The topic is about photos, not about payments for kids. If you don't want to pay for kids after a divorce: don't father any. It is that simple.
If you don't want someone holding nudie pics of yourself: don't give them any. It is that simple.
See? The issue of personal responsibility goes both ways.
Ah, you think women are minor to men and that guy has the right to do what ever he wants with HER PICTURES?
Ah, you think that men are minor to women and that girl has the right to do whatever she wants with HIS MONEY?
(That's how maintenance works - she doesn't have to prove that she's spending it on the kid)
Can you read? Maybe look into the press for the last few days?
I'm in Africa, you buffoon. This means that not only am I more familiar than most foreigners with African news, I'm also better informed. Boko Haram is doing what they are doing even though no one has ever attacked them, dropped bombs on them or slighted them in the least.
My original question still stands: if you (or anyone) claims that US/Colonialist/Whoever 'creates' terrorists because of their meddling, then please explain the majority of terror organisations who exist even though no aggression or meddling ever occurred.
No, you are not the only stupid cretin that does not understand how reality works. AQ would long have collapsed without this mindless US aggression.
If terrorist organisations need a visible enemy in order to exist please explain why Boko Haram exists.
When you apply a cheat like this, you are altering the game into game+cheat. This game+cheat is a derivative work of the original game.
Making derivative works without permission from the copyright holder is a violation of most copyright laws, and you won't get permission from Blizzard to make this kind of derivative work.
That seems to be the legal argument.
While it is indeed a derivative work it doesn't become a copyright violation until you redistribute the derivative work. Big distinction there. You can modify copyrighted works all you want, you just aren't allowed to redistribute without a license. I'd be interested in seeing how this turns out considering that the lawyers for the defence is almost certainly going to ask "Where's the redistribution happening?"
I have a really hard time believing this, and would state that your memory does not serve you very well. A 33MHz 486 couldn't handle more complex scenes in DOOM, and definitely not in Quake. I gamed actively at the time when Quake came out, and recall that only much later, on a P233MMX, I could get an fps amount rivaling the screen refresh rate. Any 486 is so much behind that machine, that it's not even funny.
A low ID number username like you probably won't believe a brat like me, so here's some proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The fps is abysmal. The machine would need to be 10-20 times faster to reach a decent fps.
Nevermind what some random youtube link says, I ran quake reliably on a 486 dx4 100 (33x3 IIRC) with a 1MB trident graphics card and 8MB of RAM.
I prefer it the same, and to the point of building my own software to do it properly.
I've gone one better - I whipped up a little tcl/tk (wish) script that uses the locatedb to show me my music files*, so I never have to click "open" or "import" or any of that crap. I simply type parts of the filename that I remember into a box and it only displays the matches
* and mpg123 to play them
Yes, it does. Using these macros everywhere makes the code more opaque, thus less legible, and therefore less secure.
Is this 2014 or 1994? My IDE automatically colors out dead sections where preprocessor macros don't apply to me. Honestly if you are unable to understand or mentally deal with a few preprocessor macro's I don't want you anywhere near openSSL.
They are hardly "everywhere" mostly in the headers and abstraction layers which provide a common target and normalized behavior for supported platforms.
"Many eyes" can't make all bugs shallow if those eyes don't understand what the hell they are looking at.
If eyes stumble on a few preprocessor definitions the chance of them discovering anything useful in this project is zero. I'm all for making shit easier to understand but this specific kind of "premature optimization" accomplishes nothing.
#ifdef VMS
#define SOMEFUNC(x,y,z) SomeVmsFunc (z,y,x)
#else
#define SOMEFUNC(x,y,z) TotallyOtherFunc (x,y,z)
#endif
You don't see how that fucks up the legibility of code? You encounter SOMEFUNC(1,2,3); and you have no idea what it does and your damn IDE can't colour-code that away either.
While I broadly agree with your argument, I have to point out that the heartbleed exploit was due to the OpenSSL devs forgoing the system's malloc implementation and rolling their own abstraction for performance reasons.
No. No it wasn't. The Heartbleed exploit was a classic buffer overread bug that would have been prevented by any language with bounds checking.
[Any language with bounds-checking protection] that would likely have been bypassed by the dev-team due to performance reasons. Seriously, for performance reasons this dev-team bypassed malloc of all things; do you really want to assert that they wouldn't have bypassed a bounds-checker?
In my previous post I thought I made this bit clear; it was not that there was protection on some platforms, it was that they bypassed all platform allocators in favour of their own. That's the bug right there. Everything else, like overruns, overreading, etc is a result of that decision. I cannot believe that, with a different language, they would have made a different decision
...Let's divide up problems into "memory errors" and "logic errors", where we broadly interpret "memory errors" as "errors your language or runtime won't let you make."
...
Furthermore, because in C you have to spend time and effort making sure you're not susceptable to memory errors, that takes time and effort away from looking for other errors...
While I broadly agree with your argument, I have to point out that the heartbleed exploit was due to the OpenSSL devs forgoing the system's malloc implementation and rolling their own abstraction for performance reasons. In effect they bypassed the system's protection, so arguing that removing the need for manual memory management would make code safer (it would) is irrelevant to the heartbleed exploit.
In this instance, had they been using Java or similar, it is likely that they would have still rolled their own for performance reasons, thereby still bypassing the languages protections.
I'd be pretty useless
What's this "us"?
signed,
Your wife
Thanks for this. It's great to see a positive comment in a sea of disingenious comments.
I wish I could've modded you down instead. What you mean is "It's great to see a positive opinion in a sea of negative opinions". I have no doubt that it feels great, but should you not be wondering why there is a single positive opinion on Gnome3 for every 25 negative opinions? Does that ratio not tell you that Gnome fucked up?
She also said in the tests that it was one of the least preferred ways to use a switch, and that they made changes based on feedback like making it more obvious you were grabbing a physical handle on the sliding switch (the highlighting of the handle).
In Samsung's documents, the sliding to unlock came out as by far the most preferred of a number of different mechanisms, which is an indicator that the two things are different even if they appear the same on the surface.
Sorry, but no. Just because two people say different things about the same process (one says most preferred and the other says least preferred) doesn't mean that it *might* be different things they are talking about. In fact, it almost never does. In this particular case it's clear even to brain-damaged fanbois that this is prior art.
Ever hear of this invention called a zoom lens? You'll be able to adjust you field of view....
Shazzam!
That works on mirrors too. So does wide-angle lenses. The camera brings no advantages other than fancy software for identifying imminent threats, and if a driver really really needs that then he's going to get himself into trouble sooner or alter anyway.
I had to replace a side view mirror about 6 months ago. $150.
Cool story. I replaced the RHS sideview mirror of my wife's ford escort last week for ~$10. Of course, it was a simple as going to the local glasscutter and getting him to make a replacement piece of reflective glass. Didn't even try at the dealer for a replacement.
(OTOH, the dealer wanted ~$210 for the thermostat housing. Non-dealer replacements are almost always an order of magnitude cheaper, so that "cheap camera" that replaces the mirror won't be)
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
