.josh

perhaps you can throw html_entity_decode into the mix?

so they don't make one prong bigger than the other, or position the prongs in such a way that there's only one way to plug it in? Hell, even my $5 toaster does that... or am I making it out to be too simple? I fully admit I am not an electrician or electronics engineer or whoever sorts those things out.

Wow.. the unwarrented hostility. I think a little more civility is in order here. For starters, why the regex talk? Did I mention anything about regex? If you are suggesting that this is the ultimate in algorithms of search engines, I think it's quite more complex than that. The point of argument is making it 'easier' for the spider.. Just how much more efficient is it? Who knows (amongst us I mean). I tend to lean towards believing less code making things easier, yes. Sorry this upsets you. The common sense logic is that the more stuff it has to crawl / sort through.. the more 'work' on its end. Simple as that. Now if we are to compare a small simple clean table-based site vs something equivalent in CSS, I suspect the differences would be small. Very small... Just how deep the rabbit hole goes on much larger / messier sites, well, this is where it might have more of an impact. I think the link you povided is (with all due respect) utter garbage. The author(s) clearly start making claims that distort everything in their favor. It would serisouly require a large amount of my time and quite the post to start going point by point to counter that site's stupidity, so I won't even bother. I'll refrain from going any further. It was a good laugh though. In either case, to avoid a developing flame war, you can stick to (and support) your tables.. no harm, no foul. I'll stick to my CSS. But don't get all bent out of shape over someone else's opinion just because it doesn't match yours. We all post out thoughts [and / or links] (hopefully without the insults of face slapping and other such adolescent immaturities) and discuss things in a manner that is more civil. We don't have to agree with each other. But such talk is not necessary. You're supposed to be one of the 'better ones'. Common sense logic is that either the program works or it doesn't. Making a webpage with one tag over another or one way over the other, makes it harder on the people programming the crawlers to program them. But once they program them, the bots work as they are programmed, and do not care on whit whether it's one tag or another, unless that's how they were programmed. Your arguing that crawlers are actually programmed to take that sort of thing into consideration, when they aren't. I'm not arguing that it's not "more work" for the bot; sure, it may take longer to process, but to claim that longer processing time == lower SEO ranking is not true. And regex is 99% of what a crawler is. That's what crawlers do: find information based on patterns and return that information to wherever, to be processed by something else. A crawler's function is to filter information. And I'm sorry, my previous post did come off kind of harsh, and I apologize for that. But I maintain that those are 'snake oil' reasons. And I'm not 100% pro tables at all. But I get the impression that people aren't being very objective about css. css is great for maintaining sites. From a larger perspective, MVC is great for maintaining sites. But there is a higher learning curve associated with it. If someone contracts me to go in and fix some bug, I'm gong to have to spend time figuring out how everything is set up. Sure, in theory, if I know the framework they used, and they actually stuck to it, then it shouldn't be a problem. But there are lots of frameworks, and even home brewed frameworks galore. So I have to sort out just where everything was put, before I can even get down to business. With things like tables, or from a larger scale, methods that don't separate model/view/controller, you have more of a WYSIWYG setup. Sure, the script might "look" messy, but I know that the flow of the program is all right there, straight forward, and if I change something here, it's going to affect what happens right here. So if I get contracted to go in and fix a bug, I'm going to figure out the setup and find the bug a whole lot quicker. So what is better? That's the point: it depends on the situation. If I were hired by a company to indefinitely maintain their site, I would rather have css, or MVC design in general. But if I'm being asked by random mom and pop shops to fix some random bug or add some random feature, I'd rather have WYSIWYG setups.

Smaller file sizes makes for less markup, thus making it easier for search engine spiders to crawl through. On a related note, less mark-up makes it easier for search engine spiders to decipher between code and content. So just the first two points is enough to make a case of how CSS does have an impact on SEO. I seriously can't believe you are actually arguing those points. Crawlers ranking siteB lower than siteA because of a few more lines of code? Does google sit there and time how long it takes the crawler to go forth and come back with info, first one back is the winner? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that I'll have better SEO the closer my server is to one of google's. And seriously, you're arguing that a crawler bot has an "easier" time ignoring a <div> tag than a <table> tag? Do you know anything about regex at all? I mean, I see you helping in the regex forum, so it boggles my mind why you would argue this. I'm trying really hard not to smack you in the face with a 10 pound fish. These are the sort of arguments I expect to hear from con artists trying to sell snake oil to non-programmers. Don't make me paper cut you.

gd that's not a camera that's a telescope, lol.

If you actually read everything in the link, you would know that at the end of the day, he actually does use css. He's not a css hater. He, like me, just thinks that too many people jump on the "yay css, bash tables!" bandwagon, without actually looking at the facts.

From the manual: Dunno how much clearer you expect them to be....

Read me. All of me.

The point is that the language of the ToS dictates rules for actions, not 'states of being.' Whether my LAN is secure or not is moot. It's a matter of whether or not it was actually used for something that's against the ToS.

