So they prefer that Google use large vehicles that consume fossil fuel, emit greenhouse gases and may damage fragile desert ecosystem with their tires? Way to go PETA. I hope a few environmental groups take you on on this one.
Self-preservation. We are people, hence by social contract we (no longer) eat each other. That way each of us can feel safe that others will not consume him. We consider people who violate that rule criminals or insane and deal with them appropriately.
There is no such social contract with animals. We can eat them and they, occasionally, eat humans too.
The so-called "apology" is in itself offensive and patronizing. "Drag queens" to LGBT is what "Exotic dancers" are to being a straight woman (or a man, I suppose). The choice of names they used in the example is also not coincidental.
I wonder if reaction would have been different were facebook to require all married women to use their husbands name (Mrs Robinson), and then apologized by way by letting them keep their "Lil Miss Makemeasammich" monikers.
It's only "PC bullshit" until it's your problem.
Macports updated their version of bash. Get macports here, if you don't already have them, and install bash: https://www.macports.org/
Make sure to move their bash into
Next step - beer.
You need to set your microwave to "fruit" option to charge it.
In other news Hyundai outsells BMW 4 to 1. To each his own.
Not sure about other products, but here is the recent article about Samsung Galaxy S5.
Samsung sold 5 million Galaxy 5S phones in the entire month of May (which was evidently the first full month of sales)
The article says that it sold less in its first month than Apple sold iPhones 5S in the same month.
I know there is always a "many Android phones vs one Apple" argument. But numbers are what they are.
Any game that takes an effort to make "safe" cannot be described as pleasant or safe by default.
It takes more than a little effort or research. Unless you constantly monitor servers for content or audit server list daily - you cannot claim that the game is played "safely". Server content can change at any time, and your children can add and delete servers as they see fit.
Something is up with
1. I am not in the micromanaging my kids business. Sitting next to my child every minute they are on the computer, and watching their every step is not viable. I prefer services (and games) that are designed from ground up to provide child enough freedom without having to have a permanent guard set next to them.
2. You are making my point for me. As a game universe, in general, Minecraft is *not* nonviolent or purely creative, as it is being generally described. It has its fair share of sex, violence and useless junk. It takes a conscious and significant effort to protect players from that. This is something that articles about Minecraft seem to conveniently omit.
As a parent, I don't see Minecraft through the rose-colored glasses, as it seems to be commonly described. While a game was supposed to be nonviolent, plenty of Minecraft servers seem to have added functionality that allows direct fighting and ability to kill other players. Chat capabilities go unmonitored and "adult language" is widespread.
Due to Minecrafts de-centralized nature there are no effective technological age or content controls, leaving children (mine anyway) exposed to kinds of things that I would prefer them to consume in limited amounts or not at all.
The only realistic technical measure of control is to prohibit playing Minecraft at all, or at least prohibit network play. Unfortunately, given Minecraft popularity this is not feasible. My parenting approach does not include use of force or abuse of my authority, (where safety or law is not directly concerned), so I can't in good consciousness prohibit it outright.
On a personal level, it annoys me that a game world with a level of 3d graphics and physics sophistication that was state of the art 20 years ago is extremely popular today, but I can see the draw of "retro" look and feel.
Link to Original Source
From what I understood so far, mobile payments will only work on devices equipped with fingerprint scanner. So, unless they badly break the design, it should not be possible for a 3rd party to pay with the device.
That'd be one useless network though. If your devices have no information worth stealing - than what are they doing?
That's the problem with anonymity (and security in general). To be perfect, it's got to have no value.
In a more practical case like this one, I fully expect that administrators of those servers made one small mistake (more likely simply could not check every possible bit of code for information it may leak) and that was their downfall.
On most airlines size and pitch of seats is well defined and listed when you purchase tickets. I mostly fly United (not that I like them, they just go where I need to go) and seat size is clearly listed.
You can pay extra and get an "Economy Plus" seat that is promised to have extra leg room and may otherwise be more convenient.
Seats that do not recline are also clearly marked.
That is to say - you pay airline for a very specific set of conditions, and it is airlines job to provide those (as limited as they might be).
People that need more knee space/seat space etc are able *now* to buy seats that fit to their specific size. What they cannot do is buy a cheapest ticket and then attempt to make up for lack of space by taking some of the space *I* paid for.