Messages

wait what... how..? does SMF 2 have a security hole or something?

The width thing is actually a setting in the admin panel and it defaults to 90%, I bumped it to 95 so you can see how that looks.
I toned down the bgcolors so they don't pop as hard moving them closer to gray, let me know if these things help, dont for get to shift f5 for a clean cache

Ok, I've cleaned up the shout box area.
as for the del and ban links available for mods and admins those can be hidden, they could before with the [hide admin links] at the top of the shout box
now that link looks like a little gear. it saves the setting across sessions so you can keep them hidden until you need them

The ban link might be deceptive but it only effects the shoutbox and is managed separately from smf's bans

you might want to type /help into the shoutbox and hit enter to look at the commands you can use.

EDIT: remember to use shift F5 to get the latest changes to things like style sheets and JS

that freaking template keeps disappearing on me. fixed.

it might be me, I vaguely remember something about only admins having power to post in it by default. I' probably have to go in and add normal user permissions

EDIT: should be working now

OK.
Blizz has graciously provided a test subdomain and I've set up a 2.0 converted CP there. Please go test it out  it uses a new shoutbox system so play around with that if you would

http://forumnew.chaos-project.com/index.php

The theme is as far as i'm concerned complete, if you have problems with readability or something looks ugly/wrong let me know.
Right now there is only a clone of CP's default theme but I have plans to convert the dark Red theme and the dark and light blue theme

so, I've mostly converted CP's main theme to SMF2. It's a bit rough, I need transparent images, but it works for now. the script database is of course ported. I however have yet to get any of our addons working. but that at least should be easy.

I'll have a test site up soon for everyone to look at and try and break.

EDIT:
a screen shot for ya

Spoiler: ShowHide

well I have two clones working and one clone upgraded, wen't simi smoothly. I'll be doing work this week to convert things but I looks like the themes will have to be remade. At least the themeing in SMF 2 is much MUCH easier.

EDIT:
script database ported. that was actually rather easy

Spoiler: ShowHide

if you can get me a dump of the code and the database so I can do testing I'll see what I can do. my hope is that I can make this a drop in upgrade for you. Perhaps I can even migrate the themes.

it's because SMF 1.x is an old version and the host probably upgraded the php install.
I'm getting tempted to tackle the migration to 2.x again...

it's supposed to yes, I'm not sure why it's not working.

Number of characters between tab columns [ 4 ]

^^

LOL!
turns out this functionality is already implemented.

there is a mod setting to configure how many space tabs a space gets replaced with
and this code is supposed to add that many spaces together to set up the tab replace.

this sequence should appear twice in Subs-Highlight.php

not sure why it's not working.

    $tab = '';
    if (!empty($modSettings['ch_tab'])) {
        while ($i < $modSettings['ch_tab']) {
            $tab .= ' ';
            $i++;
        }
    }
    // ...
    $js = "\n\t\t" . '<script type="text/javascript" src="' . $settings['default_theme_url'] . '/highlight.pack.js"></script>
        <script type="text/javascript">
        hljs.configure({
          tabReplace: "' . $tab . '",
          useBR: true
        }); 
        hljs.initHighlightingOnLoad();
        </script>';

it's because the web in general doesn't like the tab character there is no standardizes support for it's display.

replacing with spaces might be the only option

BY GOD! He's BACK? *hugs*

C++ and Java treat objects (instantiated classes) as seconds class to basic types. so long as you have a strongly typed systemcertintly't have true OOP you can certainly employ OOP design principles effectively but the true strength of OOP can not be utilized in a language that wasn't designed with OOP in mind form the ground up. I might be able to explain it better with examples but I'd need to find my notes form my language design class, my memory is fuzzy.

that depends on what you want from an Object oriented language. I think there is a lot of undeserved hype about OOP, it's not a be all end all language type and while it does make the typical set of programming problems easier it's obscures a lot of other things that are important to understand in programming.

Python is probably the purest OOP language you'll ever find if you want to understand what OOP is about then really delve deep, Python acts as you would expect on the surface but the "Python Way" is probably the closets you'll come to a perfectionist's view of OOP but the things that ARN'T inside the "Python Way" but can be pulled off show what you can do when everything is an object.

Ruby takes a different view of OOP, most things are objects but there a lot of "messages" passed around. Playing around with the depths of ruby is probably the fastest way to figure out OOP

JavaScript is ALSO OOP dispite it's apparent lack of classes or inheritance. It uses prototype inheritance which is yet another way to view OOP.

