My MBP is a mid-2007 model: it has a replaceable RAM and battery, which appears to be what the OP cares about --- it predates Apple slimming them down further (later MBPs had replaceable hard drives, too, at the same thickness). Side by side you can see the T410's opening above the full height of the MBP, as it's almost 50% thicker.

Compared with the MBPs, though, it's a brick. My T410 is almost double the thickness of my older MBP.

And in the UK, the T410 was only available with a 1280x800 screen --- which is crazy low for a 14.3" laptop. I don't know if that's changed since, though.

Opera tried changing to blocking third-party cookies by default, and had it break a lot of major Russian sites. Needless to say, the change lasted from 10.50 to 10.51 --- with less than a week between those releases.

Depends on the year, assuming we're talking revenue. AMD topped that in 2000, and then in every year from 2004 onwards.

Power management is one of the big things that's been worked on in the 3.11/3.12 timeframe, FWIW. It'd be lovely to get some hard data on how big the difference is once 3.12 is out.

In the UK, the land is owned by the Crown, but it is not their private property and they have no control over it. The Crown Estate manage the land, and any surplus revenue goes to HM Treasury (essentially, the finance/economy department of government), with 15% of the net revenue going to the monarch (this is essentially the income they get to carry out their duties as head of state). The Crown Estate is ultimately accountable to Parliament, and an annual report is submitted to both the Monarch and Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate is a good overview if you want more detail.

Either house can introduce bills --- which house something is introduced into is mostly a matter of tradition (financial bills, for example, are introduced in the House of Lords) --- but in general only the House of Commons need pass it. Note that there are limitations to the House of Commons' supremacy --- certain bills are required to pass in both houses (extending the term of parliament, for example).

A nation-wide (monopolistic) service -- railways aren't (and can't really) be run according to market principles, why should anyone be allowed to profit from this?
No idea what it used to be like, but the current railways are beyond a joke. Just go anywhere into central europe and you'll notice a world of difference.

Most of Central Europe has more competition in the railway market than in the UK, not less! Re-instating a nationalized monopoly will just go back to the money-sink BR used to be (where, for example, kitchen cars remained fairly widespread on trains long beyond them getting much custom, because the unions wouldn't let them be dropped).

The problem with the current setup is that of the difference between freight and passenger train services --- move to running passenger train operating companies (TOCs) as freight ones are run, and suddenly we'll have a system close to most of Central Europe. When it comes to freight trains any competent person can get a license to be a TOC (this is not dissimilar to running public buses!) and then it's just a matter of drumming up custom and purchasing track access rights from Network Rail. The problem is the temporary (but long enough to be harmful!) monopolies private companies are granted as a result of the passenger franchise bidding competitions, nothing else.

What several other countries did was split up the incumbent as per EU regulation (there's nothing that diabolical about this), but keep the state incumbent passenger service (often with a division between local and intercity trains) while opening up track usage rights to competition. If a private company wants to come in and compete with the state incumbent --- go right ahead! We shouldn't forbid that, as the competition (at least in Central Europe) has forced the monopolistic incumbent to stay on its feet, and keep improving its service.

And you say they can't be run to market-principles --- for a lot of people, they can choose a half hour later train if it means they get a cheaper (and possibly better) service. If you look up trains between London and Gatwick Airport, for example, you'll see multiple companies running with a fair price difference between them. How is that competition not helping the consumer?

quick! point to the document showing that a select tag has a value attribute!

It's in HTML.

This very much is one of the major achievements of HTML5: specifying what is interoperable and required to avoid breaking the web, but historically undefined. One couldn't practically launch a web browser without reverse-engineering others.

The AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board) ruled that was down to Rolls Royce - down to a British supplier. They weren't trying to save face then (they put the blame squarely on a company in the same country!), and given the Asiana aircraft had P&W engines, it seems highly unlikely to be related.

As someone on countless W3C mailing lists: please don't. It's highly unlikely you're going to bring any new discussion points to the mailing list (sheer quantity of the objections is, sadly in this case, not going to change anything), as the topic has been discussed to death already.

If you want to stop the specification, you're better off petitioning implementers to not implement it than the W3C; as it is now, EME is going to become a de-facto standard with the majority of browsers (by market share) supporting it regardless of whether the W3C publish any specification or not. Convincing the W3C not to standardize it will have no effect in the end, it'll just become a de-facto internet standard instead of a de-jure one.

You're ignoring the existence of security updates â" which are future updates. Sony have an interest in them, for PR if nothing else.

The VP8/VP9 patent pool from MPEG-LA is far smaller than the H.264 one, AIUI.

This. A thousand times this.

If you look back to the original H.264 debate on public-html (the HTML WG's mailing list), you'll see those against implementing VP8 aren't doing against it because they consider the patent risk greater than H.264, it's that they aren't doing it because the risk of H.264 *is a sunk cost*. They thought both were likely to result in a risk of "massive liabilities", and hence wanted to minimize their risk by not taking more on than needed.

Note that a 2560x1600 panel has almost double (1.98x) the number of pixels of a 1920x1080 one, and given how ugly scaling tends to be, it can be entirely worthwhile to have a high end graphics card.

On the other hand, I still have a GTX 580 (and when I bought it, the mid-range card couldn't get a smooth framerate above 1920x1200), and I don't have any impetus to upgrade yet, as the difference isn't that great.