C# doesn't need an IDE to write code. It's plenty easy to write and compile projects outside of the IDE. All it requires is a little research, but you can't honestly decry that with a straight face now can you? Or were you born with the knowledge required to compile C/C++ projects at the command line? Microsoft even provides a shortcut to the visual studio command line environment when you install it for christ sake.
Just because they give you the tools doesn't mean you are forced to use them (not that I know why someone would intentionally make their life harder).
He was nowhere near this particular level of brilliance but he was doing things that was unheard of for all those around him. Unfortunately the school took his bored goofing off demeanor to mean he was stupid and dumped him in special education. He would be quite a few years further along had they not done that and to this day I'm puzzled how they could keep him in such a class for 2 and a half years before realizing they had stuck a genius in special ed.
If you actually read the actual article, he never said it was a black mark in and of itself. You'll also see that he backpedaled quite a bit, and in the end he even advertised hiring.net programmers which completely took the point of the article and flushed it down the toilet.
Really, putting a startup ceo as some sort of reference as to why.NET is something negative is hilarious.
So really what this guy did was take a level from Team Fortress 2 and render the basic geometry + some lightmapping.
I'm not really sure what the big deal is. Based on what the title and summary suggested, I expected a hell of a lot more than a map loader. He did not get TF2 running in a browser, not anything from the Source Engine. All he did was load and render a TF2 map. If this sort of thing wasn't possible in WebGL to begin with there would be no point in WebGL at all, so the fact that he's gotten this much to work isn't surprising. It's not as if TF2 is really pushing the envelope in terms of graphical prowess. Its popularity doesn't have so much to do with graphics as it does with gameplay.
I realize this, however in the original case the user would have stopped playing and server load would have gone down. In the case of a second hand sale, the company has to support the new users play habits while receiving nothing extra in return. I do understand your point of view, however, that the company should assume one sale means that game can/will be used until the servers go down, but that rarely ever happens.
I don't have any modern consoles (got out of it this generation), but I don't see this as an earth shattering moment. This is good for developers who have to continuously pay to keep these online services running. Whether they intended to keep them running till a certain date or not, selling a used game to someone else gives another person access to the online services without giving the developers anything in return, which costs the developer extra money (no matter how little or much it may be). I think when you have an online component like this, the developer aught to get something in return for the use of their services considering you wouldn't have paid them a dime otherwise. I'm not sure I think it should be $10 (I would see something more in the line of $5 but whatever)
It just makes sense from their point of view and also to some others out there who are looking at it objectively.
I do expect to be modded down for this (I don't blame you, since this is such a controversial thing these days) but it's just how I feel about it.
I never once said chat rooms and bulletin boards are the "only thing in the world", but if you stretch their meaning as far as the law would allow, it is likely to encompass an enormous chunk of our means of communication on the internet.
In some of your examples, they arguably could try to invoke their trademark, especially if those sites let you comment on the subjects. You seem to think that "online chat rooms" and "electronic bulletin boards" are very specific things with very specific meanings (like a phpBB forum or something), but you'd be wrong. You could twist many things into one of those two meanings, such as having a comments section under pictures where people can post what they thought of a picture or a subject. Could you really suggest they aren't similar to a bulletin board, having many "threads" (multiple pictures) each with their own comments section for that particular topic (picture)?
It's this kind of stretching that can cause problems.
Really? Creating a service very similar to the other one, naming it in a way that very easily clashes with the trademark (whether you agree with the granted trademark or not), and even taking the url the other company was using to bring in their traffic and instead using it to access facebook's timeline functionality is just as dumb as Monster suing Disney over Monsters, Inc?
It doesn't help Facebook "stole" the timelines url on facebook.com from timelines.com (which is the url the site was using to bring in their traffic) and used it to redirect to their own offering, essentially stealing the traffic which intended to go to timelines.com and instead went to the facebook version. Considering timelines.com have a valid trademark, Facebook does appear to be in a position where confusion is inevitable.
Do you notice how all-encompassing that "class" is? It pretty much denotes any subject related to people communicating on the internet, whose only exception appears to be when the subject is about cars.
Have you actually read the article? If anything, this makes open source software even more powerful than before as its authors have practically no liability to deal with.
I wish I had mod points for you good sir. This has been the thought at the back of my mind this entire time and I'm astounded it hasn't been discussed more.
That has to be the most backwards logic I've ever heard.
Lets all spend money on more memory so the resource problems in Firefox becomes more tolerable, all so I can hide just one of the flaws I see in Firefox? Where is my incentive to do this instead of just using a good alternative that already works without the need to spend money?
