What?! There are "flying cars", it is a solved problem. The normal term is Helicopter, but if you wish can call it a Flying Car. Just because you can't afford one or the maintenance of one, does not mean it doesn't exist. The myth actually is that everybody will be able to afford a "flying car", which misses the point of how much energy is required to maintain flight.
The Protestant "Arbeit macht frei" work ethic
DAFUQ did I just read?! The "Arbeit macht frei" was a sick joke that was put over the Auschwitz internment camp main entrance. The Calvinists/Huguenot is nowhere near that term. To refresh your memory the "protestant work ethic" is has it's roots in Calvinist Protestantism and that has it's roots in France. It later also had a strong movement in the Netherlands. Germany was marked by Lutheran Protestantism with had no work ethic attached to it at all. Trowing these two terms together is just a sick perversion of history!
Actually the "Internet of Things" is a term coined in the 90s, by engineers. You know in the 90s the Internet was Kool! What begs the question, why is such an old term suddenly a buzzword.
Also, let this be a record that I was asking this to verify if it still worked or not!.
All the murder suspects say that. Now, where did you hide the bodies?
Actually what you see here is very well understood. You are seeing an inelastic market; that is if a drug or procedure will save you life, it does not matter of it costs $5 or $5000, you will find the money to pay for it. The reason why socialized healthcare drives costs down is because the government / the insurance company will bargain on your behalf. Since they are not the one who is going to die, they can not be extorted and can pit different drug makers against each other. Health care is one of the few areas where "the free market" does not work as naively expected.
I know where this joke is going. Then again the car costs a "mere" 100000 EUR, something that a high education / good credit rating person can do in Germany. In addition there are many who buy the car new and resell it after a year, is apparently cheaper than leasing. With some tax trickery even quite feasible. If you "need" the car for representational purposes, like you are a sales person, it is quite plausible that a "soda drinking" person may drive a S-Class.
Add to the fact that the guy was not tailgating by German law. If I recall correctly tailgating starts at a 0.7s separation. The guy was following at something like 1s - 1.5s separation. This separation distance is normal in Germany. I learned 2s separation Texas and my friends in Germany think I am crazy by leaving such a large separation... Then again German drivers are way more disciplined than Texan drivers...
This was obviously filmed in Germany, as the radio (Bayern 3) tells us. He is driving in the right lane, behind a truck, which puts him around 110 km/h (~70 mph). (This is rather odd for a Mercedes driver, but OK...) The 1s - 1.5s distance, although more on the low end, is rather normal in Germany, everything higher will be treated as a merging slot.
In the US traffic tends be something +/-10% of the speed limit. Which results to people not giving a fuck about only passing on the left hand side, at least in Texas. As a result, in dense traffic the left hand lanes will only move marginally faster than right lane.
On the other hand Germany the speed difference can be anywhere withing 200 km/h (125mph) and 90km/h (55 mph). In optimal conditions traffic is evenly sorted along the three lanes. Since the driver going 160 km/h (being a nice person), will let the driver doing 180 km/h pass, he will merge to the middle lane and back to the left lane. The result is that you see way more lane changes on an Autobahn than a highway. So unless you have really dense traffic the flow of traffic is very irregular or you are tailgating someone, there will probably always be sufficient space to merge in front of you; if you keep 2s or more separation.
To a certain degree you are wrong. Even under traditional European standards the law is odd.
Traditionally companies can use as much data as is required for the normal operation of business and if they want to do more, they need your consent; that can be retreated. For example I can not demand the deletion of my data at credit rating agency, since that belongs to the normal business operations. In addition I agreed to each data point be inserted in the database with the interaction with my bank, telephone company, etc. (Not that I was told explicitly, the terms state, "third party required for operation".) On the other hand, nonessential data, like everything Facebook stores on you, is not considered "essential data" required for "business operations". This can be requested to deleted and also falls in traditional privacy laws.
The odd thing is, the data is not really about you, but about an article about you. The article itself falls under freedom of speech / freedom of the press and thus is untouchable. Under traditional privacy laws are not invoked, because google is just indexing articles which are fully legitimate. The basic analysis is that if original source material is legitimate so is the index (if it was created unbiased). The law / court case built it's argument more on human rights that the privacy laws are based on, than rather the privacy laws themselves.
But don't worry, many Europeans think this law is stupid. The traditional privacy laws are quite strong and normally offer sufficient protection. Trying to retroactively hush up public knowledge is flawed idea anyway.
You know there is a web interface to Dropbox too? People expect to read their documents, like word or PDF right there online. To do this the service must index the files and read them. Obviously if you encrypt the files, this can not be done.
I use Dropbox as my offsite backup of sensitive information and I trust the information to be safe. Simple, I encrypt the tar-ball with symmetric GPG. But then again I can only download the file vie the web interface if I wish and not view the contents online... buhuhu
That is not fully true. At least in East Germany you owned things. You could own a car and the furniture in your house. You may have hat to wait long to get them, but you bought them from the money you own. In cretin circumstances you could also own a house, but that was rather rare.
Nevertheless the the notion you point out is sort of correct. If you all get the same pay and there is an allocation system based on "need", it is clear that you try to game the system, like work less or "needing" more.
They are building a spaceport in the middle of a national park! Either it is a nature preserve or it is not one. Although I don't count myself to the environmentalist camp, but I see the ideas behind national parks. But in many cases the environmental impact studies are educated guess at best. The 12 rockets limit seems fairly arbitrary and more along the lines of projected SpaceX use of the facility and less on the environmental impact tolerances.
s/Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall/
She wrote that exact quote in a biography about Voltaire, but Voltaire never said that.
In addition Jürgen Klinsmann was the head coach of the German national team. He brought a good part of the current top players together. The current coach (Joachim Löw) worked under Kliensmann. Löw basically learned his chops under Klinsmann and as such there was little the NSA could have found out that Kleinsmann did not yet know. A testament to the knowledge and talent of Kliensmann is the fact that the US team got so far. (2:1 against Germany is not bad either.)
Probably some haphazard environmental impact study. But once SpaceX has the foot in the door and a need to launch more, it probably can be arranged to higher limits. If they can lay pipelines through a Alaskan wildlife preserve, they can launch more rockets from a national park in Texas.