I don't remember ever having to do this in Java but it's been a while. Either way, most languages provide get/set synthesis. You are basically just saying you could explicitly declare basic getters/setters in Java and choose to have the compiler create them on build in C# or whatever, but that argument could easily be turned around. It's not a real argument. You wrote some convoluted code in Java and some streamlined code in C#. Furthermore the code isn't even "code" but boilerplate bullshit.
But the problem is you are wrong. Facebook turned an everyday word into a worldwide recognized brand that represents social networking. Teachbook wasn't naming itself because it decided to append the word "book" to the word "teach" arbitrarily. Nor were they naming themselves after traditional "facebooks". They are a social networking site that decided to name themselves "Teachbook" because they are a social networking website for teachers and adopted the suffix "-book" backwardly from "Facebook". I feel bad for them because they sound like a small company but Facebook needs to actively defend itself if they do not want the backwards derived generalized suffix of "-book" to be used for social networking sites (something they may feel leads to people associating other "-book" sites with Facebook).
An example in not trademark terms: Cocaine comes from the words Coca (the plant the chemical was derived from) and "-ine" a suffix used for alkaloids. The drug was used as a topical anesthetic, originally. Later on, the suffix of "-caine" was taken from cocaine and used to name a lot of topical anesthetics such as procaine (tradename: Novacaine) and benzocaine. If cocaine had been a trade name and not a scientific name, I'm sure GSK or Bayer or whoever owned it would have probably prevented other drugs from being called Novacaine, etc.
While this lawsuit is pretty stupid, your hatred of Facebook is almost more stupid. Do you fancy yourself a hero, a white knight of sorts, saving the masses from the evils of social networking? How exactly are regular people getting screwed over by Facebook? And don't give me a vague "but the privacy issues!" as an answer. For the most part, do you truly believe that a regular person using Facebook is ignorant to some sort of massive evil controlling them and expanding upon that, do you believe that you, or others like you, should be the ones to decide what is acceptable because it is for the good of the people?
Your vanity, your massive ego or whatever it is that drives you to believe you have a greater understanding of reality than others is disgusting and reminiscent of all the great dictators of the twentieth century.
I didn't read his link but the penguin and puffin are examples of parallel evolution. They both have similar colorings but aren't super closely related; the colorings are similar because both species evolved favoring the black/white/orange coloring due to their habitats.
I wrote an entire disertation on why I hate the Genius Bar once. I am not a fanboi. But I like Apple's products and I hate these borderline troll articles and I hate the people who come in a say "Apple and everyone who likes them are stupid" because they piss me off. It's not about whether you like Apple or not, or whether I like Apple or not. It's about this idiotic mentality that discussion can be summed up in "UR A FAGGOT" statements. I tend to go crazy and participate when I see this, by trolling back because I have a short fuse and get easily angered but in general this whole attitude of "yeah FUCK APPLE i dont know what I'm talking about" is what pisses me off.
Ah okay. Fair enough. I also know that the iTunes agreement has some random reference about using the software with nuclear weapons/systems or something. Still, I would hope that the military doesn't base things off of a platform where there is no accountability, seems a bit dangerous if there are no guarantees for some of the more dangerous things they could do.
7.5 YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE iPAD SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE FAILURE OR TIME DELAYS OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN, THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE iPAD SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS.
If you actually have points to back up your reason for not using Apple, fine. I don't care about your choices. What I care about is the 50 million/b/tard style lunatics who run around this site every time Apple is mentioned talking out of their ass about things they don't understand just because it's fun to hate on what's cool.
I don't fully agree with your post, but at least you have content and a legitimate opinion. You aren't the type of person I'm mad at.
Whether you like it or not, it is indicative of an immature person to talk about how much they hate "pop" music when that term is pretty broad and you are pretty much presenting yourself as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about but enjoys disliking things that they associate with the mainstream.
