If you live in Australia, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, or United States, then yes, you can. If you don't, you can't, at least not easily.
The number of countries the iPhone 7 was available to pre-order in five times the number of countries the Pixel is available in two months after release.
It's an industry body, not a governmental one. It has its power basically from a perpetual threat that if the industry doesn't regulate itself the government will legislate, and nobody wants that to happen.
In short, the court found that the right to privacy (in the European Convention of Human Rights) is not breached by a law that permits companies monitoring communications from their equipment. This means that the Romanian law (that permits such monitoring) complies with the treaty. The German law (which, AIUI, forbids such monitoring) obviously complies with the treaty because it doesn't permit others to read personal correspondence.
The DSPs pretty much always have lower power consumption than a comparably quick GPU for the workload.
Only for Americans if they get work visas. EasyJet don't fly to the Americas.
Yes, that's true (mostly; it's really the English and Welsh legal system, not the non-existent British legal system) --- but it's missing the underlying point.
You have to realise that in the English and Welsh legal system that the progression of cases through appeals traditionally led to the House of Lords as the highest court of the land. Peers of the realm (including Lords) had the right to have their case first heard in the House of Lords --- but in doing so had no right of appeal to any judgement, as the highest court had made its ruling. A commoner could eventually be tried by the House of Lords, but had to appeal (or have lower courts commit them) all the way up from the magistrates'.
before terrorists showed up on the scene
GC&CS (Government Code and Cypher School, which gives a very clear idea about what the aim was!), the forerunner to GCHQ, was started in 1919, by which time the IRA had already come into being after the Easter Rising. OK, so GC&CS was primarily concerned with SIGINT pertaining to diplomatic communications, but it's worthwhile noting that there was a serious terrorist threat to the UK at the time it was formed (the Irish War of Independence had been under way since the start of 1919, when GC&CS came into being only at the end of the year).
ECMAScript 4 formed the basis of Actionscript 3, so there'd be no need to base ES4 on AS3!
On the other hand, the W3C Patent Policy makes it impossible for MS to do that --- they must either disclose their patents and notify the group that they are withholding them from the royalty-free grant within 180 days of certain points of the spec's development or they grant all members of the group an irrevocable RF grant (the intention of the policy is you give a list of all patents you have covering the spec and whether you're withholding them; in practice most people don't even look at patent portfolios because they know they'd just give an RF grant for any it covers and hence it's not worth the time looking).
You say it dismissively, but the big thing lately is that Microsoft can play catch-up and is really trying to do it. Did you ever think you'd see the day? Starting around MSIE 9 they made huge strides toward becoming fairly normal, rather remaining forever obsolete, as a weird, special, anachronistic case. You never would have heard anyone say this in 2009 or 2004 but it now looks like a fresh Windows install might be able to surf the web, right out-of-the-box.
I dunno, I heard plenty of people saying it in 2009, especially around specs circles (both around WHATWG/W3C groups and those around implementers doing evangelism work), even if whenever it was voiced it got laughed at by most web devs. In reality, it was very obvious that IE7 was mostly just trying to quickly fix what they thought were the biggest shortcomings of IE6 (which, after all, hadn't really been touched in years, and most of the dev team didn't have any idea about the codebase); IE8 followed on making pretty significant low-level changes that were pretty obviously designed at making many of the modern parts of the web platform easy to implement (from what's been said, it should definitely be the case that many CSS modules nowadays are easier to implement in modern IE than in other browser engines, simply because they rewrote so much for IE8), even though ultimately it shipped more or less at feature parity with IE7 (albeit with fewer bugs). IE9 was when all that work started to come together, starting to add large amounts of the more modern parts of the web platform.
None of the Underground lines are driverless. The ones you list are GoA level 2 (i.e., opening/closing doors, starting the train, and emergencies are handled by the driver). Go look in the cab of any of them, they all have drivers!
Even the DLR is a GoA level 3 system, as the "attendant" handles door closing and emergency driving of the system.
The only GoA level 4 systems (which are truly driverless and can operate without any trained staff onboard) in the UK are the people movers at Heathrow T5, Gatwick, and Stansted.
What motivation do the browser vendors have to implement a spec that they had no say in, and quite probably doesn't align with the desires of their users?
Related is Malone v. The United Kingdom (1984) on wiretapping of phone lines.
"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen
