Not that I disagree, exactly, but can you give some reasons why? I've tried running BSD desktops - both pure FreeBSD and desktop-oriented distros like DesktopBSD and PC-BSD - and while its certainly viable I don't know that I'd call it superior. ZFS is pretty awesome (though getting it set up correctly was a bit of a trick) but not sufficiently better than the current crop of Linux FS options to sway me that much. What else have you found that's better on BSD? Actual examples, please.
I'll be rebuilding my desktop soon, and while a Windows partition is sadly a given, I will also have at least one Linux and/or BSD install. I'd like to know which one(s) I should use, according to the current wisdom, and why.
Already commented so I can't mod this myself, but: yes, this. Exactly this.
I'd like to emphasize here that among "you people" one must, prominently, include Timothy. None of the linked articles call this a "security flaw", and calling it that anyhow is just intellectually dishonest bullshit.
I think it's quite unreasonable to conclude that Facebook *does* care about privacy. Their entire platform, not to mention revenue model, is based on anti-privacy.
Or, to clarify this, Facebook cares about privacy only to the extent that Facebook's product (users) care about privacy. This extension made the users care, decreasing the value of the product Facebook could sell to advertisers. That is why the guy got the axe; it isn't that he made public anything that wasn't already public, it's that he made people care about the fact that it was public. Can't have that; people might try to make it private instead!
If it wasn't a bug, they wouldn't have changed the way that the app handles location data (and they did change it). If they didn't want people tracking the location data of Facebook users, they shouldn't have exposed the users' locations by default. If they didn't want people to release a tool for automatically mapping that data, they should have paid attention the first few times the issue come up in the media.
Facebook doesn't deserve this guy. There are much better companies he could be working for.
Betteridge says "No", but we can always hope that this one will be an exception.
FTFY:-)
Just checking: are you aware that the way you (mis)used "exception that proves the rule" here makes absolutely no sense? It's sort of like saying "I could care less" when you mean the exact opposite ("I could not care less"), except in this case it's just incoherent. "The exception that proves the rule (in cases not excepted)" is a heuristic you apply to things that look like exceptions to an implied rule, not something you apply to rules when you want to make an exception to them. Generally speaking, rules/laws are made weaker - the opposite of "proven" - by the presence of exceptions to them. Parroting "the exception that proves the rule" (when you don't even understand what it means) doesn't change this obvious fact.
Example: suppose you're not really familiar with the local driving laws (maybe you're in a different state or country than usual), and you come to a stoplight with a sign (which most other stop lights don't have) that says "No right turn on red". That sign implies the existence of a rule - that normally right turns on red are allowed - because otherwise there'd be no need to have the sign in order to make an exception to the rule. If you later come to a red light which has no such sign and you want to make a right turn, you could reasonably assume that it's legal to do so.
On the other hand, if you claim that a feather falls takes longer to hit the ground than a brick does, even when dropped from the same height, and somebody points out that this isn't true on the moon... well, that exception doesn't actually prove your "rule" at all. It does the exact opposite, in fact, showing that your rule is flawed. Similarly, if the answer to the headline is "yes", the only thing that proves is that Betteridge's Law is wrong, false, incorrect, unreliable, etc.
Unfortunately, for those who like KDE, Kubuntu is a colossal pile of poorly-configured and untested crap. It's been that way for years, and they don't care. The current LTS release, for example, has a problem with Akonadi, which means that KDE's PIM (Personal Information Manager) doesn't work, which means stuff like kmail won't run. I don't know what's actually wrong with it - it complains about a file not existing, when that file totally does, in fact - but it's an impressive example of how little of a fuck Canonical gives for anything but Unity.
I'm with Zontar on this one: don't use Ubuntu. Unless you specifically want Unity, there are better options. There might even be better options if you *do* want Unity; this is not something I've ever had any reason to investigate.
Stuff in LEO is slowed by atmospheric drag. Unless actively boosted, its orbit will decay and it will re-enter.
As for stuff above/beyond LEO, space is *REALLY* fucking big. What looks like a solid band of junk on a computer screen is in reality an incredibly sparse field with gaps where there's nothing within miles.
