As a german happily living in a democratic and free Germany, I have to disagree. Most more recent "freeing" attempts may have been utter failures, but (proof by example) it is obviously possible to succeed.

I believe that infinitely more insight on what the human body will accept and reject comes from clinical studies and research on implants then from art projects, especially those actually implant technology (i.e. try to connect technology to nerves). From a medicinal standpoint, this professor could as well have implanted a plastic globe.

Non sequitur.

Things that are neither practical, reasonable or logical may be art, but they may as well be simply stupid.

According to the German Spiegel, Alberto Torres (responsible board member for MeeGo) just left the board. So yeah, MeeGo is basically left for dead.

And according to these charts, they are starting to innovate by cutting R&D spending.

Nokia, you've come a long way from rubber boots and bicycle tyres to mobile phones. But I fear this is where the story starts to end.

The inflation in the Weimar Republic was stopped November 1923 with the introduction of the Rentenmark and followed by a period called "Golden Twenties", with a pretty stable currency and economy. I sincerely doubt that the mentioned inflation was a major cause for WWII. It may have played a role, but there were much more important factors.

Oblig. XKCD

A practical steam engine fuel has at least the requirements:
- high energy density (you don't want a tender full of grass clippings behind your car)
- maintenance free fuelling the burning chamber (you don't want to shovel coal)
- clean, low emission burn

So basically, you have to process most of your example fuels anyways to be useful. Processing them to anything a conventional diesel engine (or, if you really like ethanol, otto engine) can burn is not a significant loss of efficiency.

Well, the main reasons why otto and diesel engines don't reach the theoretical maximum efficiency of the otto or diesel cycle is that they lose energy to the cooling medium. If you could use some of that heat, you might close the gap between the theoretical maximum efficiency and the practical efficiency. The added weight will of course reduce the gain, but it still might be greater than zero.

Speed Record Cars like this are usually build to run in a straight line on a salt flat. If you don't have wind from the side, there is no need for much stability. Building the car as narrow as possible reduces the area exposed to the wind and thus reduces drag.

Now if you try do drive that thing on a regular road, you'd probably not survive the first turn.

The Cyclone engine may be grat as a waste heat engine, i.e. to convert process heat back to some more useful type of energy. I doubt it's really usefull as primary engine, because converting fuel to heat and then heat to motion does not really sound more efficient than your usual internal combustion engine. And the main advantage "can burn all kind of alternative fuels"? Come on, I can do that with my diesel engine already. Increasing the efficiency of a car with a internal combustion/steam engine hybrid by using the waste heat of a combustion engine to gain some additional power could be a much better idea.

I think that at least the big advertising networks like Google will comply, and coincidentally those are the ones that do most of the tracking.

The proposed FTC regulation

At this level of abstraction, the only difference between "arrays of light globes" and OLED display is the size of the pixels.

Postulates have only a value in science if used to prove a thesis under certain assumptions. (e.g. "If P=NP, than breaking RSA is easy"). Unfortunately, the existance of a God does not prove ID in the slightest. I don't see any reason why a God should take the stupid task do design all species one by one. (The non-existance of a God, however, would disprove ID.)

Evolution does not per se deny the existance of a Creator. If you want to couple evolution with the belief of a creator, just imagine a Creator that made the rules, and said rules resulted in all the life forms we see today. Even the Pope acknowledges evolution, and I'm pretty sure he firmly believes in a Creator...

It can not only "not be tested at this time", it can't ever be tested. It is also not a theory. (Wikipedia: "The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found.") It's not even a hypothesis, because it is not testable. Suggesting otherwise is a grave misunderstanding of the scientific approach.