While there are AIs that are proven to be better at playing chess than the best of humans, they cannot achieve the same performance with just 1 clock cycle per move that a human can achieve with 1 second per move (see the so called bullet games). 1 CPU clock cycle is clearly not comparable to 1 human second - even at a task that AIs are already better at!

3) Right click in the bottom left corner, click Shut down or sign out, click Restart

There are some really nice improvements over Windows 7 - the new options should be advertised more, though.

I think the cost of damage is what matters, not profit taken. In fact, if the cost of damage is negligible compared to the profit, something is wrong. With the law or with the perception of the damage. In that case it should probably simply be legal, but expensive. Like cutting down trees can be "paid for" by planting 2 or 3 times as many trees as were cut down.

Now, you strawman'd the size of the company. But the size of the fine should be at least the cost of the damage done plus a punitive amount to act as a sufficient deterrent. What I'm saying here is that $500,000 is worth less that the money Google will make off using said personal data, and is thus ineffectual. The punitive amount on top of the calculated amount of profits they could make off the data should be high enough to deter Google from doing it in Brazil again... and thus wasting taxpayer dollars prosecuting them.

But you yourself are mixing things up. First you're talking about "the damage done", then you're talking about "calculated amount of profits". So which one is it? And how could you possibly calculate it in this case?

So universe is lazy-evaluated?

Un-take-controllable? Wouldn't a simple log of who was in control at which point in time suffice? Law enforcement can easily check whether you were controlling the car when you shouldn't have, but cannot prevent you from doing so in the future without a just cause. Just like they cannot prevent you from drunk driving now.

No need to wait for the Kickstarter version, if you can get this sooner: http://www.nfcworld.com/2013/06/21/324745/geak-unveils-nfc-smart-watch-and-contactless-ring/

Except they have been installed in the tunnels. E.g.: http://english.corp.megafon.ru/news/20120206-1808.html

Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/135/

Fixed that for you. It doesn't matter how old some specific technology is.

I wish that worked with my girlfriend.

1) With more people being productive and willing to spend their hard earned money, there'll be greater demand for more workforce.
2) Why rely on unreliable inheritance, when you have 4 previous generations to help in time of need?
3) The key point is sound investment. It's being smart that pays off, not being old.

Refrigerator is a functional device, while iPhone and iPad are partially (for some people even mostly) fashion devices. For the former it matters how it works, for the latter it matters that everyone else can identify it's iPhone/iPad and not something else similar.

Apple makes fashion products, they put great value on unique looks, on trademark. Hence it's important for them, that people can tell which is which from a distance.

No, basic has absolutely nothing to do with whether most people had it or not.
basic:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or forming a base; fundamental: "Basic changes in public opinion often occur because of shifts in concerns and priorities" (Atlantic).
2. Of, being, or serving as a starting point or basis: a basic course in Russian; a set of basic woodworking tools.

But after that first number of years, there were no more changes to the environment, but the mutations continued at a very similar rate.

This is not surprising. After all, just because the environment doesn't change now, doesn't mean it definitely won't change in the future. If there were no mutations, a sudden change in environment would be more likely to wipe out the whole population. With the mutations it's likely that a change will affect different members of the population differently, providing a possibility for part of the population to survive this change, even if another part vanishes.