At 11/1/09 05:19 PM, Jon-86 wrote: So why not just have that single file in a directory and password protect that?

Because it's the index file of the site.

Well my server is Unix, so I guess that's good. Everywhere I go to find out how to lock a particular file, it gives me this code:

<Files index.php>
Order deny,allow
AuthType Basic
AuthName "my site name"
AuthUserFile "password file location"
Require valid-user
</Files>

It works, but it doesn't prompt to enter a username and password. It just goes straight to the 401 error. I really only need this page to be locked, which would be convenient so it doesn't keep prompting for every damn subdirectory it has to access.

Can you restrict a specific file rather than a directory?

So I want to password protect one of my websites, which I've done through cPanel to password protect that whole directory. However, inside the site directory that I'm locking is a subdirectory that I want public. Is there any way to do this, or am I fucked?

Thank you so much man, this helped out a lot. In your myClass.java file, you accidentally said generateRandomNumber(); rather than generateNewNumber();. Also, apparently the Math.random() function returns a double, not a float. But I fixed those up and now it works like a charm! Here's my final code:

// Written by William Thomas
//
// Returns a random number between 0 and 1.
//
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.*;
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class RandomNumberGenerator
{
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   public double generateNewNumber() {
      double randomNumber = Math.random();
      return randomNumber;
   }
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
} // end class RunScript
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class RunScript
{
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   public static void main(String[] args) {
      RandomNumberGenerator myGenerator = new RandomNumberGenerator();
      double f = myGenerator.generateNewNumber();
      System.out.println(f);
   }
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
} // end class RunScript
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So I'm starting to learn Java for the first time, and I'm getting some errors when compiling. I'm sure it's just a syntax thing, but I'm hoping someone can get me going in the right direction.

// Written by William Thomas
//
// Creates random numbers.
//
import java.*;
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class RandomNumberGenerator
{
   float ran = Math.random();
   System.out.println(ran);

} // end class RandomNumberGenerator
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And yeah, I realize I'm importing everything. I'm just doing that for now until I can get my syntax shit together. Can anyone help me out here?

At 8/14/09 11:38 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: My bad, it isn't working in Firefox on Windows. I thought you were talking about the sidebar, not the title. I have no idea what's causing it though. I'll have a dig through the source and see if anything pops out.

Thanks guys. I used Chrome to compare the computed styles between the normal and anchored versions on almost every element on the page, but I can't find any actual differences.

I checked the wordpress template files for anything regarding anchors, but nothing.

So I'm running a Wordpress blog and I have a little issue with the #comments anchor. Compare these two links:

http://www.stalfos.com/posts/thinking-wi th-portals
http://www.stalfos.com/posts/thinking-wi th-portals#comment-13

The top one works fine, but when you anchor to the comments (the second link), it pushes the entire left div (containing everything but the sidebar) upwards so it cuts off the title almost half-way. Usually I can fix weird bugs like this, but I have no idea how an anchor would modify it like this.

At 7/9/09 08:48 AM, urbn wrote: Maybe you could set up a CGI script to automatically "run" the page which will then update the database?

That's a good idea. I set up a cron job in cPanel to run the script every hour. We'll see how it goes.

Yeah, but it wasn't as nice as I had liked. Basically what I ended up doing was creating a script that loaded all my twitter posts via RSS, not using the javascript badge API. I found a file that parses the RSS feed into PHP, which I was able to modify to insert the tweets into my MySQL database.

The problem is, every time I tweet something, I have to open that file, which checks for tweets that have been already inserted and inserts the new ones. It's not perfect, but I can tweet from my phone and open the PHP script to do that, so it's good enough for me.

You can see the final result here. Note, this site is still a work in progress.

Nevermind, I got it. :3

God dammit I hate you so much Sam.

I'm working on revamping my site with a better "blog" system for news updates. One of my plans is to link it to my Twitter. The problem is, I don't post everything on Twitter, and some stuff I only post on my site. The Twitter API works if you just want to display your latest tweets, but that won't work for me.

I want my Tweets to look like the other blog posts (with a little "T" icon or something to differ from the others, but that's styling and not important right now). If I post something on the site, it shows up. Then if I tweet something, it appears. Then if I normally post something else, that'll go on top.

I'm thinking it might work if I use their badge API and somehow get the timestamps and organize it that way. I made my own blog system so I have complete control of the database and all that. Does anyone have any ideas?

At 5/31/09 09:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: 64 bit is based on the processor not the amount of ram you have. So you probably still have to run the x86 version.

My CPU was upgraded as well. Is there a place I can go to see if my processor would support x64?
In case you would happen to know, I'm running:

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU
Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz

My question is, is it safe to run a 64-bit operating system on a computer that was not originally manufactured with 4gb of RAM.

At 5/31/09 08:55 PM, zoke wrote: Try the programming forum.

I was, but this isn't really a programming question. Just a general computer question.

So when I originally got my desktop, it had Windows XP Home on it. Then, I upgraded to Vista. Now, after trying the RC of Windows 7 on a different computer, I don't want to hesitate upgrading to that.

Now here is my question. When I first got the computer, I had 2 Gb of ram, so obviously I had x86 (32-bit). I had x86 Vista too, but I recently put 2 more gigs of ram. Should I now upgrade to Windows 7 x64, or stick with x86 for some reason?

Relish, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you sir.

I forgot to mention it, but the only way I've found to show the error is to keep refreshing it until it happens. It may take like, 50 times but eventually it does happen. Unless it's only a problem on my computer.

Again, so far I've only tested Firefox and IE, and FF was the only one that does this.

I'm trying to make a site with a specific file system, and I want the "directory" links to look a certain way. It has a picture of a folder next to the name, but the entire thing is padded about 3px and displayed as a block.

It works, but for some reason it breaks apart at random and a blank link appears above or below it, and the category name is off to the side. It's hard to explain, and it's hard to duplicate. So far the only browser I've seen to do this is Firefox, and it only happens about 10% of the time.

Here's the link: http://tgb.indiecave.com/.

The list is loaded from SQL via a while loop, so here's the code:

while($rows_root = mysql_fetch_array($query)){
echo('<div id="main_links">
            <a href="#" style="display:block">
                <div style="float:left">
                    <img src="image/Folder.gif" border="0" alt=""/>&nbsp;
                </div>
                <div style="padding-top:1px; float:left">
                    <font color="#7e7e8b">'.$rows_root['id'].'</font>
                </div>
                <div style="clear:both"></div>
            </a>
        </div>');
}

And here's the CSS which deals with that:

#main_links a, a:link, a:visited{
	padding: 3px 3px 0px 3px;
}

#main_links a:hover{
	background-color:#151519;
}

I've had this same problem before and never found a way to fix it, but I'm working on something that could potentially be public and I won't give any details on that just yet, but this is a problem I can no longer ignore.

onClipEvent(enterFrame){
this.menstruate();
}

First you need to connect to your database in the PHP file using the mysql_connect() function, then select the appropriate database using mysql_select_db().

Then it's just a matter of making a SQL query and loading the data accordingly.

You can check out some tutorials/documention here.

I'm trying to find a way to call this lightbox through javascript, rather than a link. I've tried called the initialize() function, but that didn't work.

I'm out of ideas, can anyone help?

At 2/27/09 01:15 AM, Bolo wrote: Since there is no proof currently either for against a deity's existence, an Atheist takes up the neutral position of the lack of belief. Agnosticism, in contrast to Atheism, is merely a lack of definite declaration; a waffling, rather than an acceptance of neutrality.

You've got your definitions wrong. Agnostic means you recognize that one cannot prove that the Theists are correct, nor can you prove the same for the Atheists.

Atheism is defined as simply not believing in any form of god. Antitheism is a deliberate and strict rejection of Theism.

I am aware that the congressman probably won't take too kindly to my letter for my cynical remarks against religion. However, the assignment wasn't to bullshit a letter to write just for the sake of him actually reading it, I could give two shits whether he does or not. This is how I actually feel about the issue, so that's what I wrote.

As far as the whole agnostic, atheist, religious argument goes, if you think about it, agnosticism really is the most logical "religion" (or lack thereof). No one has proven one way or another is God does or does not exist, so it's arrogant to assume that God exists when you simply have faith. The same applies to atheists. One can't completely discredit the idea of a higher power without irrefutable proof.

Therefore, I am agnostic not because I ignore the situation all together, but because I recognize that God may or may not exist, and no one can know for sure.

