I have a 30mbps connection, and I live in the United States. I am 100% positive that it is not a common occurrence to receive network services at data rates above about 12mbps even with a 30mbps connection on the public internet. Internet 2 is irrelevant to this discussion anyway, because it is a closed private network, it's not the public internet. Additionally, MILLIONS of people aren't connecting to it from home, hardly anyone (except university students living in dorm rooms) is. Comparing I2 capacity to cable modem capacity is stupid, it tells you nothing about either. An apt comparison of cable modem bandwidth would be dsl bandwidth or some other residential broadband service or provider, which I2 is not.
Comparing to other countries is at least relevant, but the US is rapidly approaching and will be surpassing them in the not too distant future if residential bandwidth keeps growing as quickly as it has been.
That's like saying that most offices have insufficient bandwidth because there are offices in data centers with 10 gigabit connections to the internet.
And quantify most, Internet 2, which I assume you are talking about since you referenced Gigapops, is led by 212 universities, while there are 2,618 accredited 4 year colleges and universities in the US, hardly most. And besides that, having a gigabit Ethernet connection in a dorm room, which most definitely don't, is not the same as having a gigabit of bandwidth. The connection is shared between all the dorms, and the university as a whole. On the public internet, anything over about 12mbps is only useful with a subset of hosts. I have a 30mbps connection here, and the only public network service that can saturate the link (at about 3,800 KB/s) is my usenet provider.
The point is, a dorm at a university isn't even an apt comparison to a apartment building, unless that building happens to sit on a data center campus.
At what cost? Is that available residentially? How many students are connecting? Your comparisons are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to compare it to something, it should be something like FiOS not business lines that are at a minimum an order of magnitude more expensive.
I thought the same thing, and then my launch 360 failed this week. I've only ever used it in completely open spaces, and it is currently sitting all by itself on top of a glass shelf. It's been suggested that the failure rate is as high as 33%, and I believe it given how easy it was to place the RMA.
And that's exactly the reason I haven't got it. When I upgrade my video card, I'll pick up a copy, but until then I'll stick with my 360. The physics and their impact on game play look intriguing, but as I understand it you can't take advantage of that on lower settings.
Stealing the train and derailing it is pretty neat, as is skydiving. If you get a ramp truck and drive it to the top of the mountain, you can grab a motorcycle, jump off, and sky dive down if you bring a parachute. Sometimes when you carjack somebody the passenger will stay in the car, at that point head on collisions and driving into the water can be fun.
San Andreas was a really cool game, there are so many little things you could do.
Companies would probably be more excited about CES if they had something a bit more interesting to launch than new lines of iPod docks and larger digital picture frames.
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it won't delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
"Our God-given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis, only Man can evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men."
Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
I'm well under 40, and I'd love to see man go to Mars and beyond, it would reinvigorate public interest in space travel, technology development, and space and science in general. As cheap as rovers are, there isn't much reason we can't do both.
The problem with the US is that despite decades of experience and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, a lot of people still hold a deep-seated belief that UHC is a socialist plot to take over their wallet. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me, now get off my lawn.
Exactly, tools like Nessus and Nmap are invaluable. I routinely use them to inspect my own network to make sure it is as difficult as possible to break in. Even tools like lophtcrack can be useful to locate weak passwords and recover forgotten passwords. If these tools can't be easily located and downloaded by the security people, they will undoubtedly still be floating around in the dark corners of the internet anyway, the areas frequented by the real miscreants.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The point is, that even to get the Tesla to charge in as little as 4 hours, you are still going to need a 55 amp circuit in your garage to plug into. How many people in a neighborhood can draw that much additional current before the power distribution infrastructure needs massive, expensive overhauls. And while I would agree that electric should require less routine maintenance, it is estimated that the battery packs will have to be replaced in 5 years. The cost now is $20,000, and the estimate that then it will cost $12,000 which is still quite significant, considering that with gas at $4 per gallon, and driving 22,000 miles a year at 35mpg, the gas costs about the same as the battery array, without the power.
I'm glad somebody else can take a quick look at back of the envelope calculations and realize how thoroughly incapable the grid is of supporting that much additional load at this point. And solar power makes electric vehicles even more outrageous. If we have determined that it takes 318kwh/vehicle to "fast" charge in 10 minutes, I'm willing to assume that on average, gas stations in the United States have just 2 vehicles each refueling.
Given that the solar constant is about 1.4kwh/m squared, and assuming a generous efficiency rating on the solar technology of 30% with know overhead for equipment and regulation facilities, that means each gas station will require 1,514.286 square meters for solar collectors. There exist about 187,000 gas stations currently in the United States, brining that number to 283,171,482 meters squared. That works out to be around 110 square miles in total, which is probably a ridiculously low estimate.
How are environmentalists going to feel about turning vast areas of land into solar farms?
Where are you going to get the power to charge the batteries in 10 minutes? We'll use the Tesla Roadster as an example. The batteries hold 53kwh, or 190,800,000 joules. To provide that much energy in 10 minutes, it would take 318kw of power. So at 240V, it would require 1,325 amps, which isn't going to happen.
Even at 200A, 240V, 48kW, it would take just over an hour, and that's the entire capacity of most houses in the US. While that's a lot closer to the realm of possibility, it's still impractical without a major overhaul to the electric grid. Additionally, the Tesla's range is only 221 miles per charge, so the numbers could be 1.5-2 times that.
Even if the battery technology was here today, the power distribution infrastructure isn't, and isn't on its way either. 10 minute charges aren't going to happen unless gas stations start being constructed with small nuclear reactors that could, at the 200kw rating, provide enough juice to get one Tesla charged in about 16 minutes.
Range and charge time are both insufficient, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
1. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Uranium is mined, and nobody is running mining equipment on biodiesel, nor are they transporting it to power plants using biodiesel, ethanol, or even renewable generated electricity on electric locomotives. To be sure, the amount of carbon is extremely low per kWh of electricity generated, but very small > 0, even for very small cases of very small.
In that case, solar power is considerably less carbon neutral than nuclear power, giving the manufacturing processes involved.
2. As you know, nuclear proponents continually ignore the major immediate problem with nuclear power -- waste storage. Nobody wants more glass-encased nuclear waste in their neighborhood, and presently nobody wants some other neighborhood's nuclear waste being transported through their neighborhood. The nuclear industry has got to find technical and political solutions to these problems before society will embrace nuclear as a green solution. I'm not arguing that burning coal or oil is safer or cleaner than nuclear, just that any change to a status quo requires more than a slight or obscured imbalance, which is how the public currently perceives the status quo.
Most nuclear proponents would suggest that waste be reprocessed greatly reducing its half life, and then stored in any one of the nuclear waste storage facilities that exist presently.
3. What is Hubbart's Peak for uranium? I have no idea, but it surely must have one.
Some experts suggest about 5 billion years, longer than the sun will support life on earth, so in that sense nuclear could be considered more renewable than solar.
4. Which nations have substantial amounts of useful uranium? What would the balance of power be if those nations became the new Saudi Arabia of energy?
Canada and Australia both have large reserves, and would probably be much easier to deal with politically. Uranium could be extracted from granite, coal, and seawater, and other substances like thorium, which is much more abundant in the crust, could be used in breeders.
5. Solar off-peak is simply not a problem, not for a long time. Peak demand is highly correlated with sunshine in most of the world -- solar could serve quite effectively as the peaking plant, relying on other types of generation for base load. Electric storage is just not a major issue for solar -- it might become one for wind but it wouldn't be that hard to operate other green energy plants in a negative correlation to wind, ie burn woodchips when the wind isn't blowing, but not when the wind is blowing.
But you still need lots of other forms of power because if the sun isn't shining on a solar plant, it isn't producing energy. More importantly, as you say, with electric cars peak energy usage may change.
6. That said, plug in cars might change that formulation substantially, since most people would plug in their cars at night thereby adding demand off-peak [and off-sun]. If/when that happens, much of (5) becomes moot and there'd be some shifting of nighttime use [industrial, it's cheaper] to daytime and there'd be encouragement for folks to charge during the day [plug in jacks at car parks] to help keep demand during the day higher, when production due to solar is higher.
