Daniel0

Hmm... it appears you are somehow right. At first I only tested using IE and FF and those have the same results (i.e. not working). I just tried in Opera though, and it did work... :-\

Strange. Thanks for trying to help me though

It's a system-wide issue. The ping results reveal that. Not even disabling IPv6 in Vista resolves it. It started today. First time I wanted to use my localhost today was right now. Worked yesterday.

Yeah. It has those entries. Along with a couple of other I added myself. Funny thing is though, the manual ones I've added myself (dev.phpfreaks for instance) that also point to 127.0.0.1 work fine though. It just doesn't like localhost and LAN computer names anymore :-\

I'm having a slight problem I don't really know how to resolve. When typing localhost in my browser address bar it tries to load http://www.localhost.com. It is obviously not supposed to do that. When I ping localhost it resolves to ::1, i.e. the IPv6 version of IPv4's 127.0.0.1. I'm running Windows Vista. Does anyone know how to fix that? >ping localhost Pinging daniel-laptop [::1] from ::1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from ::1: time<1ms Reply from ::1: time<1ms Reply from ::1: time<1ms Reply from ::1: time<1ms Ping statistics for ::1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms I have the same issue with my computer's name, daniel-laptop: >ping daniel-laptop Pinging daniel-laptop [fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14] from fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14: time<1ms Reply from fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14: time<1ms Reply from fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14: time<1ms Reply from fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14: time<1ms Ping statistics for fe80::3817:28db:3f57:ff98%14: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms Does anyone know how to fix that? It's incredibly annoying

AFAIK screen readers ignore things which have display:none;. However, it wouldn't be easy to program a bot to not fill in a specific field. This is especially the case if the bot was configured that that particular form.

It doesn't really matter what kind of project you are going to do. Seeing as you are studying web design your focus mainly lies on the GUI rather than the backend. Therefore, what you to do is just find any project and create an excellent, beautiful, accessible and usable design for it. Morever, creating a complex application will take a long time so you might want to pick a project that allows you to do a minimal amount of work with the backend so you can really focus on designing, which is, after all, what you are studying.

Not necessarily thorpe. I remember a person from here that used to consistently write code without any white-space whatsoever. That wasn't readable nor easy to follow Generally, it's pretty standard to go one indention level in at an opening curly bracket and go one indention level out when you close it again. Also, some people like the opening bracket on the same line as the preceding statement, some like it on a line below by itself. Some people use a space between a function call or a keyword and a succeeding parenthesized statement or argument list. Some people add spacing after commas like one would do in a natural language (e.g. English) for things that are separated by commas. Some people add spacing around the concatenation operator (dot (.)). Some people like to use a fixed amount of spaces instead of the tab character (usually four). There are many ways, but there is no best way (although there are some ways I would say look horrible and are difficult to follow).

I'm quite sure it does. GIF is a rather generic image format and most, if not all, will support it.

Adobe Photoshop.

Yes, it was in my signature. It was not part of my post. :-\

If it's your own domain server then you will have to add a zone entry into it's configuration file and reload it.

How doesn't it work?

There are several other topics/polls that deal with this specific question. Locked.

For the record, those shared hosts that gives you terabytes of diskspace and unlimited bandwidth are overselling. They are hoping that people will not use up that amount (which most actually wont) and therefore it seems that you are getting a really good deal. First of all, "unlimited" anything is impossible. There is always a limit on the hardware and technology. For instance, if you have a dedicated 10 Mbps line then you will, theoretically, be able to download at a maximum of 1.25 MB/s (the throughput will most likely be lower). If we say a month is 30 days then there are 2,592,000 seconds (60*60*24*30). That will give you 3,240,000 MB/month or roughly 3 TB/month. I.e. not unlimited. However, seeing as it's shared hosting you will certainly not have a dedicated line. If we say that each node has that connection and there are 10 clients per node then you will, on average, have 1 Mbps (128 kB/s). Doing the same calculations you will get about 316 GB/month. Again we haven't taken into consideration that that speed is only theoretical. Furthermore, no normal client will purchase that kind of hosting if they actually have such high needs. Then they will purchase a dedicated server anyways. They know that and therefore they are confident that they will be able to successfully oversell the resources. I think it's ridiculous. The particular offer I had in mind when writing this post was this one from one of the hosting providers mentioned in this topic. Another thing I hate about shared hosts is that there are other people on the same server as me. I would find it incredibly annoying if my website was down because some other moron had taken the server down because he had some script hogging all the system resources. If you are the sole user of the system then you have complete control over the used resources. Additionally there is the security aspect. With more people than yourself on the server you risk that people get access to your files. Also, PHP does by default store session data in /tmp. That directory will logically have to be readable and writable by everybody. That means that people could steal your sessions. That could be your administrative session. Overall I think shared hosting is pretty useless. You can get a VPS pretty cheap today and if you cannot set it up yourself then you could always hire someone to do it or you could purchase a managed VPS. If you got some of that so-called unlimited bandwidth, then try to run something like this from the shell 24/7: #!/bin/bash while [ 1 ]; do wget http://example.com/large_file.ext -O tmp_junk rm -f tmp_junk done Let's see how long it takes before your account gets suspended or you get a notice from your provider.

@tomfmason & 0perator: The different IRCds have different ways of configuring it. You may have to consult the documentation instead.

Make sure it is listening not only to local connections.

No particular reason. I just didn't think it mattered that much. I suppose it could come on a todo list.

Oh, well I never meant it to do that. I thought the issue was that your main site session unexpectedly expired.

I made some other changes instead and I disabled the cron job that is clearing old sessions. I hope that resolves it.

That's strange. I haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I tried to remove the session id regeneration at each request. Let me know if that fixed it :-\ Edit: Nevermind. That broke logins entirely. I'll try to figure out a solution to this.

Yes, if they know your IP address the port 80 is open to WAN then they can access it. What you can do is configure you firewall (either software or hardware based) to deny connections from outside your computer to that port or you can set Apache to only listen to 127.0.0.1:80.

I prefer Zend Framework to CI and Cake by far. It might seem a bit more complex at first glance and might have a slightly higher learning curve. I like the freedom it gives you. Don't like a specific component of Zend Framework? Just write your own. You can also easily extend the existing classes. Mark mentioned that he doesn't like ZF's naming convention. I find the naming convention to be excellent. By looking at the name you will always know where it is located. Zend_Form_Element_Password would be in /Zend/Form/Element/Password.php. Also that you can take out the individual components of the framework and use them as libraries as well is pretty good in my opinion.

Your own VPS or dedicated server. It gives you the freedom to setup the environment exactly as you want to and you are not restricted by the software already installed on the hosting your purchase. You can get VPSs pretty cheap.

Both the php and code tags have this bug. I've seen this in a long time.