And ships, I think. And they are not even tethered!

I should have added that Ixquick is free, that is there is no charge for using it.

I have also been terribly disappointed with Google and yet I did some quite voluntary evangelizing for them, in the early days, well before the IPO, at the companies I was working for. At that time they really seem to be true to the "do no evil" slogan and their search results where significantly better than the available alternatives at that time.

I have been searching for alternatives the last few weeks, even before they published the amended Privacy Policy and TOS, due to privacy concerns of which I became aware whilst doing some security research, and I think I have found a suitable alternative. I have only been using it for a few days so my post may be premature and I suggest you do your own investigating and trials.

I would add that I use Boounce also, which allows me to quickly switch to Google, or other search engines, if I feel the need. This is, similarly, a product well worth investigating, by the way.

Anyway, the search engine I am currently using is Ixquick (see Ixquick.com). The search results have been very reasonable for me and it seems that it is a company that really takes your privacy to heart.

Looking forward to others experience with them, positive or negative and I hope this may be of help to the OP.

How ill-informed you are. One of the fundamental teaching of Buddhism is the three marks of existence. Those are: impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self. These clearly negate the possibility of a soul, unless you see it as impermanent, unsatisfactory and devoid of a self. Well, yes, I think it is possible to have a soul, whatever that may be, as long as it has those characteristics.

Paint job???

The only paint job is the attempted whitewashing!

It is news to me that you can tell the original color from a photo! Calibration would be impossible, imo, even with US technology which is always "assumed", implicitly, to be superior.

Why hide it? And why would the Air Force not say how it happened, if they know? Why, indeed.

I choose not to believe everything I read, whichever side it comes from. Although, based on the record, it is hard to tell which one of the Pinocchios has the longest nose.

The manufacturer has the right not to give access to the code. The patient has the right to refuse that particular offering.

Having said that, I think the manufacturer is an a*hole for not allowing it. I hope there are alternatives.

I suggest that for that type of device the manufacturer ought to open the source code. Opening the source code does not mean distributing it freely. It would be very easy for them to identify "plagiarism" and sue any company doing so.

I, for one, would be much, much more comfortable with code able to be reviewed and my bet would be that bugs would be found. I would nearly stake my life on it.

The expertise of the patient is irrelevant, there are many experts out there that would love to demonstrate their skills and gain the kudos associated with improving a marvelous invention.

It may not be hard for Google to flag a word that should NEVER come up during a search, but I, for one, would like to know that some people think that Lyonnaise de Guarantie are crooks or escrocs. I reserve my right to decide whether they are or not, and to say so on the internet, and to have my post showing up on searches.

This is interesting. I used to really be into movies and by attending film festivals would see a couple of hundred movies a year.

I have not been to a movie for a decade now, but that is another story.

When I went to movies, I always tended to sit in the front rows precisely because of this. To me, it seems that having to move my head to catch all of the action also did engage me more fully in the movie. In fact that was the only reason why a video of a movie never had the appeal or impact of a cinema, with this lack of engagement viewing a much smaller screen.

Ah well, I guess we are all a bit different at least, but I suspect that great directors/cinematographers would be fully cognizant of this and direct/frame the movie with this in mind.

Any director, cinematographer able to comment?

I think it is not only the brain, but the morphology of the voice apparatus has been irreversibly changed too.

But it is a phone trying to BE a computer, no?