Don't get me wrong, we need to avoid making too big of a mess, but compact satellites with predictable orbits and lifetimes are not the threat. Satellites that self-destruct or are destroyed by other means (as opposed to re-entering), or other sources of debris in higher-than-LEO, are the actual danger.
There is such a thing as negative publicity. Every single review I've seen of Pixels has been negative. They haven't even been negative for the same reasons; I don't know who this movie is supposed to appeal to but if its creators do, they messed up all that is reason enough to avoid choosing to support the movie (for example, by paying to see it). Now I learn they're also copyright-abusing asshats (not that I am surprised, but I didn't *know* this before). That moves them into the category of "actively oppose people giving them money", such as telling other people not to see it and avoiding supporting things which support the movie.
Even if in the end I forget why I'm so opposed to the movie, news like this reminds me and reinforces all the negative associations I had with it in my head.
For morning sickness, or to people who are pregnant? I know some places (Spain?) were slow to catch on to the horrific side effects of thalidomide on the unborn, but to the best of my knowledge that's well-understood today.
Thalidomide does have other uses besides morning sickness, and I believe it's relatively safe for use on adults. It doesn't surprise me that it's still prescribed. I'm less concerned with the end of the drug than I am with the end of its maker.
It's interesting how, in the days before the FDE, DEA, and all that, companies marketed all kinds of shit to people. Heroin was Bayer's brand name for their "non-addictive" (total lie, obviously) morphine alternative and *cough suppressant*. Some of their marketing of it targeted kids; hey parents, your little girl can't sleep because she's got a cold? Well, give her some heroin, that'll solve everything!
Of course, none of these companies ever seem to have suffered any problems in the market as a result of the horrible effects of the stuff they sold, or the lying ways they marketed it. Bayer, of course.is still around, as is the company that brought Thalidomaide to the market (and at the time they were pretty small and new, without much ability to weather a major failing in the market). At least when it comes to pharmaceuticals, the market has shown absolutely no ability to regulate itself.
What, market the warmachine-bot to the military? Yeah, that was a pretty gaping hole in CHAPPiE's plot... but the movie wasn't *about* the warmachine-bot, or the psychopath that built it, or the conflict that his goals had with Chappie and his creator... it was about the AI who has days to live and is being raised by a socially helpless nerd and a gang of none-too-bright criminals. Everything else was a bald excuse for action scenes and people dying. If it helps, think of that stuff as just a simulation: "how will Chappie respond when the Moose comes to kill everybody he cares about, just as his battery runs critical?" and ignore the utterly implausible BS used to explain why it's happening.
Wait, whaaaat? That whole "so genre savvy you practically break the fourth wall" thing is definitely not going to be everybody's cup of tea, but I thought the novel told a good story and told it well. It was certainly no amateur effort; the amount of character development, background (like that whole "prologue" scene where the guy realizes right before he dies what the purpose of his death is), plot cohesiveness, in-character insights, and out-of-character commentary on the failures of all too many TV shows or movies... well, I thought it was *very* well done, The fact that it was also humorous helps a great deal, of course.
As for the Hugos... I haven't really been following that whole "situation", but Redshirts didn't feel even slightly SJW-ish to me. I don't remember any discussion of race or orientation or any of that, and the majority of the cast (and the author) are male. I *think* it passes the Bechdel test but not by enough that it's terribly memorable (I read the book over a year ago, details are a bit hazy in my memory). The social commentary it makes is on storywriting cheap thrills instead of serious nuance more than it's on anything else (unless you want to consider "but what if your characters are REAL PEOPLE?!?" a social commentary), which is pretty much totally unrelated to social justice. I don't know anything about Scalzi's position in the social justice space - as I said, not following that - but he's a white dude, cisgender and heterosexual to the best of my knowledge... Not your typical darling of the SJWs.
Oh jeez, please don't tell me GQ came out 20 years ago.../me checks Nope, 1999. OK, that's not as bad. Still though, wow. That's over half my life ago.