Languages like C++ and Java CLAIM to be OOP but they only really implement the most basic of OOP principles and while learning them is a good idea professionally speaking they arn't really OOP imho.

C# has evolved over the years and is now much closer to a true OOP than the previous 2, however it still has low level and static types with compiler magic so it like there are dynamic types.

hopefully that helps.

Thank you for providing an easier swallow introduction to the topic. those video give a good overview of the positive and negatives of our current system. indeed it makes the same point I make here, that we need to scrutinize out current system. He even brings up "A Program For Monetary Reform". which was a majority supported proposal for a transition to Full reserve banking back in 1939.

moving on,

you keep talking about "my solution" as if I've presented one, I haven't. I'm only asking people think on and talk about these issues with me you;ll notice the first question I asked was if another solution was even needed!

1) There ARE alternative to Fractional Reserve Banking, should they be explored?

But now that we're talking about things even if we're being complacently dismissive of other points of view let us continue.

A central bank is necessary no matter if there is a fractional reserve system or a full reserve system, with the same purpose.

but what purpose does a central bank serve?  lets enumerate the possible purposes:

1) issue money.
do you really need to be a bank to do this? historically money was issued by a sovern power but this was less because only they had the right to issue the currency and more because they had the pull to standardize the units of measure making commerce easier. it was only recently (historically speaking) we moved away from a solid store of value in out money. lets play devils advocate. Crypto-currencies are slowly making a name fore themselves, even banks are jumping on the tech stating an interest in blockchain tech to provide a secure transaction log of money and stock transfers internationally. The idea of a decentralized issue of a common currency wasn't feasible until recently but would it's use not make the purpose of a bank to issue currency irrelevant?

2) Loan money.
Capitalism works best if there are large stocks of capital available for people to use to invest in projects and build. Clearly there is some need for loaning money, indeed fractional reserve banking works quite well for this goal, and as long as the banks don't over leverage themselves on high risk assets it's effective and stable,
Personally I think it's a problem to make the method of issuing money the same method as loaning money but that's not reverent to this particular topic. suffice it to say that some entity like a bank needs to exist in a capitalistic society to loan money.

3) take deposit from customers to keep their money safe.
regardless of what banks do now or even what early banks expanded to do the FIRST purpose of the first banks was to protect their customers deposits. Because they had these deposits they could then leverage the capital they held to make loans. which initially was a secondary purpose. Early banks rarely leverage themselves over 10x because it was risky and dangerous, and if they were to fail law at the time held the bank owners AND it's investors liable for all of their customers deposits. if a bank went under because of bad loans or over levering the customers got paid and the owners/investors wen't bankrupt. Fast forward to now and it's the other way around it not uncommon for a bank to leverage itself over 500x, the owners are only partially liable and investors are exempt from liability. of course the deposit of customers at a given bank are suposibly insured but not from the bankers pockets but from the government's.

putting aside a defunct universal need to secure a deposit in this day in age and the founding reason for the existing of banking is shaken to it's core. if a bank has no assets, and doesn't issue it's own money, then how is it supposed to loan out money it's most useful function?

again, playing devil's advocate. Should we not at least for a moment question the very need for any bank at all? if we conclude that yes we absolutely need banking as it exists to day because no other options could provide it's functions/make them irlelavent then so be it. but if we don't question first then we are failing ourselves.

The federal reserve is subject to the laws made by Congress, and is overseen by Congressional committee.  The board of governors (like board of directors, except they don't have any ownership), are appointed by the government and confirmed by Congress.  So while the federal reserve is a separate entity, it is subject to plenty of oversight from our government.

I think you've been misled. here's an exert from the transcript of the documentary

Federal Reserve Board in Washington appointed by the President. That's the only part of this system that is directly dependent on the government for input that's the "federal" part: that the government-the president specifically-gets to choose a few select governors. The twelve regional banks-the most influential of which is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which is essentially based in Wall Street to represent Wall Street-is a representative of the major Wall Street banks who own shares in the private, not federal, but private Federal Reserve Bank of New York. All of the other regional banks are also private banks. They vary according to how much influence they wield but the Kansas City fed is influential, the St. Louis fed, the Dallas fed, but the New York Fed is really the center of this system and precisely because it represents the Wall Street banks who appoint the leadership of the New York fed.

So the New York fed has a lot of public power, but no public accountability or oversight. It does not answer to Congress the way that the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors does and even the chairman of the Federal Reserve board who is appointed by the President, does not answer to the President, does not answer to Congress. He goes to Congress to testify but the policy that they set is independent. So they have no input from the government. The government can't tell them what to do legally speaking, and of course they don't.

The Federal Reserve is governed by a committee of chair members appointed form each of the branch Fedral Reserve Banks across the country. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is only part of that comity. the majority of the committee consists of the heads of the twelve Federal Reserve banks. And even then that Federal Reserve Board of Governors does not answer directly to anyone in government it is it's own power unto itself. A new law would have to be passed be ore any member of that Federal Reserve Board of Governors could be ordered to do anything by congress or the president.

That hardly sound like "plenty of oversight" to me but if you believe it's sufficient your welcome to tell me why and we can have a debate about how much direct control and oversight the FED should have like I intended form the beginning.

I know that they will make persuasive arguments based on incomplete information and flawed logic.  While you derived your perspective from the video, that does not make it relevant to the discussion I am having with you.

good to know we're staring the straw-man arguments early. And again, what conversation are you having with me, so far all you've done is give a superficial summery of items only partially relevant to the discussion I want to broach and then dismiss the entire topic out of hand as if it's a settled manner. I'm not saying your ignorant or stupid, I'm asking for intelligent conversion, I want people thinking. If you don't want to think that your decision, please refrain from distracting from the discussion. Also, please don't talk down to me like your communicating some higher truth that I in turn am failing to comprehend. That's what your tone seems to convey.

agree that the federal reserve has made some bad decisions at great economic cost, but it has also made some good decisions as well, and many more decisions that are sort of in the gray area that are hard to judge

I'm interested to know what these good decisions are, no really there is a sad lake of any published positive commentary of their actions. I want to know, that whats this is all about. I'll admit this "quantitative easing" farce had done an good job of appearing to work while prolonging the inevitable but the GDI (Gross Domestic Income, the GDP's flip side) has been flat for over half a year which means no growth what so ever for over half a year, that's BAD (as in, 2008 is here again bad). QE doesn't and was never designed to stimulate the economy it only lightens the risk load of banks, they get to sell off risky debt at interest.

but when the bubbles collapse, it is the banks that they collapse on, and they suffer huge losses

again, how is making record profits through the 2008 financial crisis "huge losses"? it hurt the little guys banks and credit union sure. but the bank that actually had the capital necessary to manipulate the market like that came out with a handsome profit. Bad actors ruin it for everyone.

Ah yes, the "too big to fail" banks.  This was the big issue that became widely publicized, and caused everyone to hate banks for different reasons.  Some think they should have let the banks fail, take the economic hit, and then rebuild.  Some think the should have punished the banks greed by going after their profits.  Some called for increased regulation to prevent the situation from occurring in the first place.  The point of the bailout was to stop banks from losing too much money, with the idea that it would mitigate some of the effects of the recession.  Did it achieve its purpose?  Yes it did.  Was there a better decision?  We can argue that out, but there is no clear cut answer.

Your right, we could sit for years asking "what if" question about a better way to have handled 2008, it's pointless. but we dam well better be sure we never HAVE to ask out selves this question again. the part I have a problem with is that people seem to think the banks actually had losses that needed bailing out. Of the "too big to fall" banks all of them had "record profits"  that year AFTER the bailout, as in, higher than any previous year. if they were  really "bailed out" from a critical situation where they would of gone under then the only profit they should have had after payroll should be equal to inflation that year. Now to be fair of the 30 trillion that went to bail out banks only 4 trillion went to these "too big to fail" banks, that only 13%. 13% sounds a number that would pop up in an embezzlement case. No matter what the final answer is we can't be bailing out the banks every time they make a bad decision. And if that's the case why are the "to big to fail" banks bigger now (as in hold a larger share of the market, not just richer) then they were before 2008? "Why are we letting ourselves be held hostage?" that's the question the documentary asks. I'm asking "are we being held hostage?" as a starting point.


We should not be leaving this kind of thinking solely to the economists, politicians, an lobbyists. that would be a great disservice to both ourselves and our communities.

Then I think you might agree with the view of the documentary at least somewhat. The federal reserve is after all a central bank created to be a power unto itself over all banks with exclusive rights to print the government's money.

I don't thing debate of anything is pointless. even if one side or the other starts out assuming they are entirely right  or that the other side will never understand there is sill a chance that through clear expression of one's thoughts on a given subject matter the other-side will come to understand their point of view. Convincing the other side is not the point of debate, coming to an understanding is. Understanding the opposition is the first step to compromise. A principle I feel modern politicians have forgotten or stopped caring about. There are fall to many people who are convinced they know the absolute truth. We can all learn something by taking to time to understand the opposition.

