iNow

Z. Now, we're done.

I think the bigger point is that such a large and growing number of citizens are tired of our nation and constitution getting so overrun with religiot ideas. The founding principles of our nation are not judeo-christian, and the writings of those who were involved in the process of writing our constitution made it abundantly clear that the government and religion should be seperate. In England, the exception is the politician who speaks openly about religion. Most (whether secular or not) know that religion has no place in the governance of a free nation. I just wish that more people in the US would realize this. Obama is welcome to have Rick Warren host a personal service for him, his family, and his friends in celebration, but to have Warren playing such a prominent role at the inauguration I think is a smack in the face to those of us who truly want to see our nation prosper and get beyond the iron age fairy tales and superstitions.

Well, when considered in light of the heinous effects it's having on our environmnent, our planet, and the life on it, I have to ask you, why not? Saying no to the detrimental activities will by default encourage activity and invention in the cleaner ones (the renewable energies sector). I urge you to recall that "there is no such thing as clean coal" is more than a catchy phrase. It's also a statement of fact, much like "smoking cigarettes causes lung and other cancers."

No worries, apparently he's got some great deals on male enhancement, too.

Yeah, but it also seems that thousands of ballots are awaiting a verdict on eligibility from the state Supreme Court, which could turn any existing counts completely on their head. Interestingly, it appears that the Flying Spaghetti Monster got a vote, even though the Lizard People didn't.

Yeah, I did that immediately after pasting your code... went through and changed the variable names to match those in my dbase. I confirmed that my combo box name in the WHERE clause of the SELECT statement matches that shown in the function sub. Still getting the same error, and the debugger takes it to that same line. Set rs = db.OpenRecordset(strSQL) That one is changed, too, but we haven't gotten that far yet. The error seems to come a couple of lines before the Text2.Value = .... statement. line[/hr] Okay. I'm not feeling this approach. I am not confident that I'll be able to replicate this on my own later. What I want is something clean and simple. The logic as I envision it would be to program the Text box using some SQL code like this: SELECT C.Title FROM Courses_Table AS C WHERE C.Code = Combo_Box.Value Can't this be done in Access somehow? First, I wouldn't know where to put such code to make the text box function that way, and two, I'm not sure how to identify the combo_box.value.

Reason also says that chili pepper, salt, and chocolate shouldn't taste good together, yet they're outstanding. Empiricism crushes reason every time. There are a lot of things in our universe which don't make intuitive sense, but you have to remember that our intuition evolved during a very short lifetime as a very small animal on a very small planet in a very small solar system in just one of billions of galaxies in a supercluster of galaxies which is itself one among billions. Trust the experiment, not the logic. As smart as Aristotle was, we've come a very long way since then, and they call it "The Enlightenment" for very good reason. <pun intended>

+1 Let's give as much power to the White House as possible when our guy is in there, and ignore his blatant unconstitutional actions. Now that we have this new kid facing unprecendented challenges and who has great ideas and global support, let's find ways to obstruct his progress. Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

This was already addressed above many times, but I suppose it needs repeating. The context of this discussion is "scientific theory," so your comments are far from accurate or true. If you would like to learn more about what I mean, you only have to look back 3 posts to my previous response. Nobody here is talking about scribblings on the back of a napkin in a bar at 3AM after too many beers.

Here was his reply: Please click this link and provide your billing information to find out why. If you'd like to PM me your credit card info, I'll be glad to go wrangle an answer out of him and report back.

Okay, so I typed: set rs = db.OpenRecordset( and the following caption appeared: OpenRecordset([b]Name As String[/b],[Type],[Options],[LockEdit] As Recordset I played around a bit, and put the word "String" into the Type field, since that's how we declared strSQL earlier in the Event, but that didn't work either [it threw a Compiler Error, said it expected an open parentheses like ( ] ...Also, Options and LockEdit seem to be optional/non-required fields.

Thanks for the idea, but I got the same 3061 error with that new statement. Please note, everyone, I'm perfectly willing to try/learn a different approach to accomplish this if appropriate. I went into this thinking it would be much simpler than it is, but I'm open to basic tutorials and attempts at working through visual basic (with a little bit of guidance on what the various parameters and statements do). EDIT: Btw - Access 2003

How much does a polar bear weigh? Well, enough to break the ice. Can I get your number? Why don’t you unzip my pants and let me show you the descent of man? Without you, my organ would become vestigial. Trust me Baby, my selection is ALL natural!

