You're not counting the increased cost of the hybrid. If you spend $5000 more for a hybrid then you would for an equivalent car, save $3600/100,000 miles, and then drive 20,000 miles a year then you're losing a lot more then $700 in the first year. In order to break even by buying a hybrid with that cost structure you'd need to drive ~139,000 miles which would take you ~ 7 years. It's only *after* that point that you'd be saving money by buying a hybrid. If you factor in the rate at which fuel prices are rising and the cost of new batteries for the hybrid then the break even point may move forwards or backwards, but you're still spending more money up front in order to (hopefully) save some money later.

ZFS would not have made an iota of difference as the filesystem patents in question cover technologies (har.) used by FAT, which is implemented by Android because FAT is the defacto standard for removable drives/SD cards.

Err... so which part of "closed source" is the GPL software?

The GPL allows you to use someone else's code with the proviso that you license your code under the GPL as well. Don't like those terms? Don't use GPL'd code.

Fresh tomatoes are an excellent alternative to canned tomatoes. If you need to get the skin off then boil some water, and then drop the tomatoes in for 30s or so, the skin will peel right off after they cool a bit.

The IP market is not a free market, you can't really sell IP addresses like that. Instead what would happen is that HP would either have to become an ISP (or spin off an ISP division) or release the block(s) back to ARIN. ARIN would then assign them according to their existing policies. Further more, new blocks cost a yearly upkeep fee whereas if you were grandfathered in (like HP was) then there is no fee.

Because of this there isn't really any incentive at all (except perhaps some very very small PR) for returning blocks, and that's not even thinking about the costs associated with moving to a new IP range or the abject stupidity of NAT.

Ebook piracy shows no such thing. What is shows is that when your trying to sell something in a market where the cost to copy is nil, then your business model is broken. Artificial scarcity on the internet is simply impossible and at best all you can hope for is to get people to pay for convenience.

Obviously writers can't make money through concerts or t-shirts; but there will always be a market for those of us of enjoy real, physical books. There is also a market for public speakers, many of whom are writers. Does this mean that all writers will be able to make a living? No. However it's neither reasonable nor feasible to allow everyone to make a living doing what they enjoy.

GP = grand parent, which is usually (but may or may not be due to your browsing level) the parent post of the parent post.

In that case you are doing significantly more work then you need to, just to spoof timings so that your attacker will think you are vulnerable to a timing attack. Better just to take constant time and be done with it.

Yes.

If you ignore the constitution in one place, then why not ignore it in others? Who's to say that your right to free speech should really be protected, or your right to liberty? All murderer's are free until they are caught, and murder is illegal. Clearly we should lock everyone up to prevent murders.

The beta version seems to test more of the spec: http://beta.html5test.com/

How often are children bullied in school?

And who owns the streets? The government.

Criminals are people too - and should certainly have a right to vote. Otherwise all someone would need to do to disenfranchise a significant proportion of the population is to enact a law that makes a common activity illegal.

Promises made in exchange on the campain trail should be considered contractual ("Vote for me and I'll do X" seems pretty strait forward).

Say you'll lower taxes and then vote to raise them? See you in court!