Another point that lots of people, especially in the US, seem to miss is that these cars are (mostly) not meant to be sold. The main use case is that people will just call one when needed. If done on a large scale there will be a much larger number of cars available than current taxis, so one will almost always be nearby.

Transportation is not a product, it's a service.

Much cheaper and requires far less parking space. Also you don't need to bother ever again with repairs and model upgrades. Remember: private cars spend >90% of their time parked. Waste of time and space.

No wonder Google is making its own cars. Conventional car makers are probably scared shitless of this future and would do anything to keep the public in the old world.

But the whole reason why they are required to do so is because there are other companies producing the same drug. If this wasn't the case nobody would have cared which of the two versions they produced.

It's fixing a stupid situation with even more stupidity rather than attacking the root causes: patents and excessive effect of advertising on doctors' decisions.

It can't. The DIVH lacks the features required to safely launch humans anywhere. This will be a one-off test. The "real" thing begins with EM1 and the following missions.

There are companies with multi-PB databases (PB, not TB).

IP is a marketing term, there's no concept of IP in the law. There are trademarks, copyright and patents. Ideas cannot be owned by anyone.

From the Google Play Store you can install a terminal emulator, an HTTP server, an SSH/SFTP server or client, bash, vim, gcc, make, git, mc, rsync...

Android supports standard keyboards and mice, and many devices have some sort of HDMI output (usually with an adapter).

BTW, both the article and the summary are wrong: Europe too succeeded in their first attempt, with Mars Express in 2003.

You know, right, that you can set a daily budget limit in AdWords and Google won't go over it?

Especially in the Italian Wikipedia pretty much any article about the catholic church is written from the point of view of someone that believes in that religion. Edits that try to follow the NPOV (neutral point of view) rule are immediately reverted, any negative information, even when well-referenced, is deleted or hidden in a brief mention inside a long paragraph at the end of an article.

Unfortunately the people that keep these articles in such bad state seem to have far more free time than the volunteers that want to improve them following the rules, so wikipedia's gradual improvement model fails for these articles about religion.

Both of you have your facts wrong: 30% of overall Google's employees are female and 17% if we only consider tech positions. Source: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/getting-to-work-on-diversity-at-google.html

Dude, if you want to drive a car manually you are the shit that will happen to other people on the road.

Ah, the irony of using "security and privacy" to argue in favour of old unencrypted HTTP/1.1 and against always-encrypted SPDY (which HTTP/2.0 is based on).

This actually decreases security. Browser caching is strictly necessary to make the web work fast, disabling it for HTTPS means discouraging websites from using secure connections for anything where it's not strictly necessary (like money). And $DEITY knows we live in a world where every website should be secure by default. You wouldn't use telnet even for a completely non-sensitive server, so why accept unencrypted HTTP to post on slashdot or anywhere else?

A shared computer should not let users see other users' private files (and browser caches are most definitely not world-readable). This is what happens with Android multi-login, Chrome OS and traditional Linux distros. I'm fairly certain the same is also true for Windows and Mac OS X.

If I temporarily let someone use my computer with my account, I sure as hell keep an eye on what they are doing, because the thing contains stuff about me that's much more sensitive than anything that paypal or my bank will ever know.

This is BS. If an attacker has access to your files in your local disk, they have already won.