Actually lots of houses burn down due to floods. A gas line ruptures or electric power issues light the house up and then the fire Dept can't make it there due to the water.
Exactly. The houses in Breezy Point are a good example of this.
What a bunch of bullcrap. Oracle is not a person. The person who started the lawsuit should testify. That would be
On top of that, he IS the CEO of the company. He should have been prepped prior to testifying to expect this question, especially since it appeared in deposition (aka, Google's interested in making sure the answer is in the court records).
GPS systems are a huge distraction. Do you really need a GPS for day-to-day driving? For most people, how often do you really drive somewhere you don't know? No more than a few times a year. And do you really need a GPS in a city you don't know? No. READ THE ROAD SIGNS! CHECK A MAP BEFORE YOU LEAVE! Folks that drive with GPS seem like some of the worst drivers on the road. Why? They are watching the screen and not the road signs. They are missing the obvious visual clues to where they are going. GPS laws might not get much traction. Most places it's illegal to drive while on the cell phone but people still do it. Somehow, you put that iPhone in a dash mount and people somehow thing it is now a legal "hands free" device. People need some common sense.
However, I live in a very large city and just moved further out the in suburbs than where I'd been living for the last 13 years. I'm not familiar with all the back roads where I live now, and the major road that I drive daily to get to work had an accident on it last week, completely blocking the road. I'd already studied maps of the area and had a vague notion that if I made a turn into the neighborhood next to where the accident was, that I could get back to a major road that connected to the interstate. However, which turns to take, and when, was not something I had yet memorized. Navigation would have been intensely helpful at that point.
It looks to me that Google is doing exactly what their p3p policy says they will do.
No, it's doing the exact opposite. P3P is a list of things you *WILL USE* the cookie data for, not what you *WILL NOT* do. Per the spec, if it's not a valid tag it gets ignore, remove all the invalid stuff and google is effectively sending P3P="", or in other words, they wont use it for anything.
Then, since Google's p3p policy is sent as just a URL, shouldn't IE be ignoring it since its not valid?