Or Hitler rises from the dead and hacks your server.
Or Hitler rises from the dead and hacks your server.
If your Mac supports it, it seems to be a free upgrade.
To quote the Spartans: "If."
I have a late-2007 MacBook. Apple decided not to continue to support the Intel graphics driver for it and used it as an excuse to cut it off from 10.8 and above. The notion that I won't even get security updates anymore kind of ticks me off.
Polite people capable of rational discourse?
So maybe, what? 20-30 people total?
Most people don't have significant amounts of wealth stored as piles of green paper. Your home, your shares, your land, etc, are not "devalued" in any way, shape, or form by inflation.
Do you know, however, what most people have that is devalued by inflation? Debt.
The doctor dismissed that at first, suspecting that it was involuntarily in her blood, before finding out evidence that she had previously been an addict. I'm not really sure how anyone would read the summary any other way.
Browsers only warn you about self-signed certs if you don't install your CA certificate on that browser, which is completely reasonable and they absolutely should be doing that, given you're asking them for a secure connection and they're not getting anything from the server indicating that there's a genuinely secure connection in progress.
IF you start making it to where a company has to pay for the bandwidth of its users
What article are you reading where any company, AT&T or otherwise, is MAKING IT (changing something) so that you now HAVE to pay for the bandwidth of your users?
This is a new service, not a replacement for AT&T's existing services. Tomorrow it will still cost at most exactly the same as it did yesterday to reach an AT&T customer. What you now have, however, is an option you can spend money on to make services that otherwise weren't usable on AT&T's network.
And before anyone goes into slippery slope mode, there isn't one here. Nobody's going to pay AT&T an extra $30 a month for something that doesn't even give them Wikipedia or anything hosted outside the US. They're not going to transition everything to provider paid services, because they can't. They couldn't even if they wanted to.
If this becomes popular, wait for the data caps to get lowered.
True, it'll certainly help with their bandwidth issues if they push customers off their networks and onto T-Mobile's.
On the other hand, their shareholders will be pissed if that happens, so my guess would be they'll instead use the most of the money coming in from this project to put up more towers while reducing cell sizes.
AT&T did that briefly and then only for certain devices. Throughout most of their data-providing history, they've billed data by the byte and/or provided quotas. And they've never offered any combination of BYOD with uncapped data.
In other words, AT&T has always sucked. So FWIW, this proposal isn't too bad. And also FWIW, when, in the past, I've suggested enforced network neutrality might be going too far, this is the kind of application I saw as legitimate that anti-NN laws would ban. I still think it's a good idea.
Do you think it's more likely the GMO foods being sold to Hawaiians is of the "really noble" variety or the "eeevil profit driven corporation" variety?
What, you think the two are incompatible? Here's a thought: maybe companies monetize products that have, or are perceived to have, value. For example, a company might see a market for a strain of cereal that is resistant to a particular herbicide, making it easier to attack weeds on land used to grow that cereal. The business selling the seeds for the cereal can charge lots of money for the cereal - and even the herbicide! - and farmers gratefully buy the seed in question because it'll make their practices more efficient and reduce the amount of food they have to throw away due to weeks.
But I know, that's probably not the type of GMO application anyone's thinking of.
Except it is.
And no, labeling does nothing other than give GM foods a stigma. It's inherently anti-consumer to label GM products that have no likely health or nutritional differences from their non-GM equivalents, because it adds noise to the consumer warning labels, and that makes the labels less easy to interpret. You shouldn't have to look up every warning label on Wikipedia before buying something just to find out whether there's a legitimate issue there, or some anti-corporatists getting power and using it to push an agenda.
It looks like he was a buffoon. He voted no on everything including adjournment of the meetings. To top it off, it looks like the only reason he resigned was because he got bored and wanted to perform one last stunt. No one was forcing him to resign.
Nope. He's a conservative politician in a primarily progressive area whose main shtick (as you mentioned) was to simply vote "No" on everything regardless of sense or reason. So, naturally, he's resigning to campaign for the U.S. Senate where his skills are clearly in high demand right now.
Let me repeat. PETA isn't the end all, be all of animal rights activists, but if you're freaking obsessed with them, then I'll also repeat that they are just the worst example of "preach to the choir and expect everyone else to sing hallelujah" ideologues in the animal rights movement. e.g. "Sea kittens," nude protests, promoting beer over milk to college students, etc. are fine example of the messenger shooting their own message.
They seem completely tone deaf to the effects that owning all-kill animal shelters does to their message of love and rights for animals. (I mean, who would think the solution to slavery would be to kill all the slaves you can get your hands on?) They pick publicly visible targets for protests that are often not the people actually behind the actions they protest, making them look irrational and giving the target the cover of innocence. (e.g. Running the "animal torture" campaign against KFC, who owns no chicken farms nor slaughterhouses.) They also don't care at all about burning bridges with anyone who might be an ally (like mother's groups over the beer campaign), because they believe themselves to be righteous and have the cold disdain for those who don't immediately recognize that fact that any other zealot does.
PETA undermines animal rights far more than it helps it due to a complete lack of understanding of people who aren't already on board for their message or who would take a more moderate stance. They're classic extremists in that way, and the lack of sensible strategy shows.
FWIW, I count only one tower. And burning/exploding skyscrapers is hardly a concept that was kicked off with 9/11, never appearing in action movies prior - I can think of two movies featuring them off the top of my head, from the 1970s and the 1980s.
It's a generic action movie poster featuring a generic action movie scene.
Recently had a thought you could totally f--- up much of modern Christianity, and alas give more ammunition to the ultra-rich, if you went back in time and, a year before Jesus's birth, built a giant Las Vegas style luxury hotel and entertainment complex (with, for reasons that'd be unexplained at the time, an adjoining hospital with a substantial maternity wing) in the middle of Bethlehem. making it absolutely impossible for his parents to arrive and be forced to sleep in a stable.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama