TIME Military

Pilot Still Missing After Fighter Jet Crashes in Virginia

Preparations Ahead Of The Farnborough International Airshow 2014
Military personnel talk as they stand beside an F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet, left, prior to the opening of the Farnborough International Airshow in Farnborough, U.K., on Sunday, July 13, 2014. Bloomberg — Getty Images

Authorities have not yet confirmed if the pilot had ejected from the plane before it crashed Wednesday morning

The pilot of a fighter jet that crashed into the mountains of western Virginia Wednesday morning is still missing hours later, officials say.

Col. James Keefe, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Air National Guard, said that rescue crews were still searching for the pilot Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press reports. It’s unclear whether the pilot ejected from the single-seat F-15C. The pilot reported an inflight emergency while flying the plane to New Orleans for routine maintenance and lost radio contact shortly thereafter.

Residents near the crash site reported hearing a loud explosion and feeling the ground shake from the force of the impact.

[AP]

MONEY Google

The 8 Worst Predictions About Google

Magic 8-ball with Google logo
Flickr

In the 10 years since Google became a public company, there have been a lot of predictions made about the search engine giant. And it turns out, a lot have been wrong.

”I wouldn’t be buying Google stock, and I don’t know anyone who would.”
— Jerry Kaplan, futurist, in the New York Times, Aug. 6, 2004

The problem with making any public pronouncement about Google GOOGLE INC. GOOGL 0.3515% is that if you end up being embarrassingly wrong, someone can just Google that prediction to remind you how off the mark you were.

So that’s what we did.

With Tuesday being the 10th anniversary of the tech giant’s historic IPO, MONEY Googled the sweeping predictions that were made about the company and the stock leading up to and after the company’s public offering on Aug. 19, 2004, when Google shares began trading at an opening price of $85 a share.

To be fair, no one could have really predicted the stock would soar more than 1,000%—10 times greater than the S&P 500 index—in its first decade as a publicly traded company. You have to remember that in 2004, the Internet bubble was still a recent memory and Google’s offering was seen as the first significant tech IPO in the aftermath of the 2000-2002 tech wreck.

Still, it’s hard not to wince at some of the things said about what is now the third most-valuable company, with a market cap of nearly $400 billion.

1) Google won’t last.

What are the odds that it is the leading search engine in five years, much less 20? 50/50 at best, I suspect… — Whitney Tilson, The Motley Fool, July 30, 2004

In a memorable 2004 column, value investor Whitney Tilson argued that there was a significantly better chance that Dell would still be a leading computer company in the year 2024 than Google would be a leading search engine in 2009.

Obviously, he was wrong as Google still controls nearly 70% of all search and more than 90% of the growing mobile search market. (Meanwhile, Dell’s PC market share has shrunk considerably and desktop computers aren’t even a growth area anymore).

His argument may have made sense at the time. “Just as Google came out of nowhere to unseat Yahoo! as the leading search engine, so might another company do this to Google,” he wrote, adding that “I am quite certain that there is only a fairly shallow, narrow moat around its business.”

Yet Tilson made the mistake of underestimating the actual search technology. In the early 2000s, Google’s algorithms could search billions of pages at a time when rival search engines were able to get to just tens of millions. That lead in search capability gave Google enough time to leverage that technology into a dominant position in online advertising. Today, Google controls about a third of all global digital ad dollars.

2) Google’s founders won’t last.

These Google guys, they want to be billionaires and rock stars and go to conferences and all that. Let us see if they still want to run the business in two to three years. — Bill Gates at Davos, in 2003.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates was, of course, referring to Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Not only did the Google guys not go away, eight years later Page took over as CEO, and under his tenure the company became the dominant player in the smartphone market; made inroads into social media and e-commerce; and began dabbling in more futuristic technologies such as driver-less cars that are likely to boost interest in the stock going forward.

3) Google is a one-trick pony.

I mean, come on. They have one product. It’s been the same for five years — and they have Gmail now, but they have one product that makes all their money, and it hasn’t changed in five years. — Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, in the Financial Times, June 20, 2008.

The bombastic Ballmer, who also predicted that the iPhone would go nowhere, wasn’t the first to call Google a one-trick pony. Yet Ballmer was flat out wrong. Today, Google has several tricks up its sleeve. The company still dominates search, but it is also a major player in mobile search, mobile operating systems, online advertising, e-commerce, social media, cloud computing and even robotics.

