IE blocks certain cookies if a site doesn't publish a privacy policy in a certain format. Google discovers that if they make a fake privacy policy, IE is too stupid to check if it's real or not. That's not cool, regardless of what the user told G+. If Facebook pulled that they'd be raked over the coals.

The thing with safari was even worse. Google had a whole invisible iframe, just for safari users, to bypass their browser cookie preferences.

If it's a browser default and google wants someone to opt in then they need to walk the user through changing the setting, not simply assume they want to be tracked however google likes and hack around the block.

If you're building new drives to experiment with, you're a scientist. If you're following established principles to build a drive then you're an engineer.

The distinction isn't nearly as clear as you imply, and isn't based on your criteria.

I have degrees in oth science and engineering. Normally I do science with a bit of engineering, figuring out how to do new things. Sometimes I do engineering with a smattering of science figuring out how to do those new things out in the field.

Right. They exploited a bug in Internet Explorer so they could track users against their wishes. On is own maybe more naughty than evil, but following on their very purposeful and sneaky bypassing of anti-tracking measures in Safari, it's just a continuation of a pattern of sneaky disregard for users' wishes.

Don't be evil had to go out the window the second Google became an advertising company. If you didn't realize before, it should have become obvious when they bought doubleclick, the evilest company on the web.

The standard says such headers should be ignored. It's a hole in IE. exploited by Google, of course, but still a bug in the browser.

Now you just need the massive amounts of energy and he unobtamium to store it and gift it to your rock. And hope the other guy doesn't see all this happening and take a step to the left.

Comet tails are produced by ablation by the solar wind, not by friction from the comet's motion.

There were exceptions. Japan through most of it's history for example. Also, Mongols.

Try Independence War with the autopilot aid turned off.

Your instructor was wrong or you misremembered.

You do get slightly better steering on ice if you're in neutral. Automatics have a stop so you can just slam the shifter into neutral and it will stop before it goes into reverse. Learning to drive up north we were taught how to clutch a standard AND shift an automatic in a skid situation.

4x4 it is not. Not that, contrary to the expectations of that SUV driver in the ditch, 4x4 does anything for you when you're skidding anyway.

No no no! First, all automatics have control over the gear you're actually in. Some newer ones make shifting easy.

Never, ever use engine braking on ice. It does cause skidding. Obviously, the road doesn't care why your wheels are resisting turning. If you do it in a standard maybe you have the reflexes to hit the clutch again, maybe not. If you do it in an automatic, you're probably screwed, because almost nobody has automatic reflexes for up shifting.

If you start a skid with the brakes, if you don't have ABS, you just ease off on the brake pedal.