You should probably have checked that before posting... Are you confusing LCD with LED?

I think GWT is actually a reasonable tool for writing code that compiles to Javascript. This makes a lot of sense if you're writing your server code in Java, since your server and client code can all live within the same source tree and be edited with the same IDE in the same language. Significantly, this also allows you to debug your code using your Java debugger (read up on 'hosted mode' if you want to understand that witchcraft) while it's running in your browser. GWT also de-fangs the javascript event model that often leads to memory leaks. It might be of benefit to some people that by default (you can turn it off) the emitted JS code is heavily obfuscated. GWT is mature and well-supported, and integrates simply with vanilla JS code if you wish to.
Available for GWT is GWTQuery, which is (you've probably guessed) a jQuery clone for GWT, including events, effects, etc...

EBay for $15, just the glass and digitizer, no LCD.

Sorry, this is incorrect, knowing from personal experience. The vast majority of the time, breaking the glass (and digitizer) does not break the LCD. The LCD is right underneath the class, but most of the time that the glass breaks, the LCD does not. The two are adhered around the edges, but not on the actual surfaces.

While I see your point, if you have a truly random entropy source, ANY xored combination of cleartext and cyphertext could (incorrectly) appear to form any arbitrary message in the encrypted message.

grep "attack at dawn" /dev/random (and wait a while. Probably a LONG while.)

Curious, what does the sensor bar have to do with the form factor of the Wii?

Err, what? All of these devices include an integrated battery and are simply mechanically attached to your car, usually by magnets. They're not wired into your car's electrical system.

According to the story, the devices that they researched send their data to the observers once an hour. At any other time, the device would effectively be completely passive. If you had a way of detecting cel-phone usage and were patient enough, presumably you would be able to detect it during this transmission period.

You think that sea salt isn't (almost) entirely made up of sodium chloride?

The USPS is not actually a government agency and its employees are not actually civil servants.

An Android developer here:
This limitation just means that there can only be a single icon on the launcher screen that starts the app. On a real Android device, the same 'application' can have multiple icons, each of which opens a different starting screen.
Not really that big of a deal except for special-purpose apps. I suspect that the Playbook's launcher shell simply doesn't support the concept of multiple entry-points for an application, so they introduced this limitation to make supporting things easier.
Honestly, if they can actually make useful Android support work, I'll be VERY surprised. But it also means that I can stop doing any real work on native BB support for our apps. What a nightmare it's been!

An Extended Validation certificate is one that includes information indicating that a specific legal entity (person, corporation) has been confirmed as being the owner of the certificate, rather than just in control of a particular domain. In modern browsers that understand this extended information, you will often see the name of the corporation next to the 'lock' icon.

If you read the article, you would learn that this isn't the case. It's pretty clearly a bug (not a missing revocation infrastructure) since the problem only occurs on Extended Validation certs. Otherwise, the revocation works as it should.

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread saying, "Oh no! Prior art is dead!"
All this actually means is that somebody can no longer invent (or CLAIM have invented) something and then KEEP IT A SECRET (not sell, publicly demonstrate, file for a patent, etc...) and then, later on, after somebody else files for the patent, say, "Hey! I invented that %d years ago!" Right now, it seems to be pretty common practice for corporations to attempt to 'manufacture evidence' of non-public prior art. It seems like this would simplify patent disputes.

AC was referring, perhaps, to MacOS X, which had built-in disk-image manipulation and mounting tools built into it since version 1.0, in 2000.