Having your personal conveyance device break is abnormal or unexpected function. The bot buying (at random) whatever was available was the intended function.
Sure, but that was winning 52% of the time where each individual loss or win were essentially irrelevant to the casino.
Funny thing: most Australians don't share your view that the current licensing regimes (such as needing a valid reason for owning a gun, and 'self defence' is not considered a valid reason) in Australia are infringing on personal rights. We like to refer to it as 'good sense' (although you can always find some who will disagree).
On the other hand, we in Australia also don't have the constant stream of *other* shootings that happen in Texas.
Sure, because there is one and only one factor which determines the amount of terrorism that occurs in wealthy western countries.
Note that getting to the full quick settings UI requires swiping down twice; the first swipe gets you notifications, the second one adds the quick settings. Alternatively, you can do a two-finger swipe down and you get straight to the quick settings. I can't reliably do that with two thumbs (too hard to synchronize the swipes), so that method really does require fingers. But two quick swipes work fine.
On a tablet, the one-finger vs two-finger swipedown makes sense (because it is easier than reaching from the right corner of the screen to the left) but on a phone the right-vs-left makes much more sense because you're more likely to be holding and operating the phone with the same hand (Note: my N5 is broken atm so I can't check the on-phone behaviour).
There are other things I dislike about Android on a large tablet, but the biggest one has been around since 4.0... having the 'navigation' buttons in the middle of the device where neither hand is conveniently close to them.
If you can't take the time to actually know the context of an event, you're unlikely to have any comment worth posting.
You'd have a good point, except that there are precedents for internet-delivered threats being credible too.
Depending on the ratio of illegal/inappropriate discharges of firearms vs valid defensive discharges of firearms, it may be that the one-in-ten-thousand failure to fire actually *reduces* murder and assault rates.
That's not really relevant in this context. In order to bypass the iPhone fingerprint lock, they need a clean print, a good photograph of that print, and a bit of time. It is easier to just go and buy a gun than to go through that process, if you've got the time to mess around doing such things.
In contrast, this is useful when someone else has just picked up your gun and you *really* don't want them to be able to fire it.
I'm looking forward to the next change when speakers start piping in the wailing of the dying into the economy section, and if you don't want to listen to the wailing then you should be paying for the 'economy plus', which has mysteriously increased to include half the seats from the old 'economy' section. Maybe just remove the cushions and have 'economy' sitting on planks of wood, with a full inch of open-cell foam in the 'economy plus' section and perhaps an extra $5 for each additional inch of foam.
Yes. You substituted a sex-specific characteristic for a non-sex-specific characteristic. Bravo.
Indeed. Detection of 'struggling' (or should we call it 'cognitive challenge' in this context) provides an excellent opportunity to have another developer head over and for them both to work on the problem, reducing the likelihood of bugs and design errors and potentially providing skills improvement for both people which the company then benefits from.
If someone is consistently struggling when working on basic tasks, it may be that the person isn't suitable for the role (and some people really aren't) but if you never provide challenges you'll explode the first time a really big challenge arises.
They are saying developers are the source of bugs (mistakes?), but not in the way you are suggesting. Developers are the source of bugs in that they write the code which includes the bug, and so it is not particularly surprising that you can read biometrics that indicate when developers are likely to produce code with bugs.
For example, if the developer hasn't slept in two days and so has saggy eyes and wildly drifting eye movement then that's a pretty good indicator that there will be some bugs, and indeed the developer is the source of the bugs because they are the source of the code.
Of course, the manager standing over their shoulder with an unreasonable product release deadline and the threat of job loss is probably responsible for the bugs in any reasonable sense.
If someone is driving a car wearing a blindfold and crashes, they crashed the car. The person who put the blindfold on, held the gun to their head, and said 'drive' is probably responsible for the crash by any reasonable definition.
In summary: I don't necessarily think it is offensive to say that bugs are coded by developers, because they are. However, it is offensive to say that they are responsible for the bugs without taking into account the broader context in which they are working (and indeed, saying they are responsible for the bugs still doesn't necessarily mean that they are in some way wrong or deficient for entering a bug. People - even brilliant people - can and do make mistakes, and that is why review processes do (or should) exist.
"I don't recommend taking any money" said the man as he walked away from the pile of cash he had left on the street.