fogol

I appreciate your candor and honesty. Ther are beggars and beggars. I suspect those in India wer truly poor and the solution was to go numb onthem. The ones mentioned inEurope are begging for sport. It is actually organized crime type of thing. The can and should be policed.

I fail to see how the gypsy beggars are the problem and not your legislation or enforcement. If hostile begging is an issue, legislate it out of the streets. Pass a law that would criminalise it once you've been caught three times.

Instead of complaining, you better appeal to your fellow citizens and solve it

Is there any data transmitted to servers other than Google's?

hmm, this story has more to it than it says: no boss of mine ever sent me meeting invite at 2am and for next morning. Other games afoot there, and it might explain why he dreaded his workplace.

From what I understand at this point, Adobe’s decision seems to want to nail Unity by confusing its developers when it comes to the new licensing scheme. It is very important for Unity to (over)explain the terms.

The cases where the new terms will apply seem to apply primarily to paid flash-based games. The problem is: who does pay for flash games? These games are not on mobile devices and on my browser I have never felt the need to purchase a Flash-based game.

So, to me, it looks more like a scare tactic aimed at Unity’s developers. This will protect the development tools that Adobe is selling. Let’s be frank: you either provide the tools for free and charge for the distribution (the Apple way)or you charge for the tools and provide the runtime/distribution for free (the Adobe way). It might be a generalization, but the gist is there. Is Adobe planning to give the tools for free? I am sure as hell they’re not. So, we should start complaiing that Adobe is not open and that they are imposing unfair controls on developers. (Does it ring a bell? – Adobe vs Apple)