|
I'm holding out for omnipotence.
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of scary how easily PayPal and GoDaddy give out your personal information:
https://medium.com/p/24eb09e026dd[^]
Isn't this aiding and abetting a crime on the part of PayPal and GoDaddy?
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree. But, unless issues like this receive more publicity, nothing will probably ever change.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
The SMS for two-way for Paypal stinks (I guess I am used to Google's; Paypal makes you press a button to send the SMS as I didn't know this at first.), they offer two other methods though.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing on or about Twitter is worth $50,000 let alone $1. That is one thing I refuse to use. I'm no Ent[^], but Twitter is just too short for me.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone trust PayPal or GoDaddy or any faceless organization to look after anything? And why would you think that anyone would pay $50000 for a stupid handle for stupid Twitter.
To sort of misquote: He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: And why would you think that anyone would pay $50000 for a stupid handle for stupid Twitter.
In the article the author states that someone once offered him $50000 for his twitter username. That is where that price comes from.
In hindsight, the author should have taken the offer. I sure would have! I agree with you, no handle is worth that much money (unless you are Google or Microsoft, etc.). If somebody offered it to me, it would be a done deal without a second thought!
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, he hasn't![^]
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O yeah you are right, always getting it mixed up with the songs of Grey 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe hack some Russian Bitcoin farms and send those coinys to tha Queen 
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I need to install VS on my box, which is bestest - 2012 or 2013? Poisonally, it all went down hill after VS 6.0 
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
2013 is much better than 2012. I like my 2013 a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm doing C# and ASP.net, do I need both the web and desktop? [asking for a friend ]
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Just install the C# part and you get both.
|
|
|
|
|
You may also go for the express version for WEB...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Both are stable as much as Microsoft product can be.
If you will use it for web 2013 has some additions that can help you, otherwise no big differences. In fact 2013 is not more than a 2012 patch, made into separate version because of Microsoft policy - new .NET framework === .NEW VS version!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Microsoft policy - new .NET framework === .NEW VS version === loads of upgrades === lots more money!
FTFY!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
actually, there's no new framework version involved. The reason for a full new product is the breaking changes on the asp.net projects. 2012 can open and compile the project, but you don't get intellisense nor any specific features, such as add controller on mvc 5 projects.
They also needed to launch a new c++ compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
4.5.1!!!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: In fact 2013 is not more than a 2012 patch, made into separate version because of Microsoft policy - new .NET framework === .NEW VS version!
and they needed the money to offset Windows 8 lack of sales? 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
