If you really want to make a difference in your health with respect to the food you eat stop being lazy and make your own food from scratch (not processed foods) and stop eating out.
You probably don't have this problem down in your parents basement, but some of us actually like to go out and spend time with friends and family. This usually involves going to places that serve food.
Then they are idiots, too. To point out how their songs are played on the radio is a red herring as their contract clause is only specifically about EMI distributing their album.
There's a bit of a difference between having money and being willing to p*ss it away all over the place.
Maybe, but if you consider 100 dollars a year to be a "steep expense" when you are paying upwards of 800 dollars a year for voice and data service, then your priorities are clearly out of whack.
Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.
While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot. Their contract doesn't have anything to do with their songs being on the radio. It has to do with the distribution of the album by EMI.
Except that the iPhone isn't the only phone you can buy and thus you don't have to put up with the rules Apple sets for it's App store unless you choose to buy an iPhone. Thus your analogy falls completely apart.
And for all those languages, nobody wants to implement a DirectX wrapper library. Since you can’t use it on any platform other than Windows anyway. And so it’s an annoying waste of time.
Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK? Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software. Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK. Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it?
To add context to my statement, a person who has an iPhone is paying at minimum $70 dollars a month. If you can't afford $8.50 a month for MobileME then I'd question why you're buying an iPhone to begin with.
I would think it would be possible for a lawyer to make the claim that if Apple's product broke causing the loss, AND that Apple actively blocked --potentially-- better products from working, that they then assumed liability for any damage their original product failed to protect.
Based on exactly what statutory or case law do you base this assertion on?
And they supposedly will care about 3d acceleration anywhere else? Why the fuck has this boiled down to what an average joe thinks? The point remains that the examples used above are piss poor examples of OpenGL winning for a number of reasons.
Not to an average joe, who wouldn't give two flying fucks about your latest CAD program.
Who the fuck was talking about CAD? All you have to do is point them to mobile phones and Windows. Both are vastly huger OpenGL platforms than the PS3 and either Linux or Mac OS X could ever hope to be.
Well even using the PS3 as an OpenGL platform is somewhat inaccurate because what PS3 runs is a derivative of OpenGL ES and Nvidia's CG programming language. But if you wanted to show that OpenGL has won, you can easily point to every Windows box as it's pretty much impossible to find a video driver these days that doesn't have OpenGL support.
And before I get modded down by someone missing the point of my comment, there are much better examples to show that OpenGL has won over Direct3D than the poor examples used by the person above.
I have to wonder... at the end of they day, why do you really care one way or the other? Do you think he's a threat to you somehow?
So we only punish people who are threats to everyone? There are numerous people put in jail for murder, vehicular manslaughter, DWI, etc that are not threats to myself personally, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.
If the kid had accidently drowned because they own a swimming pool should someone be charged?
If the owner of the pool was found to be negligent in letting the kid come and play with their pool, yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Get this. Up until 15-20 years ago (practically) no college students had cell phones.
And we walked to school barefoot in the snow and uphill both ways!
If you really want to make a difference in your health with respect to the food you eat stop being lazy and make your own food from scratch (not processed foods) and stop eating out.
You probably don't have this problem down in your parents basement, but some of us actually like to go out and spend time with friends and family. This usually involves going to places that serve food.
Why is that funny?
It's funny to see fatties wailing about how duh gubmint is gonna take food away from them especially when bills like this never pass.
Is the suggestion here that being fat automatically disqualifies you from public comment?
Nope he can comment all he wants. I'll still find it funny when a guy who looks like he's pushing 300 lbs. is trying to lecture to me about nutrition.
Then they are idiots, too. To point out how their songs are played on the radio is a red herring as their contract clause is only specifically about EMI distributing their album.
There's a bit of a difference between having money and being willing to p*ss it away all over the place.
Maybe, but if you consider 100 dollars a year to be a "steep expense" when you are paying upwards of 800 dollars a year for voice and data service, then your priorities are clearly out of whack.
Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.
While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot. Their contract doesn't have anything to do with their songs being on the radio. It has to do with the distribution of the album by EMI.
They may not face criminal charges but if a minor is using their car and gets in to an accident the parent will be responsible.
Except that the iPhone isn't the only phone you can buy and thus you don't have to put up with the rules Apple sets for it's App store unless you choose to buy an iPhone. Thus your analogy falls completely apart.
What's funny about the linked article is that the person who wrote it is a tub of lard.
Since when were XInput and XAudio not part of DirectX?
And for all those languages, nobody wants to implement a DirectX wrapper library. Since you can’t use it on any platform other than Windows anyway. And so it’s an annoying waste of time.
Oh really?
DirectPython
Java3d
DirectX SDK For Delphi
DirectX Bindings for Haskell
OCaml library that uses DirectX
In the long run, DirectX will go the way of Internet Explorer 6.
Such has been claimed since the mid 90s and all who have claimed such have been wrong over and over.
Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK? Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software. Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK. Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it?
To add context to my statement, a person who has an iPhone is paying at minimum $70 dollars a month. If you can't afford $8.50 a month for MobileME then I'd question why you're buying an iPhone to begin with.
Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep.
If $8.50 a month is a steep expense for you then maybe you should stop living off the allowance from your parents and get a real job.
I would think it would be possible for a lawyer to make the claim that if Apple's product broke causing the loss, AND that Apple actively blocked --potentially-- better products from working, that they then assumed liability for any damage their original product failed to protect.
Based on exactly what statutory or case law do you base this assertion on?
Boohoo. Apple is running a business not a charity.
And they supposedly will care about 3d acceleration anywhere else? Why the fuck has this boiled down to what an average joe thinks? The point remains that the examples used above are piss poor examples of OpenGL winning for a number of reasons.
Not to an average joe, who wouldn't give two flying fucks about your latest CAD program.
Who the fuck was talking about CAD? All you have to do is point them to mobile phones and Windows. Both are vastly huger OpenGL platforms than the PS3 and either Linux or Mac OS X could ever hope to be.
You mean other than the fact that what the PS3 and Wii run aren't really OpenGL but proprietary derivatives of OpenGL ES?
Well even using the PS3 as an OpenGL platform is somewhat inaccurate because what PS3 runs is a derivative of OpenGL ES and Nvidia's CG programming language. But if you wanted to show that OpenGL has won, you can easily point to every Windows box as it's pretty much impossible to find a video driver these days that doesn't have OpenGL support.
And before I get modded down by someone missing the point of my comment, there are much better examples to show that OpenGL has won over Direct3D than the poor examples used by the person above.
OpenGL is used on PS3, linux and OS X.
So the loser of the next-gen console wars and two OSes with minority market shares? zOMG SUCCESS!!
I have to wonder... at the end of they day, why do you really care one way or the other? Do you think he's a threat to you somehow?
So we only punish people who are threats to everyone? There are numerous people put in jail for murder, vehicular manslaughter, DWI, etc that are not threats to myself personally, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.
If the kid had accidently drowned because they own a swimming pool should someone be charged?
If the owner of the pool was found to be negligent in letting the kid come and play with their pool, yes.
And when you are careless with your car and you accidentally kill someone you are rightfully arrested and convicted for vehicular manslaughter.