I'd totally watch another movie in that vein. Properly-done spoofs are rare and difficult. Sci-fi spoofs (that don't look like garbage) tend to have expensive sets and effects. This makes something like Galaxy Quest a real treat.
TMo was the first of the big 4 to go this route, yeah, and the rest of the industry seems to be following them. Good for them, and for all of us.
Tempted to ask if you did, in fact, piss on the Verizon rep. They could have used it, I think.
I had to deal with that company for a while (foolishly bought into a two-year contract, and as a student I didn't have the spare cash to pay an ETF plus this was before any of the carriers were really that good policy-wise) and by the last few months I was counting days remaining. I had to call them every other month or so to get the "bullshit charge" (defined as "how much bullshit do we think can be padded onto your bill before they call to contest the charge") removed, which was an unpleasant process even though I got pretty good at it. Eventually they faced a class-action suit over the practice (which, after legal fees, paid me about 2x the average amount of the bullshit charge for a given month) and might have stopped after that, but I switched to T-Mobile before the suit was resolved. Never looked back, either.
It is kind of funny watching the rest of the US "big 4" (of which TMo is the smallest) copy T-Mobile. Explicit loans (or purchases) instead of "subsidized" purchases (that you pay more for in the long run), unlimited talk and text as standard features, paying off your ETF if you switch from another carrier and turn in your old phone, etc. In the end, though, it's good for us all.
Have any of them caught on to the free international roaming (free text and low-speed data, cheap voice over cell or free over WiFi, keep your number and no need to change SIMs) yet? I spend at least a few weeks a year outside the country, usually visiting multiple countries in one trip, and knowing I'll be able to use my phone in each one as soon as the plane lands is glorious.
The advantage of games like EVE (where there are consequences for screwing up besides just wasting some time) is that there's a much stronger drive to succeed, which leads to much more intense competition and a much more satisfactory success / victory. In a typical single-player game, dying (or otherwise failing) costs you nothing but the time to load a save (though permadeath games do exist). In a team game, failure on your part may make your teammates mad at you for wasting everybody's time and not meeting your obligations, but you're still not losing anything but time that could have been spent enjoying a meaningless win. In risk-free PvP, the same is really still true; winning or losing doesn't mean much more than winning a game of Scrabble. In a game like EVE, winning - or even just *surviving* a fight that you can't win - is way more exciting. It's a high, a flood of endorphins. The fights themselves are much more intense, triggering the fight-or-flight instinct, giving you a massive adrenaline rush.
To look at it another way, the difference is that, in EVE, it's not *just* a game. Nobody says "it's just a game" to a pro player (whether of football or StarCraft) when they lose. To those who play professionally, it's money, and future prospects, and the recognition of large numbers of people... winning or losing becomes a big deal. EVE lets everybody experience that intense, more-than-trivially-meaningful competition... without actually having your livelihood, or even your life, on the line. EVE isn't a casual game, the way a pick-up game of basketball is. It's not designed to appeal to those who "just want to have fun". It's designed for those who want to *win*! It's a game for the competitive, for those who say things like "you never feel more alive then when you're about to die"... and there's precious little else out there for that market.
While there are certain things that are supplied by NPCs in EVE, in practice the economy is completely player driven. NPCs will sell you skillbooks and the like, so speculating on those is usually pointless (NPCs don't sell them *everywhere*, so you can still have player-driven changes in the effective supply - and therefore the cost - in localities where they need to be shipped in and the transports can be attacked). NPC "rats" (pirates) can be killed (usually costing some money for ammo, always costing some time, and with some risk and therefore an amortized cost across the player population for lost ships) for low-grade loot (and occasionally something good), and asteroids can be mined for raw materials, so it's true that speculating on those things would be pointless in most cases (there are *still* local exceptions, like if a hostile fleet is ruthlessly suppressing mining efforts in an area), but only those who can't afford better equip their ships with such things, and the ships themselves must be player-built anyhow.