My personal reasons: 1) Memory consumption is more sane when I use Chrome compared to when I used Firefox. 2) I don't need the extensive addon catalog of Firefox. I more than get by on the offerings in Chrome just fine. 3) Chrome will load new windows/appear from a cold boot in a second flat at the longest. I've always had to wait around 10-15 to see my first Firefox window, and around 5 seconds then after. It adds up. 4) Always wound up with jittery browsing in Firefox, where it stops responding for a few seconds. I have not seen this behavior in Chrome 5) If a website becomes unresponsive in Firefox it can take the whole browser with it. Chrome isolates and can kill off non responsive tabs without taking my whole collection of tabs with it.
That's just a few of the reasons why I prefer Chrome to Firefox. I have nothing really against Firefox or those who use it, but I've moved on, and I feel like my personal internet experience has improved greatly as a result. I have no reason to switch back to Firefox. Even if the speed is somehow on par with Chrome as of version 7, that's hardly a reason to go back alone. I still have my doubts that this essentially incremental update has pushed the browser up that far, however, but that's merely my opinion.
Debt collectors don't care who they harass. They'll harass the individual, their family, their friends, their place of work, and even the wrong person.
I had the same name as someone a debt collector was trying to collect from (I guess we lived in the same area. Not sure how you can make this sort of mistake and then go all out with it). They thought they found him, but they found me instead. I was harassed nonstop over it and no pleas that they got the wrong person would be heard. Constant calls to my house, and even my place of employment to tell them that I'm skipping out on some $600 that I apparently owed.
Time Warner Cable in California has done this for me so many times I don't recall ever paying more than the intro price in years.
They've done it for my phone, they've done it for my internet, and they've done it for my premium channels/base package I had gotten. All I gotta say is I'm looking to drop everything and they offer to keep me on the lower rates. Something tells me they're actually pricing their service at the low rates all the time so they don't mind keeping people on it, but those not smart enough to call are essentially just paying more for the same thing.
They're the only cable company in my region too with their guaranteed monopoly.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that you don't need a 16x PCI-E slot for graphics cards, or even half that. The cards will rarely ever require that much bandwidth and certainly not under normal gaming conditions.
This card seems to be designed for situations where you want to do things with your PC that isn't bleeding edge gaming. That particular card isn't really that great anyhow. This would be perfect for a multimedia PC, or for casual games.
Slashdot Mirror
C# doesn't need an IDE to write code. It's plenty easy to write and compile projects outside of the IDE. All it requires is a little research, but you can't honestly decry that with a straight face now can you? Or were you born with the knowledge required to compile C/C++ projects at the command line? Microsoft even provides a shortcut to the visual studio command line environment when you install it for christ sake.
Just because they give you the tools doesn't mean you are forced to use them (not that I know why someone would intentionally make their life harder).
He was nowhere near this particular level of brilliance but he was doing things that was unheard of for all those around him. Unfortunately the school took his bored goofing off demeanor to mean he was stupid and dumped him in special education. He would be quite a few years further along had they not done that and to this day I'm puzzled how they could keep him in such a class for 2 and a half years before realizing they had stuck a genius in special ed.
If you actually read the actual article, he never said it was a black mark in and of itself. You'll also see that he backpedaled quite a bit, and in the end he even advertised hiring .net programmers which completely took the point of the article and flushed it down the toilet.
Really, putting a startup ceo as some sort of reference as to why .NET is something negative is hilarious.
So really what this guy did was take a level from Team Fortress 2 and render the basic geometry + some lightmapping.
I'm not really sure what the big deal is. Based on what the title and summary suggested, I expected a hell of a lot more than a map loader. He did not get TF2 running in a browser, not anything from the Source Engine. All he did was load and render a TF2 map. If this sort of thing wasn't possible in WebGL to begin with there would be no point in WebGL at all, so the fact that he's gotten this much to work isn't surprising. It's not as if TF2 is really pushing the envelope in terms of graphical prowess. Its popularity doesn't have so much to do with graphics as it does with gameplay.
I've not even remotely suggested this.
I realize this, however in the original case the user would have stopped playing and server load would have gone down. In the case of a second hand sale, the company has to support the new users play habits while receiving nothing extra in return. I do understand your point of view, however, that the company should assume one sale means that game can/will be used until the servers go down, but that rarely ever happens.
I don't have any modern consoles (got out of it this generation), but I don't see this as an earth shattering moment. This is good for developers who have to continuously pay to keep these online services running. Whether they intended to keep them running till a certain date or not, selling a used game to someone else gives another person access to the online services without giving the developers anything in return, which costs the developer extra money (no matter how little or much it may be). I think when you have an online component like this, the developer aught to get something in return for the use of their services considering you wouldn't have paid them a dime otherwise. I'm not sure I think it should be $10 (I would see something more in the line of $5 but whatever)
It just makes sense from their point of view and also to some others out there who are looking at it objectively.
I do expect to be modded down for this (I don't blame you, since this is such a controversial thing these days) but it's just how I feel about it.
Not me. Give me the list any day.
It's in the article and in the lawsuit claims. It doesn't matter if they gave it back after the fact.
But hey, don't let your blatant ignorance of TFA get in the way of your cliche "ah slashdot" response.
I never once said chat rooms and bulletin boards are the "only thing in the world", but if you stretch their meaning as far as the law would allow, it is likely to encompass an enormous chunk of our means of communication on the internet.
In some of your examples, they arguably could try to invoke their trademark, especially if those sites let you comment on the subjects. You seem to think that "online chat rooms" and "electronic bulletin boards" are very specific things with very specific meanings (like a phpBB forum or something), but you'd be wrong. You could twist many things into one of those two meanings, such as having a comments section under pictures where people can post what they thought of a picture or a subject. Could you really suggest they aren't similar to a bulletin board, having many "threads" (multiple pictures) each with their own comments section for that particular topic (picture)?
It's this kind of stretching that can cause problems.
Really? Creating a service very similar to the other one, naming it in a way that very easily clashes with the trademark (whether you agree with the granted trademark or not), and even taking the url the other company was using to bring in their traffic and instead using it to access facebook's timeline functionality is just as dumb as Monster suing Disney over Monsters, Inc?
You don't get out much.
It doesn't help Facebook "stole" the timelines url on facebook.com from timelines.com (which is the url the site was using to bring in their traffic) and used it to redirect to their own offering, essentially stealing the traffic which intended to go to timelines.com and instead went to the facebook version. Considering timelines.com have a valid trademark, Facebook does appear to be in a position where confusion is inevitable.
Do you notice how all-encompassing that "class" is? It pretty much denotes any subject related to people communicating on the internet, whose only exception appears to be when the subject is about cars.
A 5 millimeter flex is not even remotely comparable to walking in sand.
I don't think I'd want kids operating on me no matter how many times they've been elbow deep in a variety of actual dissections.
Have you actually read the article? If anything, this makes open source software even more powerful than before as its authors have practically no liability to deal with.
I wish I had mod points for you good sir. This has been the thought at the back of my mind this entire time and I'm astounded it hasn't been discussed more.
Are you implying that GTA3 didn't have a ton of bugs? Because I hate to disappoint you...
That has to be the most backwards logic I've ever heard.
Lets all spend money on more memory so the resource problems in Firefox becomes more tolerable, all so I can hide just one of the flaws I see in Firefox? Where is my incentive to do this instead of just using a good alternative that already works without the need to spend money?
My personal reasons:
1) Memory consumption is more sane when I use Chrome compared to when I used Firefox.
2) I don't need the extensive addon catalog of Firefox. I more than get by on the offerings in Chrome just fine.
3) Chrome will load new windows/appear from a cold boot in a second flat at the longest. I've always had to wait around 10-15 to see my first Firefox window, and around 5 seconds then after. It adds up.
4) Always wound up with jittery browsing in Firefox, where it stops responding for a few seconds. I have not seen this behavior in Chrome
5) If a website becomes unresponsive in Firefox it can take the whole browser with it. Chrome isolates and can kill off non responsive tabs without taking my whole collection of tabs with it.
That's just a few of the reasons why I prefer Chrome to Firefox. I have nothing really against Firefox or those who use it, but I've moved on, and I feel like my personal internet experience has improved greatly as a result. I have no reason to switch back to Firefox. Even if the speed is somehow on par with Chrome as of version 7, that's hardly a reason to go back alone. I still have my doubts that this essentially incremental update has pushed the browser up that far, however, but that's merely my opinion.
That is the most bullshit thing I've ever heard.
Debt collectors don't care who they harass. They'll harass the individual, their family, their friends, their place of work, and even the wrong person.
I had the same name as someone a debt collector was trying to collect from (I guess we lived in the same area. Not sure how you can make this sort of mistake and then go all out with it). They thought they found him, but they found me instead. I was harassed nonstop over it and no pleas that they got the wrong person would be heard. Constant calls to my house, and even my place of employment to tell them that I'm skipping out on some $600 that I apparently owed.
It was a nightmare.
I'm starting to think you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
I'm assuming the trickery here is that the DVR box costs $6/mo, but they'll bump it up to an HD DVR box for free.
Time Warner Cable in California has done this for me so many times I don't recall ever paying more than the intro price in years.
They've done it for my phone, they've done it for my internet, and they've done it for my premium channels/base package I had gotten. All I gotta say is I'm looking to drop everything and they offer to keep me on the lower rates. Something tells me they're actually pricing their service at the low rates all the time so they don't mind keeping people on it, but those not smart enough to call are essentially just paying more for the same thing.
They're the only cable company in my region too with their guaranteed monopoly.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that you don't need a 16x PCI-E slot for graphics cards, or even half that. The cards will rarely ever require that much bandwidth and certainly not under normal gaming conditions.
This card seems to be designed for situations where you want to do things with your PC that isn't bleeding edge gaming. That particular card isn't really that great anyhow. This would be perfect for a multimedia PC, or for casual games.