Dont when they remove youre molars. Theres a slim chance that if its below the gumline when they remove it if they touch the bone or something that you have a chance of being a parapaligic. But thats like a 1% chance. Thats what my dentist told me when my bros molars were being removed.

Best of luck jessica. =)

At 10/20/06 04:54 PM, novalyfe wrote: Dont when they remove youre molars. Theres a slim chance that if its below the gumline when they remove it if they touch the bone or something that you have a chance of being a parapaligic. But thats like a 1% chance. Thats what my dentist told me when my bros molars were being removed.

Best of luck jessica. =)

I'd be concerned because it sounds like your dentist doesn't know what he's talking about. Or he was just joking.

At 10/20/06 04:54 PM, novalyfe wrote: they touch the bone or something that you have a chance of being a parapaligic. But thats like a 1% chance. Thats what my dentist told me when my bros molars were being removed.

Dude! You're wrong! I've had one removed and there's a NERVE in your mouth there that can cause paralysis or numbness in your lip. You can't become a paralyzed from it. Your freakin spinal cord needs to have a major problem with it in order to become paralyzed. I think next time you need to research :X

Couldn't you just have put an if statement before moving the piece that checks if the move can be done? >=/

Kurt got suspended for hacking his school's website.

How 1337.

At 10/21/06 11:04 AM, Jordan wrote: Kurt got suspended for hacking his school's website.

How 1337.

Haha, I did but they never found out :P

they suck

I demand that every parser shall put a restriction on the amount of 'lol's in a post.

At 10/21/06 11:37 AM, elbekko wrote: I demand that every parser shall put a restriction on the amount of 'lol's in a post.

lol ok lol :P

At 10/21/06 11:37 AM, elbekko wrote: I demand that every parser shall put a restriction on the amount of 'lol's in a post.

lol that would be funny lol but why a minumum number of 'lol's lol? That's stupid lol

lol

At 10/21/06 01:03 PM, Whabs wrote:

At 10/21/06 11:37 AM, elbekko wrote: I demand that every parser shall put a restriction on the amount of 'lol's in a post.

lol that would be funny lol but why a minumum number of 'lol's lol? That's stupid lol

lol

=P Not a minimum, silly. A maximum of 2 per line or so =/

Haha. Kurt gave me an Idea. My stupid school runs on school vista. I wounder if, I could hack it. Or Destroy it. I hate that program. It's too basic, and uber ugly.

How did they catch you kurt?

At 10/21/06 01:20 PM, novalyfe wrote: Haha. Kurt gave me an Idea. My stupid school runs on school vista. I wounder if, I could hack it. Or Destroy it. I hate that program. It's too basic, and uber ugly.

My school uses this EasyLink thing to access your files from home:
http://www.twgsb.org..news/view.asp?ID=163

You login with your school username and pass.

I e-mailed them saying how easy it would be to bruteforce the passwords and they took it down temporarily.

At 10/21/06 01:17 PM, elbekko wrote: =P Not a minimum, silly. A maximum of 2 per line or so =/

2 per line? How about 1 per post!

At 10/21/06 03:44 PM, Jordan wrote: I e-mailed them saying how easy it would be to bruteforce the passwords and they took it down temporarily.

Ya gotta love how IT admins @ schools don't know anything and it takes a teenager to point it out.

At 10/21/06 03:44 PM, Jordan wrote: My school uses this EasyLink thing to access your files from home:
http://www.twgsb.org..news/view.asp?ID=163

"Firefox web browser users may need to see a member of the ICT staff for instructions of how to enable use of this feature."
It looks n00bish :P

At 10/21/06 03:53 PM, Jessii wrote: Ya gotta love how IT admins @ schools don't know anything and it takes a teenager to point it out.

Yeah, they're always so retarded.

At 10/21/06 03:54 PM, elbekko wrote: "Firefox web browser users may need to see a member of the ICT staff for instructions of how to enable use of this feature."
It looks n00bish :P

Yes, they even use an IE only javascript function to redirect you to the "You don't have IE5" error page.

I included in the e-mail that it sucked for Linux or Solaris users.

Someone look at this for me please! I'm going nuts. I hate making layouts like this (not to mention FOR FREE). This layout isn't even close to being done but for some lame reason, FF isn't behaving itself. The whole thing validates too >:(

The link: http://www.fauxdreams.net/chaos

I'm ready to give up altogether (especially because the kids who are going to run the site are still so freaking clueless...) >:(

They're expecting this layout. I wanted them to do the images like they said they were going to but I'm rushing this whole thing because I don't have the time to wait for their lazy asses and don't want to keep hounding them.

I hate being ethical and completing projects like I say I'm going to rather than saying fuck it! (like I said a couple of weeks ago, if I offer to do something like this for free again, just shoot me lol - it'll put me out of my misery without having to put up with stress from people who are clueless).

Have you tried putting
* { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; }
?

At 10/22/06 05:33 AM, elbekko wrote: Have you tried putting
* { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; }
?

I've tried it but it still doesn't workand I have no clue as to why FF is behaving this way.

NM! I fixed it, now I have to center everything and it'll be fine. I have no idea what was going on. I know I didn't define the body at that point either and when I did, I just did a 0px body padding and it fixed that problem. I dunno, it's probably because I was/am tired.

Ugh, just spent over an hour making a PST for a Pascal program.
Damn that is a sucky language.

I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.
How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Roll on IE8.

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.

Took you a while :P

How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Not very, although it increases the dimensions of your images by a pixel or two (can be very annoying).

Roll on IE8.

IE7 supports transparent PNGs :P

At 10/23/06 05:43 AM, elbekko wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.

Took you a while :P

I never really used .png's in the past so... =P

How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Not very, although it increases the dimensions of your images by a pixel or two (can be very annoying).

User has JS disabled ?
They get a terrible blue background on certain images =(

Roll on IE8.

IE7 supports transparent PNGs :P

Woah, slow down a sec.
What am i using then :S
Oh wait, IE7 Beta yeah ?

Whens the release date for the proper thing ?

ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

I actually dont mind it to much compared to IE6.
The've improved it in a hell-of-a-lot of ways.

Not to shaby in my opinion.

Firefox FTW though =P

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

Couple of days? You mean the original, not the beta.

At 10/23/06 07:12 AM, Storm wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

Couple of days? You mean the original, not the beta.

Yeah, IE7 was released on October 18th.

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.
How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

At 10/23/06 08:28 AM, Jessii wrote: That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

Pfffft.