Stationary relative to whom/what?

Well, first of all, TD, thank you very much for taking the time to work through the example like you did. I was glad to see you response, and also glad to see your desire to help, so huge kudos on both fronts to you. I put your code into my form (although, since I didn't provide the readers of this forum with exact table/field names, I edited those to match what I needed, as I'm at least capable of that bit on my own), but when I tried to test it and selected my first record from the combo box, an error occurred. The statement was "Run-time error '3061'. Too few parameters. Expected 2" The debugger sent me to this line: Set rs = db.OpenRecordset(strSQL) ...which appears above immediately after your SELECT statement. If I interpret it correctly, you've opened a temp record set (as rs), and you are trying to populate something there. Either way, it looks like "not enough somethings" were part of the Set statement. Any ideas on what I can try?

Congrats to Klaynos and Mooeypoo on becoming super mods. Good picks.

I got one from Santa Claus today. That's classic.

Hi Guys (and Gals), I've really got to learn Visual Basic, but haven't had the opportunity yet. I'm struggling through something which is probably painfully simple, but I've not come very far using my google-fu. Here's the deal. I've got a Form in Access that we are using to fill out information about our training programs. The data we enter should go to an Output_Table, so I create a Form with Wizard that grabs all of the Fields from the Output_Table. Inside the Form, we have a field called Course_Code. The selection here should be pushed to the Output_Table. I have made this a combo box which pulls data from another table called Courses_Table. Courses_Table has two fields, Course_Code and Course_Title. What I want to do is select the Course_Code from the Combo_Box, have it autopopulate the Course_Title field on the form, and also feed that data into the Title field on my Output_Table. I've gotten really close trying like 5 different approaches, but just can't seem to get it working. If someone could walk me through how to get this done, that'd be righteous. I know it's got to be painfully simple, but it eludes me, and I'm normally pretty good about figuring out this sort of thing. Courses_Table has Course_Code and Course_Title fields. Output_Table has Course_Code, Course_Title, Vendor_Name, Cost_Dept, and others. The form should allow the user to select the Course_Code from a combo box, automatically populate the course_title, and then allow entry into the other fields, all of the entry fields for each record being stored in the Output_Table. Once I learn how to do this autopopulate thing, I'll be doing a similar link to the Vendor_Name field from our Vendors_Table, but I can probably do that myself once I understand the basic syntax and processes (and where to perform those steps). (Bear in mind, I've used Access like twice before, and I just tend to figure it out as I go).

Yeah. The way I think about it is to ask, "What's the difference between evolving a better immune response and evolving a better intelligence which allows us to create a medicine?" They both achieve the same end, they both are an emergent property of our evolution, and it's tough to differentiate... hence my comment above about "depends on how you classify" things.

I'm not sure how my post indicated to you that I didn't think Obama had a good policy, nor that Bascule had a good point. I was just commenting that there is no such thing as clean coal. http://thisisreality.org/#/?p=facility

That is hugely important. A word change alone carries with it it's own problems, as there are actually 1,138 federal laws which pertain to "married" couples, but would not pertain to those in a "civil union." http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed: The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits. Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines. Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 federal laws that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States: I whole-heartedly agree with your point that the concept and functionality must shift. The challenge is that we're required to do so within our existing legal framework and at both the state and federal level.

That's probably because there is really no such thing. There is perhaps cleaner coal, but clean coal is an oxymoron. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

Yeah, and it sure didn't help that my basis for understanding momentum was based on a misconception.

I certainly appreciate the principle on which you're standing, ParanoiA, but it misses the importance of being pragmatic. It's as if we're trying to end slavery, and you're suggesting that we instead focus our discussions on the deeper considerations of why we chose to start growing cotton instead of food when voluntary labor resources were unavailable. There is a time and a place for each. They can be discussed in parallel, but one discussion should not be silenced at the expense of the other. We can talk about removing state legislation of all marriage while also working to ensure any existing legislations regarding marriage are nondiscriminatory. Let's end slavery AND talk about the merits of choosing to grow cotton instead of food despite shortages of voluntary labor. You said it yourself. The logic of both checks out. A fair compromise?

Neither of your definitions are valid in a scientific context. If you were trying for humor, it didn't translate well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science