Then why do you even have crosswalks, or zebra crossings or whatever you call them? That's stupid. Not only can't you figure out what side of the road to drive on, but you can't figure out that roads are for vehicles?
Because at crossings (of whatever sort) vehicles are *required* to yield to pedestrians. The only requirement on pedestrians at zebra crossings is they look to ensure they don't walk out in front of a car unable to stop in the distance to the crossing (i.e., if you walk out 10m away from a car travelling at 30mph, you're at fault when it hits you; if you walk out 100m away from a car travelling at 30mph, the car is at fault when it hits you).
Aside from crossings, you are permitted to cross where it is safe to do so without impeding the flow of traffic. (A common case where such things end up impeding the flow of traffic is where a vehicle is not indicating that it is turning, and a pedestrian walks over the end of the road where the vehicle intends on turning. In such cases the vehicle is at fault for not indicating.)
From my experience in America, crosswalks are frequently more dangerous than jaywalking is here, with cars speeding round right-on-red, and then having to slam on brakes when they find a pedestrian on the crosswalk at the junction; another case that I remember is a crosswalk just beyond a blind crest cars where were doing 50mph over, where they likely couldn't have stopped in the distance from seeing the pedestrian to the crosswalk. If that were here I'd simply have crossed at the crest where I could see the road is clear before crossing.
After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also be a signal.
2007. That's seven years ago now, and long before any dispute over Ukraine, though is around the time of the Russo-Georgian war. (And "NATO and US" defences is a bit redundant, given the US is part of NATO. AFAIK these incurious are typically dealt with by the RNoAF and RAF alone, with the USAF having nothing to do with them, and as such they don't probe US defences.)
Disregarding him as nothing more than a marketer is disingenuous at best --- Chris Beard was one of the early guys working on porting Linux to PA-RISC in the late 90s. He most certainly has experience of software engineering, and not just marketing it.
At least Flash Lite has been ported by third parties (the Wii's port was done by Opera), so it's not per-se clear that a already-supported platform was needed for the sake of Flash compatibility.
The constant, massive, torque from idle would surely be massively useful for a vehicle weighing multiple tons and needing quick acceleration?
And while Google are obviously willing to license usage of this to some extent (e.g., Presto-Opera's geolocation used the Google coarse location API), relying on licensing something from a third party (and one whom is frequently a competitor, given the number of markets Google are now in) is risky, especially given Google has fairly aggressively deprecated APIs before, at times without replacement.
My MBP is a mid-2007 model: it has a replaceable RAM and battery, which appears to be what the OP cares about --- it predates Apple slimming them down further (later MBPs had replaceable hard drives, too, at the same thickness). Side by side you can see the T410's opening above the full height of the MBP, as it's almost 50% thicker.
Compared with the MBPs, though, it's a brick. My T410 is almost double the thickness of my older MBP.
And in the UK, the T410 was only available with a 1280x800 screen --- which is crazy low for a 14.3" laptop. I don't know if that's changed since, though.
Opera tried changing to blocking third-party cookies by default, and had it break a lot of major Russian sites. Needless to say, the change lasted from 10.50 to 10.51 --- with less than a week between those releases.
Depends on the year, assuming we're talking revenue. AMD topped that in 2000, and then in every year from 2004 onwards.
Power management is one of the big things that's been worked on in the 3.11/3.12 timeframe, FWIW. It'd be lovely to get some hard data on how big the difference is once 3.12 is out.
In the UK, the land is owned by the Crown, but it is not their private property and they have no control over it. The Crown Estate manage the land, and any surplus revenue goes to HM Treasury (essentially, the finance/economy department of government), with 15% of the net revenue going to the monarch (this is essentially the income they get to carry out their duties as head of state). The Crown Estate is ultimately accountable to Parliament, and an annual report is submitted to both the Monarch and Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate is a good overview if you want more detail.
Either house can introduce bills --- which house something is introduced into is mostly a matter of tradition (financial bills, for example, are introduced in the House of Lords) --- but in general only the House of Commons need pass it. Note that there are limitations to the House of Commons' supremacy --- certain bills are required to pass in both houses (extending the term of parliament, for example).
A nation-wide (monopolistic) service -- railways aren't (and can't really) be run according to market principles, why should anyone be allowed to profit from this?
No idea what it used to be like, but the current railways are beyond a joke. Just go anywhere into central europe and you'll notice a world of difference.
Most of Central Europe has more competition in the railway market than in the UK, not less! Re-instating a nationalized monopoly will just go back to the money-sink BR used to be (where, for example, kitchen cars remained fairly widespread on trains long beyond them getting much custom, because the unions wouldn't let them be dropped).
The problem with the current setup is that of the difference between freight and passenger train services --- move to running passenger train operating companies (TOCs) as freight ones are run, and suddenly we'll have a system close to most of Central Europe. When it comes to freight trains any competent person can get a license to be a TOC (this is not dissimilar to running public buses!) and then it's just a matter of drumming up custom and purchasing track access rights from Network Rail. The problem is the temporary (but long enough to be harmful!) monopolies private companies are granted as a result of the passenger franchise bidding competitions, nothing else.
What several other countries did was split up the incumbent as per EU regulation (there's nothing that diabolical about this), but keep the state incumbent passenger service (often with a division between local and intercity trains) while opening up track usage rights to competition. If a private company wants to come in and compete with the state incumbent --- go right ahead! We shouldn't forbid that, as the competition (at least in Central Europe) has forced the monopolistic incumbent to stay on its feet, and keep improving its service.
And you say they can't be run to market-principles --- for a lot of people, they can choose a half hour later train if it means they get a cheaper (and possibly better) service. If you look up trains between London and Gatwick Airport, for example, you'll see multiple companies running with a fair price difference between them. How is that competition not helping the consumer?