Which is the funny part, that I don't use a data plan or that I think it will protect against MMS? I don't even get images sent via texts, so I was wondering if I don't download any data if the payload can still hit.

If the data plan is turned off, you can't get any multimedia. It isn't an optimal solution, but turning data off will protect you, right?

That is really really cool. I figured we were going to use solar with hydrogen gas someday to store the energy in gas. If they're doing it with methane already, I'm sure they have great results.

I have my data plan turned off. When I receive multimedia texts, it receives nothing but a message prompting me to download it, but it doesn't actually download anything.

Hey, Snapchat makes no sense at all, since anyone can screenshot/hack their own device. Even though Snapchat doesn't do what it claims, its a phenomena which has made lots of money. I think Google just wants to jump on the money train of making impossible claims to technology.

Ebay: We're nothing like auctions.
Paypal: We're nothing like a bank.

If you're a tech company, claim you're nothing like has ever come before as to be immune to as many laws as possible.

I just think the electronic voting should have a verifiable paper trail.

Why do we allow a computer program to count our election results with no oversight?

Not to mention beating the odds in the long haul is much more suspicious to me at least. The odds of hitting the lottery for one big payout is nothing compared with consistently winning the 3 digit lottery over the long run.

I would honestly like an answer from someone.

If I had a 100,000 line of code video game that took me years to make, and I want to use some 10x10 pixel piece of GPLed art that took someone a few minutes to make, does that mean I have to release my 100,000 lines of code open source? I think it does and people have suggested it to me in the past.

This is why I think artists get lulled into thinking they can license under GPL and people can use their art as long as they put their name in the credits, but that isn't the result at all. Artists who want their art to be used freely in video games probably want to use Creative Commons license, and not CC-BY.

I thought you couldn't sell the software unless you provided your own code with GPL and open sourced your code? Admittedly my grammar failed, but I was trying to say,"Unless I provided all my code open sourced and available, I could not sell my game."

Some people think GPL means you can use my stuff as long as you put my name in the credits and keep my stuff free. But GPL means,"If you use my stuff, you can't charge for your stuff and have to make all your code public." So if I write a 100,000 line of code game, and I am on opengameart.org and want to use someone's pretty butterfly picture under GPL, I can't use that picture unless I release years worth of source code. Thankfully there is a work around of contacting artists directly and asking for a different license. Some get surprised they didn't pick a friendly license to begin with since GPL gets pushed so much as the correct for sharing license.

Everyone talks about how bad Command and Conquer 3 was balanced. In that game there is no financial decisions or tiberium farming strategies like C&C1. You build 95% medium tanks and so does your opponent, and win or lose. Next game? Build all medium tanks.

But I'm curious about C&C1. I was really good at it with my people at my university, but I'd be curious to see how it holds up if it was laddered. Its probably imbalanced really badly, but it is hard to be more imbalanced than C&C3 where you can build a single unit all game and be top 100 world wide in ladder.

For only about as much as you'd pay in a car payment, you can have the speed other countries get for about the price of a cup of coffee a day.