What are you talking about?

I see no evidence that Google is asserting copyright over search results. Go ahead do a search and look for a copyright symbol...there is none.
https://www.google.com/search?q=linux

As a comparison do a Bing search and Microsoft does assert its copyright at the bottom of every page.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=linux

Copyright has nothing to do with terms of service. Google is under no obligation to let you or anyone else use their service in a way they don't want. That's completely different than Oracle asking the government to fine Google for supposedly violating their copyright on something that is possibly not copyrightable like an API. Oracle is not alleging that Google violated a terms of service. They are alleging that Google needed a license in order to copy copyrighted material.

Google created their service and for the most part they can decide how the service is used. If someone is using their service in a way that hurts Google they are within their legal or moral rights to not provide that service in a way that hurts them. Just like as a website operator I can decide how my web server is used. I can choose to ban Google's IPs if I don't want them to access my service. I can use a robots.txt file to instruct their HTTP agent to ignore certain pages. If my website's content is copied in a way that is not covered by fair use I can ask the government to fine those who are violating my copyright but that is separate from determining what IPs may use my web server as a service. Just like Google could choose to ask the government to fine someone who violated their copyright in a way that is not covered by fair use.

Can you cite any references where Google has alleged that someone violated their copyright on a search result that you believe is covered by fair use?

Computer motherboards don't run on -48V DC. They run on +12V DC. Power supplies normally take the 110-220V AC power and convert it to 12V DC for the motherboard and 5V DC for peripherals but this causes a loss of efficiency. This Open Rack infrastructure puts the power supply which they're calling a 12V power bar on the rack and supplies the computer with exactly the 12V it needs. In the article they claim they got 50% power savings over a traditional power supply/computer design. While there may be a lot of telecom gear for -48V DC that is not what a computer motherboard needs. It would still require a power supply to convert -48V DC to +12V DC if they had gone that route. This would have increased cost and decreased power efficiency.

Yes it is after 7 years of releasing their development boards. The original Arduino was not CE certified though. The Raspberry Pi Foundation was also planning on their original boards not being CE certified and subsequent boards getting CE certification.

Many other dev boards don't have CE certification either. Look through digikey.com or sparkfun.com at dev boards and you'll notice many are without CE certification. The RPF always planned on getting CE certification later this year before the educational release of the Raspberry Pi was made. At that point it would have also had a case and a manual. The only reason it's getting a CE cert now is because their distributors want it.

Broadcom does not oversee the Raspberry Pi Foundation or its products. Broadcom is the employer of a couple of the volunteers of the Raspberry Pi foundation. Broadcom's only business relationship is that of a supplier who sells the Raspberry Pi Foundation the BCM2835 mobile applications processor used in the Raspberry Pi Model A and B boards.

I've owned 2 android phones so far and both of them has had unlocked bootloaders. Of course both were made by Samsung.

How would HP, a hardware company, make money by allowing other people to make their hardware for them without paying anything in return?

Rhombus-tech's hypothetical $15 Allwinner A10 system doesn't even exist yet. It's pure theory at this point. The closest thing to it is a $2000 development board that Allwinner makes with the A10 SOC. Also Rhombus-tech quote of $15 is a guess based on a purchase quantity of 100,000 units.

Yes. Open Linux boards have been around for quite some time. None of them have ever been this cheap before. If you disagree, please tell me where I can buy a 700Mhz SOC that runs Linux with similar peripherals (Ethernet, HDMI, Composite, 256MB RAM, USB, 16 GPIO lines) and about the size of a credit card for $35 or less?

Routerboard 400Mhz $59
Gumstix Overo Sand COM 600Mhz $115
Beagleboard 720Mhz $125
Beaglebone 700Mhz $89
...
Raspberry Pi 700Mhz $35

Just because your (and my) phone hardware manufacturer put some closed source pieces of code on our android OS based phones does not mean Android, the google project, is closed source. It's very much open source. Download it here: http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html

What do you mean when you say it's not open source?

They're only making them in batches of 10,000 so I don't think there's a risk of them over producing giving their current demand. If the number of people subscribed to the mailing list and raspberry pi forums is any indication of interest they will easily sell several 10,000 lots this year. Many people, myself included are interested in buying multiple of these devices each.

If you compare the $50 roku to the $35 raspberry pi, the $50 roku contains no ethernet port, no usb port and no SD card. It also only support 720P instead of the 1080P the raspberry PI supports. The $35 raspberry pi has more hardware features and is $15 less expensive than the $50 roku. The $50 roku does come with a remote control and free shipping which the $35 raspberry pi does not have.

Of course it's information. Just because some information is entertaining or informative or even useless to you personally doesn't change the fact it's information.

It does not matter if speech is entertaining vs informative. The U.S. Constitution makes no exception to the freedom of speech. It quite clearly says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It is the courts and Congress since the Constitution was signed that have both succeeded and failed to abridge our freedom of speech. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has upheld that states' legislation concerning some obscenity is legal.

Your suggestion is absurd. A library's purpose is to make informational available to the public. Its purpose is NOT to provide a place to have sex. It's also NOT a place to eat 5 course meal. It's NOT a place to sleep for the winter. There are plenty of activities NOT suitable in a library. Looking at information however IS an activity that a library is intended to facilitate. The fact that you might be offended at this particular type of informational is inconsequential. Just like it should not matter if a vegetarian took offense at someone viewing pictures of pork chops at the library.The right not to be offended is not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to freedom of speech is a part of the Constitution.

As I understand it that is the speed of the UI updating. The video, as you can clearly see, is running at full speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFZGpES-St8 OSCON 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pRH8lzaQo Freedom: From my heart to the desktop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM OSCON 2010 Free Software on Medical Devices: Unchain My Heart

Karen Sandler, the lawyer this article is about is also a programmer and has an engineering degree. She works for the GNOME foundation and before that the Software Freedom Law Center...I think she can find a few people who are also programmers to help her as well.