That phrase right there communicates the state of the patent system. Finding out which patents exist take more research and effort than inventing the patentable items.
Honestly, it's not the versions that I have a problem with, it's that they've converted to an optional content/material publication system, to a required core update system that delivers no new content, just new rules. Wizards seem to have forgotten the value of charm and mystery along the way.
I remember when the problem really began with random miniatures instead of just buying what you need. The whole intent was to FORCE you to buy more to get what you need to play. I jumped ship, and I think lots of other people did too.
Of course I do. Software is an organized large collection of data arranged in a novel way. On the other side: you can't copyright "true". Setting one bit on data you already possess is not copyright infringement. You're crazy.
This is mostly a disturbingly obsessive whine over details that do not matter, with an actual critique only making up a fraction of the last couple paragraphs. It uses 500 words to lodge exactly two valid complaints: 1. Making a competition out of a challenge, which are fundamentally different. and 2. Slightly increasing the proportion of the show that is human interest.
If there were some sort of news that made this arbitrary blob of complaining relevant, it would just be badly written, instead of bizarrely atopical and badly written. There's not, and it just seems like completely off the wall "nerd-rage" over nothing in particular. Shameful editorial standards at work here.
I just want you to justify your points. I don't need citations. I hate bald claims. That's it. It's too easy to just say something is true and move on without moving towards any sort of shared understanding.
Well, atmospheric carbon takes only a few forms. Carbon monoxide is a deadly pollutant and already highly regulated. Carbonates, which form carbonic acid when in clouds, are already regulated in acid rain regulation. Methane is a 23x more powerful motivator of global warming than CO2 is actually targeted(in theory) as one of the easiest to deal with greenhouse gasses. And removing those only leaves the extraordinarily esoteric kinds of carbon gases that aren't really worth worrying about and CO2.
Can you provide evidence of continuing bias by the register? It's not exactly without a journalistic reputation, so a demonstrated trend of that sort might be meaningful to them if exposed.
It does, to an extent. Pollution is changing the physical and chemical makeup of an ecosystem by introducing artificial byproducts. Carbon (in all forms) is nominally a trace element in the atmosphere. It exists, but introducing more of it does affect the biochemistry of living things, as well as other, more physical effects, like heat trapping. There is an extent to which it is pollution. It's not an immediately toxic one like chlorine or ammonia is, but since you're arguing for the case of strictly defining "pollution" to exclude co2, you're going to have to provide said strict definition.
Yes, but I wanted a grasp of what the state of key-based encryption was like in the era so I could get my bearings on the complexity we're dealing with.
I wasn't saying there was a problem, I was saying things not being popular isn't something they can deflect by blaming the users. If the users pick a loser, that's a problem for valve.
Wasn't Einstein the one who proposed the concept of a grand unified theory? The first person to try should hardly be expected to succeed at a monumental task. Shoulders of giants, and all that.
Why can't perl be a programming language? No iron rule I've heard says that programming involves compiled machine code. You can write PROGRAMS with perl. What definition do you use?
Slashdot Mirror
The only board game Microsoft understands in Monopoly.
That phrase right there communicates the state of the patent system. Finding out which patents exist take more research and effort than inventing the patentable items.
Honestly, it's not the versions that I have a problem with, it's that they've converted to an optional content/material publication system, to a required core update system that delivers no new content, just new rules. Wizards seem to have forgotten the value of charm and mystery along the way.
I remember when the problem really began with random miniatures instead of just buying what you need. The whole intent was to FORCE you to buy more to get what you need to play. I jumped ship, and I think lots of other people did too.
I heard he posted on reddit this one time. That, like everything else, is a step up from being a slashdot editor.
You are a genius, I will do that this very day.
Of course I do. Software is an organized large collection of data arranged in a novel way. On the other side: you can't copyright "true". Setting one bit on data you already possess is not copyright infringement. You're crazy.
Where the "something" in this case are the states of Boolean variables. Not illegal.
That don't even really review the subject. Also, how about we don't watch the channel that gutted TechTV.
This is mostly a disturbingly obsessive whine over details that do not matter, with an actual critique only making up a fraction of the last couple paragraphs. It uses 500 words to lodge exactly two valid complaints:
1. Making a competition out of a challenge, which are fundamentally different.
and
2. Slightly increasing the proportion of the show that is human interest.
If there were some sort of news that made this arbitrary blob of complaining relevant, it would just be badly written, instead of bizarrely atopical and badly written. There's not, and it just seems like completely off the wall "nerd-rage" over nothing in particular. Shameful editorial standards at work here.
Oh, shows what I know.
I just want you to justify your points. I don't need citations. I hate bald claims. That's it. It's too easy to just say something is true and move on without moving towards any sort of shared understanding.
Well, atmospheric carbon takes only a few forms. Carbon monoxide is a deadly pollutant and already highly regulated. Carbonates, which form carbonic acid when in clouds, are already regulated in acid rain regulation. Methane is a 23x more powerful motivator of global warming than CO2 is actually targeted(in theory) as one of the easiest to deal with greenhouse gasses. And removing those only leaves the extraordinarily esoteric kinds of carbon gases that aren't really worth worrying about and CO2.
I'm honestly not sure what your point was.
He was talking about the article, not the paper. There's a difference.
Can you provide evidence of continuing bias by the register? It's not exactly without a journalistic reputation, so a demonstrated trend of that sort might be meaningful to them if exposed.
It does, to an extent. Pollution is changing the physical and chemical makeup of an ecosystem by introducing artificial byproducts. Carbon (in all forms) is nominally a trace element in the atmosphere. It exists, but introducing more of it does affect the biochemistry of living things, as well as other, more physical effects, like heat trapping. There is an extent to which it is pollution. It's not an immediately toxic one like chlorine or ammonia is, but since you're arguing for the case of strictly defining "pollution" to exclude co2, you're going to have to provide said strict definition.
That's a bold claim. It's easy to dismiss data, but you should at least have a reason beyond "I don't like it". Come on.
Yes, but I wanted a grasp of what the state of key-based encryption was like in the era so I could get my bearings on the complexity we're dealing with.
What was the standard length of an encryption key back then?
Ignorance of the internal functioning of congress makes money matter more than informed views. That's it.
I wasn't saying there was a problem, I was saying things not being popular isn't something they can deflect by blaming the users. If the users pick a loser, that's a problem for valve.
Re: 2
Valve wants to squeeze the absolute maximum money from steam users. Don't forget.
Wasn't Einstein the one who proposed the concept of a grand unified theory? The first person to try should hardly be expected to succeed at a monumental task. Shoulders of giants, and all that.
Trying to sell a downgrade as the best thing ever is probably not good business sense.
Why can't perl be a programming language? No iron rule I've heard says that programming involves compiled machine code. You can write PROGRAMS with perl. What definition do you use?
... Imagine hundreds of books set in ... the Star Wars Universe ...
I actually count 320 so no imagination is required. I don't really have a point, just that everything is already run into the ground.