Craig328's Profile User Rating: *****

Reputation: 1978 Grandmaster
Expert w/DIC++
Active Posts:
3,516 (1.31 per day)
13-January 08
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline May 07 2015 07:04 AM

Previous Fields

OS Preference:
Favorite Browser:
Favorite Processor:
Favorite Gaming Platform:
Your Car:
Dream Kudos:
Expert In:

Latest Visitors

Icon   Craig328 <cfloop from=1 to=infinity><cfif IsItFiveOClockYet(Now())><cfbreak></cfif></cffloop><cfset goHome = Now()>

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: CreateUUID database issues

    Posted 2 May 2015

    My guess is that it's the URL variable you're passing in to your query. The dashes could be getting converted to their ASCII equivalents and that's why the database call fails.

    However, look into the following things. Is the datatype of the column that you're saving the UUID to VARCHAR and is it of sufficient length to hold the entire UUID string? If so, try passing in your URL variable with CFQUERYPARAM (which is a good idea because you should never EVER pass in user supplied variable content to your database without the use of a bind parameter if for no other reason that database security). That might help out some.

    Give those a try and let us know how it goes.

    Good luck!
  2. In Topic: Need help with using cfloop to build a keyword search query

    Posted 2 Feb 2015


    As an aside, you may want to look at the grouping that that code produces for your where statement.

    That is, your where statement could end up looking like this:

    WHERE 1 = 1 AND( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% )

    Make sure that's the where statement you want (an AND statement followed by an ungrouped OR series like that).
  3. In Topic: Need help with using cfloop to build a keyword search query

    Posted 31 Jan 2015

    Welcome to DIC rausten!

    So, you're about 95% of the way there. You've already figured that you can insert CF code into the SQL statement in order to build dynamic SQL. You're just lacking the last part: changing the SQL operator from an AND to an OR after the first search.

    Your code:
    SELECT [id]
      FROM [dbo].[Knowtator]
        WHERE 1 = 1
    <cfloop list="AT2G37630 ATSUC2" delimiters=" " index="word" >
    		OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% )	

    So, in your code you're on the money with the CFLOOP. All you need is some conditional code inside the loop to determine what iteration you're on within the loop. First iteration is an AND statement, everything is an OR, right?

    Try this:
    SELECT [id]
      FROM [dbo].[Knowtator]
        WHERE 1 = 1
    <cfset counter = 0>
    <cfloop list="AT2G37630 ATSUC2" delimiters=" " index="word" >
         <cfset counter = counter + 1>
         <cfif counter EQ 1>
              AND( [spannedtext] like #word#% )
              OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% )

    That's a very mechanical way of doing a conditional where statement per the loop iteration but this is easiest to see and understand if you're not accustomed. Try giving that a spin and see what you get.

    Good luck!
  4. In Topic: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

    Posted 28 Jan 2015

    View Postjon.kiparsky, on 29 January 2015 - 12:52 AM, said:

    View PostCraig328, on 28 January 2015 - 11:05 PM, said:

    If, as you claim, we lack natural, inalienable rights...what is it then that you smugly claim can be taken from us by "people"? If we don't have them in the first place, how can they be taken? You cannot lose something you don't have, after all.

    This is more or less entirely vacuous. As you point out, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right". You have the right to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared until you meet some obstacle, provided you're within earth's atmosphere or thereabouts. Beyond that, it's all up for grabs. Asserting that these rights are "inalienable" was a nice piece of rhetoric, and very useful, but obviously if they were inalienable, nobody would have mentioned them. Particularly since the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were what the writers of that document felt the King was taking away (alienating, you see). So it is precisely to secure those rights that we set up governments - and it's precisely to keep them that we keep an eye on our governments.

    It seems to me that you believe there's some sort of bi-polar opposition, that one must either believe in and support anything that their government does, wholeheartedly and without reservation, or else one must be an anarchist. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? Doesn't it seem that maybe there's some sort of middle ground in there? Say, the middle ground that all of the founding fathers occupied?


    There's a point in a conversation where your best bet is to rub some dirt on it and walk it off. For you, this would be that point.

    There's something a little bit unseemly about this habit of spiking the ball and doing a little victory dance every time you put forth an argument. Could you not just put some of that effort into making your arguments a little more coherent? Now, I grant you f2k seems to have blown a gasket here, but you're not actually doing much to make the case for whatever it is you're trying to argue for.

