However if you cheat on your partner you risk a devorce. If you are the richer partner in the marriage that can lead to much larger losses of wealth than the relatively small tax advantages.

AIUI many greeks are withdrawing as much cash as the banks/government will let them. They know that their bank balances are at risk of a forced conversion to a new currency (and subsequent devaluation) while it's much harder to make such a forced conversion on banknotes held by individuals.

Note: the below is a UK perspective, some of it may also apply elsewhere but details are likely to vary.

Cards can be used offline and even without electricity but the fraud/overspend risk is higher and this can lead to restrictions on use or even the merchant to refuse to accept them altogether.

AIUI for chip and pin the card issuer sets a limit (which can be zero if the card issuer thinks you are a poor credit risk) for offline transactions to mitigate fraud/overspend risk and they don't usually tell you what said limit is in advance. For imprint and magstripe transactions I belive it's down to the merchant (and possiblly their bank) what transactions they are willing to risk taking offline.

If you have already eaten the meal/filled your fuel tank/got on the train then the retailers choice may come down to taking the card offline (and possiblly reverting to magstripe to get around the offline restrictions on chip and pin, I've seen that happen on a train before) or taking an IOU. The card is a lower risk than the IOU.

On the other hand a normal retailer is in a very different situation. If they decide they don't want to take cards offline and/or in a power cut either because they think the risk is too high, or for power cut scenarios because they don't want to bother stocking card imprinters and training their staff how to use them then you are SOL.

Also IIRC in the UK automated vending machines are restricted to online chip and pin transactions only. They are not allowed to do swipe and sign transactions or offline transactions.

So don't rely on your credit/debit card working in an offline/power cut scenario.

Do you have a source for your claim, because it contradicts everything I've read elsewhere.

My understanding is that Nokia sold their whole handset buisness to MS, not just the smartphones. Said sale came with limited rights for MS to use the Nokia brand and certain non-compete terms preventing nokia selling phones under their own name. Right now MS has migrated the lumia smartphones away from the nokia brand but is still selling feature-phones under the nokia brand. In the not too distant future the branding part of the deal will expire, MS will no longer be able to sell phones under the nokia name and nokia will be able to sell phones (smart or otherwise) under their own name again.

Fast long distance trains on major routes in the UK usually have sockets near some or all of the seats labeled "laptops and mobile phones only" or similar intended for passenger use. Local trains and slow trains generally do not have them. These are a relatively recent thing, first appearing on new trains in the early 2000s.

Many UK trains have sockets located at the back of the luggage racks or similar labeled with "not for public use" signs and sometimes other warnings . My understanding is that these sockets are intended for use by the cleaners, may not nessacerally meet the voltage/frequency norms for domestic power and even if they did I doubt train operators would want to encourage people to charge phones and laptops there. These have been arround a LOT longer than the sockets intended for passenger use.

Still an arrest seems OTT unless there were aggravating factors.

I think it's a solvable problem.

As long as the manufacturer has a sufficient income stream and a way of making sure that cars with known flaws are fixed there is no reason they couldn't cover the liability for all their cars and they of course have the option of taking out an insurance policy against that eventuality. The key will be ensuring that revenue stream. The nightmare situation for a manufacturer is being held responsible for a product they no longer make any income from or have any control over.

For this reason I imagine when self-driving cars first hit the market it will be on an "all-in lease" basis where the manufacturer remains in control and can therefore respond effectively to dangerous flaws before they run up too much liability. I would expect sales of self-driving cars to require some legislative moves to define the extent of the manufacturer's liability.

Prototype planes are registered as "experimental aircraft". That means that the authorities have looked at it and decided it's safe enough for a test pilot to fly it. Proper type approval comes later when the manufacturer has gathered enough evidence by (among other things) actually flying the plane.

In the USA home built aircraft are also registered as experimental aircraft (despite not being truely "experimental" in most cases) and get much the same level of scrutiny. Other countries may have different rules on homebuilts.

As for which airports it's going to depend on the type of plane. Big planes are going to be built and tested somewhere there is a big runway. Big runways are expensive and politically difficult to built so those facilities are likely to be built next to an existing one which may also form part of a fairly major airport. Airbus do their assembly and testing at tolouse international airporpot. Boeings main manufacturing facilities seem to be attatched to non-international but still reasonablly large airports. Smaller planes are obviously built and tested at smaller airports

Much as the only way you really find out how a plane copes with flying and get the snags out of the design is to perform test flights the only way you really find out how well a self driving car (or a human driver for that matter) handles real road conditions and what situations it has trouble handling is to test it on real roads. Simulations and lab tests are important but they are not a substitute for real world testing. Having experianced humans arround during that real world testing to intervene is also a good idea (again for both human drivers and manchine drivers).

AIUI this is mostly a client issue, servers do not normally validate certs presented to them (client certs do exist but they are rarely used and even where they are used afaict it'susually with a "known cert for each user" model rather than a CA based model).

Debian claims that their patched versions of openssl for squeeze/wheezy/jessie are not affected by this issue.

MS is a buisness built on propietary software. The FSF belives propietary software is unethical. MS donating to the FSF would be like an abortion clinic donating to a "pro life" organisation.

Do they really need one?

I can't find an exact figure for the donation but according to http://www.openbsdfoundation.o... it was in the $25K to $50K range. That may be a lot for an opensource project running on a shoestring budget but it's pretty trivial to MS. If they get some good PR and some help with the windows port of openssh out of it then it's probablly money well spent.

I think they should have done that long before the last /8 and they should have carefully defined what was meant by "serious v6 deployment". Something along the lines of

1: all IPv4 customers of the requester must be offered IPv6.
2: For new customers any provider supplied equipment must support IPv6 in it's default configuration and all instructions must cover IPv6.
3: all existing IPv4 customers of the requester must be explicitly contacted and instructed on the steps needed to get IPv6.
4: All public services operated by the requester must be offered on IPv6.
5: The company must operate local relays for 6to4 and teredo and direct all internal customer traffic for 2001::/32 2002::/16 and .

But they didn't. ICANN and the rirs knew or should have known that continuing as they were would lead to v4 exhaustion before serious IPv6 deployment but they did it anyway.

I searched for microsoft nortel broke rules and found a very different picture. http://www.internetgovernance....

The summary seems to be that ARIN has basically no power over these legacy (pre RIR) blocks.

Sorry typo, that should have said strength of the parts.

TFA seems to conflate the ideas of speed ratio and force multiplication. That is only true if the mechanism is perfectly efficient. In practice some of the input force will instead be consumed opposing friction in the mechanism and the output force will be limited by the stretch of the parts. So the maximum force multiplication achived may be substantially lower than the speed ratio.

To make a high ratio gearbox practical for force multiplication the low torque high speed parts need to be small to minimise friction while the low speed high torque parts need to be large to prevent them from breaking.

To make it practical for accurate rotational positioning again the low speed parts need to be large, otherwise flexibility in those low speed parts will compromise the ability to accurately maintain position.