As a brit I've taken to reading TIME. The writing seems to be better than our own magazines, and it's nice to have something without the focus on local politics and crime.

One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that it's fundamentally impossible to copy a qbit (hmm, wait until hollywood hears about that). So the cloud service really couldn't have logged what it sent back to you before it sent it.

More to the point, I suspect this proposal works by sending entangled qbits into the service, keeping the corresponding pairs, and getting back something that can only be turned into your answer by combining it with what you kept. This isn't the same as what you're talking about - the client literally just stores a set of bits and combines them at the end, like an xor. So it's like that story from a few months ago with an encrypted database that could run queries on its data without decrypting it, but better in that a) it works for free, for any computation, you don't have to design your database for it b) it's quantum encryption and thus provably unbreakable

You're supposed to use WebDAV for that. It's not as nice and easy as sftp, but it does work.

New lines (the channel one and this one) are being built to European standards. Given how long it would take to cycle through replacing all the bridges, I think that's probably the best they can do.

Surely it can't be that simple, or I could make a copy of Apache Harmony, randomly include one bit of OpenJDK, declare it a derived work and thus covered by the OpenJDK patent license? Have I missed something?

Only if you mean the long term after their patents have expired. They've refused to grant a license for apache's Java implementation, and one can only assume they must have some level of control over "Open" JDK (otherwise I take openjdk, modify it by removing all of the code and replacing it with apache harmony, and done).

If you're using ATM like most of Europe then it's (IIRC) 56-bit cels that matter.

Nah, the city of Westminster covers most of what we think of as "London".

Simple? Only if you've never played any modern rules-light system. If you're willing to modify the rules as it suits and not take them too seriously then you'll probably have fun whatever you play, but there are much better systems than D&D around nowadays.

How else would you want it? They're supposed to represent a large political party, of course they're going to take the positions of the mainstream of that party. I do see a fairly clear distinction between the moderates (Romney, Gingrich), the conservatives (Santorum, Perry(?), Bachmann, the rest of them), and Ron Paul, and when you only get to vote for one guy and don't get to give a reason, that's probably about as subtle a question as the electorate can meaningfully answer. I would agree that the "conservative" cluster seems much of a muchness and the field could do with thinning down to one in each of those three groups, but that's what these straw polls are for.

I had to borrow an old Nokia a few months ago, and found facebook's java mobile app was stunningly good, better than the android one.

Nope. The Netscape 4 codebase was thrown away because it was terrible, but look how the netscape 6 codebase turned out. If you don't have the skill/discipline/etc. to fix a bad codebase, you won't be able to write a good new one either.

Where are you getting flights that cheap? Seriously, I'd've been to the US (from London) for a weekend already if the tickets I could find weren't 5x that.

I'd point out that the original transformer benchmarks ahead of the galaxy and way ahead of the xoom (don't know about the others). It handles 720p video comfortably (I'd recommend buying Dice Player, it's only #4 to make your #400 tablet much better), so I'm not sure how much benefit you'd actually get from the prime's faster processor - the only time the original gets sluggish (for me) is trying to use it with several torrents running at once in the background.

Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it? Or, more to the point, is your threshold of acceptable evidence the same for any proposition - so if I see a light in the sky enough times, I can say "it's a satellite, that's a fact" and "it's an alien, that's a fact" with equal validity?

99.9% is an arbitrary figure; my actual level of confidence that this chocolate teapot doesn't exist is higher than that.