That would only be possible if it is done in the cloud.

You're confusing this with something else. 100% faster means twice as fast. As in take the original speed, and add to it 100% of the original speed (e.g. 30 + (30 * 1.0)).

Not really. If you can be 50% less efficient than the competition, but for significantly less of the price, it is still a better deal for a lot of people. Efficiency only matters when the desired generated energy demand is too great for the available area. Since most buildings do not have solar on them, there is plenty of places to throw in lower-efficiency solar panels.

And I bought 2x 2TB HDDs for less than half that. Your point? Why do some people have such a hard time understanding that not everyone cares about speed for all of their drives. My primary drive, sure, make that baby as fast as possible. But all I need there is 200 GB (85 GB at this time) since that just holds the OS and all programs I use. The rest - the multiple TBs of backups and media (music, movies, pictures), who cares how fast that is. Even the slowest HDDs are going to be able to play 1080p just fine. For the very rare occasions those drives bottleneck, I don't mind waiting. I'd rather spend the money upgrading everything else that bottlenecks far more often.

Goldbach's conjecture: "Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes." (source)

Like done in any other free market, Google sees an idea with potential, decides they can do it better, and makes their own implementation. They still respect the patented ideas (mostly), and when needed, re-engineer the implementation. This is competition, and without it, things would hardly improve in terms of innovation since there would be little motivation. People should be happy Google spends so much money in trying out new ideas and products instead of just sitting on it and watching it grow.

Sounds like a better alternative than risking these people having a daughter they don't want, and treating her accordingly.

I would say the opposite. For most all events that happen on a plane that will lead to a disaster, you have plenty of time to react. It is not like you need to sit there alert and listening for anything abnormal. "Hey pilot guy, I heard a sound!" "Thank you sir, you just saved everyone!" What we do NOT need is people over-reacting and creating a panic.

Dirty region rendering is where you only redraw areas that need to be updated instead of drawing the whole screen every frame. It was a lot more common in the older days, and can still be useful for low-power, low-performance devices to keep a larger screen up-to-date. This is precisely why XBMC is implementing it - to reduce overhead of a mostly-idle screen (lower power usage when not viewing media). And I am very happy to see that - too much software doesn't care how much demand it puts on the system as long as it looks good. There is so much being put into trying to make hardware more energy efficient, but an even easier low-hanging fruit is the software.

Yeah, because replacing memory, disks, batteries, etc is just like trying to replace a transistor on a modern CPU...

It is one thing to not "help" the consumer in replacing components by not designing for that. But once you start designing your device to intentionally make it more difficult to repair and modify, it is a whole different game.

By your logic, I shouldn't have to pay taxes on books that I plan to read at night since I already pay taxes on electric bills, chairs, the house, etc. Hell, I shouldn't even pay taxes on food I bring home to prepare, since I already paid taxes on the appliances and energy used to prepare it.

Good point! "We should be allowed to piggy-back off the success and work of others, both in terms of theme and art, because we don't like the law" is a flawless legal defense.

Guess you didn't look very hard. Gallery from TFA: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utrolige-historier/artikkel.php?artid=10078768

Which are all great ADVENTURE games

Sorry, but if you honestly believe this one, you are quite out of touch with how "bad seeds" behave. Having kids stand up just gives a very easy way for them to disrespect their teachers. Those who don't want to stand up won't. As a result, they will either 1) be reprimanded, which many will just rebel against even more or 2) you do nothing about it, and further distinguish and separate the "good" from the "bad". This is not how you encourage respect between student and teacher. All teachers I liked and got along well with, from early elementary to late college, were ones who treated me as just another person. They didn't force me to do stuff for the sake of "that is what you are supposed to do", and they didn't make me treat them like my superior. Because I liked those teachers and respected them for the way they treated me, I actually felt bad not doing my class work in those classes.