So for my AP Government class, we have been assigned to write a 750-word letter to our state representative. We were given a list of issues, one of which we had to choose to discuss possible solutions and the topic itself. I have chosen the issue of overpopulation in the United States. In my excessive boredom I have decided to post my letter here, in case anyone would like to reply with any comments or questions.

Congressman David Dreier
233 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0526

Dear Congressman David Dreier,

Overpopulation seems to be one of the most, if not the most important issue we are facing as Americans. However, nobody I know seems to care about it. Overpopulation is crowding cities and streets, evolving from a matter of inconvenience to an issue of safety. Crowded streets can be bothersome, yet emergency vehicles that cannot reach a hospital in time are an actual threat to other lives. The issue is caused by two major catalysts: governmental failure to regulate the growth rate and simple human selfishness.

Overpopulation, being an important issue, is also a controversial one, especially in the argument of religion. I am proud to be agnostic, and I will be blunt about this issue. The United States are caught in a Catch-22 situation. Many religions promote having large families, such as Catholicism and Mormonism. However, due to the first amendment, we cannot reject the opportunity of any individual from practicing a religion. The source of those stereotypes derives from their traditions, where the religion was founded in a region and time where the population wasn't this high and manual labor was a major component in the family. This, however, is no longer the case. In relation to religion in the United States, the population has exploded since the 17th century.

These traditions, however, have passed on in an apparent lack of social evolution. It is possible, though, for the government to restrict certain activities and behavior even if they are in direct correlation to religion. For example, one could argue that enacting laws made to slow population growth are unconstitutional for they go against the traditions of their religion. Take into consideration the issue with narcotics. Ownership of cannabis is against federal law, despite the fact the Constitution gives the right to the people to do whatever they wish to themselves (which is where the issues with abortion and assisted suicide arise). Nevertheless, the law is still in place, and there is no reason why a law to fight overpopulation cannot.

The second issue is, again, government regulation. Many controversial tools have been invented to fight both overpopulation and spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including, but not limited to: condoms, birth control and vasectomies. These are against many religious ideals as well, which still poses many issues with those who do not believe the government has the right to control their sex life. Unfortunately though, this is the only way to solve the problem. We are living in modern times, not religion-zealous times. No matter how taboo it may seem, it is a fact. Therefore, if the American people cannot control themselves when it comes to reproduction, government involvement is required. Take for example, the ever infamous Nadya Suleman, the woman who birthed eight children at one time, after already having six. That, my dear congressman, is the epitome of human selfishness. Humans were not meant to have litters, especially when created by taking fertility pills. Therefore, I believe the government should appoint a new U.S. Commission on Population Growth.

This commission would indirectly help to control and regulate the amount of children born in the country. Such regulation may be seen as bureaucratic and insensitive; however, it is still necessary. The population of the country is reaching its carrying capacity very rapidly. In response to this, I am proposing a three plan act: The first act would be on a civil level, teaching children about safe sex with condoms and birth control, as well as legalizing abortions in places where it currently is not. The second act is to use positive incentive, granting subsidies to condom manufacturers and possibly abortion clinics. This would encourage companies to promote their products and services and, in turn, hopefully persuade people to use them. The third and final would work using negative incentives, applying excise taxes on fertility drug companies.

Population growth is an exponential process, meaning with every child born, not only does the population grow, but the rate of increase grows as well. In layman's terms, the population is spiraling out of control. With every child born, they will probably have multiple children, who will also have multiple children, and so on. Eventually the problem will become so significant, that the country will simply run out of resources. If and when this occurs, it will be the children who pay for it with their lives when their families can't make ends meet. Ultimately, it is a possibility that the free world as we know it could cease to exist unless we do something right now to prevent it.

Sincerely,

William S. Thomas
Claremont, California

At 2/26/09 01:36 AM, Rig wrote: Can't you use the first wish to get the other two and save your two free wishes for later?

Yeah but it would save me time, and it's really all I want anyway.

Money
Weed
Sex

At 2/12/09 01:56 AM, Infinite-one wrote: I am not ashamed to say....that picture looked kinda nice.

I fapped to it.

At 2/12/09 01:17 AM, Gendo wrote: Oh wow, you're still around?

Or do you just lurk for paedophilia-related articles?

A little of both.