Why would someone sue google? Google doesn't owe you free speech. They can put up whatever results they way. Only your government owes you free speech, not any corporation that happens to be somewhat American.
By them choosing to not show something, they aren't violating your constitution. They can't, they're not the US government.
No it's not.
It's pointing out that it's stupid because as time goes on, less and less of the web is going to work if you have javascript turned off because such a minority does that that they're mostly ignored.
Like gopher users.
You can stick with gopher, but the rest of the world has moved on.
Thanks, just ordered one to replace my aging WRT54GL.
Similar in NZ, $1 and $2, and the smallest coin is 10c. However, we have something like 80% of point of sales transactions being electronic (off the top of my head), so it doesn't matter too much. This article is a bit of history really
It's quite possible. I have a choice of power companies (and am planning to change some time soon.)
Here, generation, and retailing are all split up (not sure how lines maintenance works, I think that might be regional, but done though your retailer.)
This means a) I can pick my retailer, and b) they can compete, along with the generation companies.
(I'm not really contributing much here, just adding a little bit of possibly interesting information.)
The battery in the Pebble lasts a week.
There's a section 'Dynamic Index', but I just noticed that it also opens in the lightbox, which still has no obvious way to actually add a term.
Hover over your name, and click on 'Options' that appears in the dropdown.
Or click on "Account" on the user info panel on the right, and poke through the options there. This tends to work better, I find the lightbox interface to be a bit buggy in general.
The point of the turing test is that it's a thought experiment that says (loosely) that if you can't be sure if something is human or not, then you might as well consider it an AI. It might be a parlour trick, but that doesn't matter. If it can behave intelligent, then it effectively is. If it can have interesting discussions about the last GoT episode, or help you with that tricky bit on your maths homework, then it is effectively intelligent. Regardless of whether it's an algorithm or a squishy meat-based neural network.
The Turing test is a thought experiment. It's not a test to "prove we have AI" or anything, though people do use it like that.
That's the point of this whole phone. So you can assume that they're not listening.
google maps used to have killer features like being able to save arbitrary rectangles for offline use.
Open maps, press on the search box, scroll to the bottom of the list that pops up. It's sorta hidden, but it's there.
There are societies that have this sort of thing as their purpose, for example the IITP, though not so strong. I don't think there's any need for a requirement that software development become a regulated profession overall, however I think there some cases where it might be a good thing: in particular, things where failures could cause injury or loss of life (which doesn't apply to most jobs.)
To use the example of the medical field, it's not regulated to take someone's temperature to see if they might have a fever, or to give them a panadol. But it is regulated to prescribe medication, or perform surgery. The consequences of failure are potentially much higher in the latter case.
You could jump in and start writing applications on RiscOS directly in BASIC if you wanted. I dabbled a bit with it, but didn't have any access to documentation, so only got so far from reverse-engineering (by which I mean reading the source once you figure out shift-double-click shows you inside the !Application bundle.)
It was a very well done OS though. In some ways, it feels like systems now are only just starting to catch up, and in other ways are still a fair bit behind.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard
