herme3

There is a site that claims it can add or remove objects or people from a photo. They have a sample at http://www.pixsharp.com/en-us/dept_50.html where they removed several people from a group photo. I've removed some objects from photos myself, but I do not see how this sample can be real. Look at the top left of the "before" photo, and you will see that a man is completely blocking the arm of the person standing beside him. In the "after" photo, the person's arm is fully visible. How is this possible if the arm wasn't in the original picture? I don't see how they could have made the "after" photo from the "before" photo. It appears that they might have originally had the "after" photo, and added the other people to make the "before". However, then there is the problem with the extra arm on the right side of the photo. What do you think?

The only logs that GoDaddy gives me access to are the visitor logs with the GET requests. I would have to buy a dedicated server to have any further access.

The log file doesn't show the e-mails sent. It only lists the GET commands.

Ok, thanks Cap'n.

Would it be ok with the administrators if I put two links in my signature to a couple of traffic exchanges I own, and a brief description of them? I know most forums would allow this, but I just want to check with the administrators first.

Well, it wasn't really a newsletter. It was an announcement to the members of FiveHits.com which is one of the traffic exchanges I own. Anyone can subscribe to it if they have a web site to promote. That's a great idea, thanks for the suggestion! The mailer's confirmation page usually says if there were any problems, but it never loaded because the connection had dropped. I suppose I could add some code that records each e-mail address as the mailer sends a message.

Sorry, I misread your first post. In that case, everyone should have received the e-mail because the code only had to be executed once by my PC, right?

There were around 70 people on the list. I don't want to send out another e-mail, because that would make my site look bad. Hopefully, everyone got the e-mail. I never knew that PHP code ran on the users' computers. Why is it impossible to see the PHP code of a site if it runs on your own computer?

My new cable provider doesn't seem to be very good, and their Internet service will randomly drop out for about a minute. It doesn't happen a lot, but it tends to happen at the worst possible times. I just tried to send an e-mail newsletter to all of my customers. My PC's Internet connection dropped right after I pressed the "send" button, so I got a web browser error instead of my mailer's confirmation page. I know that at least some of the e-mails were sent out because I have my own e-mail address near the top of the mailing list, and I received the message. The e-mail was sent using the mailer in the admin area of my site. The PHP code for the mailer form page is very long, but I think this is the part that actually sends the e-mail: Does the "for" loop in the PHP code run on my PC or on the server that hosts my site? In other words, since some of the e-mail addresses got the message, does that mean all of them got it even though my PC lost the connection while it was sending?

How will people come to a web site if they do not know it exists?

There was a discussion in another thread about traffic exchanges. Since it was getting a little off-topic, I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread. I believe that traffic exchanges are a good way to advertise a web site. I've been using them for about 5 years, and I've recently opened my own exchange. Some of them allow you to get thousands of different visitors to your web site everyday. As Cap'n Refsmmat mentioned, not all of them will be interested in your web site. However, since such a large number of people are sent to your web site, there is a good chance that you will reach many people who are interested. Even though I believe the concept of traffic exchanges is great, I'm not very satisfied with the current state of the traffic exchange industry. Most of the sites being advertised are pyramid scams, or just advertisements for other traffic exchanges. There was a time when most traffic exchange users had normal web sites, but I've watched the industry really slide in the past few years. I actually invested over $100 into a program that ended up being a type of pyramid scheme. I was being paid around $700 every two weeks, and I invested it all back into the program. It's a long story, but in the end I lost everything when the program collapsed. About 300,000 other people were in the same program and lost the money they invested. Even though I support the concept of traffic exchanges, I must say I get quite annoyed when using most of them. I just see scams, scams, and more scams! One pyramid scam I've seen advertised a lot is a web site selling magical fruit juice from the rainforest. You can buy one bottle for about $40 and then you promote the product to others. If someone buys a bottle of juice from you, most of the money goes to you and the people above you. Of course, the juice isn't worth $40 a bottle. The site is just a big pyramid scam. There are many more scams out there in the traffic exchanges. I would estimate that about 90% of traffic exchange owners don't even own their own web sites. They just promote the scams they've joined. There was a time when members actually promoted real online shops, or web sites about their personal interests. What happened to all of these people? Wow... I meant for this post to support traffic exchanges. I never meant to start ranting like this! Anyway, I'm trying to fix the traffic exchange industry with the marketing strategy of my own traffic exchange. My main target is the average web site owner, instead of the people yelling "You can become a millionaire in just one week!" I want the type of people who are trying to promote real online stores, or just want to talk about their personal interests. The concept of traffic exchanges is great, but many of the people who use them are corrupt.

Well, there will be some people who do not have any interest in your content. However, there may be many people out there who would be interested, and a traffic exchange is a great way to bring them to your site. The great thing about traffic exchanges is that you can bring thousands of different visitors to your site every day. There is a good chance that some of those people would be interested in your site. It is slightly similar to showing an advertisement on TV. Anyway, I guess I'm getting off-topic. I'll create a new thread about traffic exchanges in General Discussion. Thanks for the links. It looks like there haven't been very many security issues found in either browser.

Why do you say that? They are very effective at bringing more visitors to your web sites. The safety of the exchanges really depends on who is operating them. I carefully monitor all of the sites submitted to my exchange, to make sure my members do not get infected with any trojans. There are always risks, but then again there is the risk of a hacker putting a trojan into any site. Has there really been any good testing using IE7 and Vista, or are these statistics from IE6? The colors don't match very well, but I believe the interfaces have similar layouts. No, I've never seen this before. Thanks for the link, Cap'n.

This is a very good point. As a web developer, I try to make sure my web sites work with both IE7 and Firefox. Once I get the site working well in IE7, I will normally run into problems with Firefox. If I fix the problem with Firefox, the site won't display correctly in IE7. I sometimes have problems with both browsers even if I use W3 to verify my site is compliant with the standards. Why can't both browsers just work the same way? I'm not sure about XP, but IE7 with Vista is the only browser I've ever used that has never let a trojan into my computer. I don't think a new interface standard is necessarily a bad one. If software companies avoided change, we all would still be using a command interface. I actually think IE7 has the best implementation of tabs. When you first open Firefox, it doesn't even look like it supports tabbed browsing. I had to open the help menu to figure out how to open a new tab. With IE7, you can easily open a new tab. My favorite tab feature in IE7 is the ability to see what is happening in all tabs at once. I do like the DOM inspector, which is a main reason I keep Firefox on my computer.

I haven't heard one person give an intelligent complaint about IE7. All I've ever heard is that "it isn't Firefox". I really can't think of any reason Firefox2 is better than IE7 other than the fact that it is open source. Other than that, I see a better interface and a more stable browser in IE7. I'm beginning to wonder if anybody here has actually tried IE7, or if they are basing their complaints on the flaws of IE6.

Of course it's possible, since an OS manages the connection between the software and hardware. In your previous post, were you saying that you have evidence that Microsoft is hiding packets sent to them by Vista, or were you just stating that it would be possible for them to do so? I'm confused. Why do you believe the fact that an OS manages the connection between software and hardware is a secret?

I plan to buy a Wii. I've read reviews from people who purchased both a Wii and PS3 or 360, and they said the Wii makes the other systems seem very boring. Even though some people say the Wii doesn't have great graphics, I think the new Zelda game looks amazing.

I read a few articles about it, but I'm still not sure what it means. It sounds like Vista will lower the quality of an image or video if you don't have hardware designed to prevent recording. I'm not sure what they are talking about because I haven't had any problems with the images or videos I've viewed when using Vista. What you are saying is very interesting. Even though it sounds unlikely, I'm not going to disagree with you until I look into it myself. I can run a packet sniffer on my wireless network using my other computer running Linux. This will show exactly what is being sent from my Vista computer, and Microsoft would have no control over it. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting. I'm not sure how you or the forum could get into trouble for releasing information about this. If Microsoft really is doing something like this, I'm sure it would violate anti-spyware laws unless Vista's license agreement states exactly what they are doing. In that case, you still wouldn't get into trouble because you wouldn't be saying anything confidential.

I guess I can't speak for the people who open every e-mail attachment they get. All I can say is that Vista seems to have completely blocked every trojan that used to force its way into my computer when I had XP. Oh, of course... The fact that MS wants to fight piracy is solid evidence that they have hidden root kits in Vista. I guess the fact that the police want to fight illegal drugs is solid evidence that they have hidden a video camera somewhere in my bedroom. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just don't understand how you could claim that Vista has a root kit and spyware without providing any evidence. Lots of people use packet sniffers to see if any unauthorized data is being sent from their computers. If Microsoft was spying on everyone with Vista, I'm sure somebody would have noticed it by now.

I'm both an owner and user of traffic exchanges. I usually view hundreds of sites a day, and a very small number of traffic exchange users sometimes try to sneak trojans into the exchanges. I would like you to provide some evidence that supports your claim. The Vista security is much better than XP's, especially since IE7 runs in a sandbox Protected Mode. Why do you think I get infected with trojans when using either IE6 or Firefox with XP, yet I have not had a single trojan with Vista and IE7? I think you are exaggerating. I seriously doubt that Microsoft actually spies on you. From what I've heard, the only "kill switch" in Vista is a feature that makes sure you activate Vista within a certain number of days. This ensures that people aren't installing copies on lots of different machines.

I disagree. I'm using Vista right now, and it is working wonderfully. BETA2 was awful, but I'm not having any problems with the latest version. When I was using Windows XP with IE6, I would get a trojan nearly every week. When I started using Firefox with XP, I would get a trojan about once a month. I've been using Vista and IE7 for several months now, and I haven't gotten a single trojan! One time, a trojan did sneak past IE7, but Windows Defender took care of it immediately.

My mother is. I put BETA2 on her computer, and she complained a lot at first. However, she didn't want to go back to XP once she realized the Mahjong Titans game was part of Vista. She hasn't complained at all since I upgraded her computer to Vista RC1, which is much more stable.

I believe that IE7 has quite a few good addons: http://www.ieaddons.com

Are you using Windows Vista? If so, you can right-click on the file and go to the properties. Click on "Previous Versions" and you should be able to find a version of the file that was saved before she deleted the pages. I think this is one of the best features of Vista. There have been many times when I've accidentally clicked "Save" instead of "Save As". I sometimes forgot about the Undo button, and would just close the program. When I had Windows XP, I could never find a way to recover the previous versions of files.

Ok, thank you Cap'n.