4) And who cares about search anyway?

Search engines? Aren’t they all dead? — James Altucher, venture capitalist (sometime in 2000)

You have to give Altucher credit for fessing up to what he admits may have been “the worst venture capital decision in history.” Three years ago, the trader/investor blogged about how his firm, 212 Ventures, had an opportunity in 2000 or 2001 to be part owner of the company that would later become an integral part of Google for a mere $1 million.

As he told the story, one of the associates of his firm had approached him with an opportunity in 2000. “A friend of mine is VP of Biz Dev at this search engine company,” the associate told him. “We can probably get 20% of the company for $1 million. He sounds desperate.”

To which Altucher replied: “Search engines? Aren’t they all dead? What’s the stock price on Excite these days? You know what it is? Zero!”

“No thanks,” Altucher said. That company was Oingo, which changed its name to Applied Semantics, which in 2003 was purchased by Google and re-branded AdSense. As Altucher points out, “Google needed the Oingo software in order to generate 99% of its revenues at IPO time. Google used 1% of the company’s stock to purchase Oingo, which meant that Altucher’s potential $1 million bet would have been worth around $300 million in 2011.

Oh well.

5) Microsoft will chase Google down.

Word has it that Microsoft will feature an immensely powerful search engine in the next generation of Windows, due out by 2006… As a result, Google stands a good chance of becoming not the next Microsoft, but the next Netscape. — The New Republic, May 24, 2004.

Alas, Microsoft’s Bing search engine didn’t come out until three years after the article said it would. And it wasn’t until last year when Microsoft truly embedded Bing into Internet Explorer on Windows 8.1.

Even if Bing gains traction on desktops — where it still only has about a 19% market share — search is transitioning to mobile. And there, Google utterly dominates and will probably stay in control because its Android operating system powers around 85% of the world’s mobile devices, versus Windows’ mere 3% market share.

6) Google isn’t a good long-term investment.

Don’t buy Google at its initial public offering. — Columnist Allan Sloan, Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2004.

I’m back from the beach and it’s clear that my advice turned out to be wrong…But now that the price is above the original minimum price range, I’m not in doubt. So I’ll repeat what I said three weeks ago. This price is insane. And anyone buying Google as a long-term investment at $109.40 will lose money. — Allan Sloan, Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2004.

Well, investors didn’t lose their shirts. A $10,000 investment in Google back then would have turned into more than $110,000 over the past decade. By comparison, that same $10,000 invested in the S&P 500 would have grown to less than $22,000. Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for S&P ran some numbers and discovered that only 12 stocks currently in the S&P 500 wound up outpacing Google during this stretch.

To his credit, Sloan, now a columnist at Fortune, later admitted that “I was wrong, early and often, on Google’s stock price when it first went public, for which I ultimately apologized.”

7) Google isn’t a good value.

If you have any doubts at all about Google’s sustainability — you may, for example, recall that Netscape browsers used to be just as ubiquitous as Google home pages — you shouldn’t touch the stock unless its market capitalization is well under $15 billion. — MONEY Magazine, July 2004.

Okay, so we’re not infallible either. If you had followed MONEY’s line of thinking, you never would have purchased this stock because at the opening price of $85, the company was already valued at $23 billion. And it never dipped below that level on its way to a near $400 billion market capitalization today.

MONEY based its analysis on numbers crunched by New York University finance professor Aswath Damodaran, an expert on valuing companies.

Damodaran came to the $15 billion assessment after figuring that Google would generate a total of nearly $48 billion in cash over its lifetime. That turned out to be a bit off, as Google has generated that amount of free cash flow in just the past five years.

Again, this was an example of how difficult it is to estimate the future value of a corporation based on what the company is up to at the moment.

8) Google will avoid being evil.

Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company. — Google’s 2004 Founders’ IPO Letter.

Now, evil is in the eye of the beholder. Some privacy buffs think Google long crossed the line when it began tracking user behavior across all of its services including search, Gmail, You Tube, etc.

Progressives, meanwhile, point to Google’s lobbying efforts as a sign the company is behaving like any other corporation. The company has reportedly contributed to conservative causes such as Grover Norquist’s Americans For Taxpayer Reform, which seems to belie the company’s left-leaning Silicon Valley culture.