There have been major bubbles and crashes in the value of various commodities across EVE's history. There are raw resources which are nearly unavailable outside of certain regions, and the political situations in those regions have huge impacts on prices. People speculate on goods in advance of or during notable events such as wars, new patches (which can influence the demand for certain ships or equipment), or even just to try and corner the market on something that they don't expect a new source to become available.
I can't tell if you are honestly completely blind to everything about what Snowden released, or are just a troll, but either way your post is nothing but high-quality idiocy (whether from ignorance or malice).
Snowden released whole documents, not edits of conversations. Snowden had direct evidence, not "creatively" interpreted conversations. Snowden's whistleblowing concerned actual things that had happened and were continuing to happen, not things that might happen. Snowden informed us of events occurring that have direct impact on living people, not stuff that concerns dead tissue.
If you still think there's meaningful similarity in light of those facts, either your political tribalism has overridden your critical thinking, or you aren't actually thinking at all.
Uterine replicators (artificial wombs) would probably be a more practical solution. Men aren't any more physiologically equipped than an old "iron lung" when it comes to carrying an embryo or fetus, but we can make changes to machinery much more easily than we can change human bodies (and with far fewer ethical considerations). We don't have the technology to do this yet - we can keep premature infants alive from earlier than used to be possible, but that's it - but some people are working on it. It would probably have a very dramatic effect on society, comparable to or possibly surpassing the pill and other cheap, safe contraceptives for women. There's some good science fiction that touches on the topic, actually.
It would be *tempting* to make men who are trying to run women's sex lives carry their pregnancies instead, but sometimes facetious suggestions get in the way of things that might actually work.
The fact that you had to ask twice means you either already know the answer or you're an idiot, and the fact that you used "I'm in the UK" as an excuse while posting on an online forum doesn't help your case on the latter either (or have all your search engines stopped working?).
Short version, though: all professional sporting events in the US have, for many years, had a blanket ban on spectators recording (or at least distributing recordings of) the event, and tickets for in-person spectators include a requirement of consent to be recorded and televised. Not that you "agree" to anything in the usual sense, but it's printed there on the ticket.
Almost nobody reads the small print, of course, but it's also not usually a problem. For one thing, the cameras can't generally pick up conversations between spectators. As for recording in general, I'd hope you understand the fact that walking into a place with a ton of TV cameras running is a bad idea if you don't want to be recorded...
Even those who like food are sometimes busy. Soylent makes it possible to, for example, have your breakfast on the bus and your lunch without leaving your desk, and then go home to a leisurely evening with a home-made dinner. Drinking soylent takes almost no time - even mixing it, for those who don't get it pre-mixed, is faster than most meal preparations - and produces minimal dishes. You don't need any more space for it (at work, say) than you need for a water bottle, so you can have lunch without needing to "go to lunch".
Hey asshole, fun fact: there are jobs which requires a bachelor's degree in a scientific field (the specific example I'm thinking of is oceanography), and still only earn minimum wage (in the state with the country's highest state-set minimum wage, but still). You can work full time at that job (earning significantly more than federal minimum wage), and still qualify for SNAP.
Not everybody can break 6 digits (or even half of that) by age 25, and if everybody who had a shot at it made the attempt then your (and my) jobs would probably pay a lot less because there'd be a glut of people in the field.
Seriously, take that attitude of yours and shove it back in next to your head. We already know where you keep that...
The browser UI is new, but the rendering engine is still based on Trident. They just removed all the legacy stuff, and focused on clean implementations of the standards without worrying so much about backward compatibility. Edge will puke about as badly as Chrome or Firefox will if fed code and markup intended for IE7, instead of falling back to IE7's rendering style.
Which isn't to say there aren't going to be security bugs, of course. But then, the same is true of all the big browser vendors.
Yep. Those kinds of experiments get expensive, though. There are only a few systems in the world sensitive enough to reliably (i.e. without risk of error from outside sources) detect thrust on the levels we're talking about, even at 10x the power of the current experiments. Another problem is that they need to cool the thing. It sounds counterintuitive, but cooling stuff in a vacuum (such as they are using for the current rounds of testing, to eliminate the risk of errors due to things like convection currents) is hard. That makes it difficult to run a high-power magnetron.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I disagree, exactly, but can you give some reasons why? I've tried running BSD desktops - both pure FreeBSD and desktop-oriented distros like DesktopBSD and PC-BSD - and while its certainly viable I don't know that I'd call it superior. ZFS is pretty awesome (though getting it set up correctly was a bit of a trick) but not sufficiently better than the current crop of Linux FS options to sway me that much. What else have you found that's better on BSD? Actual examples, please.