Again IF YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE TITLE IS TALKING ABOUT THE ENSLAVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE BANKS NOT INDIVIDUALS. for the love of all that is good stop making assumptions.

if banks were actually printing money that would be different. they are not, they are literally pulling it out of their collective asses to hand out at interest.  personalty I don't share the view point of the documentary presents at the end. but the facts presented up to that point are very interesting, particularly how the 1913 reserve act was written by the banks themselves then handed off to congressmen to pass. None of it until the end where it advocates getting rid of the central bank is propaganda. It's all well researched, well documented, well cited fact. You'll all making assumption about the content before even watching it which is an academic failure on your part. you can rip the documentary to shreds for all i care but don't dismiss facts on personal bias of the title.

As for your remarks about my own bias:

I share a lot of view points of both typical conservatives and liberals, If you had to classify me with a modern day term the one your looking for is "democratic socialist" which has less to do with socialism and if far more center left than most liberal view points despite it's seemingly far left name. I'm not some far left nutter trying to shout propaganda at you I'm honestly trying to get people to think and discuss the state of our world. The first step to gaining knowledge is challenging what is presumed known.

Your wrong, I don't have a problem with capitalism. I have a problem with bad actors. I have a problem idea that if left alone to be taken over by bad actors "free markets" (which are anything BUT free if they are controlled by bad actors) will fix all our worldly woes.

You want government out of business and the daily lives of the people. That's good, it's something worth advocating for. You want people who work hard and pull themselves up by the boot straps to get their just reward and live a comfortable life. Good those kinds of people deserve that. You don't want a unfair tax burden on the middle class of america. GOOD neither do I. No one should be paying more taxes than are absolutely necessary to keep a functioning society because that is the purpose of tax in the first place. The federalists had it right when they advocated for state powers, a big central government is far too slow and combers om to effectively govern a large population. in passing sweeping laws for all sates they can do disservices to localized area which can be hurt because while the law may by and large be good for most local communities with abnormal circumstances may be disadvantaged. People are smarter then they are often given credit for and communities can effectively govern them selves for the most part with out government interference.

I agree with all of this. In a country as diverse and inclusive as ours proclaims to be these are ecential tenets to design our government by. Personal freedoms should be kept where ever possible to aid in these goals.

I'm pretty sure I understand your view point fairly well, if anything I just does not reflect you view point then please correct me I do really want to understand.


Here's where we apparently disagree, again correct me if I'm wrong.

No one should have to starve or worry about making their next bill or rent payment while making an honest effort, that means there needs to be a safety net in place provided by government because no one else will do it. I believe that those who do well, succeed and gain wealth while fully entitled to do so take on an obligation in the same act, and that obligation is to the world around them. That obligation is to preserve stability and ensure their action don't prevent others from living a stable life. To ensure those obligations are met government must impose resonable regulation because there is no other power in place to do so. No activity that presents a danger to the community's or individual's current or future physical well being should be a free action thus laws must prevent such action, producing pollutants that can effect the local air and water quality are an example of this. Selling a dangerous drug or contaminated food is another example.

And here we tie back into the banking problem. The banks ecentialy have absolute control over money. They "print" it by handing out credit at interest. They speculate on industry with quantities of capital so great as to render the actual value of the industry in question insignificant. They in a nut shell and bring everything crashing down with one slip up. Granted it is in their best interest NOT to slip up because doing so cuts into their profits. but can you really trust them with their current track record?

You love capitalists, great so do I. It is the best economic tool ever invented to insentivize the solving of problems. Here's the thing is has two great flaws and their existence can not be argued. 1) it only solves profitable problems (i'm sorry to say curing cancer is not profitable, far more money can be gained from treating it indefensibly)). 2) it only works if EVERYONE has disposable income to spend across the board on problems they want solved. thus if the majority of the population only makes enough to bay bills and feed themselves the only problems that get solved are the provision of utilities and the production of food.

Now please, watch the documentary, you can skip the opinionated last 20 minutes or so if you wish. Learn how banking and money actually works in this world, THEN come back and tell me  what you think should or should not be done.

those three question I posted in the topic opener? I was dead serious in answering them as written. you'll notice they are neutral to any one particular viewpoint. if you digresses on THAT then please by all means revise them, I want honest debate not a bunch of grand standing on ideals.