Yah I guess my point is, I understand that drinking in moderation is not pounding back like 10 drinks on a regular basis and even the three drinks a day thing seems generous. I know in other places it's a bit different, but in America, drinking daily isn't super common. Even when it is, I feel like three drinks is generous. When people drink that much daily, however, many people would judge them (maybe not enough to get them "help" or whatever but they would assume they were functioning alcoholics) regardless of weight.
All this goes back to my point I guess that drinking in moderation is no worse than weed.
I love Apple and this post is intriguing, but you should know Apple does not allow for any of their software or hardware to be used in any sort of device that is important for keeping people alive or in any way tied to weapons/violence. It's in all of their terms and agreements.
It would make sense. He just outed this guy on Slashdot to call him an idiot. I have a feeling the Anonymous GP is a complete fucking douchetool based on this post alone and I'm sure his "friend" just fucking hates him and hated him long before the GP ever decided to hate him back.
Do some research on tax breaks from charitable donations before throwing that shit around.
Long story short: You don't "make" anything giving money to charity. Donating money isn't some sort of con into not paying taxes and ultimately saving money. You give to charity and you pay taxes. Sometimes, you lower your tax bracket by deducting donations.
I love it when someone makes a sweeping generalization about a group of people, someone else who falls into that group gets mad and finally, someone asks "are you mad because it's true? That's the only reason why you would be mad about being baselessly insulted!"
The above is not insightful. Of course people are getting offended. This entire article is a troll. Most Linux users are socially inept fuckwits. Why doesn't that get published on Slashdot. I'm sure I could prove that if I conducted my study the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
moderate parent up
but not too much!
Not if the glass is made in china!!
Cause its leaded. Probably.
I don't remember ever having to do this in Java but it's been a while. Either way, most languages provide get/set synthesis. You are basically just saying you could explicitly declare basic getters/setters in Java and choose to have the compiler create them on build in C# or whatever, but that argument could easily be turned around. It's not a real argument. You wrote some convoluted code in Java and some streamlined code in C#. Furthermore the code isn't even "code" but boilerplate bullshit.
Troll? Really? This isn't even a polarizing opinion that a moderator could abuse the system for. This is just like avante garde moderation.
But the problem is you are wrong. Facebook turned an everyday word into a worldwide recognized brand that represents social networking. Teachbook wasn't naming itself because it decided to append the word "book" to the word "teach" arbitrarily. Nor were they naming themselves after traditional "facebooks". They are a social networking site that decided to name themselves "Teachbook" because they are a social networking website for teachers and adopted the suffix "-book" backwardly from "Facebook". I feel bad for them because they sound like a small company but Facebook needs to actively defend itself if they do not want the backwards derived generalized suffix of "-book" to be used for social networking sites (something they may feel leads to people associating other "-book" sites with Facebook).
An example in not trademark terms: Cocaine comes from the words Coca (the plant the chemical was derived from) and "-ine" a suffix used for alkaloids. The drug was used as a topical anesthetic, originally. Later on, the suffix of "-caine" was taken from cocaine and used to name a lot of topical anesthetics such as procaine (tradename: Novacaine) and benzocaine. If cocaine had been a trade name and not a scientific name, I'm sure GSK or Bayer or whoever owned it would have probably prevented other drugs from being called Novacaine, etc.
While this lawsuit is pretty stupid, your hatred of Facebook is almost more stupid. Do you fancy yourself a hero, a white knight of sorts, saving the masses from the evils of social networking? How exactly are regular people getting screwed over by Facebook? And don't give me a vague "but the privacy issues!" as an answer. For the most part, do you truly believe that a regular person using Facebook is ignorant to some sort of massive evil controlling them and expanding upon that, do you believe that you, or others like you, should be the ones to decide what is acceptable because it is for the good of the people?
Your vanity, your massive ego or whatever it is that drives you to believe you have a greater understanding of reality than others is disgusting and reminiscent of all the great dictators of the twentieth century.