I'll be rebuilding my desktop soon, and while a Windows partition is sadly a given, I will also have at least one Linux and/or BSD install. I'd like to know which one(s) I should use, according to the current wisdom, and why.
Already commented so I can't mod this myself, but: yes, this. Exactly this.
I'd like to emphasize here that among "you people" one must, prominently, include Timothy. None of the linked articles call this a "security flaw", and calling it that anyhow is just intellectually dishonest bullshit.
I think it's quite unreasonable to conclude that Facebook *does* care about privacy. Their entire platform, not to mention revenue model, is based on anti-privacy.
Or, to clarify this, Facebook cares about privacy only to the extent that Facebook's product (users) care about privacy. This extension made the users care, decreasing the value of the product Facebook could sell to advertisers. That is why the guy got the axe; it isn't that he made public anything that wasn't already public, it's that he made people care about the fact that it was public. Can't have that; people might try to make it private instead!
If it wasn't a bug, they wouldn't have changed the way that the app handles location data (and they did change it).
If they didn't want people tracking the location data of Facebook users, they shouldn't have exposed the users' locations by default.
If they didn't want people to release a tool for automatically mapping that data, they should have paid attention the first few times the issue come up in the media.
Facebook doesn't deserve this guy. There are much better companies he could be working for.
FTFY :-)
Just checking: are you aware that the way you (mis)used "exception that proves the rule" here makes absolutely no sense? It's sort of like saying "I could care less" when you mean the exact opposite ("I could not care less"), except in this case it's just incoherent. "The exception that proves the rule (in cases not excepted)" is a heuristic you apply to things that look like exceptions to an implied rule, not something you apply to rules when you want to make an exception to them. Generally speaking, rules/laws are made weaker - the opposite of "proven" - by the presence of exceptions to them. Parroting "the exception that proves the rule" (when you don't even understand what it means) doesn't change this obvious fact.
Example: suppose you're not really familiar with the local driving laws (maybe you're in a different state or country than usual), and you come to a stoplight with a sign (which most other stop lights don't have) that says "No right turn on red". That sign implies the existence of a rule - that normally right turns on red are allowed - because otherwise there'd be no need to have the sign in order to make an exception to the rule. If you later come to a red light which has no such sign and you want to make a right turn, you could reasonably assume that it's legal to do so.
On the other hand, if you claim that a feather falls takes longer to hit the ground than a brick does, even when dropped from the same height, and somebody points out that this isn't true on the moon... well, that exception doesn't actually prove your "rule" at all. It does the exact opposite, in fact, showing that your rule is flawed. Similarly, if the answer to the headline is "yes", the only thing that proves is that Betteridge's Law is wrong, false, incorrect, unreliable, etc.
Unfortunately, for those who like KDE, Kubuntu is a colossal pile of poorly-configured and untested crap. It's been that way for years, and they don't care. The current LTS release, for example, has a problem with Akonadi, which means that KDE's PIM (Personal Information Manager) doesn't work, which means stuff like kmail won't run. I don't know what's actually wrong with it - it complains about a file not existing, when that file totally does, in fact - but it's an impressive example of how little of a fuck Canonical gives for anything but Unity.
I'm with Zontar on this one: don't use Ubuntu. Unless you specifically want Unity, there are better options. There might even be better options if you *do* want Unity; this is not something I've ever had any reason to investigate.
Stuff in LEO is slowed by atmospheric drag. Unless actively boosted, its orbit will decay and it will re-enter.
As for stuff above/beyond LEO, space is *REALLY* fucking big. What looks like a solid band of junk on a computer screen is in reality an incredibly sparse field with gaps where there's nothing within miles.
