A circa 2006 computer is in the only ~5x-10x faster than a Raspberry Pi, and has a power cost on the order of 100-200W/hr. So a 2006-era computer, even free, costs ~$90/yr just in power if its left on.

Similarly, for a non-profit trying to be uber-cheap, why not just go with ChromeBooks? If you are in a position where you can have a network (e.g. like an office environment), they are cheap, and the office and so-on that are needed for productivity.

Such procedures only work for cold storage of Bitcoin: wallets where you have no access to them. Basically, the equivalent of a bank vault for gold: its there, its sitting, but you can't actually do anything with it. Worse, unlike a bank vault, you can't transfer the bitcoins while they are in this vault.

Therefore, the hedge fund's only strategy for these wallets is to buy BitCoins and sit on them. And do nothing. Which, if you believe in BitCoin, makes sense (the design is hyper-deflationary, so the only rational thing to do with BitCoins is to hold BitCoins), but thats hardly what you'd call a hedge-fund strategy.

So how can you call it a hedge fund when all it can do is buy & hold?

Whats the point? You're shoving many extra tons (between person and life support), and you have to put it on an orbit that brings it back home, and for a payload that can do little more than look out the window and go "ohh, pretty" while being irradiated for years outside of the protection of the Earth's magnetic field.

Even if the mission goes 100% to plan, the cancer risk alone is probably a death sentence for the two passengers.

Open access is ensuring that everyone can read your papers. All the other CC ones are about derivative work rights, which is orthogonal to open access.

In fact, its rather silly to even think of: Quoting papers is fair use, but modifying scientific papers? You don't want third parties modifying the papers: they can easily screw things up as the paper is only part of the process, there is also the data and analysis behind it.

So of the choices given, CC-BY-NC-ND is the only one that should be in that list.

The big reason that MegaUpload got into huge trouble is they structured things to create an incentive for piracy: those who uploaded "popular" files would earn $$$, and the "takedown" implemented by MegaUpload was deliberately defective: only taking down single URLs when, behind the scene, they kept the files available with different URLs. Thus the old MegaUpload deliberately created a structure to encourage and benefit from piracy.

If the new Mega drops this incentive structure, and their encryption eliminates the deduplication, they should be in much more solid shape.

I didn't know. So here's a Non paywalled copy.

We (David Moore, Vern Paxson, Stefan Savage, Colleen Shannon, Stuart Staniford, and myself) did the analysis of how it spread, including showing how it infected all the vulnerable systems in 10 minutes, and detailing flaws in the random number generator.

Our article eventually appeared in IEEE Security & Privacy.

The 1080p Netflix service is only available when the ISP allows Netflix to deploy CDN (Content Delivery Network) nodes in the ISP's network.

Now true this is unfair to those ISPs who don't allow Netflix to deploy CDN nodes, but in general, CDNs save both the content provider and the ISP money: instead of traffic traversing the ISP's Internet connections, its served locally from the CDN nodes. So it acts to save the ISP money, not cost them. If 1080p videos are twice as large, but things are cached in the local network 75% of the time, the ISP sees substantial savings.

The only reason a major ISP would not want a Netflix node is that they are worried about Netflix competing with their (non Internet) TV services.

Overall, the Fox "article" is clear propaganda, written by and interviewing those who either, through ignorance or will, misunderstanding how CDNs operate.

I know I'm going to get -1 troll, but lets be honest here:

If NASA is about science, we need to leave the men on Earth. The science in NASA comes from the satellites in orbit, the probes through space, and the robotic landers. All the manned space flight does these days is suck up huge amounts of money, kill people, and produce scientific results that could either have been done by robots much more cheaply or are predicated on answering questions related to "what happens if you stick people in a 0-G environment for a long time..."

What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there? What could we learn from the moon or mars today that we couldn't learn from a robot?

For now, we should leave the manned space flight for rich tourists, and instead continue to develop our launchers and our robots.

Well, actually, apple can come close.

The 3GS (which, unlike a cheap unlocked Android phone actually runs the latest version of the OS) can be had for $250 or less.

Of course, Apple (and, to be honest, the developers) are probably happier with the iPhone 4 level of specification, which is available for $0 on contract, so the same price-to-the-consumer as many Android phones.

The # of phones shipped is very impressive. We are now in a smart-phone market where there is just iOS and Android: everyone else is in the noise.

But the # of phones is orthoginal to which a developer would want to target. How many purchases per phone are made on Android vs iOS? Whats the competition? How easy is the development model? How homogenious is the installed base?

All these question are the ones the developers are actually asking, and market share really doesn't come into play very much.

Lets see, if you live in the UK and have a TV you have to pay it, and if you don't its a criminal offense.

Sounds like a tax to me

China lacks rule of law, it only has rule of the rulers.

Thats the big problem with doing business in China, there is no actual Rule of law.

If the goal is to make the chassis and CPU lifetime different, make the chassis strong and easy to upgrade. Which means the chassis has the potential to have the longest lifetime, so why make it degradeable?