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.

If you see how the -inside- of a 3.5 TRS jack is designed, you would see that Apple's design would have the same surface area between the contacts as a current jack. In a current jack the contacts do not SURROUND the plug. They only touch the side of it.
You can see an example of a typical type of TRS jack here

Marc Emery was running a business selling goods across the border, into the US, that the US Federal Government considers to be extremely illegal. He was extradited to the US after the Canadian government couldn't come up with a reasonable excuse not to. Personally, I feel that this makes Emery a very poor spokesperson for the effort to legalize in Canada, since his arrest and conviction would have likely gone unchanged even if it was completely legal in Canada. I wish that all of the attention going to his 'plight' would instead be focused on changing the laws here in Canada instead of trying to free a man who was essentially daring a foreign government to extradite him while he was running an illegal export business.

Furthermore, what does the BC provincial government have to do with the situation?