But I don't think they've fully integrated the software. Google Maps apparently gets "reports" from Waze, but they seem to otherwise still be separate. They generate different routes and different estimates.

Based on my purely anecdotal experience, I've found that Maps has smarter routing but that Waze does a better job of being current on traffic. So I use Waze when I expect traffic to be an issue (i.e. during rush times), and Maps at other times. (Maps also has a more pleasant interface. Waze's voice is especially over-talkative.)

Why is ACH cheaper? What fee is involved in the A2A? I'd expect at the very least that they could eliminate a middle man and save money there.

Download me some Natty Boh while you're at it.

At least one set of judges, the 9th Circuit, disagreed that the previous decision applied here. The current court disagrees (unanimously) with them, and what they say goes, but the fact that it made it to the Supreme Court at all suggests that there is real disagreement about the meaning and applicability of the previous decisions.

So there's plenty of blame to go around, but it includes all nine of the current justices as well as the past ones. And the current Congress, who could easily remedy this (to popular acclaim), but the leadership won't even try.

I'm surprised this hasn't been put to the test already. There are about 200 accidents and 1-2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Uber and Lyft must be closing in on that number by now, and since they're primarily about accident-prone city driving I'd expect it to be faster.

Surely something has happened by now that would have provoked the insurance companies' ire and make them start sending out warnings, but I haven't heard about it. Am I just missing it? Or have they handled it all in house so far?

" As long as you are on the winning side who is going to prosecute you?"

Exactly. Nicely put.

It never ceases to astonish me how some Slashdotters, who usually seem fairly intelligent and rational, say things like this whenever the discussion turns to politics.

I blame the influence of Hollywood and violent TV. Maybe the actual sight (and smell) of a few real dead and injured people would do you a world of good, and bring your strange thoughts closer to reality.

"There's nothing moral or immoral about waging war".

As that is a value judgment, I shall not say that it is incorrect. It does differ sharply, however, from all international and national laws and norms. Wikipedia puts it simply:

'The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."'

Thanks! I literally just decided to get into this the day before this article was published, and your review is very helpful. Thanks.

Really? It's illegal just to run the test? (Or at least, too close to a gray area to even consider it?)

Wow, that sucks.

I've read the review, but not the book, but a key element seems to come down to "Maybe it's real, but nobody knows". It seems a fairly simple procedure for him to order some of it and have it tested, and then he'd know. Yeah, that's a legal gray area, but it would make his case a lot stronger to be able to say "Yeah, I ordered a bunch of Russian Viagra and it tested out as 75% as good as the real stuff".

I know that means taking a risk of being prosecuted, but isn't that something we commend journalists for? At least, better than making allegations about what corporate execs and government employees are thinking without evidence.

The anti-Russian astroturfers are out in force today. Say "Hi!" to the guys and gals in Washington for me.

Ah, a "Troll" vote! I must have hit a nerve there.

The timing of this article is particularly foolish. Less than a week ago Russia announced that it has cancelled its participation in the South Stream project to supply gas through a pipeline under the Black Sea to south-east Europe (which would include Bulgaria and Romania). The EU insisted on conditions that Russia could not meet - for instance, that the pipeline be owned by a different corporation from that supplying the gas. Rather than give up control of what is, after all, its own product, Russia will instead be running the pipeline to Turkey. So Romanians can frack away without any Russian interference, although as well as getting highly poisonous residues in their drinking water they will also have to pay higher prices.

The whole idea that Russia would bother to discourage fracking in order to maintain sales of its own gas and oil is ridiculous. For a start, the Russian products come from conventional wells, and thus cost less than fracked fuels. Also, they are far more sustainable, with vast proven reserves whereas most fracking projects quickly run out of economically-extractable fuels. Conclusively, Russia is in the process of giving up on supplies to Europe - in future it has committed to selling enormous amounts of gas to China and other Asian countries, which do not slander it or attempt to harm it.

Carewolf, your statements about chess engines are rubbish. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of them would immediately know.