Then there’s the fact that Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt has stated that he is proud of how the company has managed to avoid billions in taxes by holding company profits in Bermuda, where there is no corporate tax.

Whether you think this qualifies as evil or not, it highlights what folly it was to try to ban evil.

As Schmidt stated in an interview with NPR:

“Well, it was invented by Larry and Sergey. And the idea was that we don’t quite know what evil is, but if we have a rule that says don’t be evil, then employees can say, I think that’s evil,” he said. “Now, when I showed up, I thought this was the stupidest rule ever, because there’s no book about evil except maybe, you know, the Bible or something.

Related:
4 Crazy Google Ambitions
10 Ways Google Has Changed the World

TIME Google

These Are the 7 Deadly Sins of Googling

Google
Michael Gottschalk/Photothek/Getty Images

Search at your own peril

fortunelogo-blue
This post is in partnership with Fortune, which offers the latest business and finance news. Read the article below originally published at Fortune.com.

By Shalene Gupta and Jake Turtel

Google is a godsend for all of us, from those who stutter and stumble through life to even the most knowledgeable of folks looking to confirm their facts and figures.

A well-placed nugget of information courtesy of Google (or Yahoo, sure, or Bing, but come on—you use Google) can prepare you for a challenging conversation or nervy meeting, and it can display for you, stripped bare, any person’s minor errors and major accomplishments.

But with great power comes great responsibility, and sometimes Google leads us astray. Just this week, New Yorkmagazine wrote that resisting from Googling a potential date is “the new abstinence.” Here are the seven deadly sins that come along with relying too heavily on the G-force.

Greed: When your thirst for knowledge leads to errors

They say fortune favors the well prepared, but when Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer sat down to dinner with Chevron CEO John Watson, preparation backfired. Serwer asked Watson about his position on the board of the San Diego Padres, a factoid he’d picked up doing pre-dinner research on Wikipedia, a page he had been directed to through The Big G. Turns out that’s another John Watson. Oops.

Watson’s team at Chevron has hunted down the original source and the Wiki entry has since been changed, but here atFortune, a vague feeling of betrayal lingers in the air. After all, where would reporters be without Google? But Google gives preference to Wikipedia, and Wiki now hath poisoned our trust. Or at least Serwer’s.

For the rest of the story, please go to Fortune.com.

 

TIME Diversions

Hidden Google: 10 Fun Search Tricks

Google
Michael Gottschalk/Photothek/Getty Images

You could work or you could slack off by trying all these tricks, taking an early lunch and napping in your parked car until 1:30 or 2:00. Totally up to you.

This is where the intro normally goes, but let’s be honest with each other about the nature of this relationship. You’re going to skip right over this part, skim the big, bold headlines, and maybe click on a handful of the blue links. There’s a chance you’ll be mildly amused but you’ll most likely blast a quick puff of air out your nostrils, annoyed that you’ve already seen most or all of these tricks before. You’ll eventually click away to some other site and we’ll never see each other again. We’ll always have this post, though. Thanks for the memories.

Do a Barrel Roll

Search for “do a barrel roll” without the quotes, and hold onto your desk for dear life. Cool, eh? Maybe you’re even a little nauseous.

But the old barrel roll trick isn’t the only Easter egg Google has up its sleeve. Here are several others:

Tilt/Askew

If you’re obsessive and/or compulsive, this trick isn’t going to sit well with you for long. Search for “tilt” without the quotes. Searching for “askew” accomplishes the same end-result.

Change it back! Change it ba-aaack!

Big Answers to Mind-Bending Questions

Search for “answer to life, the universe, and everything” and you’ll get your answer. It’s a real thinker. Of course, Douglas Adams fans knew the answer without having to search for it.

See also: “the loneliest number,” “once in a blue moon” and “number of horns on a unicorn” for a few other cool calculations.

Did You Mean…

Search for “anagram“—did you mean nag a ram? Or try searching for “recursion” instead. Did you mean recursion? Did you mean recursion? Did you mean recursion? Did you mean recursion? You meant recursion, right?

“As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way!”

It’s a Festivus MIIIRACLE! Google “Festivus,” and once you’ve taken in the wonder of this Google Easter egg, feel free to participate in the Airing of Grievances here in the comments section or indulge in the Feats of Strength with a family member, friend, enemy or stranger at your earliest convenience.

Zerg Rush

An homage to StarCraft, search Google “Zerg Rush” and prepare to protect your search results from a bunch of hungry Google O’s. Click them before they eat all your results. Hurry! Why are you still reading this?!

Blink HTML

Search for “Blink HTML” and OH SWEET BABY J, MY EYES! Brings back some fond memories of simpler web-based times though, doesn’t it? Just needs Bittersweet Symphony auto-playing as a MIDI file.

Party Like It’s 1998

As long as we’re going old-school with blink tags, want to see what Google looked like in 1998? Believe it or believe it, all you have to do is search for “Google in 1998” and you’ll be whisked away. Clicking the initial search results will return the archived versions of those pages, too.

Shake It

While we’re on YouTube, type “Do the Harlem Shake” into the search bar. Ah, memories of a meme from a couple years ago.

Try searching YouTube for these ones, too:

Break It

You can play a game of Breakout, wherein search results from Google Images morph into breakable bricks. Just search for “Atari Breakout” and click the Images tab or go straight to images.google.com and search for “Atari Breakout” there.

TIME privacy

Google Begins Scrubbing Search Results in Europe

The tech giant is removing requested search results for the first time

Google has begun removing results from some searches in accordance with Europe’s landmark “right to be forgotten” ruling, the company told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

The European Union’s top court ruled in May that individuals had the right to request search engines remove certain results when their names are searched.

More than 41,000 requests were submitted to Google in the first four days after the ruling. Google said it would send out the first emails informing individuals that their requested links had been removed on Thursday.

“This is a new process for us. Each request has to be assessed individually, and we’re working as quickly as possible to get through the queue,” a Google spokesman told the Journal.

[WSJ]

TIME Innovation

This Computer Wants To Teach Itself Everything About Anything

The more it learns, the better it gets at sifting the web for the content we've always wanted

The world’s most curious computer is now scanning millions of online books and images in an attempt to understand all of the web’s images the way a human might.

Computer scientists at the University of Washington say the new program, called Learn Everything About Anything, or LEVAN, could produce more intuitive responses to image searches. The program begins with a basic search term like “shrimp.” It searches for the word across millions of Google Books, taking note of every modifier, be it “boiled,” “fried” “steamed,” or “peppered.” Armed with a Bubba Gump-like knowledge of shrimp, it searches the web for shrimp pictures, grouping them by appearance under the categories it has just learned. The result? A visual grouping of pictures that’s a feast for the eyes.

Screen Shot 2014-06-13 at 1.43.02 PM
Source: LEVAN, University of Washington

The search results spare users from clicking through page after page of nearly identical looking pictures. And unlike current visual groupings, no human curator is needed. “The new program needs no human supervision, and thus can automatically learn the visual knowledge for any concept,” said research scientist Santosh Divvala.

There’s just one drawback — LEVAN has a lot to learn. It currently has the vocabulary of a toddler and takes upwards of 12 hours to learn broader terms, such as “angry.” As a result, researchers have invited the public to pitch their own one-word concepts to LEVAN, because evidently it takes a village to raise an artificially intelligent algorithm.

TIME Advertising

Pinterest Ads Are About to Become a Way Bigger Business

Online scrapbooking website Pinterest is planning an aggressive expansion of its ad business this summer.

The company will begin offering self-service ads through online auctions in this month, operations head Don Faul told the Wall Street Journal Thursday. The ad units, targeted at small and medium-sized businesses, will allow marketers to bid to have their ads served against specific categories on Pinterest, such as fashion and home decor, and pay on a cost-per-click basis. Previous Pinterest ads targeted large, deep-pocketed brands and had rates set based on a cost per 1,000 views.

The new ads will put Pinterest in more direct competition with other social networks that use an auction system, such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as search engines like Google.

Pinterest has recently been trying to reposition itself as a curated search engine, rather than a social media site. The company unveiled in April a more robust search engine that helps guide users toward specific experiences and products when they input broad search terms. The new engine also presents a great opportunity to show off more ads, which appear as promoted pins at the top of search results.

Pinterest closed a $200 million round of venture funding in May, valuing the company at $5 billion.

TIME Big Picture

Scio Pocket Molecular Scanner Is a Google-like Device for Physical Objects

The handheld Scio scanner can detect the molecular makeup of certain objects Consumer Physics

A couple weeks ago I had a fascinating video call with a gentleman named Dror Sharon, the CEO of a company called Consumer Physics. He showed me a product called Scio that just went up on Kickstarter last Tuesday: a hand scanner that can scan physical objects and tell you about their chemical make up.

“Smartphones give us instant answers to questions like where to have dinner, what movie to see, and how to get from point A to point B, but when it comes to learning about what we interact with on a daily basis, we’re left in the dark,” Mr. Dror told me via Skype. “We designed Scio to empower explorers everywhere with new knowledge and to encourage them to join our mission of mapping the physical world.”

Consumer Physics launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise $200,000 for Scio (which is Latin for “to know”) on April 28th, 2014. They reached that goal in 20 hours and raised a total of $400,00 in 48 hours.

At first Scio will come with apps for analyzing food, medication and plants. You could, for instance, use it to refine the ingredients of your home-brewed beer or figure out if an Internet site’s cheap Viagra is fake. Later, the company will add the ability to check cosmetics, clothes, flora, soil, jewels, precious stones, leather, rubber, oils, plastics and even human tissue or bodily fluids.

scio
Early prototypes of the Scio physical object scanner Consumer Physics

Mr. Sharon told me, “The spectrometer figures out what the object is based on an infrared light that reflects back to the scanner. Most objects have different absorption rates as they vibrate at different levels on the molecular scale. The app takes the data and compares it to a cloud-based database of objects in a distant data center. When it gets a match, it sends the results to the user’s smartphone.”

According to Mr. Sharon, “The food app tells you calories, fats, carbohydrates, and proteins, based on your own estimate of the weight of the food you’re about to eat. (With many food packages, you can get the weight from the label). The app could tell dieters exactly how many calories they’re about to consume, while fitness apps can tell them how many calories they’re burning. That helps people figure out exactly how much exercise they need to do in order to burn off the food they’re eating.”

As I understand it, the food app can also gauge produce quality, ripeness, and spoilage for foods like cheeses, fruits, vegetables, sauces, salad dressings, cooking oils and more. It also analyzes moisture levels in plants and tells users when to water them. Mr. Sharon suggested that you could even be able to analyze your blood alcohol level one day, but Scio is not currently approved as a medical device.

What I find most interesting is that as users conduct more tests, the app gets better and better at correctly identifying objects. The more people use it, the richer the database of information will be, which will add to the precision levels of the Scio over time and, more importantly, expand what it can understand. In the demo I saw on an Android smartphone, a ring fills up with circles on your smartphone screen to deliver the proper info, and it takes a matter of seconds to recognize something. Scio has to be about 20 millimeters from an object before it can be used for scanning, and the scanner uses Bluetooth low energy (BLE) to connect with a smartphone, which in turn needs to be running either iOS 5 or Android 4.3 or higher.

He also showed me its ability to scan what looked like a unmarked white pill. Scio correctly identified the chemical makeup of the pill as aspirin and even showed that it was made by Bayer. These are the first types of categories of physical products Scio will target, but eventually it could identify the chemical makeup of just about any object. That is why he likened it to being “Google for physical objects.”

If you are a fan of police procedural TV shows like CSI or NCIS, you already know about things like mass spectrometers and other professional machines that analyze the chemical makeup of objects. These machines can be very large. Although there are some handheld versions available today, they’re all pretty expensive. Scio aims to do similar tasks with a device that can fit into your pocket. And when it ships, it will cost considerably less than professional solutions — as low as $149. Now, I am not suggesting that Scio is as powerful as professional mass spectrometers. However, from what I saw in the demo, it can do similar types of chemical analysis and do it pretty quickly, with the readout showing up on your smartphone.

While I find the idea of a pocket spectrometer interesting, where this could have real impact is if it could be built straight into a smartphone. According to Mr. Sharon, this is ultimately where he sees his technology going. His initial focus is on food, medication and plants, although over time, it could be expanded to cover just about any physical object. Imagine being able to point the scanner in a smartphone at an apple and know exactly how many calories were in it based on its weight. Or if you had a stray pill lying around and you wanted to know what it was before you dare ingested it.

