Yes, this video sounds promising only for a english public, because the german speaker especially chosed sentences that are grammatically simple and fit similar structures in the english language. And she took care to speak especially clearly and made pauses between the words to improve the recognizability for the voice interpreter. The english speaker spoke much more naturally, and thus the translation into german was rather awful, and as a german native, you sometimes had to hear the english sentence to make sense of the automatic german translation.

I stopped reading on a full fledged tablet. It's not well readable in the sun, it requires charging all the time, and if the tablet breaks, it's expensive to replace.

And then there are the converters, which turn EPUBs into MOBIs.

So where do you put Ohm's law then, which is called a law, and which is not as universal?

To call some rule found in Nature a law was some kind of scientific tradition in the 18th and 19th century. There was the imagination that in the same way laws govern the social structure of a country, natural laws would govern the structure of Nature. Some of the rules discovered proved to be quite universal, others not so much. Because of the tradition, we still call them laws.

What's missing is where the scientist found the remainings of the bird, and who those scientists were.

The site is the wellknown Messel pit, an UNESCO World Nature Heritage site. The scientists were a team from the nearby Senckenberg Museum.

Laws are structurally simple equations, which often are fundamental to the theory behind the equation. For instance, Ohm's law is fundamental to what we today understand about electrical resistance. We even call an electrical resistance that adheres to Ohm's law as "Ohm resistance" (because we found out that there are other forms of resistance that don't follow Ohm's law).

That's one point (and the most important, because it affects our basic rights). The other point is that the Snowden leak has shown how dangerous those large collections of data can get. If not even the NSA can't protect their own data heaps, who can? If those data actually are useful to someone, then who is able to profit from them? If a single guy with enough determination can get whatever he wants from the NSA data, how many interested parties got already what they wanted, without the NSA even noticing?

Basicly it boils down to a single question: Can you get a strategic edge from having a such a large collection of data?

If yes, then how many interested parties already took their advantage from the NSA collection? And do we really want to serve them the data of the whole world without even noticing?

If no, why collecting the data in the first place?

For any foreign intelligence service, this is the ideal situation: The NSA collects the data and gets the heat if their spionage becomes public. Every other service profits from the NSA's collection without even breaking a sweat and without the NSA knowing.

The volume of a pizza of radius z and height a is pi*z*z*a.

No. You will have the same amount of privacy and national security than without him. But now you have better means to actually estimate it.

What was suspiciously absent from the debate about Mr. Snowden was the question, how many people before him did the same stunt internally, but didn't came forward and informed the world. The internal security at the NSA seems to have been lousy, and it is quite possible that there have been many more leaks, but they went to the highest bidder and not to investigative journalists.

Every semi- or full automated face recognition system uses neural networks, and they are sold to us as safety critical. If this flaw is really as fundamental as it is claimed to be, it means that it's pretty easy to outsmart those systems by only slightly changing your look, so your co-conspirators still recognize you, but you will raise no alarm on any system that is supposed to spot you.

But the UK alone is a too small market to profundly influence the design decisions of major car manufacturers.

And the original article does not make the avoidable blunder of including a the concept of a flat earth in the list of avoidable blunders. Because the flat earth concept actually has been avoided from the beginning.

It has not so much to do with emission standards, but with car taxes that are mostly coupled with engine displacement. A car with a smaller engine costs less in car related taxes, and thus buyers flock to the smaller engines, because the cars are cheaper to keep. The same is true for insurance, whose tariffs are often coupled with the power output, again making the smaller engine more cost efficient.

If your service is paid for by advertisement, you are not the customer, you are the product. Your attention gets sold to the highest bidder.

Bed time reading is no value as such. My parents never read much to us children (I can't even remember them reading to us once), but we grew up reading huge amounts of books ourselves. On the other hand, my father was reading a book all the time in his free time, and he valued broad knowledge of about anything, from identifying bird voices to local history to calculating electric circuitry and repairing car and bicycle yourself. The kitchen radio was always tuned to stations with a large information programme including political, cultural and scientific news and reports. Bed time reading is a cliché, not a value in itself.