In some cases yes. It all depends on the priorities and how much weight one assigns to various parameters. Efficiency is not the only feature of a car.

For example - I am willing to pay extra for fuel (since my car consumes more), to have a car that I can maintain/repair myself (mostly) and that to me looks better.

I have a CRT TV now (because it was cheap (used), shows analog SD content very well and can show 720p), but if I decide to get a newer TV, I will most likely buy a plasma because it has better image (even though the power it uses will cost me more than that of a LCD TV).

I don't know. I guess if the police pulled me over I could explain that either 1) I waited at the light for 10 minutes so it must be broken (hopefully they will check it) or 2) I saw multiple other drivers ignore it so the light is most likely broken or if it;s not, then why I was the only one who was stopped?

My country is almost completely white. Usually the people with darkest skin around here are Jews (more common) or Muslims (less common). There are a few black people living here, but they are probably less than 1%. If I see a black person I usually think he's a tourist or on a business trip.

Well, somebody could produce a torrent app that signs the records and is verified to produce correct records. It that gets the app certified for evidence gathering, the police could use it to, well, gather evidence. It is usually assumed that a police officer would not intentionally alter the records.

I do not recall a rule that a red light can be ignored after x minutes, though I suppose it could be used as defense provided the light was actually broken (there should be repair records).

What racism?

That was manipulation by a human during or after the recording. There is no way to prevent it. However, the tape recorder itself cannot be so out of cal that it would alter words. Like, say a radar that can show a wrong number.

Actually, no. I do not have a camera with these functions and I usually do not look for gimmicks in a camera. But if the change is big, I guess the defense could argue that the photo was altered.

But, let's say that I have a dashcam and just filmed somebody speeding. It would most likely not count as evidence since 1) the speedometer on my car (or the dashcam) can be wrong and the recording could have been sped up. If I record him running a red light, OTOH, it would count as evidence unless the defense proves that this was CGI or whatever.

A guy successfully avoided a speeding ticket in court because the calibration on the radar was expired by a couple of days.

I think (IANAL) that a camera does not need to be certified because the camera cannot take a false photo - either the photo is out of focus or otherwise unusable, or it is properly taken and you can see what is in it. The camera cannot change, say, the face of the suspect. Same for a tape (or digital) recorder - it cannot alter the conversation recorded, so if it's understandable, it can be used. Compare that to a police radar - that needs to be certified because it can display a false speed. Or a breathalyzer - it can be inaccurate - that is usually good enough for a home one - even if it says that I am just below the limit I am not going to drive anyway, but I do not want to be fined because the police breathalyzer was out of calibration.

Software can show anything you want. I can make a screenshot of uTorrent showing your IP even with the regular version (and photoshop) or a modified version. Or it can just show your IP anyway. How do we know it's the truth?

No. The tracker is still operational and given how publicized the initial trial was (the anti-piracy agency wanted to make an example) if it succeeded, it would be even more publicized. Also, IIRC another point against the anti-piracy group was that you have to accept the EULA only when installing Windows - downloading it you do not see nor need to accept any agreement forbidding you from downloading or uploading the software.

And recently the loudest anti-piracy person (the manager of the agency) was caught with illegal drugs (so, I guess drugs are okay, but movies aren't in his opinion).

But I didn't pay $20k to keep my current car from now on, so if it breaks down without the possibility of repair I still can buy some other used car and save money.

Now, safety features are important, but from what I have seen, modern cars are too soft - hitting another car at 40-50km/h can completely destroy your car, but when I hit some other car at around 40km/h, my car could be straightened out (though it needed a new headlamp, radiator and bonnet). Though the soft modern cars most likely are safer at very high speeds. But driving even a 2005 car (not very new obviously) on a gravel road leaves it full of dents (I guess driving it a few times on that road will cause it to start using less fuel).

Also, my current car does not have software in it (really, the car was made in 1982 and all controls are mechanical), so it is easier to repair (that and everything is easier to access - I do not need to remove a wheel to replace a lightbulb). So this may be worth to me the higher cost of fuel (then again, LPG is not that expensive compared to gasoline).

But we were talking about the fuel efficiency and how more efficient car saves money for everyone. Just like having your own solar power - while the power may be free from now on, I may have to pay enough money for the panels, installation etc to keep using grid power for 20 years. And the solar power will need periodic battery replacements, so the power is not completely free after installing.

Well, I already slightly dislike the look of every modern car, one of the reasons I love old cars - the manufacturers tried to make a car that looks good, they were not focusing all their effort to make the car as efficient as possible.

It's not whether you drive a lot or not, it's just a flat benefit.

Let's say the new car costs $20k and uses half the fuel that my current car uses.
For $20k I could buy a lot of fuel for my current car, let's say it will be enough to go 100000km.
So, my old car costs $0.2/km to drive. The new car would be $0.1/km, so it saves me $0.1 every km I drive it. I have to drive it 200000km for it to save me enough money to cover the cost of the car. If I do not drive a lot, chances are that the car will break down (in a way that cannot be repaired) or be smashed in a crash (and be not repairable), because it may take me many years to drive 200000km.

So, I may be better off with a car that uses more fuel but costs less up front. Or just keeping my current car which I like and which looks nice (not completely aerodynamic).

Just because kids like the music they like does not mean that I do too.

Because it looks ugly. Also, the laws in my country limit the maximum speed to 130km/h, so I don't care that denting the car will make it faster - I can break the law already if I want (my not very aerodynamic car made in 1982 with 80kW gasoline engine running on LPG can go at around 165km/h (and going 35km/h over the limit would result in a huge fine)), I do not really need a faster car). Also, saving 11% money on fuel but having to buy a new car would not pay off unless you drive a lot.

I use Classic Theme Restorer and Status-4-Evar. That makes it almost like the old Firefox, I just need to customize the toolbar and I'm done.

But for SD or HD, I can keep the files in playable format.

That and a format that can be played immediately. I do not want to re-edit the file every time I want to watch it :).

Most likely (it is part of the EU), not that anybody cares to enforce any of this. Microsoft tried to sue some users (or rather, told the police about them) of our local BitTorrent tracker for downloading Windows - they got nothing (because the proof - a screenshot from uTorrent was dismissed since uTorrent is not certified as an evidence gathering tool - like, say, a police radar).

Unlike Chrome, you can get the normal UI of Firefox. I have customized it such that My Firefox 31 looks almost exactly like Firefox 3.6.

Being able to play it on more devices.

Transcoding isn't fun or fast. I'd rather have my files in such a format that I can actually use instead of some format that I would need to convert before being able to play.

After all, my archived analog media does not need any conversion - I can just grab and play a VHS tape or a record.

Also, my country does not have software patents, so h.264 is (legally) free to me.

Depends on where you live. I get 500mbps* symmetric connection today, for about the same price I used to get a 4mbps/768kbps connection 4 years ago and a 1mbps/128kbps connection 8 years ago.

*They throttle to down to 80-90mbps a few hours per day (during peak), but I get full 500mbps in other times, with no cap whatsoever, the average bandwidth is about 300mbps, which is good enough for me.

Or, I may buy another old car and convert it to electric, so that it would have almost no software (the only software would be charging and motor control though maybe motor control could be done without software using analog electronics, with everything else being mechanical).

So, it would be an electric car that looks good (not like the modern aerodynamic cars) and has no internet connection, no touchscreens, no operating system inside and one that does not need any software updates.