You're building a server but don't need VT-d or TXT? If that's the case, AMD CPUs tend to end up cheaper once you factor in a cheaper motherboard.

If you do need VT-d or TXT, AMD CPUs offer that across their entire range (for current-gen parts anyway) whereas Intel arbitrarily disables these features on certain CPU models

Intel CPUs do have significantly better performance per clock than AMD, but Intel is currently on the 7th-generation of the Core architecture, whereas AMD's Bulldozer is only up to generation 2.

Personally, I need a CPU that runs at 4.2GHz on 4 cores with VT-d support for reasons. I can buy a CPU that has that capability from AMD right now. Intel does not have a product that meets those requirements, or if it does, it is significantly more expensive

Unless you're using applications that don't use GTK, Qt, Cairo, etc. you're already doing remote a framebuffer over X.

They aren't dropping client-server XMPP, just server-server XMPP. 3rd-party clients still work with Google servers (albeit only for one-to-one text chat). AFAIK, that is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. See: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hands-on-with-hangouts-googles-new-text-and-video-chat-architecture/

The point is that anyone with the technical skills to break WPA2/WPS is going to be able to spoof their MAC address. Ergo, if you're using WPA2, you don't need a MAC filter because anyone trying to break it will likely already be spoofing their MAC address

That attack is related to clients who are already authed. WPA2 authentication has not been broken, AFAIK.

Why not? Compilation is just converting data into more data that is afterward executed as code. It would make JIT a lot harder, if not impossible, however.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Primitive types in Java and value types (including structs) in C# are by-value. I may be showing my inexperience here, but why would you want to allocate a value type on the heap? And does it even matter, given that value types are passed on the stack anyway?

s/useless/cumbersome

It's more that if you can't prevent the decrypted stream from being recorded, your DRM is useless.

Last I heard, the iPad had well over 80% of the tablet marketshare in the US

MP3 does not include any form of DRM. Sure, any MP3 player that supports PlaysForSure or iTunes has some for of DRM on it, but mine does not support either.

I'm pretty sure this is false. Memory protection prevents programs writing to another application's memory space. That's providing data integrity, and in no way prevents copying.

Even on "tee-resistant" systems there is always the analogue hole.

I don't think you understand asymmetric encryption. You need the "secret" key to decrypt data. The public key is not secret and is only used to encrypt data. DRM require the user to have the "secret" private key on their computer, but not have any form of access to it themselves, and no way to capture the decrypted data.

Does Microsoft actually advertise that it has 64GB of storage space? Or do they advertise that it has a 64GB SSD? Whether it's misleading or not is another question, but I don't believe it's false advertising.