Indeed not the largest ever built, and roughly the size of the largest in service currently (be it supertankers, cruise ships, or container ships).
On the container ship category, it is also not a breakthrough (List of largest container ships). Couple of feet larger, couple of feet longer, roughly the same number of containers
You shouldn't trust PageRank to keep you out of danger.
You shouldn't, I agree. But I can't blame people because they use it : it is the most efficient tool I know of (95% of the time, the site I'm looking for is in the first 3 results).
It actually makes a lot of sense to use google for everything. At the beginning there were IP addresses ; hard to remember. Then DNS came up and URLs got much easier to remember.
But, hey, what is the real information when you want to go to http://www.bookstore.com/ ? Answer : bookstore. And that's precisely what google does.
Moreover, if you type "bokstore" instead of "bookstore", google will give you what you actually had in mind.
So yes, Google has a lot of power, which is used in the majority of cases to help people -- this is why people use it. But with that much power, it seems to me that it should be now heavily regulated by law. Search algorithms should be regulated by laws and openly discussed in parliaments. You cannot remove / favor someone just because you want. You may have some space for business to slightly favor (to some extent) those who pay for it. This kind of things.
An easy way to fix this would be to have the USPTO grant every patent (for a fee) as it does currently, but also every time you want to sue someone, you would need an USPTO expertise granting you the right to sue.
That way, creating bad patents would cost you money ; suing for nothing would cost you money, and invalidate your patents at the same time. And the USPTO would get enough money to have real experts look at each case.
I would agree if official taxis really knew their area, had a GPS in their car, did not try to refuse drives that don't fit them, and didn't try to steal you. I don't know for London, but in Paris and Dublin, I experienced it. No GPS, doesn't know the address, use the wrong (more expensive) fare,
The regulation is so hard that any taxi that pass it tends to consider itself "safe" from competition.
Taxi lobbies fight for more protections
The fact that it is only available on Mac makes me wonder if Atom is that great
What the incentive for doing yet another editor ?
When will people understand that most of the password we use are not stored on a passwd file we can crack off-line ? Basing the password policy on a brute-force offline cracking time is just annoying for everyone. Brute-force mitigation is very easy to do, and transforms a 4 character password into a very hard to crack password.
So, to all those shitty web-sites, stop enforcing annoying policies to your users (as if it would improve security) and implement other useful techniques such as mitigation on trial-error / IP attack detection,
I'm amused to see that in the US, having an internet access is still optional
That said, I'm sure your comment only makes sense to a very small portion of the population ; which will make cable companies useless in the short term.
What you described is not prohibited by the agreement.
The idea is only to count the work you do 24/7 as "working hours". And any hour above 35h / week will give you some rights (salary, vacations,
That way, your work contract will be clearer -- no hidden things, no change in situation like your boss sending you e-mails more and more without a pay increase to reflect the extra hours you're doing.
But again, it does not prevent you to check your e-mails at home.
Disclaimer : I'm french.
Censorship is a very relative concept. There is no such thing as "free speech". In every country, there are laws against harassment, racism, libeling, that can make what you say (or tweet) illegal.
Now, what makes the US laws better than the Turkish laws ? If they decide some message is illegal, they are perfectly sovereign in preventing people from viewing it.
You can call for freedom and democracy if you have proofs (or arguments) showing that the court decision was not taken in a democratic way.
And besides, Twitter may be hosted in the US, if they want to do some business in Turkey, they have to obey to turkish laws - or risk a ban. The government filtering does the right thing : remove most of the traffic which makes it a (potentially) profitable company.
The fact that the court order is good or bad has little to do here. If some court decided that a message is illegal (harassing, threatening, racist,
I don't see what is so strange that a government ban illegal (in their laws) websites. You can discuss the court order, you can discuss the law, but the fact that Twitter did not comply to the court order is a political decision (with consequences).