GingerRobot

Ah yeah, I remember reading that now. Stupid though. It should offer what you've visited as first choice, regardless of if you've typed it or not.

I dont think the 'omnibar' is that great either. It's a pain. Unlike firefox, it doesn't seem to remember the page you go to most frequently on a website as you type it in, but offers the root of the site as the first option. For example, i usually navigate straight to the page for my local weather forecast, so as soon as i start typing in met office, that page comes up in firefox as the first option. Not so in chrome, it's about third on the list after the homepage of the met office and a search. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Can't deny the speed of it though.

I have to question why you'd want to create a new table for each ID. You almost certainly shouldn't be doing this. You might want to read up on database normalisation.

Well, it is very nice and quick, but all the while the the scrolling is ridiculously fast, it's pretty much unusable for me. I also detest having my tabs open next to the page that opened them, rather than at the end. I can't find an option to change this neither. Certainly interesting though.

Protection through obscurity isn't really the best approach, but if you are also using passwords to protect anything then it wont do any harm (though i'd personally find it very irritating to work with) - just don't rely on people not being able to find files/folders. Indeed, you should. It is possible that a web server problem will mean that, instead of being parsed, the PHP is displayed in the browser as plain text. Not good if your files contain passwords or other sensitive information. By placing things like a connect outside of the document root, they can only be accessed by your files. Though i've not read anything about this in relation to sha1(), it has been suggested that applying the md5() algorithm twice increases the chances of collisions - e.g. the chances of two inputs having the same output. I've not seen any concrete proof of this either way, but it seems rather pointless in any case. A salt is perfectly adequate.

Wouldn't it be an awful lot easier to store the name of the file in your database? Then you wouldn't have the problem of the unknown file extension. You could, however, use the glob() function which allows you to find files whilst using wildcards.

Sounds like the session ID is not being retained. Have you disabled cookies? Unless you pass the session ID around in the URL and with hidden forms, a cookie is needed to keep track of the session ID. Have you tried using a different browser?

To clarify, it won't 'output linebreaks' - the new lines are outputted anyway, it is just that any amount of whitespace in HTML is treated as one space. If you were not outputting HTML and were, for example, writing to a file, the new lines would be present. To have a new line in a webpage, you must use the br tag. The function nl2br() converts the new line character to a br tag.

Err...Efficiency not in your dictionary then? Not to mention how easy something is to maintain etc... To answer your question Lamez, a nested loop will only work if you have a known level of subdirectories. For example, projectfear's code (which does indeed use a nested loop) is only able to retrieve files from directories one level deep. For this to work with a more complex structure, you'll need a recursive function.

The required function is imagecopymerge()

Have a read up on cURL. You're not going to find any script out that that'll log into any website. It's often a custom solution. If it's a well-known website you're trying to log into, you might find something if you google however.

Do some debugging on the query. Change this: $query2 = mysql_query($sql2); To this: $query2 = mysql_query($sql2) or trigger_error(mysql_error(),E_USER_ERROR); Also, what's with all the whitespace in your code? Makes it very hard to read.

I don't think there would be an awful lot to look at though, lol. And that's without going into the problems of looking at things if you're travelling at light speed...

The problem is that, even at the speed of light, it'd take a pretty damn long time to get anywhere. Sure, we'd get to the sun in 8 minutes or so, but the next star would take us over 4 years. Volunteers anyone?

There's also the fact that if you break down your problem into smaller steps, you'll have a far better chance of googling for the solution to that part of the problem than the problem as a whole. In may well be that in searching for a part of the puzzle, you find the the whole solution too.

You cant. If you include a mailto link, then it would be easy for spambots to pick up. You'd have to rely on spam filters at your end. Without a mailto link, your options would be a contact form or the email in an image. The latter is most unhelpful for the user. Why don't you want a contact form?

Well, surely that would depend on where the bottleneck lies? I mean, if the problem is actually with the internet connection, then a new network card wouldn't have any effect.

Try running the following two code snippets: $foo = 6; $bar = 5; if($foo == $bar++){ echo 'True. Foo:'.$foo.' Bar:'.$bar; }else{ echo 'False. Foo:'.$foo.' Bar:'.$bar; } $foo = 6; $bar = 5; if($foo == ++$bar){ echo 'True. Foo:'.$foo.' Bar:'.$bar; }else{ echo 'False. Foo:'.$foo.' Bar:'.$bar; } As you will see, in both cases, after the if statement, both $foo and $bar are 6. However, only the if statement in the second code snippet is true. That is because $bar is incremented prior to being tested for equality.

The manual probably explains it best: http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/language.types.string.php#language.types.string.syntax.heredoc Basically, the heredoc syntax allows you to delimit a string with a word, rather than with quotes. This means that you don't have to worry about escaping the single or double quote. It's particularly useful when echoing a large chunk of html. The identifier is that word used to delimit the string.

It's just not feasible. Three immediate problems spring to mind: 1.) Who's to decide who is added to this list? If you suggest the staff, then the problems are two fold - firstly, most of the staff here are busy and wouldn't want to have to add to their workload and ,second, they would have a tough time deciding anyway as they'd need to see a lot of evidence to prove that the person hadn't provided what they'd been paid for or hadn't paid etc. If you suggest that anyone could add to this list, then it would just get so messy. No doubt there'd be a fair few counter claims too. 2.) So someone gets added to this list. What do they do after? They'll just create another account, indirectly creating more work for the mods. 3.) The biggest problem of all. If there is a list of people not to trust then, by implication, phpfreaks would be seem to be providing some sort of guarantee for those not on the list. This wouldn't be acceptable.

Googlemail has been down a few times in the past. Albeit for only a few minutes, but yeah.

Isn't that what the readyStates are for with ajax?

Couldn't you just have a loading image show once the ajax function is called? The source of the image would then be changed once the request is complete.

Yeah, sure there is. I realised my analogies weren't the strongest. However, my point was just that because something is already installed doesn't it any way mean it is any good and that no alternative should be used.

Well if he was, then I apologise for calling his argument stupid.