    You can call Jefferson's chosen phrasing vacuous if it suits you. I'll readily admit that I won't. Alienable,'s window dressing. Government is merely a collection of people telling other people what to do. If we agree that rights are not originating in the individual by their very existence as a human being (the very genesis of the fairly universally revered concept of "human rights", BTW) what then makes a collection of human beings any more acceptable as a source to grant a person rights and freedoms via their participation in a government? That is, at what division level do human rights no longer originate from humans?

    Of course, all of that is rhetoric. Government doesn't exist to create and then grant rights and freedoms. Indeed, in the absence of a government, you can do any damn thing you want. Governments exist solely to restrict rights and freedoms of individuals in the interest of the collective. I didn't really expect this was a debatable point any more than I'd have expected having to establish the wetness of water.

    Your suggestion that we set up a government to secure those rights is somewhat in error because the government they were creating wasn't doing so in a vacuum. They were setting it up in opposition to an existing, more restrictive government..."to form a more perfect Union". Even the new government never condoned theft, murder, and other felonious activity. It specifically affirmed the right to speech, the right to self defense, the right to assemble. It didn't grant those rights, it said it had no authority to abridge them. A good example is the wording of the 1st Amendment:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The entirety of the passage describes the restrictions placed on the government. It does not say "citizens have these rights". Rather it says "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...abridging". The language is unambiguous. It's not describing a government creating and bestowing something. It's explicitly forbidding it from encroaching on something that's already there. Ditto with the 2nd Amendment (the "shall not be infringed" part) and 3rd ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house") and 4th ("the right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated"). Especially with the 4th it never references the right of the people to be secure as something the government establishes but rather proscribes the actions the government may take in opposition to that pre-existing right.

    All through the enumeration of the rights there is negative language and in cases where there is a lack of negative language, there is oftentimes a confirmation to a right that was never specifically established ("the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"). But they're all just a build up to the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The document that, by incorrect argument establishing rights, is referencing "others retained by the people".

    The establishment of the government as being constructed to not abridge or curtail preexistent rights and freedoms is unassailable. The Founders describe their existence as "inalienable" and granted by the Creator (these were God fearing folk for the most part) and their government will be limited in what it can curtail of those rights and freedoms.
  5. In Topic: Direction of US Media and "Conspiracies".

    Posted 28 Jan 2015

    View Postfarrell2k, on 29 January 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

    I am your intellectual superior, Craig.

    That was the most entertaining thing you've ever written. I, literally, cannot be offended by that statement simply because it gifts me with much mirth. I sincerely wish to thank you for my own special "pigeon chess" moment.

    Bless your heart. :D

My Information

Member Title:
I make this look good
Age Unknown
October 19
Woodstock, GA
Full Name:
Years Programming:
Programming Languages:
ColdFusion, some ASP classic, HTML, Javascript, CSS, SQL...all that happy stuff.

Contact Information

Website URL:
Website URL


Page 1 of 1
  1. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    11 Mar 2013 - 08:08
    Vamsc443, go ahead and re-check the thread for my response. Also, please understand that everyone who is here helping devs on DIC does so in a volunteer fashion. We don't get paid to render assistance. We do it because we're nice folks trying to help others.
  2. Photo

    vamsc443 Icon

    11 Mar 2013 - 07:52
    Sorry Craig328
  3. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    08 Mar 2013 - 07:28
    :rolleyes: Yep, I'll get right on that.
  4. Photo

    vamsc443 Icon

    08 Mar 2013 - 07:17
    hi Craig328 i have updated my code also.please look on that
  5. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    14 Nov 2012 - 06:33
    Why? Did you switch teams?
  6. Photo

    BenignDesign Icon

    14 Nov 2012 - 05:13
    Can I be a lez friend, too?!?!?!
  7. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    17 Aug 2012 - 06:45
    Only if you'll spoon me (but only when I want it).
  8. Photo

    no2pencil Icon

    17 Aug 2012 - 06:36
    Lez Be Friends?!
  9. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    23 May 2012 - 12:09
    I am so your friend. Sad panda that!
  10. Photo

    BenignDesign Icon

    16 Dec 2011 - 12:55
    You are not my friend. Now I am a sad panda.
  11. Photo

    Craig328 Icon

    06 Jan 2011 - 12:12
    My dazzling repartee leaves people speechless?
    I dunno.
  12. Photo

    Alex6788 Icon

    06 Jan 2011 - 11:04
    Hey, thanks for adding me as a friend. How is it that you have zero comments?
Page 1 of 1