That's why you lead with the definition when explaining it. You don't even have to agree with it, you just have to understand that that is why it's named the way it is.

"Client" being "user-facing computer" and "server" being "user-remote computer" is a different definition - just as valid a definition, and perhaps a more common one, but as long as you can explain the definition X uses you should be good.

Not all. Like it or not "trikes" are considered and labelled motorcycles. As such, your statement is not accurate.

Second, I know a number of people who dislike it due to weaker legs/ankle injuries/etc (and thus, are attracted moreso to the trikes, which, for the record, I HATE).

I would love a breakdown of where ALL current taxes go, but it's not going to happen. In general, they likely go into a broad fund, from where it gets spent and becomes difficult to track specific funds. As much as I'd like to see everything earmarked appropriately...I'm not holding my breath.

The best way to explain it, that I've found, is this:

A server lets clients access a shared resource. On a file server, it's storage. On a web server, it's documents. On a compute server, it's processing. On an X server, the shared resource is the display, and clients are given access to it.

It's been known for years now that Japan and Germany are "nuclear-capable" nations. They have everything they need to start a nuclear program, and could probably get there in a year if they wanted to.

Up to now, they haven't wanted to. Japan, however, is threatened by not one but two nuclear-armed nations. China is looking to expand everywhere, and is particularly ready to fight over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (brief aside: if you look at them on a map, they're closest to Taiwan - let's give it to them and piss both China and Japan off, if they can't find a way to just share the oil). And then there's North Korea, which has practically made a cult out of hating America and Japan, and has been lobbing missiles towards Japan just to get attention. They haven't been stupid enough to actually attack them yet, but I certainly can't fault Japan for getting concerned about it.

I live in a rather small apartment and would really like a triple monitor setup. So I prefer smaller hardware. I'm also nearsighted and usually take my glasses off when computing for a long period, so smaller, closer displays are actually more relaxing. But to each his own.

As far as which is technically better, I haven't seen any solid comparisons. G-Sync does use proprietary hardware in the display, which means it has the potential to do a lot more. FreeSync works with existing panels provided they support V_BLANK, which isn't many yet, and none are exposing it to the GPU.

FreeSync has been incorporated into the DisplayPort standard (as "Adaptive-Sync", an option in DP1.2a and 1.3) but no displays have made it to market yet. G-Sync has the advantage of shipping, but unless it's either far superior in a technical manner, or Nvidia flat-out refuses to support Adaptive-Sync, I expect it to die sometime next year when the competition arrives.

This seems to be a time when monitor features are growing fast. I'm personally going to stick with my 1440p screen until it stabilizes a bit.

The G-Sync/FreeSync battle is going to start. For gamers, this is going to be big. Right now, G-Sync only works with Nvidia cards, and FreeSync will probably only work with AMD cards. FreeSync is much better licensed, and I expect it will probably win eventually, but I tend to prefer Nvidia cards so I'm willing to wait until we get a clear winner.

Basically, my dream monitor right now would be:
under 28" diagonal
full AdobeRGB gamut or better, factory-calibrated (if significantly wider than AdobeRGB, needs 10-bit color support)
refresh rates up to at least 120Hz, variable using either Sync method as long as it works with any card I buy
resolution of 3840x2400 or higher (16:10 aspect ratio)
no need for multiple data links (as some current 2160p monitors do)
sub-millisecond input latency

I would naturally be willing to compromise on many of those points, but the way the market is going, I might not have to. And what I have right now is plenty good enough to last me until things become more future-proof.

The fundamental problem is that ISPs seem to be in a sort of quantum superposition regarding common carrier status. Whenever they're applying to use common land or using it as a legal defense, they claim to be common carriers. Whenever they want to charge people more money for certain things, they aren't common carriers.

Let's let them pick. Every year, let them choose whether they want to be common carriers or not. If they are, then they get the access to existing utility poles, and the immunity for any criminal traffic that may pass through their lines, that common carrier status entails, along with the requirements for fair pricing and universal access. If they choose not to be common carriers, let them charge whatever they want for whatever they want - but they have to build a completely private infrastructure, and may be liable for any traffic that crosses their network.

PS: "Fast lanes" basically don't exist online. You can't make some traffic magically go faster, you can only make all other traffic go slower.

Which will also spread around the writes. If you're writing a 4TB video across 10 disks, that's only 410GB to each, so you only get that much endurance used up.

Good luck with that.

The Intel 335 has a sequential write speed of about 350MB/s (the rest are around the same speed). Writing 700TB at that speed would take 24 days and change, with no breaks to do things like read any of that data.

This sounds like the action of a Congressman trying to discredit the NSA. The NSA obviously is not going to respond to this - if they did, they'd be inundated with requests from every small-town prosecutor wanting some more evidence (ironically, some might even get warrants for it). That would be worse than what will happen instead, which is that an anti-NSA legislator gets a talking point about how the NSA isn't using its data and isn't cooperating with the rest of the government (namely Congress).

Yes, it's just a political point being scored. But it's a point hopefully in our favor - or at the very least, one against our common enemy.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the best way to get the NSA shut down. The general public has no control over it; trying to get them angry about it is pointless. The only way the general public could shut it down is by a revolution, and we're too well-fed and content to do that. But Congress could shut it down, so let's find every way to get Congressmen upset about the NSA. I wonder what a FOIA request for some congressional metadata would do...

So if you're using my server without my permission and I tell you to stop right away, you're going to be extremely distrustful of me in any attempts of "amicable negotiation" later? Shouldn't I be the one distrustful of you?! (Or, in the non-analogous format, shouldn't IKEA be distrustful of someone using their property without permission?!)

No, that's the ONLY way in the US from my understanding (IANAL). They have a legal requirement to use and defend their trademark or they will lose it.

Bullshit. I'm in sales, my company's lost chargebacks with "photographic evidence" plenty of times. The bank sides with their client, the customer almost all the time.

Minimum purchase requirements are against the agreement the organization has with the credit card company* (in the US) which is why you can pay for a pack of gum with a credit card.

*Mind you, you'll still see plenty of smaller stores putting a minimum on purchases with CCs. They pay a larger transaction fee than big chains typically.