|
MatrixCoder wrote: What about the people who still use it? You can't just ignore them, especially if they're writing business software.
Why not? MS ignores the unmanaged C++ developers...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: the unmanaged C++ developers...
There's no such thing as unmanaged code, John, I'd expect you to know that. It's their 'self managed', or it's managed by a framework that takes that control away from you.
Actually, even that's not true, you need to do your own memory management in managed code, too.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP
'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amar Chaudhary wrote: i can see it in ie6 as well as ff2 with CPhog
It's a messed up thread - one of the CP staff would need to re-thread that specific thread. The replies currently do not show under the right post - that's why some of the replies seem odd.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: It's a messed up thread
any idea why it happens Just curious
|
|
|
|
|
Amar Chaudhary wrote: any idea why it happens Just curious
Note sure, but it may have something to do with the fact that there are multiple web servers.
|
|
|
|
|
Us old-timers lovingly call that "the forum bug" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like the sanitizer thinks your code is actually CSS and it's replacing a possibly-harmful attribute with "removed"
|
|
|
|
|
It's the HTML filtering code being paranoid again. I suppose it sees onlyInstance as OnLyinstance, which, if permitted, could allow malicious users to intercept Lyinstance events and do something evil.
|
|
|
|
|
why don't you increase the area of applications
1) you have variety of users and can develop something for any particular big group
2) you can also sell the products (controls / utilities ) created by members (and have a share of that)(add to disclaimer that CP will not take responsibility of support / debugging / development of the product and it will be authors responsibility) where authors have provided the license type 3 (as proposed by you)(where user can use it for educational purpose and have to pay otherwise)
3) (xna ) game engine (its a bit off beat but i think there will be demand )
4) create suggestions and demand tab (link) in store front to see what people need extra / other type of products and if you don't want do work on that suggestion just flash it to developers registered (registration will cost) for that
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that the IntelliTXT advertising program be dropped. It is intrusive, it complicates the database, it adds to an already cluttered sign-up screen, and it defaces articles in a highly objectionable and inexcusable manner.
And please don't say, "But it brings in revenue!" That's an argument for drug dealers and whores.
And don't say, "You can turn it off." This is a matter of principle, not taste.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: "But it brings in revenue!" That's an argument for drug dealers and whores.
 
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: And please don't say, "But it brings in revenue!" That's an argument for drug dealers and whores.
Someone's got to pay for this site. Advertising revenue is down across the board right now so anything that brings in the revenue for CP is fine by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: anything that brings in the revenue for CP is fine by me.
Like selling drugs? Like selling our daughters? Surely you must have some limits. Isn't "bad taste" a reasonable place to draw a line? How about "This adds nothing to the value of our articles, and in fact detracts from their readability?" Couldn't we draw the line there?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Like selling drugs? Like selling our daughters? Surely you must have some limits.
What in God's name does IntelliTxt have to do with drugs and prostitution? You are starting to lose me and I recommend taking this thread to the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: What in God's name does IntelliTxt have to do with drugs and prostitution?
Nothing - unless your only justification for IntelliTXT is money.
It is legitimate to make money on a product that is both harmless and that contributes something meaningful. It is not legitimate to make money on things that are harmful or useless. My argument is that IntelliTXT ads in no way improve the articles here - in fact, they detract from them. The motivation for including them, therefore, must be less than honorable (like the motivation that inspires drug dealers and whores).
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: My argument is that IntelliTXT ads in no way improve the articles here
Why does it have to improve articles on this site? It is a paid advertisement and helps support this site and the ability for people to post and share their knowledge. How dense are you?
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: Why does it have to improve articles on this site?
It should at least not detract from them; yet it does. When something has to be made worse to pay for itself, there's a problem. I really hope you can see that.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: yet it does
Never has detracted me, so I am not sure where you are coming from with the whole detraction issue.
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: Never has detracted me, so I am not sure where you are coming from with the whole detraction issue.
Then either you haven't seen it in action, or... I don't know. When I'm reading, I expect emphasis - highlighting - to be germane to the text. For example:
Is THIS sentence easier to read?
Or
Is this sentence easier to read?
Obviously, the second, because the word in italics should be in italics - it tells you the author's intent. The changes in font and style in the first case tell you nothing, and make the sentence harder to scan.
I'm amazed I have to explain this.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: I'm amazed I have to explain this.
Reason being is I have Intellitxt turned off, for the umpteenth time
|
|
|
|
|
Ok tell you what mate, write a letter to Mr William Gates and ask him why he is such a drug dealer because of all the money he has.
Brad
Australian
By contacting your lawyer you negate the right to sue me.
|
|
|
|
|
Because a slightly messed up article is better than no article.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Because a slightly messed up article is better than no article.
And children fed plenty with drug money are better than children fed less without. And a family car bought with money from a daughter's forced prostitution is better than no car at all. I know these examples are extreme, but you're arguing that the end justifies the means and I want you to see where that kind of reasoning leads.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