Don't get me wrong, we need to avoid making too big of a mess, but compact satellites with predictable orbits and lifetimes are not the threat. Satellites that self-destruct or are destroyed by other means (as opposed to re-entering), or other sources of debris in higher-than-LEO, are the actual danger.
There is such a thing as negative publicity. Every single review I've seen of Pixels has been negative. They haven't even been negative for the same reasons; I don't know who this movie is supposed to appeal to but if its creators do, they messed up all that is reason enough to avoid choosing to support the movie (for example, by paying to see it). Now I learn they're also copyright-abusing asshats (not that I am surprised, but I didn't *know* this before). That moves them into the category of "actively oppose people giving them money", such as telling other people not to see it and avoiding supporting things which support the movie.
Even if in the end I forget why I'm so opposed to the movie, news like this reminds me and reinforces all the negative associations I had with it in my head.
For morning sickness, or to people who are pregnant? I know some places (Spain?) were slow to catch on to the horrific side effects of thalidomide on the unborn, but to the best of my knowledge that's well-understood today.
Thalidomide does have other uses besides morning sickness, and I believe it's relatively safe for use on adults. It doesn't surprise me that it's still prescribed. I'm less concerned with the end of the drug than I am with the end of its maker.
Informative, *and* grammatically correct (and justifiable, IMO) use of invective!
It's interesting how, in the days before the FDE, DEA, and all that, companies marketed all kinds of shit to people. Heroin was Bayer's brand name for their "non-addictive" (total lie, obviously) morphine alternative and *cough suppressant*. Some of their marketing of it targeted kids; hey parents, your little girl can't sleep because she's got a cold? Well, give her some heroin, that'll solve everything!
Of course, none of these companies ever seem to have suffered any problems in the market as a result of the horrible effects of the stuff they sold, or the lying ways they marketed it. Bayer, of course.is still around, as is the company that brought Thalidomaide to the market (and at the time they were pretty small and new, without much ability to weather a major failing in the market). At least when it comes to pharmaceuticals, the market has shown absolutely no ability to regulate itself.
What, market the warmachine-bot to the military? Yeah, that was a pretty gaping hole in CHAPPiE's plot... but the movie wasn't *about* the warmachine-bot, or the psychopath that built it, or the conflict that his goals had with Chappie and his creator... it was about the AI who has days to live and is being raised by a socially helpless nerd and a gang of none-too-bright criminals. Everything else was a bald excuse for action scenes and people dying. If it helps, think of that stuff as just a simulation: "how will Chappie respond when the Moose comes to kill everybody he cares about, just as his battery runs critical?" and ignore the utterly implausible BS used to explain why it's happening.
Wait, whaaaat? That whole "so genre savvy you practically break the fourth wall" thing is definitely not going to be everybody's cup of tea, but I thought the novel told a good story and told it well. It was certainly no amateur effort; the amount of character development, background (like that whole "prologue" scene where the guy realizes right before he dies what the purpose of his death is), plot cohesiveness, in-character insights, and out-of-character commentary on the failures of all too many TV shows or movies... well, I thought it was *very* well done, The fact that it was also humorous helps a great deal, of course.
As for the Hugos... I haven't really been following that whole "situation", but Redshirts didn't feel even slightly SJW-ish to me. I don't remember any discussion of race or orientation or any of that, and the majority of the cast (and the author) are male. I *think* it passes the Bechdel test but not by enough that it's terribly memorable (I read the book over a year ago, details are a bit hazy in my memory). The social commentary it makes is on storywriting cheap thrills instead of serious nuance more than it's on anything else (unless you want to consider "but what if your characters are REAL PEOPLE?!?" a social commentary), which is pretty much totally unrelated to social justice. I don't know anything about Scalzi's position in the social justice space - as I said, not following that - but he's a white dude, cisgender and heterosexual to the best of my knowledge... Not your typical darling of the SJWs.
Oh jeez, please don't tell me GQ came out 20 years ago... /me checks
Nope, 1999. OK, that's not as bad. Still though, wow. That's over half my life ago.
