Comment Re:Site for Geeks? (Score 1) 172
Sooner or later, DICE will get rid of this website. I don't think it fits into the "DHI" portfolio.
Sooner or later, DICE will get rid of this website. I don't think it fits into the "DHI" portfolio.
Here it is, the FSM:
No, I also can multiply by ten.
This is a "new google maps is shit" troll, one of a series. This time they even constructed a link to the story.
So, please, is this a site for imperial fucktards, or one for geeks and nerds who use the metric system like every other human being on this planet?
This page doesn't include reading the call history: https://www.facebook.com/help/...
However, the call history appears in the play store appearance of the main facebook app. I'm not sure whether this has been newly added, and they have to refresh that page, or they just don't list it in that page.
This is nothing more than facebook wanting phone call data. The advantage for users is almost nonexistent. Its the modern way of stealing (or as they put it in their shiny presentations "harvesting") data.
But they are so coooool. And that super secure lab that professor had in that science fiction movie I saw, had this tooo.
This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.
Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.
I imagine some/many artists get screwed by the labels by giving up their copyrights. But at least some retain copyright of their work. In other cases, it's not abuse but just transfer of risk from artist to publisher. If your work is probably going to make between $10,000 and $1,000,000, wouldn't you rather sell it for $250,000 and let the publisher deal with the risk? At least conventional medium artists get copyrights, whereas almost all software devs handover copyright of their works to their employers.
Software development usually is done with the developer being hired by the company.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works?
No matter how much money they make, they still want more. How many financially successful businessmen and artists quit their profession after making a ton of money? Not many. They enjoy their work and they enjoy making money.
So, you agree there is no additional incentive?
What has become out of bash styled mail address combination?
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.