Bringing new products to market is key, but don't underestimate the importance of being seen as innovative by the overall market. Whenever Google announces something about the driverless car, the wearables, the AI-assisted emailbox, etc., they are reinforcing that image of a company that is there for the long run, that is innovating, that will eventually bring revolutionary tech to the market. Owning a major brand with good reputation is worth a lot, and keeping up a stream of good news takes effort and investment.

Look at other competitors and their efforts in keeping that brand value up, it's not easy. Apple is great at making their customers feel special and "niche" while selling millions of units of standardised products. When I look at Xiaomi knock-off phones on eBay I find it quite amusing that the iPhone knock-off sells at a premium compared to the Lumia and Galaxy knock-offs :)

So at what age did you expect the babies in question to display symptoms of autism? Before they learned to speak?

5 vaccines in Europe? Lies, dear AC. Here's the schedule of vaccination for the United Kingdom:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/v...

Same for Portugal:
http://www.vacinas.com.pt/cale...

Same for Spain (click on each part of the map for regional rules)
http://vacunasaep.org/profesio...

Hare's a handy comparison/search tool for vaccines for all of Europe:
http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.e...

That sounds fair if accompanied by some serious analysis. What were the quantities that you found would be acceptable and what was the basis for that decision? Were there quantities you decided to be adequate based on analysis or was it a matter of opinion?

I'm having important discussions with my wife about this matter and I feel there is significant FUD being applied by the proponents of no-vaccination. It would be good to settle on what are the objective criteria or to admit that "keep an open mind" is something that "alternative medicine" proponents only demand from those who disagree with them.

Hey... can we have some sources and explanations for all that please? Looks like serious accusations. Got to keep an open mind, you know?

I for one need to keep an open mind to the possibility that the companies selling vaccines are the same that would sell the treatment. I have an open mind to the possibility that "chemicals" and "toxins" are dangerous in the wrong doses rather than as absolutely dangerous in all circumstances.I have an open mind to the possibility of herd immunity and immunisation from vaccines being false would mean that doctors and nurses would need constant treatment.

It would be easy to dismiss antivaccination proponents as being dumb, and fear that giving attention offers credibility when none is deserved, but I'm giving AC a chance. Offer some proper evidence instead of FUD and we can have a useful discussion. Then you can show if you have an open mind or if that's something that only applies to people who disagree with you!

The user interface looks strangely similar to Galaxians.

no, actually I did not.

I drive in the UK and I understand where you're getting. I would go a step further and say the law is not right and needs changing.

After many comparisons, I find that in the UK the premium depends mostly of the home address of the person buying insurance. Rather than accepting the current state of affairs as being "normal" and trying to fit the Uber business case into the current laws, what we should be doing is challenging why current legislation forces people to have insurance and then lets private companies justify wild changes in prices with "market factors".

For example, a Ferrari 458 with a paying passenger or a Kia Ceed with no paying passengers should not have different insurance premium for insurance covering damage to 3rd parties. Fully comprehensive insurance prices I can understand, but the current state of affairs is at least extortionate, and when it forces young people to walk or use 2 wheeled vehicles that aren't as safe as cars - much worse than extortion.

If the growth of Uber and similar services forces law makers to open their eyes, it's a good thing that they are forced to act on the scandal of motor insurance.

that's a good heads-up. I think this kind of test is something to consider the next time that Microsoft releases a OS version that prevents users from getting applications outside of the Windows Store. Last time they tried, the rage against RT was loud on Slashdot and elsewhere.

well, no if Uber and Lyft have the right size to be early adopters of that technology as well and keep the commission that would be paid to drivers!

Is that USA inches or UK inches?

My kingdom for a PC for with keyboard!!!

In post-Soviet Europe I suspect it will be difficult to find differences between the car to and the stick usedvfor moving self driven cars out of the road.
once I live in the UK some of my fears may be quite specific to the way things work here. Prediction 1: insurance will go up in proportions to the distance driven by the human. More risk= higher premium and since the first gen auto-automobiles will require a licensed driver, I don't expect the insurance requirement to go away nor the price to go down.prediction 2: in the same way the m1 has variable speed d limits today, some roads will become "fully managed" by a control tower that will run gulate speed for all automated drivers. When there's a human driver in the vicinity, everyone will slow down to a speed lower than the maximum permitted to the orchestrated traffic. Everyone will moan at poorer, antiquated drivers for preventing 100+ mph speeds.prediction 3: it will be the passenger trains that will become obsolete because of self driving cars. High cost of infrastructure and of running the service will be beaten by the convenience, cleanliness and flexibility of individual electric self driven cars. The USAans will have the last laugh while the UK city councils will charge load of money for parking and for empty cars running about while their owners work and shop.

I think that if changes are made intentionally and some countries are disadvantaged by them, it won't be handled in the same way as the current situation.

sure, because nothing ever goes wrong in the "own everything outright" world. Nobody ever goes on holidays, the right guy is never off sick when you need them most and of course, there's always enough money to make all the right decisions in relation to performance and redundant equipment.

IMHO, whichever way you go, there will be drawbacks. Azure (and Google, AWS, etc.) outages are newsworthy, that's a hint right there. Just keep track of these events carefully so when the time comes you can try to justify bearing all costs for IT while everyone else is keeping their cash in the core business and sharing IT costs by way of cloud providers.