I'd totally watch another movie in that vein. Properly-done spoofs are rare and difficult. Sci-fi spoofs (that don't look like garbage) tend to have expensive sets and effects. This makes something like Galaxy Quest a real treat.
TMo was the first of the big 4 to go this route, yeah, and the rest of the industry seems to be following them. Good for them, and for all of us.
Tempted to ask if you did, in fact, piss on the Verizon rep. They could have used it, I think.
I had to deal with that company for a while (foolishly bought into a two-year contract, and as a student I didn't have the spare cash to pay an ETF plus this was before any of the carriers were really that good policy-wise) and by the last few months I was counting days remaining. I had to call them every other month or so to get the "bullshit charge" (defined as "how much bullshit do we think can be padded onto your bill before they call to contest the charge") removed, which was an unpleasant process even though I got pretty good at it. Eventually they faced a class-action suit over the practice (which, after legal fees, paid me about 2x the average amount of the bullshit charge for a given month) and might have stopped after that, but I switched to T-Mobile before the suit was resolved. Never looked back, either.
It is kind of funny watching the rest of the US "big 4" (of which TMo is the smallest) copy T-Mobile. Explicit loans (or purchases) instead of "subsidized" purchases (that you pay more for in the long run), unlimited talk and text as standard features, paying off your ETF if you switch from another carrier and turn in your old phone, etc. In the end, though, it's good for us all.
Have any of them caught on to the free international roaming (free text and low-speed data, cheap voice over cell or free over WiFi, keep your number and no need to change SIMs) yet? I spend at least a few weeks a year outside the country, usually visiting multiple countries in one trip, and knowing I'll be able to use my phone in each one as soon as the plane lands is glorious.
The advantage of games like EVE (where there are consequences for screwing up besides just wasting some time) is that there's a much stronger drive to succeed, which leads to much more intense competition and a much more satisfactory success / victory. In a typical single-player game, dying (or otherwise failing) costs you nothing but the time to load a save (though permadeath games do exist). In a team game, failure on your part may make your teammates mad at you for wasting everybody's time and not meeting your obligations, but you're still not losing anything but time that could have been spent enjoying a meaningless win. In risk-free PvP, the same is really still true; winning or losing doesn't mean much more than winning a game of Scrabble. In a game like EVE, winning - or even just *surviving* a fight that you can't win - is way more exciting. It's a high, a flood of endorphins. The fights themselves are much more intense, triggering the fight-or-flight instinct, giving you a massive adrenaline rush.
To look at it another way, the difference is that, in EVE, it's not *just* a game. Nobody says "it's just a game" to a pro player (whether of football or StarCraft) when they lose. To those who play professionally, it's money, and future prospects, and the recognition of large numbers of people... winning or losing becomes a big deal. EVE lets everybody experience that intense, more-than-trivially-meaningful competition... without actually having your livelihood, or even your life, on the line. EVE isn't a casual game, the way a pick-up game of basketball is. It's not designed to appeal to those who "just want to have fun". It's designed for those who want to *win*! It's a game for the competitive, for those who say things like "you never feel more alive then when you're about to die"... and there's precious little else out there for that market.
While there are certain things that are supplied by NPCs in EVE, in practice the economy is completely player driven. NPCs will sell you skillbooks and the like, so speculating on those is usually pointless (NPCs don't sell them *everywhere*, so you can still have player-driven changes in the effective supply - and therefore the cost - in localities where they need to be shipped in and the transports can be attacked). NPC "rats" (pirates) can be killed (usually costing some money for ammo, always costing some time, and with some risk and therefore an amortized cost across the player population for lost ships) for low-grade loot (and occasionally something good), and asteroids can be mined for raw materials, so it's true that speculating on those things would be pointless in most cases (there are *still* local exceptions, like if a hostile fleet is ruthlessly suppressing mining efforts in an area), but only those who can't afford better equip their ships with such things, and the ships themselves must be player-built anyhow.