I'll second that hour minutes are important nanosecond
Funny I don't think this is a troll. I think this is more of a "fucking owned"
I didn't read his link but the penguin and puffin are examples of parallel evolution. They both have similar colorings but aren't super closely related; the colorings are similar because both species evolved favoring the black/white/orange coloring due to their habitats.
That's not true. Getting an ISBN isn't hard and self publishing companies will generally assign you one as part of the deal.
Lol I was being sarcastic :)
I wrote an entire disertation on why I hate the Genius Bar once. I am not a fanboi. But I like Apple's products and I hate these borderline troll articles and I hate the people who come in a say "Apple and everyone who likes them are stupid" because they piss me off. It's not about whether you like Apple or not, or whether I like Apple or not. It's about this idiotic mentality that discussion can be summed up in "UR A FAGGOT" statements. I tend to go crazy and participate when I see this, by trolling back because I have a short fuse and get easily angered but in general this whole attitude of "yeah FUCK APPLE i dont know what I'm talking about" is what pisses me off.
That article is from 2005 (5 years ago). It discusses OS X servers before x86 architecture was even implemented and PPC was ditched.
I made a website in HTML once. Can I talk about things that 4chan told me to hate with the big boys, now?
Ah okay. Fair enough. I also know that the iTunes agreement has some random reference about using the software with nuclear weapons/systems or something. Still, I would hope that the military doesn't base things off of a platform where there is no accountability, seems a bit dangerous if there are no guarantees for some of the more dangerous things they could do.
7.5 YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE iPAD SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE
FAILURE OR TIME DELAYS OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN, THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE iPAD SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdf
If you actually have points to back up your reason for not using Apple, fine. I don't care about your choices. What I care about is the 50 million /b/tard style lunatics who run around this site every time Apple is mentioned talking out of their ass about things they don't understand just because it's fun to hate on what's cool.
I don't fully agree with your post, but at least you have content and a legitimate opinion. You aren't the type of person I'm mad at.
Well at least someone modded him up lol
Whether you like it or not, it is indicative of an immature person to talk about how much they hate "pop" music when that term is pretty broad and you are pretty much presenting yourself as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about but enjoys disliking things that they associate with the mainstream.
Yah I guess my point is, I understand that drinking in moderation is not pounding back like 10 drinks on a regular basis and even the three drinks a day thing seems generous. I know in other places it's a bit different, but in America, drinking daily isn't super common. Even when it is, I feel like three drinks is generous. When people drink that much daily, however, many people would judge them (maybe not enough to get them "help" or whatever but they would assume they were functioning alcoholics) regardless of weight.
All this goes back to my point I guess that drinking in moderation is no worse than weed.
I love Apple and this post is intriguing, but you should know Apple does not allow for any of their software or hardware to be used in any sort of device that is important for keeping people alive or in any way tied to weapons/violence. It's in all of their terms and agreements.
It would make sense. He just outed this guy on Slashdot to call him an idiot. I have a feeling the Anonymous GP is a complete fucking douchetool based on this post alone and I'm sure his "friend" just fucking hates him and hated him long before the GP ever decided to hate him back.
Do some research on tax breaks from charitable donations before throwing that shit around.
Long story short: You don't "make" anything giving money to charity. Donating money isn't some sort of con into not paying taxes and ultimately saving money. You give to charity and you pay taxes. Sometimes, you lower your tax bracket by deducting donations.
I love it when someone makes a sweeping generalization about a group of people, someone else who falls into that group gets mad and finally, someone asks "are you mad because it's true? That's the only reason why you would be mad about being baselessly insulted!"
The above is not insightful. Of course people are getting offended. This entire article is a troll. Most Linux users are socially inept fuckwits. Why doesn't that get published on Slashdot. I'm sure I could prove that if I conducted my study the same way.
Yeah and if you use Linux you are AS crazy as RMS and literally do not wear shoes anymore. Okay.