2008-01-15, 14:21 | Link #1041 | |||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
The first segment I read over makes me think that you're right, and they either changed something or I misread it: Quote:
Quote:
I don't really remember if there was an ownership issue or if it was that idea of the derivative works that bothered me - all that I remember is that I was OK with it as a 3D modeler since, as I said, the important part of 3D works is less about a single render and more about your models, neither of which DeviantArt would own or possess by simply uploading a render. However, it's a bit different with photographs. It's probably really a non-issue and I don't mean to make it out to be greater than it is. Those are just my interpretations of their ToS as well; I could be completely off.
__________________
|
|||
2008-01-15, 15:08 | Link #1042 |
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
Artist
|
Ah ha, Cause I don't think they have their term of service other than when you are registering cause I couldn't really find it. I didn't search too hard, but you know. I was about to go and delete all of my deviantart submission too, lol ^_^
__________________
|
2008-01-17, 13:42 | Link #1045 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
Of course, it does also grant Deviantart the right to use their members' works to create and sell holiday greeting cards or trademarked T-shirts without sharing any profits. I'd be concerned if they did that sort of thing, but I doubt that actually happens.
__________________
|
|
2008-01-17, 14:57 | Link #1046 | |
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
Artist
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-01-19, 23:01 | Link #1047 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
In Java, why is it that you can initialize a variable of type byte or short with an integer literal (as long as you're within the range of allowed number for that data type) but you can't initialize a variable of type float with a floating-point literal without the suffix "f" or casting the literal as a float, even if it's just 0.0?
EDIT 1: lol, i might be reading something incorrectly. EDIT 2: ah, i see, never mind. EDIT 3: wait, i still don't get it. Last edited by monster; 2008-01-19 at 23:21. |
2008-01-20, 04:40 | Link #1048 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Though, every decent compiler should be able to interpret it as float if it is meant to initialize a float variable.
__________________
|
|
2008-01-20, 05:58 | Link #1049 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Yeah, that's apparently the problem. That's why I find it strange that integer literal (which is supposedly assumed to be of type int) can be used to initialize a byte variable with no problem.
Quote:
|
|
2008-01-20, 06:08 | Link #1050 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
@Jinto Lin: Well there is some auto/invisible typecasting done. (pass a int to a method accepting only float and double for example) Personally I don't consider it a good thing since it can be cause for precision errors. Obviously auto-casting double to float would be a huge hole in the language.
@monstert: float isn't a primary primitive. Basically every floating point number is a double! You can have floats if you really need them (development for mobile devices etc), but Java presumes double is your main preference. It's no compiler deficiency, it's there by design. In 99.99% of cases where you would require floating point precision for practical use double would always make more sense.
__________________
|
2008-01-20, 06:30 | Link #1051 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-01-20, 07:09 | Link #1052 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
You are allowed a certain amount of room when you pass the value at declaration time.
So... byte x = 13;...will work, while... byte x = 1000;...will give you a compiler error. Also... int y = 13;...will give you a compiler error. Just as would be expected.
__________________
|
2008-01-21, 04:54 | Link #1054 | |
Kira_Naruto, the ecchi
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: http://www.exciting-tits.com/
|
Sigh .. with a little website called Google .. I keyed in adobe encore and PRESTO!
Adobe Encore >.> In short Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-01-21, 05:51 | Link #1055 | |
Weapon of Mass Discussion
Fansubber
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, USA
|
Quote:
I've got a question! If google knows almost everything, then why don't people just use google for their random informational needs before asking here? I did try googling for that information, but it couldn't tell me. Edit: Never mind. I rephrased my search terms and google provided an answer. It seems that google really does know everything after all.
__________________
Last edited by NoSanninWa; 2008-01-21 at 05:56. Reason: found an answer |
|
2008-01-21, 19:40 | Link #1057 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-01-21, 20:05 | Link #1058 | |
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
Artist
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-01-22, 00:28 | Link #1059 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Questions that are a bit more difficult could include figuring out the origins of an internet meme, or finding out something with a long information trail - they take a lot of work, and it's likely that someone already knows the answer. Your questions, as I mentioned, require a special knowledge to figure out where to even begin an information search (if the information even exists), and thus require someone's assistance. I don't think anyone's too frustrated when they hear questions such as those.
__________________
|
|
2008-01-22, 00:58 | Link #1060 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
It's not that simple Ledgem. Not to try and justify the Adobe Encore question but even knowing exact key words may prove futile to do a simple google search. There are many reasons for this, among which..
__________________
|
Tags |
problem, q&a, serious |
|
|