The F-35 program started with the VSTOL requirement and had the conventional and navy variants added on.
If I am hit by your acquaintance while they are giving you that free lift, their private insurance will cover my medical bills for as long as needed.
If I am hit by a taxi from a regulated company, their business insurance will cover my medical needs for as long as needed. The fact that they have adequate insurance is something that is checked by the taxi licensing people.
If I am hit by an Uber driver, well who knows how much insurance they have - Uber covers them for $1Million but that doesn't necessarily cover even a year in medical expenses or long term care, so I am left recouping the cost of my care from the Uber driver themselves. Uber drivers are not regulated or inspected (yet - wait for that shitstorm to hit Slashdot when it happens) so there is no guarantee that when you get into that Uber car you are actually insured at all.
No they dont, aircraft hand on zero visibility all the time - heavy fog, torrential rain etc etc. If the conditions are right, you can be non-visual right up to the point where your main gear touches down - you can do that either manually or you can do that on autoland and have the autopilot put it down for you.
It depends entirely on how you expose the crime - posting the blackmail material into the public eye while exposing the blackmailer hasn't done the victim any good, nor would publishing a sexual predators photographs or videos help the victim.
SpaceX do not "already have" a Falcon 9 heavy, its still in development and won't have its first launch until next year at the earliest.
I guess you are forgetting the multitude of Flash and Java applet vulnerabilities that have come to light over the past few years, most of them cross platform in nature.
I think the main issue I have is that this EC spokesman is expecting Google to make decisions regarding the public interest rather than erring on the side of caution and removing everything - the moment they do make decisions regarding the public interest, you can bet your arse they will be hauled back into court and have to justify themselves.
So by going to the extreme and implementing the ruling across the board (barring obvious requests that can be rejected), Google is protecting themselves and showing what a stupid ruling it is in the first place. There is no alternative approach that Google can take that doesn't open them up to further legal action.
SMS is a service they provide you, they can charge what they want for that service - and you can choose whether or not to use that service.
If you have ever had to debug a webforms page with multiple controls, masterpages and an extremely convoluted page lifecycle, then there is no fucking way you would call MVC more complicated.
Webforms needs to die.
WebForms needs to die, not have new users - if you want to go down the route of
You don't need to install Exchange to handle mail on a Windows box, the included SMTP, POP and IMAP services work fine.
Not only that, but its tied into the search engine as well - you can only establish canonical authorship on your own website of something by linking it with your Google+ account. Which means that not having a Google+ account can affect your page rank.
People flee Mexico by the thousands or tens of thousands, why aren't we hating Mexico?
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.
Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.
This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.