Actually in practice it seems to be the contrary. A Testa and the Hydrogen Toyota get aound 250 miles on a full charge/tank. But if you compare the drivetrain of a tesla and the Toyota you'll see the Tesla is much more compact. The front space 'frunk' is empty in the Tesla and full in the Toyota. In addition the Toyota need sapce under all seats and part of the truck is used too. The entire drivetrain and energy storage of a Tesla is in the floor and does not get in the way.
That is what I'm saying. Google can not remove the article, but is forced to remove a link (among many). For a useful right to be forgotten the concerned party should request for the article to be taken down or redacted.
The judgement show the foolish stupidness and incompetence of the judges.
Yes to the right to be forgotten. But do it right.
Currently the search engines must remove the link to the article, but the article stays. This is bullshit. If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it. Also, there should be an open procedure, with appeals, to decide if the article must be redacted / deleted.
It is easy enough to get a big public outcry for any new nuclear plant, irrespective of its safety. The public has learned that nuclear = big accident (sooner or later). If you ask an activist if he want a coal or a nuclear plant, he will say 'neither' and fight both, but probably more vigorously against the nuclear one. That makes investing into any kind of nuclear stuff a very risky proposal.
The only way to change is when other fuels get expensive and we'll see rolling power outages again and the public experiences that we need new plants.
This sounds like a centralized style solution. It only works if communication between any drone and the central server/agency is maintained. For some parts, like flight planning, this is fine. But for collision avoidance I don't think this will cut it.
In the shipping world we already have a decentralized system called Automatic Identification System (AIS). Every vessel broadcasts its position and course on a common radio channel. Other vessels listen and if equipped with collision avoidance systems can take evasive action. Something similar for Drones could be imposed by the FCC, like it is on ships by the International Maritime Organisation.
This would suffer from the same drawbacks (ships can fake their identification), everybody can listen to broadcasts, but it would help solve 95% of the problem.
After some reflection I suspect that there never was a 'pure'
Most commercial Unixes come with a dedicated
But this decision was probably made before ash or zsh were around. Probably after enough bugs were found in (probably unmaintained)
Here the definition of the system() function call often used to run external commands:
system() executes a command specified in command by calling
/bin/sh is linked to
Here a proof of concept where a dhcp server tricks a dhcp client into running an arbitrary command. https://www.trustedsec.com/sep...
The company is based in Italy and does not target San Francisco specifically. I don't think San Francisco has standing to sue them.
> Data compression on the other hand is a different domain.
Data compression has been used since a long time, think about stenography or shorthand, for example. This is a manual data compression system, no computer required. Many algorithms are only practical on a computer, but they still are mathematical algorithms.
I had a SGS2 and have a SGS4 now. They are fine phones. I want a replaceable battery and a SD card slot. This reduces the field for me a lot.
For my wife I bought a Moto G and I suspect I will replace my SGS4 with a phone in the same class, once it needs to be replaced. Phones are rapidly approaching the phase where most middle class phones are good enough. Two years ago a high-end device was necessary for a good experience, these days this is no longer true.
Life will become tougher for phone manufacturers.
And I feel Groklaw is wimping out just now.
>The carrier has the choice to implement ipv6. Run ipv6 natively, and tunnel ipv4 traffic.
I don't think this will solve the problem. In the end, even if tunneling, some applications expect to see an IP per end-user. So the carrier still has to expose a dedicated IPv4 address per customer to the internet.
>Oh they can get more IPv4 addresses if they want. They are simply not willing to pay the asking price for them.
No. He will have to pass the additional cost of the IP addresses to its customers. And those customers are not ready to pay the price. They prefer a cheaper, but crappier service, otherwise the'll upgrade or switch to another more expensive carrier with real IP addresses.
The carrier has probably no choice. He can no longer get IPv4 addresses for new customers, so either he refuses customers or uses NAT to map multiple customers on the same IP.
On the other hand, the average Joe customer will not see the difference. He can surf as before and all his apps will work as before. Some apps (mostly p2p stuff) will suffer, but most internet user don't use those.
If you as customer do need a 'real' IP, then there always is the option to get a more expensive option.