I don't personally believe technology alienates people. Other people may, but I don't. To me, the people that alienate themselves with technology are the ones who would try to alienate themselves by any other means. In this sense, technology's just a convenient tool for the job.Personally, I love to share ideas and learn things that are going on around the world with technology. There is one thing I really can't stand, however. It's not a problem with the technology, specifically, but rather the people that are using it. I hate when people use technology as a shield to say hurtful or otherwise less filtered things than they would in everyday life. In situations like these, technology serves to flatter the ego, and we're already an immensely ego-gorged society as it stands (although that's an entirely different rant).

Hi. [1] That was my point from the beginning. [2] I never said discussion should be halted or that it should never have been started. I merely said it was foolish to pretend to know things one does not (beyond belief or self affirmation of any kind). And the examples I gave cannot be definitively addressed, whilst meeting the requirements I mentioned. [3] Yes, it is on a personal level. E.g. when crusaders are telling you to accept something as being true and never to get caught preaching other religions or teaching them to your children or you'll be killed. That helps something spread. Although land and government help, too. Such as, again, a government that won't possibly allow the construction of new places of worship for any religion other than Christianity, or that mandates participation at those worship services. Appearance and availability -alone- have tremendous influence (think advertising), beyond fear itself. I never said Christianity is evil, but the history of nearly any religion stretches through long periods of violence for the sake of conversion. [4] I'm not writing an essay, nor do I feel the need to validate anything that can be just as easily confirmed by the reader. If one wants to learn more about any doctrine or faith, the resources are available for them to do so. If I do research for someone else, I'm getting paid for it. (That being said, using the top two Google results from a quick search: BBC News "The Rival to the Bible" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm] and a random Yahoo Answers question [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227061633AAybnTS].) [5] You could say the same thing about the collections at the library of Alexandria, but it still wouldn't be true. You can quite easily know of something being destroyed but not know what was destroyed or have explicit documentation of the act. The entire point is in wondering what -was- destroyed, as well as the motives behind destroying it. Not only that, but something doesn't have to be destroyed to have its scholarly value removed. Errors in translation, recall, or mere copying defects can accomplish the same end. All of that is regardless to me, however (and I did mention this was all my own view). If the settling of any scriptural matter is facilitated by one who doesn't even follow that religion, the process is naturally suspect in my mind. [6] I never said formulate. I did say pick through, however.

I tend to rely on Shakespeare for my definition of personality. I believe that everyone has one or two "fatal flaws" that tend to govern a lot of things about them. For example, a child that was born to a large family and never had the chance to be heard might have a fatal flaw in their desire for attention. This desire could later translate into a constant need for social reinforcement or overcompensation of the flaw through being more vocal than before. (In this context, personality is a series of learned or adopted responses to different social stimuli.)

[1] Yes, and in the context of me "arguing" for something's existence, the support is implied to be public. When I'm not "arguing" for something's existence (as I wasn't and have repeatedly stated that I wasn't), that's not the case. [2] I never said that anything was limited to my examples (hence the use of examples, rather than a definitive list). I believe I said that concrete statements in -general- couldn't be made to definitively support either notion as being the truth, which, no matter how much you might wish to believe otherwise, that's still the case. Saying "well, we're here, aren't we?" isn't a concrete statement for or against creationism/evolution. [3] Without the crusades, Christianity wouldn't have spread nearly as far as it has, nor would it have spread remotely as fast. They are not the roots, but they did spur its mainstream adoption. On a separate note, unrelated to anything above or below, I don't give very high regard to statements quoted from the bible. It's been picked through and revised multiple times, and is therefore (to me) useless as a definitive reference. Entire gospels have been burned simply because they had statements that didn't bode well with political parties at the time. It's pretty bad that it's impossible to even find a complete list of individuals who were involved in the Council of Nicaea and who each had their chance at picking through the holy scripture, much less a definitive record of what transpired. One thing's for sure, though: the emperor (Constantine, a pagan) had the last word whenever there were quarrels.

Something kind of like this was done years ago, albeit in a different manner. There was a video on YouTube that you can probably still find entitled something along the lines of "wooden mirror". In that video, it's demonstrated how a series of cameras placed at certain angles, coupled with a computer, could recreate a scene by rotating a canvas of wooden blocks. (As the name implies, it was used to create a wooden mirror, such that when people walked past, they'd see the blocks rotate to reflect light at different angles and re-form the image in a sort of monochromatic manner.(On second thought, it might have only used one camera and just detected different shades of light on the subject, which seems simple enough. At any rate, it's worth a look.)

This is a good concept, although it's not implemented well in this tutorial.Since you're relying on javascript anyway, get rid of the preloader page and just have the preloader bar appear over the current page with the content blacked out below it. This eliminates an extra page transfer (GET request to the server, that is, thus reducing bandwidth). It also eliminates the possibility that someone could link to the page following being transferred away from the preloader, meaning all other visitors who view the page through the link skip preloading altogether.The method I proposed is also much simpler and more concise, as it eliminates the need for you to have to manually enter each image's location information onto another page. Additionally, it'd be reusable across all pages without any changes, whereas the above script is only good for one page (set of images), unless it's specifically modified for another.So, how would you go about doing it this way? I'm not going to actually create the thing for you, but assuming you have a good grasp of Javascript, just do the following:1. Black out the page by creating a div with a high z-index value and positioning it absolutely over all other content.2. Use the getElementByTagName method to fetch all <img> elements on the page.3. Build a throw-away array containing each unique image src and attach an onload event listener to each. Use the onload event listener to trigger a preloader update method.4. When the preloader update method is called (when another image on the page has been loaded), increase a variable count of images that have been preloaded and adjust the preloader bar to reflect the progress.5. When the final preloader update has been called (when the preload count reaches the throw away array length, that is), set the array to null and remove the preloader bar and screen fader divs to reveal the page below (with all images loaded).Problem solved. No need to worry about having an extra page/redirect, source duplication, or direct linking, and you get the added benefit of a JS file that's reusable on any page.

