ehmmm

Your logical fallacy is, drum roll... : Hasty generalization

Congratulations! You win nothing.

On the contrary, what? Who said anything about indie games specifically?

This sub-thread is talking about modern games, all of them. My comment still stands. Games that make most of the market share, are burdened by graphics.

Ori is a good example that does that. It's an indie game with a major publisher and was profitable within the first week. Its graphics are turned up to 11.

Most of them are burdened by graphics. It sells better.

Dead ends are there for a reason to create a sense of a larger world. They are usually blocked by some logical obstacle, and rarely actually lead to a short alternate area, but not an alternate path. Half-Life is linear by design, surely you must agree that a linear path that tries to create a bigger world is better than one without. Those paths perhaps broke the illusion for you, but at least there was some illusion and without the paths there would be none.

I agree with the first paragraph, the first game was better since it didn't constantly trap you in rooms, where you had to wait for dialogue to play out, which were just glorified cut-scenes. For example, in the first game if a friendly character tried to convey some dialogue you could ignore/kill/avoid him, but in the second game you can only wait.

Yes. And if I remember correctly, if you bomb the block, the super missile logo appears on the block.

Those mechanics are way too subtle. Today, the player must be explicitly told how to overcome obstacles. Games have become mainstream and so did the target audience, this caused a push towards the lowest common denominator in game design.

MAD

But Google didn't make any promises to anyone specifically. They just made a statement they will not actively sue.

How will you justify that you experienced negative consequences because Google decided to defend their own patents, by actively suing.

I guess it is complicated...

Such statements are not legally binding and thus completely irrelevant in a lawsuit.

Interesting choice. One is still able to add a module that wraps the calls with a custom allocator.

1. The current version of the library contains a profound design flaw - it allocates memory.

What do you mean by that?, or could you elaborate how will you design it to not allocate any heap memory?

It is so close to full C11 support.

I think just threads.h are missing now.

One her comments:

well, if its over 100 mSv/h, then acute radiation sickness begins after ~2 hours (noticable reduced blood cell count from 200 mSv acute dose onward, though you'd only FEEL sick after another 3 or 4 hours). but yeah, as the inverse square law applies, there's nothing to fear with this particle. and yep, the spectrum was done by a HPGe, as usual. :)

Sure, &foo->bar looks like foo + offsetof(struct thingity, bar), but there is no pointer arithmetic involved since C doesn't specify how the member access ( -> or . ) is actually calculated.

It does however specify that [] operator is equivalent to pointer arithmetic. But we are talking ->,. operators and not [].

Clearly, you don't have anything constructive to say, so you have to resort to ad hominem.

[] operator doesn't have any place in this debate.

There is no pointer arithmetic in the line:

    struct usb_line6 *line6 = &podhd->line6;

-> and . are not arithmetic operands.

Oh I see, it moves the stack pointer so it coincides with the heap allocated memory?

I like articles that combine hacking and C, but this one really needs more explanation.

Seems to be a decent warning to security experts on how are you going to be treated in such situations, and a remainder to act accordingly.

Can you elaborate on that.

It doesn't seem to work correctly on my machine. Writing beyond heap bounds and uninitialized reads.

Algorithm is not the same as the the source code, which is what genes contain. We have obtained them trough gene sequencing, but we still don't know how organisms work and grow.

Yes, but there also isn't any NULs in the parent. So you can understand the confusion.

That is not an official SpaceX website.

This website is not in any way associated with SpaceX.

Yes. That is also the reason they will not try to move the barge in unison with the rocket even if that was possible. Barge is trying to representing land.

The maneuver made by the rocket to land at an angle is intentional. The rocket wasn't trying to correct some unknown balance issue with it. The reason for too fast sideways speed came from the problem with the rockets response time, signal->engine.

The big sideways maneuver is made so the rocket will not hit the barge at high speeds in case of any problems.

'0' != '\0'

'0' == 48

Perhaps you meant organized public meeting with a specific purpose?

Having just read some of my countries law( a developed country ) on the subject you are somewhat right.

Public meetings are regulated and must be registered. To qualify, the location, participation and organization must be public. Technically an arranged meeting with your friends in a public space could be considered a public meeting. This probably wasn't the intention of the writers of the law, but interpreting it as it is written, it gets that ridiculous.

The worst one is: For carrying out assemblies or meetings in public spaces – 100 to 600€ fine.

http://revolution-news.com/spanish-congress-approves-draconi...

How do you define a meeting in a public space?

So planting an obscene/pornographic image isn't malicious by your standards. Where do you draw the line? That is why rules exist for a reason.

Loaded question.

Yeah... I also think you are drawing your information from the Windows 95 era.

I don't have any memorized. This is what I do, search online for: +hosts +block