By that standard the Wright brothers were not inventors either, because all they did was sponge of real inventors, and bolt a lightweight combustion engine to some pieces of wood and cloth. By any sensible definition, Apple invented the tablet. Yes, there had been attempts at tablets before the iPad, but they were just as effective as airplanes before the Wright brothers. You're still allowed to hate Apple and Jobs all you want, but fair is fair: they did invent the tablet.

For a failure it is doing remarkably well. Here in Europe it has now been for sale for more than a decade, and there are no signs that its market is collapsing. It's true that not everyone is driving it, but if that is the benchmark, nowadays all cars are failures.

The Segway also doesn't look like it will go away in the near future, it has found a few niches (e.g. getting around fast in large buildings such as airports and shopping malls, and guided tours for tourists).

Also, Google's bubble car is just an experimental platform for now.

It is more like: because the only reason to get this information is to do harm, none of us are allowed to see it. Makes sense, no?

There can be many reasons why this knowledge became public. Yet you seem to imply one particular reason. Interesting that.

Nice idea that is long overdue, but perhaps a better way to get this accepted is to implement this in a real high-profile compiler such as llvm/clang.

I'm afraid, however, that the Real Men Don't Need Bound Checks mentality that is prevalent among C programmers will be a big obstacle.

What makes you think Linus has not tried this level of politeness? From what I've read of him, he is normally very friendly towards the clueless and the sloppy. The problem is that not everyone learns. What would YOU do if the same developer would commit the same offence again and again despite your politely phrased teaching moments? Remember you cannot fire the developer, because you're not employing him.

I would say that a more sharply worded rebuke is appropriate here. Personally I would not use swear words even in these circumstances, but that's a matter of style. Grumbling about prima donnas certainly makes sense to me.

Oh dear, oh dear. Yes, I have to agree here; that is horrible. Terrible. Possibly even Terrorism. Ranting and raving against the US! Having her photo taken with Fidel!! Because no US politician would ever rant or rave against neighbouring counties. Or have their photo taken with dubious world leaders.

Certainly. If a politician says some mean things about the US, that TOTALLY justifies US meddling in that politician's country. There is lots of jurisprudence here, because it is exactly the time-honoured schoolyard argument that teachers like so much: "But teach, THEY started it!". (And in the same time-honoured schoolyard tradition, the original offence is of course microscopic compared to the retaliation.)

Since Japan is using UN resolutions/verdicts against China in its geo-political battles, they do not want to be seen as flouting UN verdicts themselves.

Also, whale meat is actually not that popular in Japan, so much so that the whalers have to dump their stocks: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/op.... The reason Japan has persisted in whaling despite all the protests is a mixture of lobbying, nationalist sentiments, and fears that banning whaling will open the door to more restrictions of fishing rights.

I'm sure some Japanese politicians will thank the gods of their choice for this verdict.

I think you are underestimating how remarkable and unusual this accident has been.

This is certainly not the first plane to have disappeared from the radar, but usually it becomes clear pretty quickly what happened to it, especially nowadays. Debris is found, there was some radio communication about the problem, or there are other obvious hints. In this case the hints have been so sparse and weak that I can well understand that they had to be evaluated carefully before anyone dared to act upon them. Moreover, gathering and interpreting the Inmarsat data also took time.

Considering that anything a crisis team says or does has a great impact on many people, in particular the family and friends of the missing, but also the searchers, personally I wouldn't dare to second-guess decisions of the crisis team. And doubly so in this baffling case.

The first few days the obvious extrapolations from the normal flight path was searched, and that search was not only conducted by Malaysia, so other countries were involved from the beginning. When they realised things were not as simple as that they asked for more international help. I fail to see what they did wrong, even in hindsight.

I was not complaining, I was not concerned, I was simply pointing out to an all-government-is-evil zealot that the paperwork and fees are there for a reason, even in `the land of the free'.

I am amused that on /. this draws both Insightful and Troll moderation, though.

However, I do apologise for the mental anguish I seem to have inflicted on the language purists. Usually I know better than this, and I imagine that life must be hard enough for them when they are patrolling /. without me adding to their burden.

The point is not that Google is likely to run dangerous busses; they have every reason not to. The point is that any city in a civilised country will have to do some kind regulation of its bus services, because otherwise all kind of shady bus companies will pop up. That will require paperwork and administration fees. Sneering at "papers and baksheesh" as the original AC did is therefore shortsighted.

Should this mythical land of the free allow you to run a bus service with vehicles that are a menace to its passengers or other road users? Without proper education of it's bus drivers? Without any insurance? Would you mind if this bus service cherry-picks the profitable routes, so that companies that try to offer more balanced public transport go bankrupt?

Unfortunately, that's not how discussions are conducted in practice. Everyone always thinks that they argue rationally and factual, and it's always the morans that disagree with you that are _ing blind idiotic sheeple for not seeing the obvious truth of your position. Just look at the pro/con climate change discussions here here on /., the heated US Rep/Dem discussions, or even the iOS/Android pie fights.

Add to that an entire industry that manufactures plausible rationalisations and helpful facts, and you have all the ingredients for large-scale underbelly-based public discussion that is easily manipulated.

You are absolutely right. Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area. Better that he spends that public money on something that benefits not only the USA but the entire world, rather than, say, the NSA. (Or a Slashdot BETA.)