I personally love language constructs and hate frameworks for not using them just because they are not OOP enough, for example I like to write controllers using switch statements... when it gets cluttered I may refactor it a class, but I keep that simple, I don't want to subclass an abstract controller class etc.
Also like the author, I hate frameworks that do too much and won't let me be, my personal favorite is: Flourish http://flourishlib.com/ .It is a collection of classes, and that is what a framework should be instead of some monolithic system that generates code that you will have to maintain and has a zillion configuration files scattered all over the place.
> Also, nothing would ensure that the electronic money you accumulate would hold its value, and nothing would prevent the operators of the platform from issuing more, in the first instance to themselves.
Nothing prevents the government from doing the same. Also bitcoins are regulated by math, by principle I trust math more than I trust the government.
I think SC let's you learn how to play mind games, one of the ways to win a match is to understand what your opponents will think or do and play against that, surprise them, do something they would not expect.
There was a match where my allies were defeated I was alone and the 3 terran enemies got ready to drop the hammer on me with a bio army ( marines, marauders ), but I defeated all 3 of them with a handful of dark templars, because they were not prepared for that and I knew that because they were too self confident. Winning the game meant that I had to micro my units to their full extend, not letting them have a second to build detectors and jeopardize my plan so this really reinforces the notion that when you have an advantage you need to use that and get a bigger one.
A hard part of the game is that when you see that your tactic fails, you need to switch over to something else. When you have an air fleet and you realize that the enemy has marines, stalkers or any other anti air units, you need to build anti ground units instead and make use of your existing fleet, like attacking the enemy base while their army is busy fighting your second army.
The game also lets you take risks, you can go build cannons next to someone's base, you can quickly strike down a base with reapers, you could destroy a base with void rays or you could frustrate the enemy with mutalisks. These are all high risk, high reward moves, you could win the game in a few minutes, but you could also lose it if the enemy is well prepared for your tactic.
You could take a lot of real life situations and turn them into an SC game. The reason I play it is because it sharpens the mind, makes you think and act fast.
My advice is take jQuery Mobile, extract the parts you care about and build your web app your own way. You don't have to use the whole thing. I agree with not trying to emulate native apps.
Yes, it's just a poor excuse for trying to take control over the web. If they would really care about the so called cyber security they would help people learn to make it more secure.
My hypocrisy sensor went off. They should take a look at Mortal Kombat, Call of Duty, Blood Rayne to name a few. In these games people kill people, they slice and dice them, why not complain against those. Aren't those games sending the wrong message?
Just because a game contains objectionable material doesn't mean that the players will do that.
Well, to begin with, many people do complain about those types of games. cough Jack Thompson cough. There is infact, a great deal of yelling going on about those. It's not hypocritical for the humane society to talk about this game versus Call of Duty. Their job is to deal with animals and animal cruelty. As an organization, they have no 'position' on violence on humans per se. And Michael Vick is involved for all the obvious reasons... he has to look like he's sorry for what he'd done.
Furthermore, there is a difference between violence on humans and violence on animals. Regardless of the how violent our entertainment gets, there is also a constant reminder from society/whatever that it's not cool/moral/right whatever to actually maim/kill other people. On the other hand, there is much less of that when talking about animal violence.
Anyhow, I still think it's kinda silly. No actual reason for it to be pulled. I really think that everyone is just going through the motions here.
All they had to do is simply check if the guy had an unprotected wifi signal or not, but it was much easier breaking down the poor man's door and harrasing him.
So basically under your proposed rule, someone could download as much child porn as he wanted in complete safety as long as he made sure to keep his wifi unprotected? Your rule needs some refinement! :-)
I implied that they could be more civil if there is a chance that the owner of the internet connection is not the criminal. They could knock on the door, politely ask the owner to answer some questions and do the rough stuff after they are absolutely sure that that guy is the one they are looking for.
They didn't have much of a choice, either that or they would have been burned for being a heretic.
More thought:
Religion preaches that we should simply accept stuff as fact without proof. The Bible condemns knowledge, it says that we are all sinners by default because our ancestors have accessed the tree of knowledge.
No sane person accepts baseless assumptions without proof. If I would tell you that your great great great grand parent was raised by mice would you believe me?
Nice try but you make less sense and look more desperate the more you write.
1) There have been and currently are tons of people who believe the bible to be true who are not being threatened with being burned as a heretic. It's obvious that you don't approve but thats irrelevant. Even the statement "They didn't have much of a choice…" doesn't make sense. People don't BELIEVE things out of external coercion. Belief is epistemically basic and therefore not simply controlled by the will.
2) Any sentence that starts off "Religion teaches…" shows profound ignorance. What religion? Surely you know that every overarching explanatory system (worldview) does not teach the same thing. The worldview your promoting right now is a case in point.
3) The philosophical school of Logical Positivism has been dead for over sixty years for good reason. It can't satisfy its own demands.
4) You believe plenty of things without your brand of "proof". I suggest you read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason among other things.
5) The Bible does not condemn knowledge. It teaches that true knowledge is rejected by people because they find it distasteful and aborent, not because of a lack of veracity or evidence. Read Romans 1 to see the textual basis for this.
6) Just out of curiosity: When do you think "technology" started?
No sane person can take the bible literally. It's a piece of paper containing text that was written long ago when people didn't had this much technology.
Also like the author, I hate frameworks that do too much and won't let me be, my personal favorite is: Flourish http://flourishlib.com/ .It is a collection of classes, and that is what a framework should be instead of some monolithic system that generates code that you will have to maintain and has a zillion configuration files scattered all over the place.