or Apple isn't willing to pay.

The counter-sue is just a smokescreen PR, the dog which barks is the dog which got hit and so forth.

GSM Association would have that power over Nokia? Doubtfull, Nokia being the company mostly responsible for GSM Association to exist in the first place ... No Nokia's GSM R&D in the early days, No GSM Association....

Reasonable... Apple would get so insanely good deal if they get access to most Nokia's patents. Nokia's phone related patents count has to be quite phenomenal... what you should expect for the #1 mobile maker in the world, and #1 mobile R&D company

Nokia's R&D might even dwarf the annual revenue apple is making ...

Nokia does other communication hardware than just mobile phones, for example during the early days of xDSL Nokia's routers were everywhere...

Correct that, already ordered one for testing ;)

Finally just not vaporware? :)

Going to get one.

I wish i could get even cheaper ones without screen, keyb, battery, wifi etc. just PS/2, USB, VGA and Ethernet connections? ;)

I see tons of hype lately of ARM based netbooks, desktops etc etc. yet i cannot find them for sale anywhere. Not newegg, not local stores etc. and google results tend to produce only reviews. No one sells, but lots of reviews sounds to me like most of these devices are completely vaporware.

and Corolla GT does 36mpg, in a 950kg, 124hp package from mid 80s and BMW M3 first model does 29-30mpg with ~200hp.

200SX does ~30mpg aswell.

BMW 750 does around 20-22mpg aswell.

A 80s RWD corolla 1.6l does around 30mpg aswell.

A Skyline GT-R i'd assume does around 20-22mpg aswell.

As you can see, mpg has very little to do with engine size, power, vehicle weight etc. when all the other variables keeps changing.

What if the Corvette utilizes direct port injection, direct ignition etc, while RX8 utilizes normal fuel injection and say wasted spark ignition? These are variables which has to be accounted for when doing a serious comparison of the engine type.

I would assume so aswell, rarity and different operating principle.

They are very cool indeed, and i would love to see someone taking the full advantage of a rotary engine, that means extremely high revving engine.

Wankel can be efficient, it's been demonstrated many times in the past.

The problem with wankel is the low torque, high rev nature. Emissions limit it to extremely small engine sizes.

I wonder what would happen if wankel's idle rpm is allowed to be say 1500rpm, and the whole band at the same ratio higher.

You do realize 2-stroke is usually considered to be especially high emission engine? Yet, Lotus managed to build this very low emission engine ...

I would assume they are so restricted engines due to emissions, and/or fuel consumption is not really on their "TODO" list when they design the cars.

Many sports cars consume A LOT, despite being highly efficient engines, so i would assume they don't really even try to cut the consumption at all for travel.

Big cars are always designed consumption in mind because they would have so so high consumption otherwise. ie. small trucks tend to consume a minimum of over 20l/100km when empty, and highway, that's around 12mpg. (Small truck just over 6000 pounds)

Same goes for Wankel engines.
It's ridiculous that they are measured with the same standards than a completely differently working engine.

By design, Wankel is way more efficient (all rotating parts, no complete turns in direction). Downside with Wankel is inexistant low rpm torque, which comes from a multitude of factors (ie. lower rotating mass for one)

In wankel, on 1-cycle you have 3 ignitions, while on 4-stroke you have 1 ignition, and 4-stroke cycle is longer than wankel's ....

Actually, higher fuel efficiency does likely translate to more power. But when it translates to more power, it's swapped to smaller engine, underpowered one, and then the fuel consumption is again higher because it's currently going on high loads.

For example, an old RWD corolla.

Stock 1.6liter, carburated engine. Producing around 70JIS HP. Sounds like doesn't consume much, yes?
minimum 8liters per 100km (@80km/h highway), practically mixed city + highway (@100km/h) translates to 12liters per 100km, sometimes you can get as low as 10l/100km.
RPM limit: 6,000RPM

Newer, high power, high rev 1.6liter, fuel injected, twin cam engine, from early 90s.
Same engine has been used as a very tuned up version in Formula Atlantic, and continues to be used in Rally and Drifting.
Produces 124 to 165JIS HP, depending upon engine variation. No low rpm torque to speak of, especially with the very first versions.
RPM limit 6,800 to 8,500RPM depending upon version.

Comparison engine: Latest 16v (circa 91-93), steel exhaust manifold, freeflow air filter, 8k rpm rev limit, produces ~135HP
Fuel consumption highway 100-120km/h: 6.5-7l/100km
Mixed fuel consumption average 8l/100km

As for the oil companies stopping highly efficiently engines: I agree with you 100%. There's so many cool, very high fuel efficiency motors invented, but none makes in the market?

And you should keep a consistent naming scheme, along with consistent typecasing....

investment.calculateRiskInvestment() // investment.calculateRisk()

and int employeeRating