This shouldn't be enough to authorize a search. Someone nearby could be growing weed.

The article states that the man in question was arrested with an empty compartment. The manager in this case could be arrested after making the drop at the bank, or if he leaves the job and simply leaves the secret compartment installed in his car.

The entire analogy is faulty. Drones are only delivery vehicles. A drone is entirely capable of delivering a nuclear device or finding a lost hiker on a mountain. The problem of drones is one of the people deploying them. They're not inherently dangerous in the same way as a nuclear weapon.

It's more likely that they've released the key for this file to the people they want insurance from. "See what we've got? All we need to do is release the key and everyone will know." They release these keys to a small set of folks around the world so they can publish the key if they need to. I bet that initial distribution list includes a senator and a head fo the CIA or something like that.

They need to give free sets to the relevant reviewers. Their initial program of competition for a chance to buy failed. They inadvertently alienated all the reviewers who wanted one by making them part of the "out" group.

Yep, once again Steve Forbes demonstrates that he is more a tool for some interest group or another and less an informed actor on the world stage.

I don't think this is true. No auto maker wants to deal with the insurance overhead involved in installing a "marginally flawed driverless system." Can you imagine that meeting? The moment when some insurance executive is told by GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, whoever, that their next car will include a full-on autodrive system? The insurance company will raise the manufacturer's insurance through the roof! Imagine the lawsuits after a year of accidents in driverless cars. Everyone would blame their accidents on the automated system. "Not my fault, the car was driving, I wasn't paying attention, can't raise my rates, I'll sue the manufacturer instead." A few go-rounds like that and no one will want the system installed anymore.

I just don't understand what Canonical has planned. They created the most user friendly distro going and things were great. Then they decided to make Ubuntu tablet-centric. Okay...but there are no tablets running Ubuntu out there. Maybe they'll get together with Gabe Newell to create a SteamBox. I just don't get the overall plan. Is it to become attractive to tablet makers as an alternative? That's about the only route left right now and it's not a bad idea. In the meantime the general community is left looking for something a little more hacker-friendly. Debian and Mint are the obvious options.

So, what the point here? Is it to make development as difficult as possible and presentation unpredictable? WHATWG's living standard is going to ensure that developers waste all sorts of time trying to figure out what feature is supported on what browser. Is feature x supported on Webkit? Gecko? IE? Oh wait, what about the various implementations of feature x?

Honestly I just want to know what's going to allow me to deliver a reliable, effective product with the highest profit. I should never ever see "Sorry, this website requires BAR browser." A living standard will require more software patches and less backwards compatibility. If someone tells me that their user-agent is fully FOO 3.4 compliant I expect it to behave like every other FOO 3.4 labelled software out there.

I wonder how this stacks up to Mirasol displays.

A large number of the security holes in Windows apps are caused by flaws in Windows libraries. Calling out others who have used your flawed library has the effect of diluting warnings about yourself. MS won't look so bad if they point their finger at others and say "see, theirs sucks too!"

That was the point. It's easier to close the security holes in open source than closed source.

Too bad I don't need those versions. Since XP came out I started migrating away from windows. Now I can do most anything I need on linux and the few things I need windows for XP does fine.

When will they start putting the current webkit builds with websocket support on these devices?

Either let me cure my colorblindness or EVERYONE has to stop using red/green LEDS for status lights.