How is there any causal relationship between Google buying Motorola Mobility and close-sourcing Android? How would it in any way benefit Google to close-source Android? Even if they did, why would anyone use webOS as a replacement? Finally, how is HP still going with people like this running it?

Whoosh!

Remind me again how many people have been killed by "crazy jihaddists" taking binary explosives onto aircraft and detonating them...

It doesn't matter what studies you publish regarding climate change, the pro-AGW people will say that it either supports their claims or that the data in the study isn't enough to draw substantive conclusions from. Meanwhile, the anti-AGW folks will say that either the data in the study isn't enough to draw substantive conclusions from or that it supports their claims.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to sit around trying to work out if a) mankind's effect on the environment is a significant enough contributor to the current climate trend that anything we can reasonably change is going to make any difference and b) if there's any chance in hell that you can get a *room* of random people to agree to noticeably reduce their energy consumption, let alone an entire planet.

All they're really doing is moving the certificate revocation checks from the client to the server; Google updates its own CRL and pushes it to Chrome so that the browser doesn't have to rely on potentially unresponsive 3rd party sites for its checks.

Because otherwise (as I've discovered by switching it on in Seamonkey) about 20% of the time the connection to the CRL/OCSP server fails for whatever reason and so your site won't load, even though there's nothing wrong with its certificate.

Now you might argue that false positives are preferable to ignoring problems, but it does break the user experience pretty badly.

Because the EU Commission can continue to draft and negotiate ACTA for as long as they like, but ultimately they have to put it to the EU Parliament to vote on before it can become law. There are a couple of things they can try if the Parliament rejects it, but those can still be vetoed by a 2/3rds majority of the Parliament and history has shown that they generally don't like it when the Commission tries to do an end-run around them.

Well then I suggest you start circa 1300 (the origins of the "modern" system of English law) and work forward until you reach the present; I suspect you're going to be a very busy man.

It's a lack of belief system.

How is it in any way inconsistent?

It has nothing to do with the integrity of the law, as they say in their statement "which now seems both cruel and absurd" and everything to do with acting in line with established procedure for dealing with posthumous pardons where the person(s) in question were fairly convicted under the laws of the time.

If you were to attempt to restrospectively pardon every person who was convicted under a law that has since been repealed or replaced, you would be doing it as a full time job.