The Google car has done something like 700,000 miles and crashed twice. Both times this occurred, it was under control of the human occupant.
This is quoted all the time, but how do you prove it? The car always has a driver behind the wheel. What's to say that any accidents are blamed on the driver as a way of Google PR protecting their pet project while they fix the bugs (actually that's a smart move for them).
I wore them for a full day out and about and while they got a few looks nobody said anything at all.
There will be mixed reactions even if some are too polite to say anything. I love tech and am wanting to try these but a guy had them on near me at a restaurant and I just wanted to tell him to take it off. Google hasn't perfected the social acceptance yet.
No, there is no such thing as faith in science. No one strongly believes anything.
Good one. I had a chuckle.
Doesn't this happen every time they come out with a major update?
My thoughts as well. I have a Eee Netbook that could never update to Win7 Service Pack 1 due to some mysterious issue that always failed no matter what I tried. Numerous hours and forums later, I just gave up since it's just a netbook and works fine for what it does and just install numerous small updates.
Scientists have speculated for decades about the possibility that these may have been slightly different in the distant past - and thus the laws of physics would not be exactly the same.
This is quite controversial, mavericky science because it's very hard to test -
If it's not testable, then by definition it is not science.
Now there's no proof the fundamental constants have changed at all since the big bang, but there's no proof they haven't... By factoring in those different values we could possibly explain a lot of the other things which currently remain open questions.
So while it's unlikely - it's nevertheless and most decidedly NOT bollocks.
Then it's not science.
It's maverick science for sure
"Maverick Science". Made up definitions still don't get you to a testable theory.
That's great in terms of dominating the market and reaping the rewards that come with it,
Hmm, I guess you've not seen the $ that Androids competitors bring in directly and for their developers.
This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"
Exactly. Lawrence Krauss and others are trying to redefine "nothing" for there own personal theories and world view (he's an atheist). I guess that's understandable from that viewpoint, but you can make a lot of interesting theories if you redefine terms to fit your own meaning.
TL;DR, I don't think MS Office, or even LibreOffice or any other office suite, is really needed anymore. I only have it installed because some of my classes at school require me to, but I noticed that when I'm not doing these assignments, I have only used it to create my resume.
You had a good point up until you only considered student assignment usage.
No sane soldier is going to try to stand against amored vehicles with nothing heavier than a light machine gun. It's not fear. It's realism and following orders.
Unless you're Dice creating the latest Battlefield game. Then they are about on parity.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
