|
Saw this headline in the newspaper today, "US vs Portugal ESPNs highest rated non-football game"
I'm in the (can you guess the country?) but still it struck me as amusing, considering all the WC banter on this site.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say the US as a whole is into sports and rather patriotic... you combine both and you get a great ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
While you're correct of course, I was refering to their use of the term 'non-football'. I would imagine that in most if not all other parts of the world that headline would be considered an egregious mistake.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't even catch that... 
...we're used to our own terminology, however wrong it may be.. 
|
|
|
|
|
An American I follow on twitter tweeted a couple of days ago something along the lines of "you know when a guy called Kevin starts work somewhere that already has a Kevin the new guy gets a nickname. That's why we call it soccer".
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
It is rather strange that we call American football, "football" at all given how little it has to do with kicking it nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a school of thought that football originally referred to sports played with a ball on foot, as opposed to on horseback.
The was very little use of the foot to propel the ball in the earliest forms of the game, and Australian Rules Football was codified at about the same time as Association Football (Soccer).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
So while typing "<" I accidentally hit "M" and intelli-nonsense inserted the word "Manipulation".
I have never seen it before, so I looked it up[^].
"Manipulation Class - Contains methods to get and update information about a manipulation"
Clear as mud.
BTW, anyone ever used this class? What's it for (aside from the plain and obvious description on MSDN)?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
First step to unify desktop and touch devices?
|
|
|
|
|
A manipulation occurs when touch is interpreted as a physical action that is applied to an object. In WPF, manipulation events interpret input as a translation, expansion, or rotation manipulation. You usually interact with manipulations through the manipulation events that are defined on the UIElement. However, the Manipulation class defines static methods that you can use to interact with manipulations.
The console is a black place
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Nice explanation
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing what you find when you just read down the same page you posted just that little bit further 
I had never heard of it either until you mentioned it.
However, noticing it was part of the Input namespace, and talked about touch etc. it kind of made sense at a high level.
|
|
|
|
|
It was introduced in .NET 4, if memory serves me correctly, to provide touch capabilities in WPF apps. It goes pretty much hand in hand with the touch capabilities that were added in W7. While there had been earlier touch experiments, they were out-of-band "futures" types of feature. There's a handy IsManipulationEnabled property that you can set on a UIElement that determines whether or not that element (and child elements) have touch enabled.
It's called Manipulation, rather than Touch, because it defines the operations you can perform, e.g. Rotate, based on gestures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually had to look up what you're referring to... it's a bit disturbing that this guy has a history of this... 
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, he is sick. He does not deserve to represent a garbage bin, let alone a nation.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to agree... but he is their top scorer isn't he? Not that it justifies anything but I could see how they'd be hard pressed to just boot him off the team (even though it sure seems that's what he deserves).
|
|
|
|
|
He is a good player. Nothing against that. But he seems messed up in mind. You cannot trust talent over sickness.
|
|
|
|
|
Worked for Mike Tyson.... for a while...  
|
|
|
|
|
As bad as those guys that trip over a blade of grass and think their world is coming to an end....
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing new really; Maradona[^]. Not as bad, but Suarez is not as good as Maradona so perhaps there's a connection.
|
|
|
|
|
He still is a little nutty isn't he (Maradona)... as Rick James said, "cocaine's a hell of a drug"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you could put down some money on it, and a Norwegian did just that[^]. He bet 32 NOK (roughly 3£) and got 5600 NOK back (roughly 550£), as he had put money on Suarez would bite somebody during the world cup.
BTW: A game[^]
modified 24-Jun-14 18:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
A Day in the life[^] fitting!
If first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
