I believe this is a wise move for Google. The general user won't care this much anyway. Those who are likely to manipulate search results, esp. in the way not approved by Google, will look at this as a powerful warning and are discouraged.

This is far from purely marketing. The quality of the search results is what make Google alive and a winner in the first place. Google has little other choice but doing so, even if it means a short-term dip for Chrome in their own search results.

And a little good PR after it doesn't hurt, anyway. I think Google deserves it.

Another implication is that the terminal will be more complex, cost more and consume more power compared with the GPS terminal.

Some mod's sarcasm filter need fixing.

I have to believe this is either market segmentation done right, or money laundering done wrong. Or perhaps the other way around.

The conspiracy theorist in me always believe this kind of outrageous prices are part of some money laundering schemes. Maybe their malice is so well advanced that it cannot be distinguished from stupidity already.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&pref=2

The actual link was part of the parameters to the Google account login link that appears in the summary.

If people can't afford cars because of the crisis, they necessarily can't afford cars with those "useless concepts".

The radio telescope and the communication satellite has wildly different design goals and specs. You can't get much by just comparing the size.

Well girls do speak a different language XD High-school girls in Beijing are known to develop their own variant of Mandarin, featuring variations of consonants. It isn't usually preserved through adulthood though.

As a fellow /.er has posted above, this statement works if the error is purely statistical, that is to say no significant contribution of systematic bias.

That idea could make great games, not necessarily the "war game" type, but the more "psychological" genre. I can imagine the player being the hero who at some point must choose either to slaughter POWs on his superior's order, or to defend their rights out of his own ethical principles, etc.

On your other point.. I don't think games can do much, nor are they supposed to do that. Those violations indicate systematic problems within the military, and the Red Cross should concentrate their work to get that fixed before trying to make an influence through games.

There's a difference: EMACS actually works.

Then you don't have to ban it. Since the community is aware and responsible, as you and others have indicated, the peer reviewers will stop the manuscript from being accepted. Responsible 3rd party researchers can also make themselves heard and persuade the editors from publishing the result. But there's no need of banning or dictating what kind of research can or cannot be done. Perceived threat of bioterror attack should not compromise the liberty of free speech and academic freedom.