I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

If the contract you signed specifically prohibits you from unlocking your phone, then they will be within their rights to sue you.

I'm not suggesting they should be given any additional rights (which are not specified in the contract that you agreed upon in advance).

Personally, I only get full priced unlocked phones. I then get a no-contract SIM card.
Admittedly, it's much more affordable in the UK than in the US.

Why is this a special case and needs a special law? Why is the contract you sign insufficient?

Why do they need to make it illegal to unlock a phone, rather than keeping it completely within contract law?

Do you realize how insane a situation it's going to be where a phone company can ask the police to arrest you because you have unlocked your phone?

I agree - they should be able to sue you in a civil court - like any other company would do if you brake any other contract! not sure why this is a special case.

Did he factor in the costs of the reduced IO performance?

What's more ridiculous is that you insist on using terns that contain the word "fuck" and then use the substitution "fsck". If "fuck" is so impolite for you to use, then why not express yourself differently?

I will never forgive the SyFy channel for perverting the spelling of "Sci-Fi".
Not to mention killing off Stargate... or any decent show for that matter. We're now stuck with rubbish like Eureka.
Maybe they've done some surveys and decided that their target audience should actually be a bunch of retards.

Because HIV infected individuals have a large glowing neon sign attached to their foreheads saying "I HAVE HIV!"

How does polarization help?

Even the phase relationship doesn't really help...

Don't you need to measure the time difference from the "first" neutrinos arriving and the first light arriving?

How could you chronologically differentiate all subsequent neutrinos and light?

The comparison is based on 1 FPGA vs. 1 CPU Core of an Intel Xeon E5430 2.66GHz.

More details:
http://www.xilinx.com/publications/archives/xcell/issue74/FPGAs-speed-computation-complex-credit-derivatives.pdf

I think you're underestimating the bank.

The cost of this solution might have been low enough to warrant the immediate gains in performance.
The lock-in you describe might not exist, as the algorithms and the accelerated bits are a small portion of the entire code-base (but take 99% of the run-time).
It will very likely be the case that the cost of not going with this solution is far far greater than going for it.

GPUs are much more power hungry compared to FPGA and provide a fraction of the performance.

At the end of the day, GPUs are designed for gaming machines... the whole GPGPU thing is a side show for the graphics market. It's just not optimized in any way for this sort of computation. There's little money to be made building supercomputers compared to selling gaming machines.

However, an FPGA can be completely customized to suit your exact needs, you will make efficient use of the entire chip. It won't be a mere coincidence (like in the GPU case) that the chip can be used for a computation that you need. The FPGA is customized directly to fit an algorithm. this efficiency is where the speed gains are made.

It seems people put a lot of effort in to making their software compatible with GPUs and changing their algorithms to fit the GPU model.. this is a distorted view of reality - it is the computer that needs and can change to suit the problem, not the other way around.

1 Virtex-6 SX475T could give you about 1 billion SHA-256 hashes/second clocked at 200MHz., will use 20% the power of the ATI GPU. but will cost about 4 times as much.

Checkout: http://www.maxeler.com/

They've been getting some pretty crazy results. If i understand correctly, they've got a completely innovative workflow, tool-chain and abstraction. I think they've even created their own simulation tools that give you cycle-accurate results 1000x faster than modelsim.