QWERTZ keyboard perhaps? In which case, 'a' would be above the 'y' key.

So... you want a Windows based tablet then? The kind which have been available for many years, and nobody bought.

Virgin Media are pretty open with their limits; they've got a whole page here which details the limits, after which they reduce your speed by 75% - the highest end connection is uncapped. In my experience though, what it doesn't list on that page that it seems to screw with the latency after you've been capped, I've had ping times all over the place.

In terms of 'unlimited' connections, Virgin Media are the most transparent with their limits, most other providers resort to a fair use policy without any hard numbers given.

Search for 'download openssh' - you know, the order which makes more sense in English - and the results from Google and Bing are almost identical with openssh.com at the top.

But Android isn't competing in the non smartphone segment, so while the article may be misleading, the comparison is still apt. As smartphone adoption increases, Nokia becomes less relevant, deciding to bank on selling the same old phones they've had for 10 years in developing markets until what? Smart phone OSes are developed further, smartphones themselves become cheaper and kill their marketshare completely?

Because technical superiority isn't the only factor? Obviously, you can use anything you want. As can Google, and they've obviously decided not to support H.264 any more, at least in their browser.

The obvious reason for moving away from H.264 is financial cost. Somebody has to pay for the H.264 patent licences, and Google can't rely on the user having Quicktime installed. Users such as, for instance, a Linux user. Or an Android or Chrome OS user. So Google foots the cost of the patent licence. Obviously by supporting H.264 in their software, they are encouraging the proliferation of a patent encumbered algorithm. And what if MPEG-LA decides to change the licencing conditions or substantially increases the cost of licencing at some time in the future? And of course they need to pay the licence fee because of the threat of litigation, and it'll be a lot more painful to remove support when H.264 is de-facto standard for HTML5 video. Software patents are enforceable in the US, and bear in mind that the H.264 patent holders include Microsoft and Apple, who don't exactly have many reasons to go lightly on Google. Even if they win the suit, it can be dragged out for many years and cost them potentially hundreds of millions.

There is also an ideological aspect to it, and just general common sense. Why support a patent-encumbered format when there is an almost as good open source, patent-free format owned by them?

They'd already laid off 30% of their staff only 18 months ago. Facebook has around 2000 employees, and AFAIK they're bigger than Myspace ever was.

Except they're not. They send you to the card issuer's website or, more commonly, the website of a company that the card issuer has contracted to do the verification.

So in other words, for all intents and purposes, you need to have your content in an iTunes library on your computer. Setting up an Apache installation just to stream your media library and having to dump the metadata into an XML file, especially if you acquire new media regularly, doesn't sound very practical.

Maybe not in the US where different networks use incompatible/mostly incompatible technologies/frequencies, but one of the main benefits to not being locked into a 2 year contract is exactly that - you've got the freedom to change provider or in other words your current provider hasn't got you over a barrel.

Ultimately though, the total cost of ownership (cost for phone + ongoing service cost), at least in the UK, is comparable. The networks aren't discounting anything - the phone cost is rolled into the monthly bill which, combined with the contact, is basically the network giving you a 18 month/2 year loan for the cost of the phone.

Considering Mozilla rely on Google for revenue, pissing them off probably wouldn't be in their own best interest.

Wikipedia would seem to suggest that those people are right.

It does seem to be needlessly complicated though. What is the point of the standard HDMI cables? Surely the cost difference between standard and high speed can't be enough to justify two different versions, so it seems to exist for artificial market segmentation.

I think your memory may be faulty.

You can still have an SD TV, or only have a SD signal, like the majority of the UK population do - you're still paying for broadcasts you can't (with your current setup) receive.