Ah but the ToS does not specifically prohibit you from having an insecure LAN. It specifically says "... allow others to ...". Right. But burden of proof remains on them, regardless of how believable it is. You can sit on the stand and tell the court you didn't know shooting someone could kill them. That may sound absurd to most people, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. Prosecution would still have to prove you are lying, no matter how silly or stupid your claim is. They aren't psychic. They don't know what my experience level is. That's why they have to prove it. Those two sentences contradict each other. If most people do not bother with manuals, then it would not be logical to assume one would read the manual. But nonetheless, making a statement like "most people do not bother with manuals" is speculation, and would be treated as such, in court. The only reason I point out the inconsistency is because you believe that most people don't bother, and yet say it's logical to assume that they would. Oh come on now. Again, I don't know how things go over on your side of the ocean, but over here, you can buy innocence. All you have to do is figure out the price tag for the crime. Yeah, that's not how it 'officially' goes, but without exception, you see it happening every single day. And it's not really so much about buying innocence per se, it's finding the right loopholes and hoops to jump through. You can walk out a free man for virtually everything. You just have to say the magic words.

Okay let's move beyond technicalities and into reality: a) Unless the site specifically says 'Do not link our stuff, repost our content, etc.. blahblahblah' it is more than likely they don't care. b) Unless you are somehow making money off whatever content they have on their site, more than likely, they don't care. c) Unless you are somehow trying to pawn their stuff off as yours, more than likely, they don't care. d) Unless the benefits far outweigh the cost of pursuing you, more than likely, they don't care. Yes, they have copyright. Yes, they can enforce it. But the reality is that unless you are blatantly trying to deface them, profit off them, or otherwise take money from their pockets, it's bad business to go around enforcing that kind of stuff, just because you can. That's why you don't see, for instance, companies going after fanboy sites. All they'd be doing is shooting themselves in the foot.

How am I going to prove my innocence? Dunno how you guys do it over there, but over here, law is innocent until proven guilty. All I have to do is say I was ignorant. Burden of proof is on them. You know, that's the very first thing I asked my mom when she called me. She bought her wifi router and it did indeed come with an install cd and it does indeed have a wizard but she swears she didn't remember it asking anything about encryption. Don't get me wrong, I love my mom, but old people are...I don't want to say stupid, but they're some kind of something. I mean, I 'guess' it's possible the wizard did not mention securing it, but I mean come on, wtf ever.

Does that mean that you are violating ToS if you are too stupid to encrypt your signal? Dunno...arguing your ignorance might actually keep you from being in violation. Or at least, keep your ISP from taking some sort of action on you, if they do indeed consider it so. I mentioned just such a situation with my mom a while back, in some thread or other. Her ISP did cut her off initially, but they reinstated her service after she talked to them. Dunno if they took pity on her or if her ignorance in the matter did indeed mean she was innocent. I didn't ask her. Regardless, I don't think I'd be violating ToS simply because it was unencrypted. Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure an event involving said unencrypted LAN would have to actually take place, before they could even consider whether it was breach of contract or not. But even still, what if someone manages to crack it? They couldn't blame you for that. Or they shouldn't, anyways. I'm looking at that word "allow" and I'm thinking it boils down to your intention(s) in the situation.

In my ISP's ToS (Charter): I have a sneaking suspicion that you will find something similar in every other ISP's ToS. Everybody else under the sun charges you extra to have a 'business' or 'commercial' account; why not your ISP? It's the de facto standard that if you are somehow making money off of someone else's product/service, they want a cut. Hosting something 'public, for free' is usually classified under such an account, just the same. Doesn't matter if you're not making money off it. You could be lying. Even if you aren't, just because you forgo potential money, doesn't mean they are obligated to be likewise altruistic. If you claim your ISP has no such restriction, I'd go reread the fine print.

be more specific than "it's not working"

you can use glob to put get all the folder names into an array and foreach to loop through and run your code on each one. If those subfolders have subfolders that you want to in turn look into, you're going to want to look into recursion.

...though I'm still not sure how that translates to a unexpected T_VARIABLE error... should have gotten a warning from that...well, you could have error reporting off, which would explain not getting the warning, but it still doesn't explain the syntax error..

okay, so the url you provided for connect.php is one directory above rate.php but in your script you have double ../'s so you're trying to include http://socialapps.sclek.com/posters/connect.php, which either doesn't exist or is bugged (I got a 404 error on it). Try doing include('../connect.php');

so...you want to make links that pass a name to another page, and based on the name, have that other page use a header to forward them to another page? Why the extra step? Just make the links on the first page point to the target pages in the first place. Or are you still not being clear enough?

page1.php <?php echo "<a href='page2.php?varname=somevalue'>page2</a>"; ?> page2.php <?php if ($_GET['varname']) { echo $_GET['varname']; // output: somevalue } ?>

error says line 1. That condition is at the very least, line 6. It has nothing to do with that line. And FYI, there most certainly is an 'or' in php. and an 'and'. They word exactly like their || and && counterparts, except that they are lower on the order of operation list. http://us3.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.php

@ is used to supress errors if they generate. It is not good coding practice.

that's all you have in the file, and that file isn't being included anywhere?

haha yeah I noticed that, too, when I followed the link trail. I even learned a thing or two.

try doing \r\n