Maybe the Russians are just writing off their losses? I've got no idea about the terms of the loan, but if someone owed me a ridiculous amount of money that I knew would never be paid back, I'd settle for 10% of it and a commitment to a payment plan.
I'm not sure what the author means when he says that the student was "lost to history", because at the end of the article he says that it was Diane Hartley.
The BBC aired a special on the Citicorp Center crisis, and one of its viewers was Diane Hartley. It turns out that she was the student in LeMessurier’s story.
Her name is also mentioned in some papers on engineering ethics:
A cheap car (like a Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit) costs about $5000+/year to own. If you get rid of that car and live in a place where you don't need one (i.e. San Francisco) you've got about $400 extra per month that you can spend on rent. So you don't have to be rich to spend $1900/month, which is plenty if you want to share a 2 bedroom apartment with someone in SF.
It's not for everyone but obviously a lot of people like it enough to do just that.
Ah, you're right. I got it mixed up with the "Civic Si" which is a similar but slightly different car.
He imported a Civic, not an Accord. There are two cars called the "Civic Type R", one of which is made in Japan (and also sold in the US) and the other is made in England (and sold in Europe). The former looks like this:
The latter looks like this:
Really? The Firefox 4 mockup page on their wiki contains some discussion on the Chrome UI, so it seems unlikely that Mozilla had developed something along the lines of the Chrome UI before Google did. Otherwise they could've just referred to their own designs rather than Google's.
Do you have any links to these pre-Chrome Firefox mockups?
From the article:
However, drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles will be exempt from the restrictions, reports The Independent, as are taxis, buses, emergency vehicles and cars carrying three or more people.
If every website had to be set up in a different data center for each country that they served, most websites would not bother setting up in most countries. They'd just set up wherever is most profitable, and forget about the rest. For big sites like Google and Facebook, they might just go and set everything up everywhere, but smaller sites are probably going to be US-only, or China-only, etc.
For examples of this, look at websites that already need to have separate country-specific sites for other reasons. Amazon doesn't need to have servers in each country, but they kind of need to have local warehouses (part of it is to ensure reasonable shipping times, and another part of it is that some companies refuse to ship products overseas). Netflix doesn't need to have servers in each country, but their content is geoblocked in all but a few select countries.
It's bad enough that we have to deal with things like shipping restrictions and content restrictions, but at least this only affects a few web sites. If every single website out there was forced to set up servers everywhere, the reality is that they would just stop serving most countries, and the Internet would fragment into a bunch of country-specific bubbles.
That was for the CIA, not the NSA. Maybe you think they're all the same anyway, but at least get your facts straight.
15 years ago, Internet Explorer had just won the browser wars, and all we had on Linux was an old version of Netscape Navigator that barely worked. Even Netscape had abandoned it and no one had any idea if and when Mozilla would ever be ready.
Compared to that I think 2-3 options is pretty good, especially when all of the browser vendors respect web standards (even Microsoft), Firefox is completely open source and so is nearly all of Chrome and a large chunk of Safari too.
According to the article, the trial was for "LSD-assisted psychotherapy", so it was a combination between an acid trip and a session with a therapist. There was someone monitoring them, and they probably did have to get patients to "snap out of it" once in a while.
There are way to many camera's as it is today, no need for privately owned ones as well.
That's one way to look at it, but if there are already cameras everywhere then who cares if there are a few more? It won't take away any more of your privacy, since you already don't have any.
The other way to look at it is that we currently live in a society where surveillance is asymmetric. We're filmed by police, the NSA and corporations, but try walking up to a cop and filming him and see how successful you are.
A world where everyone is wearing privately-owned Glass might level the playing field a little bit.
Same (potential) situation here : there is no IP in WhatsApp. Just an excellent execution of well-known idea.
Not sure what you mean by that. The IP in WhatsApp is the execution of the idea...
Also a car has many tens of ECUs, which are connected by a CAN bus that runs on the order of 100 kbit/s. This means that it takes many hours just to send all of the firmware updates to each ECU over CAN bus.
A lot of those points could be made about the iPod. Can you imagine yourself listening to one at the dinner table? At dinner with a date at a restaurant?
There's nothing stopping people from taking off their Glass when it is socially inappropriate to wear it.