Electric cars still have too many issues to be practical for everyone. Range and charge time are both insufficient, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Arrays of nuclear power plants could be constructed for the express purpose of electrolyzing water and creating hydrogen, which could then be shipped around and sold at stations as fuel currently is. With an energy density of 143MJ/kg, hydrogen compares very favorably to gasoline, which only stores 46.9MJ/kg. Years ago my father had a state vehicle produced by Ford that was powered by either natural gas or gasoline. It ran reasonably well using either fuel, the only cav
You arrest someone if they commit a crime, and don't arrest them if they don't commit a crime. There ought not to be any discretion of the sort he wanted to exercise. I wouldn't say that. Some discretion is definitely advisable. For example, last night I was outside of a bar a little after last call, and a guy picked up a bag of trash and threw it at another guy getting it everywhere. A cop saw this happen. He could have charged the guy with littering, public intoxication, and maybe even assault. Instead, the cop walked over and made the guy pick up all the trash with his bare hands, throw it away, and apologize. In my eyes, this accomplished several things. One, it severely embarrassed the guy, who will in all likelihood avoid doing something like that again. Two, it rectified the situation, there was no longer any real harm done, other than to the guys ego. Three, the guy now doesn't have to get a lawyer and spend about $1,000 on legal fees for a stupid mistake.
The officer was able to handle the situation right then and there, instead of wasting a bunch of resources prosecuting a guy for having a bit too much to drink and doing something stupid. The guy definitely broke the law, but I think that the officers response was fair, while not being overbearing. I would hope in the future that more police officers would use some discretion and judgment and handle things appropriately. His solution to the problem was much more sane than tazing the guy and dragging him off to jail.
Kind of reminds me of a story my dad told me a few years ago. He was working with a state park on getting their budget set, and the park rangers wanted to get "high speed pursuit vehicles", and he said they were unnecessary. They asked, if we don't have high speed pursuit vehicles, how will we engage in high speed pursuits. His response, radio ahead and have the gate shut, it's not like there is another way out. From my experience, in NYC I don't think high speed pursuits are a huge concern.
The numbers seem pretty reasonable to me. If you drop a drive from a height of 1 meter, it will impact the ground in around ~.45 seconds, with a velocity of about ~4.38m/s. If the drive takes 2 milliseconds to decelerate, the rate would be ~2,190m/s/s, or 223.5Gs. It's not terribly difficult to imagine scenarios where this acceleration could be easily exceeded, for instance by dropping the drive from a slightly higher height or onto a harder surface, like concrete. Even if it does take a full 2 ms to decelerate, there could be a peak of well over 300Gs.
We have a SR1521, and it seems to do its job pretty well. It provides lots (over 7TB) of cheap storage space to the network. It probably isn't as fast as some other solutions, but our application doesn't need it to be.
No Thanks. I don't work as much as I do to turn around and fork over even more money to the government so I can subsidize the medical expenses of all the lazy fat asses in this country. Want cheap/free health care, get in shape. I don't believe that anyone is seriously suggesting that turning over control of our health to the government will be more efficient than the private sector, and that costs will fall. When has that ever been the case? Do you really believe that the insurance companies are going to pay any more than they absolutely have to right now? What about quality? If you aren't happy with your health insurance or doctor, you can switch now. Want better treatment, see a better doctor.
How will the new system work, you are assigned a physician in the same way that you are assigned a public school? Even if you live in an area with a good public school, you are probably still better off paying for a higher quality education, even though you already have to pay for everyone else's education. In the example you have cited, your original procedure was botched and you had to have surgery as a result. The results don't exactly sound stunning.
"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." - Vladimir Putin
Hardware. I transitioned all of my company's servers to Sun (when they started selling x86 servers) over the last few years, and I couldn't be happier. The equipment is more expensive, but it is also of a superior quality and features real enterprise management features. Opening up Solaris had a lot to do with my initial decision, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't transition to the T2 in the future. Since all of our servers are virtualized anyway, it isn't really a bad idea to move lots of small servers to a few big servers, and this open architecture will undoubtedly give some experts the opportunity to publish very in depth analysis of the chips.
That is almost always against the terms of service. They can be reported and fined, and in some cases there agreement can be dropped altogether. Having said that, I don't blame them, it costs as much as 50 cents a transaction to except credit cards, so on a $5 purchase, that's 10% right off the top.