There have been major bubbles and crashes in the value of various commodities across EVE's history. There are raw resources which are nearly unavailable outside of certain regions, and the political situations in those regions have huge impacts on prices. People speculate on goods in advance of or during notable events such as wars, new patches (which can influence the demand for certain ships or equipment), or even just to try and corner the market on something that they don't expect a new source to become available.
I can't tell if you are honestly completely blind to everything about what Snowden released, or are just a troll, but either way your post is nothing but high-quality idiocy (whether from ignorance or malice).
Snowden released whole documents, not edits of conversations. Snowden had direct evidence, not "creatively" interpreted conversations. Snowden's whistleblowing concerned actual things that had happened and were continuing to happen, not things that might happen. Snowden informed us of events occurring that have direct impact on living people, not stuff that concerns dead tissue.
If you still think there's meaningful similarity in light of those facts, either your political tribalism has overridden your critical thinking, or you aren't actually thinking at all.
Uterine replicators (artificial wombs) would probably be a more practical solution. Men aren't any more physiologically equipped than an old "iron lung" when it comes to carrying an embryo or fetus, but we can make changes to machinery much more easily than we can change human bodies (and with far fewer ethical considerations). We don't have the technology to do this yet - we can keep premature infants alive from earlier than used to be possible, but that's it - but some people are working on it. It would probably have a very dramatic effect on society, comparable to or possibly surpassing the pill and other cheap, safe contraceptives for women. There's some good science fiction that touches on the topic, actually.
It would be *tempting* to make men who are trying to run women's sex lives carry their pregnancies instead, but sometimes facetious suggestions get in the way of things that might actually work.
The fact that you had to ask twice means you either already know the answer or you're an idiot, and the fact that you used "I'm in the UK" as an excuse while posting on an online forum doesn't help your case on the latter either (or have all your search engines stopped working?).
Short version, though: all professional sporting events in the US have, for many years, had a blanket ban on spectators recording (or at least distributing recordings of) the event, and tickets for in-person spectators include a requirement of consent to be recorded and televised. Not that you "agree" to anything in the usual sense, but it's printed there on the ticket.
Almost nobody reads the small print, of course, but it's also not usually a problem. For one thing, the cameras can't generally pick up conversations between spectators. As for recording in general, I'd hope you understand the fact that walking into a place with a ton of TV cameras running is a bad idea if you don't want to be recorded...
Even those who like food are sometimes busy. Soylent makes it possible to, for example, have your breakfast on the bus and your lunch without leaving your desk, and then go home to a leisurely evening with a home-made dinner. Drinking soylent takes almost no time - even mixing it, for those who don't get it pre-mixed, is faster than most meal preparations - and produces minimal dishes. You don't need any more space for it (at work, say) than you need for a water bottle, so you can have lunch without needing to "go to lunch".
Hey asshole, fun fact: there are jobs which requires a bachelor's degree in a scientific field (the specific example I'm thinking of is oceanography), and still only earn minimum wage (in the state with the country's highest state-set minimum wage, but still). You can work full time at that job (earning significantly more than federal minimum wage), and still qualify for SNAP.
Not everybody can break 6 digits (or even half of that) by age 25, and if everybody who had a shot at it made the attempt then your (and my) jobs would probably pay a lot less because there'd be a glut of people in the field.
Seriously, take that attitude of yours and shove it back in next to your head. We already know where you keep that...
The browser UI is new, but the rendering engine is still based on Trident. They just removed all the legacy stuff, and focused on clean implementations of the standards without worrying so much about backward compatibility. Edge will puke about as badly as Chrome or Firefox will if fed code and markup intended for IE7, instead of falling back to IE7's rendering style.
Which isn't to say there aren't going to be security bugs, of course. But then, the same is true of all the big browser vendors.
Yep. Those kinds of experiments get expensive, though. There are only a few systems in the world sensitive enough to reliably (i.e. without risk of error from outside sources) detect thrust on the levels we're talking about, even at 10x the power of the current experiments. Another problem is that they need to cool the thing. It sounds counterintuitive, but cooling stuff in a vacuum (such as they are using for the current rounds of testing, to eliminate the risk of errors due to things like convection currents) is hard. That makes it difficult to run a high-power magnetron.