fridrik

You may have to click the "Buy" button a second time.

I live in Europe so I'm used to seeing prices with added VAT. When I launched the app store, however, my item was priced at the U.S. price of $19.99. However, after getting this error once, the app store was reloaded with the correct price tag and a functional buy button.

Pocket calculator designers can implement internet support. Android developers cannot legally implement an iTunes store (I hastily assume).

Yes. It particularly shows an example of how bad incidents (e.g. bugs, serious offences) tend to be underreported or have their criticality misrepresented. I feel that whenever possible, these metrics should be used for strategic guidance, but the primary metrics for people in the field to follow should be positive ones—things that the team agrees will likely affect the negative metrics in a desirable manner: number of test cases, reviewed commit counts, emergency response times or serious lawbreakers caught in the act.

But many of the things that affect the final outcome may not be particularly measurable. Without expert knowledge of law enforcement I think that may be the problem with evaluating police officers' work. For example, conversations with citizens may prove to aid crime reduction and confidence in the police, but how do you quantify them in terms of nature and value?

I bet Google will be delighted about this use of their trademark.

Is this perhaps a misinterpretation of "within the law"?

"[...] over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all."

They talk of filtering as an all-or-nothing concept. They want to operate unfiltered search (not semi-filtered, or filtered to the extent of the law). "Within the law" refers to the fact that they want to accomplish unfiltered search in a manner that is legal and their statement is rather clear that failing that they will be shutting down.

You're right, though, that this being an ultimatum isn't stated in clear (binding) legalese—quintessentially their wording of "not willing to continue" instead of "will not continue". This is almost certainly intentional.

However, it is a press release that declares intent, generates expectations and has a common and obvious interpretation as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. From a public relations standpoint, Google would not benefit from doing something completely different.

This is awesome! Currently, though, it allows you to browse a listing of headlines, but that's a great place the start.

One feature that would make this tremendously more usful is just adding integration to the Python 'webbrowser' module to open the currently selected entry in the user's default browser. That might even be the only feature this needs :)

I'll be watching this!

There's little risk of volcanic catastrophes in Reykjavík according to geologists.