I couldn't agree more, for the $385 it costs to apply for a trademark, he's been front paged on tons of major websites. It's incredibly cheap for the amount of traffic it must be bringing in.
Slashdot Mirror
About $4.5 Billion. It's much cheaper to repair and upgrade than to replace.
I have a 30mbps connection, and I live in the United States. I am 100% positive that it is not a common occurrence to receive network services at data rates above about 12mbps even with a 30mbps connection on the public internet. Internet 2 is irrelevant to this discussion anyway, because it is a closed private network, it's not the public internet. Additionally, MILLIONS of people aren't connecting to it from home, hardly anyone (except university students living in dorm rooms) is. Comparing I2 capacity to cable modem capacity is stupid, it tells you nothing about either. An apt comparison of cable modem bandwidth would be dsl bandwidth or some other residential broadband service or provider, which I2 is not.
Comparing to other countries is at least relevant, but the US is rapidly approaching and will be surpassing them in the not too distant future if residential bandwidth keeps growing as quickly as it has been.
That's like saying that most offices have insufficient bandwidth because there are offices in data centers with 10 gigabit connections to the internet.
And quantify most, Internet 2, which I assume you are talking about since you referenced Gigapops, is led by 212 universities, while there are 2,618 accredited 4 year colleges and universities in the US, hardly most. And besides that, having a gigabit Ethernet connection in a dorm room, which most definitely don't, is not the same as having a gigabit of bandwidth. The connection is shared between all the dorms, and the university as a whole. On the public internet, anything over about 12mbps is only useful with a subset of hosts. I have a 30mbps connection here, and the only public network service that can saturate the link (at about 3,800 KB/s) is my usenet provider.
The point is, a dorm at a university isn't even an apt comparison to a apartment building, unless that building happens to sit on a data center campus.
At what cost? Is that available residentially? How many students are connecting? Your comparisons are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to compare it to something, it should be something like FiOS not business lines that are at a minimum an order of magnitude more expensive.
I thought the same thing, and then my launch 360 failed this week. I've only ever used it in completely open spaces, and it is currently sitting all by itself on top of a glass shelf. It's been suggested that the failure rate is as high as 33%, and I believe it given how easy it was to place the RMA.
And that's exactly the reason I haven't got it. When I upgrade my video card, I'll pick up a copy, but until then I'll stick with my 360. The physics and their impact on game play look intriguing, but as I understand it you can't take advantage of that on lower settings.
Stealing the train and derailing it is pretty neat, as is skydiving. If you get a ramp truck and drive it to the top of the mountain, you can grab a motorcycle, jump off, and sky dive down if you bring a parachute. Sometimes when you carjack somebody the passenger will stay in the car, at that point head on collisions and driving into the water can be fun.
San Andreas was a really cool game, there are so many little things you could do.
I think that's the real problem with CES. I paged through a list of new products yesterday night, and nothing really stood out as new and innovative, just a bunch of mediocre upgrades. New lines of LCDs, Laptops, iPod docks galore. The only things that were kind of interesting were a curved display from alienware, and a game called Guitar Wizard, basically Guitar Hero with a real guitar.
Companies would probably be more excited about CES if they had something a bit more interesting to launch than new lines of iPod docks and larger digital picture frames.
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it won't delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
"Our God-given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis, only Man can evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men."
Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
I'm well under 40, and I'd love to see man go to Mars and beyond, it would reinvigorate public interest in space travel, technology development, and space and science in general. As cheap as rovers are, there isn't much reason we can't do both.
Change burglar to rapist and you can immediately see where the problem with this argument is. Victims should be able to defend themselves.
Exactly, tools like Nessus and Nmap are invaluable. I routinely use them to inspect my own network to make sure it is as difficult as possible to break in. Even tools like lophtcrack can be useful to locate weak passwords and recover forgotten passwords. If these tools can't be easily located and downloaded by the security people, they will undoubtedly still be floating around in the dark corners of the internet anyway, the areas frequented by the real miscreants.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The point is, that even to get the Tesla to charge in as little as 4 hours, you are still going to need a 55 amp circuit in your garage to plug into. How many people in a neighborhood can draw that much additional current before the power distribution infrastructure needs massive, expensive overhauls. And while I would agree that electric should require less routine maintenance, it is estimated that the battery packs will have to be replaced in 5 years. The cost now is $20,000, and the estimate that then it will cost $12,000 which is still quite significant, considering that with gas at $4 per gallon, and driving 22,000 miles a year at 35mpg, the gas costs about the same as the battery array, without the power.
I'm glad somebody else can take a quick look at back of the envelope calculations and realize how thoroughly incapable the grid is of supporting that much additional load at this point. And solar power makes electric vehicles even more outrageous. If we have determined that it takes 318kwh/vehicle to "fast" charge in 10 minutes, I'm willing to assume that on average, gas stations in the United States have just 2 vehicles each refueling.
Given that the solar constant is about 1.4kwh/m squared, and assuming a generous efficiency rating on the solar technology of 30% with know overhead for equipment and regulation facilities, that means each gas station will require 1,514.286 square meters for solar collectors. There exist about 187,000 gas stations currently in the United States, brining that number to 283,171,482 meters squared. That works out to be around 110 square miles in total, which is probably a ridiculously low estimate.
How are environmentalists going to feel about turning vast areas of land into solar farms?
Where are you going to get the power to charge the batteries in 10 minutes? We'll use the Tesla Roadster as an example. The batteries hold 53kwh, or 190,800,000 joules. To provide that much energy in 10 minutes, it would take 318kw of power. So at 240V, it would require 1,325 amps, which isn't going to happen.
Even at 200A, 240V, 48kW, it would take just over an hour, and that's the entire capacity of most houses in the US. While that's a lot closer to the realm of possibility, it's still impractical without a major overhaul to the electric grid. Additionally, the Tesla's range is only 221 miles per charge, so the numbers could be 1.5-2 times that.
Even if the battery technology was here today, the power distribution infrastructure isn't, and isn't on its way either. 10 minute charges aren't going to happen unless gas stations start being constructed with small nuclear reactors that could, at the 200kw rating, provide enough juice to get one Tesla charged in about 16 minutes.
Range and charge time are both insufficient, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
1. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Uranium is mined, and nobody is running mining equipment on biodiesel, nor are they transporting it to power plants using biodiesel, ethanol, or even renewable generated electricity on electric locomotives. To be sure, the amount of carbon is extremely low per kWh of electricity generated, but very small > 0, even for very small cases of very small.
In that case, solar power is considerably less carbon neutral than nuclear power, giving the manufacturing processes involved.
2. As you know, nuclear proponents continually ignore the major immediate problem with nuclear power -- waste storage. Nobody wants more glass-encased nuclear waste in their neighborhood, and presently nobody wants some other neighborhood's nuclear waste being transported through their neighborhood. The nuclear industry has got to find technical and political solutions to these problems before society will embrace nuclear as a green solution. I'm not arguing that burning coal or oil is safer or cleaner than nuclear, just that any change to a status quo requires more than a slight or obscured imbalance, which is how the public currently perceives the status quo.
Most nuclear proponents would suggest that waste be reprocessed greatly reducing its half life, and then stored in any one of the nuclear waste storage facilities that exist presently.
3. What is Hubbart's Peak for uranium? I have no idea, but it surely must have one.
Some experts suggest about 5 billion years, longer than the sun will support life on earth, so in that sense nuclear could be considered more renewable than solar.
4. Which nations have substantial amounts of useful uranium? What would the balance of power be if those nations became the new Saudi Arabia of energy?
Canada and Australia both have large reserves, and would probably be much easier to deal with politically. Uranium could be extracted from granite, coal, and seawater, and other substances like thorium, which is much more abundant in the crust, could be used in breeders.
5. Solar off-peak is simply not a problem, not for a long time. Peak demand is highly correlated with sunshine in most of the world -- solar could serve quite effectively as the peaking plant, relying on other types of generation for base load. Electric storage is just not a major issue for solar -- it might become one for wind but it wouldn't be that hard to operate other green energy plants in a negative correlation to wind, ie burn woodchips when the wind isn't blowing, but not when the wind is blowing.
But you still need lots of other forms of power because if the sun isn't shining on a solar plant, it isn't producing energy. More importantly, as you say, with electric cars peak energy usage may change.