I see this particular device as a game-changer of sorts. Today, all of our searches are being done via text, numbers and through structural databases of some type. But with a consumer-based spectrometer initially designed as a pocketable device that could eventually be built into smartphones, gaining a better understanding of the make up of the physical objects we come into contact with each day would vastly expand a person’s knowledge base. I could imagine it as being part of a set of teaching tools to perhaps get more kids interested in science. Or it could be used in a science-related game as an important tool used to solve a puzzle. At the other extreme, its impact on health-based problems and solutions could be enormous.

This is a technology to watch. As Scio gets smarter as more people use it — and perhaps someday finds its way directly into smartphones — it would add a new dimension to our understanding of the world around us. It could become an important means for connecting us to our physical world in ways we just can’t do today.

Bajarin is the president of Creative Strategies Inc., a technology industry analysis and market-intelligence firm in Silicon Valley. He contributes to Big Picture, an opinion column that appears every week on TIME Tech.

TIME Supreme Court

Supreme Court Wrestles With Warrantless Cellphone Searches

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over when and whether the police can search cell phones after an arrest, as lower courts have been split on whether that's allowed by law and, if so, just much information can be taken off them and stored

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in two cases tackling the same difficult question: If you get arrested, should the police be allowed to search your cellphone without a warrant?

It’s well-established that police can search people they arrest to ensure they don’t have a weapon and to prevent them from destroying evidence. Police can also search things on or within easy reach of suspects, like wallets or address books, for evidence relating to the crime for which they were arrested.

But those standards were set long before people started carrying their lives around on computers in their pocket. Lower courts have split on whether cellphones can be searched without a warrant after an arrest and how much information can be taken off of them and stored.

The first case the court heard Tuesday was brought by David Leon Riley, who was stopped in August 2009 for driving with expired license plates. A legal search of his car found handguns, and he was arrested. A couple of hours later, police searched his smartphone without getting a warrant and found photo evidence of his alleged involvement in a gang shooting. The California courts ruled against Riley’s argument that the smartphone evidence should be excluded because it had been gathered in an illegal search.

Riley’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, argued Tuesday that there’s now so much information in a smartphone, there’s a danger police will go on a fishing expedition to find crimes, against which Americans enjoy broad Fourth Amendment protections. Fisher further pointed out that the government has acknowledged in court filings the FBI’s collection and storing of telephone metadata from phones seized in similar arrests in an ever-growing database. Even the hawkish Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday that “It seems absurd that you should be able to search [the entire contents of a person’s] iPhone” without a warrant after a simple traffic stop.

The second case the court heard Tuesday was originally brought against Brima Wurie in 2007 after his arrest in Boston, Mass. for selling crack cocaine from a car. Wurie convinced an appeals court that prosecutors should have been blocked from telling jurors police had found drugs, cash and guns at his house after determining his home address by checking his incoming call records on his flip phone. The appeals court ruled the cell phone search was illegal. Wurie’s lawyer argued Tuesday that even a small amounts of information on a cellphone should be protected against a warrantless search.

The Roberts court has often ruled in favor of cops in questions of searches and seizures, and there was plenty of sympathy for the needs of law enforcement during the arguments Tuesday. But the justices have also struggled with technological issues brought on by what they like to call “the digital age.” Several justices asked questions about the FBI’s long-term storage of data downloaded from seized cell phones through the use of a so-called “Universal Forensic Extraction Device,” for example.

The justices acknowledged that privacy expectations are diminished when you’re arrested. The question that they seemed to be wrestling with most was how to limit the amount of data that can be taken from a smartphone after a routine arrest. The government argued it should depend on the type of crime for which the person had been arrested. But even the pro-enforcement Chief Justice John Roberts admitted that “it’s very hard to see how that limit would be applied. You can see and the police would be able to articulate why almost every application, every entry on a cellphone would reasonably be anticipated to have evidence of a particular crime.”

Rulings in both cases could come by early June.

TIME Internet

‘Cat Dating’ and Other Weird Things People Are Searching For on Google

Ever wondered why men have nipples? You're not alone

Have you ever Googled something really weird and then wondered what strange things other people must be searching for?

Well, this infographic created by Australian agency SearchFactory visualizes worldwide average monthly search data to show just how weird people’s queries really are:

Weird Google Searches Infographic

 

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46,429 other followers