Exactly, but secret US satellites are removed first.

Before the image goes anywhere (even the scientists running the show) it is sent via high speed line to a military team in the US, who scrub it for classified satellites, etc. Only then do the astronomers and public get access.

There is another way, which seems to gain traction now and then around Massachusetts. To wit—it would be comparatively simple to put New England on year round Atlantic Time. Compact area, and a north-south border with the rest of the country.

Wow, I guess we have different communication histories. I am 62 years old and have not had a wired phone since 1997.

The number of trips strikes me as plausible. In the case of big cities and their suburbs, there could easily be 5 or more food stores that are regularly visited (Whole Foods, Trader Joes, cut rate 1, cut rate 2, local mainstream 1, local mainstream 2). Sure, some trips could hit more than one of those, but many trips would visit a single store. Between frozen foods, shopping fatigue, and total duration of the trip, people would most often visit 1-2 stores per trip. And this doesn’t count places like alcoholic beverages and other specialty stores (butcher, bakery, etc.).

How is a trade secret different from a regular secret? If I tell my grade school friend that I like Sally, but it's a secret, as soon as my friend spills the beans (which is inevitable) it is no longer a secret. Apple has a range of options here. They could patent an item, and then pursue breaches of that legal arrangement. They chose secrets, which is an equally viable choice. Having made that choice I guess they just have to protect their secrets more diligently. They want to benefit from the force of law without any of the strictures of that same law. They can't have it both ways!

Loading your assets into ram does not make no sense at all :-)

I recognize that US law is not governing in this case, but US antitrust law has an element that is directly on point here. One permissible defense that a monopolist can present in the US is that they possess "skill, foresight, and industry" that directly led to their market share. If that defense describes anyone, it describes Google. Not only that, but what standard are the EU authorities advocating? As an example, suppose you are reading a paper copy of The New York Times. Does anyone really expect the Times to direct someone to the internet, or Sports Illustrated, for baseball coverage? Of course not--they will direct the reader to the Sports section of the Times, even though better options exist. Similarly, Macys will direct a customer to "Jewelry, 8th floor" rather than to Tiffany's, even if the customer would be better served by going to Tiffany's. Google is being held to an impossible standard.

Where do you think the term 'Motorola' originated?