6. That said, plug in cars might change that formulation substantially, since most people would plug in their cars at night thereby adding demand off-peak [and off-sun]. If/when that happens, much of (5) becomes moot and there'd be some shifting of nighttime use [industrial, it's cheaper] to daytime and there'd be encouragement for folks to charge during the day [plug in jacks at car parks] to help keep demand during the day higher, when production due to solar is higher.
Electric cars still have too many issues to be practical for everyone. Range and charge time are both insufficient, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Arrays of nuclear power plants could be constructed for the express purpose of electrolyzing water and creating hydrogen, which could then be shipped around and sold at stations as fuel currently is. With an energy density of 143MJ/kg, hydrogen compares very favorably to gasoline, which only stores 46.9MJ/kg. Years ago my father had a state vehicle produced by Ford that was powered by either natural gas or gasoline. It ran reasonably well using either fuel, the only cav
The officer was able to handle the situation right then and there, instead of wasting a bunch of resources prosecuting a guy for having a bit too much to drink and doing something stupid. The guy definitely broke the law, but I think that the officers response was fair, while not being overbearing. I would hope in the future that more police officers would use some discretion and judgment and handle things appropriately. His solution to the problem was much more sane than tazing the guy and dragging him off to jail.
Kind of reminds me of a story my dad told me a few years ago. He was working with a state park on getting their budget set, and the park rangers wanted to get "high speed pursuit vehicles", and he said they were unnecessary. They asked, if we don't have high speed pursuit vehicles, how will we engage in high speed pursuits. His response, radio ahead and have the gate shut, it's not like there is another way out. From my experience, in NYC I don't think high speed pursuits are a huge concern.
The numbers seem pretty reasonable to me. If you drop a drive from a height of 1 meter, it will impact the ground in around ~.45 seconds, with a velocity of about ~4.38m/s. If the drive takes 2 milliseconds to decelerate, the rate would be ~2,190m/s/s, or 223.5Gs. It's not terribly difficult to imagine scenarios where this acceleration could be easily exceeded, for instance by dropping the drive from a slightly higher height or onto a harder surface, like concrete. Even if it does take a full 2 ms to decelerate, there could be a peak of well over 300Gs.
We have a SR1521, and it seems to do its job pretty well. It provides lots (over 7TB) of cheap storage space to the network. It probably isn't as fast as some other solutions, but our application doesn't need it to be.
No Thanks. I don't work as much as I do to turn around and fork over even more money to the government so I can subsidize the medical expenses of all the lazy fat asses in this country. Want cheap/free health care, get in shape. I don't believe that anyone is seriously suggesting that turning over control of our health to the government will be more efficient than the private sector, and that costs will fall. When has that ever been the case? Do you really believe that the insurance companies are going to pay any more than they absolutely have to right now? What about quality? If you aren't happy with your health insurance or doctor, you can switch now. Want better treatment, see a better doctor.
How will the new system work, you are assigned a physician in the same way that you are assigned a public school? Even if you live in an area with a good public school, you are probably still better off paying for a higher quality education, even though you already have to pay for everyone else's education. In the example you have cited, your original procedure was botched and you had to have surgery as a result. The results don't exactly sound stunning.
"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." - Vladimir Putin
Hardware. I transitioned all of my company's servers to Sun (when they started selling x86 servers) over the last few years, and I couldn't be happier. The equipment is more expensive, but it is also of a superior quality and features real enterprise management features. Opening up Solaris had a lot to do with my initial decision, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't transition to the T2 in the future. Since all of our servers are virtualized anyway, it isn't really a bad idea to move lots of small servers to a few big servers, and this open architecture will undoubtedly give some experts the opportunity to publish very in depth analysis of the chips.
Global warming kills again! Damn you all and your gas guzzling SUVs.
That is almost always against the terms of service. They can be reported and fined, and in some cases there agreement can be dropped altogether. Having said that, I don't blame them, it costs as much as 50 cents a transaction to except credit cards, so on a $5 purchase, that's 10% right off the top.
I couldn't agree more, for the $385 it costs to apply for a trademark, he's been front paged on tons of major websites. It's incredibly cheap for the amount of traffic it must be bringing in.