Nothing wrong with your rough numbers, however, you fail to understand the real plan at work here. Those that intend to force you to use their particular brand of Politically Correct power in the future don't have to drive down the cost of solar. Their plan is to simply and drastically increase the cost of power that they disapprove of. No matter that coal, nuclear, and natural gas could provide the USA with with cheap, plentiful domestically sourced power for the rest of our lives, we're going to have to buy overly expensive and unreliable solar because our political masters are beholden to wackos.

Wackos, I should add, who will profit immensely due to their investments in uneconomic (until you're force to buy it at their prices) Green Energy ventures and carbon offset farms. You're about to be taken for the most expensive ride of your life here -- and in Britain as well.

So it beats (maybe) the ARMs of the moment. But what about the ARMs when Medfield actually ships? And the quad-core ARMs now?

And why isn't there an option for being 75% of the circumference away from my PoB?

(Hint: This is a trick question.)

Who in the world would want to live under and be governed by these Neanderthals?
(I realize that this is an insult to true Neanderthals.)

So this is the consolation prize for not winning T-Mobile (and that hot T-Mobile girl).

Of course the real cost here is $1.925B + $4B deal breaker fee to T-Mobile. Buy that girl a new pair of heels.

So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.

...you probably spent more money than someone making an online purchase with an Android or a desktop computer.

But if you're an Apple fanboi you've already proven that you like spending lots more money, so why is this news?

The best 3 things about a fuel-cell powered computing device:

1: It's instantly rechargable -- just slap on a new fuel tank.

2: It would actually be possible to have an accurate readout of power remaining.

3: It might (hopefully) retain its full capacity for the lifetime of the fuel-cell.

The worst 1 thing about a fuel-cell powered computing device:

1: All of the Apple lawsuits trying to keep anyone else from doing it also no matter how obvious this patent is in foresight.

You are in a twisty little maze of what is and is not innovative, what is and is not patentable, what is and is not prior art, what is and is not obvious, what is and is not Apple, and how stupid or stupider the US Patent Office is, all different.

Ever since the 1960's and big Control Data Corporation iron the latest/greatest supercomputer always seems headed towards weather forecasting/climate modeling. And we still can't accurately say where the next hurricane will make landfall in 3 days, or if I'm going to get rained on tomorrow.

Why would Sony feel the need to include a You Can't Sue Me provision in their ToS?

Common Sense sez: Because they are already planning to be doing things to you that you will want to sue them for.

Can BT show that they've been damaged in any way at all by Android? I think that legally you have to show how you've been damaged.

Since when has BT produced anything of actual value? Whereas Android is a great alternative to the iApple hegemony.

So are this seems to be a question of UMG behaving like thugs (and who is surprised about that?) and their seeming ability to take down anything that they don't like on YouTube without resorting the the DMCA and the requirements and penalties for misuse of same. The unasked question is: And who else also has this ability wrt YouTube via secret agreements?

You can't make that statement without knowing just what the agreement is. Freedom of the press applies to preventing governments from stifling it. Corporations are not bound by the Constitution in the same way.