Avast, AntiVir, and AVG all offer a fair to good level of protection, with AVG falling on the lower end and Avast being on the upper end. Personally, I've used Avast for many years and have had no issues with it. In the past, there was a bundled edition of Avast that communicated with Kerio Personal Firewall to form one of the most powerful freeware security combinations available, but Kerio has since sold their firewall to (if memory serves) Sunbelt. At any rate, I'd have to second (or third or fourth) all of the recommendations for Avast.

@webishqiptar - It's nice to meet you! My reason for joining this community was primarily to have something to look over and contribute to when I'm in the middle of projects but just want a quick breather away from looking at code/design work.@mich - Thank you for the warm welcome. I look forward to helping out around the community and seeing what other people are working on, too!

I wouldn't say I particularly "care" about Gmail (in the sense that it's hard for me to care about a product in general). I really enjoy using Gmail for several reasons, though, including the fact that the interface is very clean and intuitive, it's quick, I can preview many documents with ease, and searching through old e-mails is seamless. In the end, it's a product that meets my needs, that I like using, and that's free; why wouldn't I want to use it?

Hello everyone.It's a little bit late, but I figured I'd post an introduction anyway. My name is Nolan, as you might have guessed. I am a professional designer (I do anything from layout design to web design, promotional design, 3D modeling, illustration work, and more). I own my own design firm and administer several web projects of various proportions.My educational background is a mixture between business and technology. I hold an M.S. in Management Information Systems and a Masters of Business Administration, along with several technical certifications and a few emergency management certifications from a previous role I held working for the government. I will also soon be a doctoral candidate for a Ph. D. in Information Technology.I program/script in Python, PHP, Javascript (AJAX-related, mostly), HTML, and CSS. Previously, I have done work with Java, Perl, and C++, as well, with a very, very small amount of Ruby speckled in. The work I do with Python and PHP relates mostly to web-related imaging services and communications platforms. Back when I worked with Java, I was using the language for 3D projects.For applications, I've worked with too many to list, both professionally and personally.Beyond all of this, and foremost in my life, I enjoy spending time with my wife and daughter. I also enjoy cooking, music composition and editing, philosophy, and whatever else draws my attention at a particular moment in time.That's me in a nut shell!

It's nice to meet you, Andy. You mentioned that you like messing with PHP. Do you have any projects up and running at the moment, do you have anything planned, or are you just kind of getting started with the language? Also, as far as automotive repair goes, are you a professional or more of a hobbyist?Take care,Nolan

To say that a group should be accountable for the actions of a few members within that group is misguided. Granted, some people will take that stance, but that can't be helped. If you're going to look at it that way, though, we all (as part of the human group) have a lot to be sorry for. Men have a lot to be sorry for, women have a lot to be sorry for, children, young adults, the elderly, families, etc. (You'd also have to acknowledge the flip-side, which is that we all have a lot to be proud of.) Many times, we don't even have a choice as to what group we fall in, and other times, unexpected things can happen within that group that you could never possibly foresee. Like I said, some people will surely take that stance, but that's not a perspective I, individually, would choose to embrace.

Religion has always just been a convenient idea to "pin" wrongdoings on. Very few religions are intrinsically evil, but a lot of people in a position of power have used their influence in order to commit various offences. In the end, though, it is the individual who determines what is possible for his or herself, not the religion. When you live long enough and interact with people with an open mind, you see that good people come in all different shapes, sizes, and categories of spirituality or belief. It's for this reason that I can just as easily befriend an atheist, a Christian, a pagan, a pantheist, or just about anything else. When you're young, however, or your beliefs are still forming, it's easier for you to attack ideas that differ from your own as a natural mechanism for validating the ideas that you have come to adopt. This is why many religious debates tend to end in a swelling of finger-pointing and heated remarks that have little to do with the discussion at hand.

I'd say it's a bit more than 'slghtly' different. In Japan, it's not uncommon to bring your entire family to meet your employer when you get a new job after graduation, and the job you get tends to last you the rest of your life. The cultural differences extend into the rest of their business model, as well. For example, during international business meetings with Japan, it is considered highly disrespectful to send officers from your firm of a different rank to those of the Japanese firm, or for the number of officers from each firm to be unequal.

I do support its existence, but I don't have to argue for or against something to believe in it. It's as simple as that. What you said has no impact on my statement. No concrete facts can be stated regarding either of the examples I gave. Knowing we exist is not the same as knowing the reasons we exist, which was the whole point. We're talking about evolution vs. creationism, so yes, I think that keeping the concrete statements related to those is important. And yes, I do know that we can't make the concrete statements that I gave examples for. If anyone thinks they can, they can feel free to try. Finally, with regards to Christianity being evil (this one wasn't addressed to me, but still), the roots of Christianity involved more organized violence than any other religions combined. If you research the history of Christian crusades, you'd quickly discover this to be the case. This doesn't make Christianity itself evil, nor Christians, but it's the very reason the ideas spread as far as they did. Notice from truefusion: All copied material must go within quote tags