I had a look at them a few days ago, and I had no idea how to interpret the graphs. If I'm tech savvy and I don't know what they mean, God help the average person.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in some countries, all drivers must be insured against hurting third parties. You lament about how if an Uber driver hits you they are less insured than a taxi. That's cold comfort when 99% of the cars are neither a taxi nor Uber, yet they might hit you.
That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.
I was also wondering why they said she was unconscious but not asleep. What is the technical difference that allows them to make this distinction?
All the more market share that will go to Google Cardboard instead!
If that was true, then birds would be a dire hazard.
I can't think of any military ship that would be anywhere near a quarter of a million tons.
They don't flag the FreeBSDers for closer monitoring. They just send them straight to Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah but... if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it. The very fact that they refuse point blank to do it without a court compelling them to do it, seems to indicate they don't think fiddling with people's mail boxes in any circumstances is "exercising ordinary care". And rightly so, I think.
Nothing in the story I saw said that Google disabled the email account until the court could rule on it. Maybe they did, but I didn't see it. The story said GS tried to contact the owner but they didn't reply. Presumably if they'd been listening they could have read the offending email, and then you'd be at their mercy of good will.
Um.. but no energy could be released from such a star surely, since fusion of anything heavier than iron produces no energy, but actually takes energy. The only way it could produce energy then would be fission. But I'm skeptical about whether a star in such circumstances would really light up, or would just be a sphere of dead metal.
My question is, what law gives a court the right to do such thing? While there may well be laws that compel companies to keep their own data private, I find it hard to believe there is a law that gives a court the right to undelete stuff in a scenario like this. Courts don't tend to do stuff no matter how reasonable unless there is some law that says they should.
The disturbing thing about this is that the real owner of that mail box, whoever he may be, doesn't get to show up in court and put forward his viewpoint.
Why blame the DNS service for illegal activity? Are we going to blame GoDaddy for every domain it issues to someone who infringes the law? Are going to blame Verizon for hosting it? IANA for issuing them an IP address? Microsoft for selling them an OS to run on their server? It seems to me the DNS host is the least likely port of call for assigning blame. And if there is blame to assign them, then it should go through proper channels, just like I wouldn't ask a judge to shut the doors at Redmond because someone abused their products, and they are refusing to patch windows XP.
You can't get an expensive watch to last 5 years? OMG, what is wrong with you?
Yeah, because it is e-paper like a kindle. Which is fine for some things, but not others.
This is outrageous, and what's worse, once the public believes the police will lie to secure the verdict they want, the confidence in the entire justice system is undermined.
So before, ONLY the washington redskins could use this marks, but now EVERYONE can use them, now their protection is removed. This helps the supposed problem?