?

I want to test out an AJAX application using local xml, js, and html files. However, browser support on this is spotty. Firefox will allow http requests on local files, but chrome won't. Is there any way to test this out without putting it online?

What is the best, most W3C-recommended way to get the value put into form input elements? As far as I know, its something along the lines of this:

<script type="text/javascript">

function submit_Input()

{

x=document.forms["form1"]["input1"].value;

}

</script>

<form name="form1" onsubmit="submit_Input()">

<input type="text" name="input1" />

<input type="submit" value="Submit" />

</form>

So currently for my website, my homepage sits at:

www.domainname.com/index.html

is there any way to remove the 'index.html', so the URL of the homepage is just the domain name?

Hey, quick question about javascript. I wanted to make something like a multiple choice quiz, but don't want to send the results to a database. How do you set it up so that you can create and if...else statement based on the input into the form?

For example, two radio buttons and a submit button. When you select one and hit submit, the page will do something like:

document.write("You selected ___!");

So, like this:

if (_____===option1) {

document.write("Something");

};

if (_____===option2) {

document.write("Something different");

};

what do I put in the parentheses?

I was wondering if anybody knew how to execute a javascript function if the user is using a certain browser. For example, if the person viewing the page is using IE 6 or below, how do I execute:

alert("Looks like your browser is over a decade old")

or something. Thanks!

Okay, I need to create a radial white-to-transparent gradient image, and save it as a gif in photoshop. Every time I try, it loses the gradient effect, and is just a solid white circle with a transparent background. Help?

Christianity went through major splits about AD 1000 (East-West Schism) and then again in the 1500s (Protestant Reformation). Do you think this pattern will uphold?

If so, what do you think might happen? Be creative.

Think about it, do you think they could have fathomed that their church would touch more people than were alive at the time?

Question for Catholics, why do you say 'Catholic' instead of 'Christian' (at least the Catholics I know do). Is it some dislike for the word Christian? Do you just like specifying that you're Catholic? Just wondering.

I'm not talking about electing a new party in congress, I'm talking about a real, national revolution. Do you think it will ever happen, or could? Would it need to happen?

For example, Wal Mart spends over ten million dollars fighting unions. Why not spend that money on the unions demands? Wouldn't it be better if that ten million went to the workers instead of the lawyers?

Suppose that there was a race of people who were born on the moon, and had mutated as such (different muscular structure). What would be a good slur against Lunar people?

would you rather be have pre-existing condition protection (like in the health care law), but have an individual mandate, or...

neither.

If you had to pick, which option would you have?

I have a Late 2009 13" Macbook with a Mini Displayport. My TV only connects to RCA.

How many cables/adapters/converters do I need to buy and where can I find them?

Thanks so much.

Instead of having your income deducted, would you prefer a 20% or 30% national sales tax? It would be easier to implement, harder to loophole, and would be less punishing on the poor.

How do you feel?

If any of you have ever filed taxes, you'll know that it's a complicated mess. If you've ever tried to file with significant stock market activity, it's impossible.

Also, as the President said last night, many lobbyists have rigged the tax code to benefit themselves.

Would you be in favor of scrapping the entire tax code, and writing a new, simpler one?

For example, if the Senate chooses to ignore the HCR repeal all two years, but then the Republicans take the Senate. Could the 113th senate pick up the same bill and pass it?

If yes, wouldn't it make more sense for Senator Reid to take the bill into debate, and then vote it down so the next congress, if the Republicans take over, will have to pass it in the House again?

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warni...

``No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.''

The amendment above passed the House (by two thirds majority) on February 28, 1861 and the Senate (by two thirds majority) on March 2, 1861. However, it was not ratified by three fourths of the states, and therefore expired after 7 years.

Do you think that this amendment should be tried again?