Comment Re:Not banned (Score 1) 129
Can't, but will anyway is more correct.
Besides, they're too busy looking for (legal) porn to seize.
Can't, but will anyway is more correct.
Besides, they're too busy looking for (legal) porn to seize.
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
If you try to sue someone over a trademark that you haven't shown yourself to be defending, and that you have allowed to become common usage, you will probably lose.
Therefore there is an incentive to be seen to protect your trademark. But that's as far as it goes.
As others have said, being seen to protect your trademark definitely does not include frivolous lawsuits that you have no chance in hell of ever winning. That just makes you look like a dick, and may even hurt future legitimate attempts at defending the mark.
No, you didn't show an equivalent to a function that creates a closed context.
You showed an equivalent to using the result of such a function when called with a specific literal.
Your C example, whilst it would return the same output when treated as a whole, did not represent equivalent code to the Javascript.
It was like saying that because you could just do:
print "hello";
print "hello";
print "hello";
print "hello";
rather than
for i = 1 to 4
print "hello";
end
that therefore loops are useless syntactic sugar.
All programming languages are syntactic sugar - that's the point. The trick is choosing which particular level of sugar suits you.
Those two pieces of code are not equivalent, and only show that you used an example which doesn't require closures.
The direct Javascript version of the C you wrote would be:
function op(e) {return 9 + e;}
for(var x = 0; x < 10; x++) { sum += op(x);}
One contrived example of superfluous closures doesn't make the concept useless.
I wasn't advocating Python as such - if I was to push a pet language, it'd be Smalltalk - I was just rebutting a specific point.
All those issues are VM issues.
Given that android uses a from-scratch VM which isn't the JVM, why is it impossible to consider that it could have been a VM designed to work with Python?
How long has the definition of "Natural" been "Leads to Reproduction"?
And to think that all this time I thought it meant "occurs in nature without the aid of Man".
I think you're blaming consoles for what are simply just missing or poor features.
All three of those things are annoying on a console too. They're not a result of the game being available on consoles.
What does the 6510 have to do with anything?
GEOS was an OS for the C64, and Workbench was the Amiga.
No one mentioned CPUs.
No, 1st of June until 31 August in quite a lot of the southern hemisphere - Australia included.
It's already that in Australia, and it's as much as $8.50 per gallon in the UK
The GPL is not an EULA, it's a distribution license.
You're free to use GPL'd software any way you like without agreeing to the GPL, you just can't distribute it.
Civilization Revolutions is not "Civilization on the console", it's "Civilization for casual gamers". There's no technical reason why Civ IV or Civ V couldn't be ported to console without any loss in functionality, it's just that whatever focus groups they talked to fell for the Wii myth that console gamers have a 5 minute attention span.
I've spent hundreds of hours playing Morrowind and Oblivion on a console, and would have loved to see a full Civilization console port.
it's not a case of "big bad windows" at all. The only politics is in your head.
It's a case of learning to be flexible and understanding the concepts rather than rote learning of a tool.
Its the same principle that has universities teach programming languages you probably won't use in the workforce, and why high schools offer spoken languages you'll probably never really use.
Good luck getting to that end without a programmer though.
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.