Google's servers have been much discussed... they are standard (but some things are not populated) and they have an on board battery to act as a UPS.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

The project uses a high speed camera... so if a camera from a handy is going to be used, they are going to have to get a lot better.

Given America's inability to adopt serious ecological policies, the refusal to recycle tech waste and instead to transport it to developing nations... I'm not seeing any developing nation willing to take it ever running out of rare earth minerals to sell to the Chinese.

Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest. Looking at my email habits, there are: 4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy. 12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character. 2 people who could use encryption but who don't use it either, for the same reason I don't, the pool of potential recipients is too small.

While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.

my god. the kids today are retarded.

"Intelligent design" is gambit to bring creationism to the public school system. This has been established in a court of law, when the "Intelligent design" document was shown to have had a document wide search & replace "Creationism" for "Intelligent design"... rather late in the writing process.

You are in no way "encouraging Robin to do start a better discussion next time". You are simply doing what you always do: rejecting every he writes because he does not share your extremist political views. Claiming anything else simply exposes you as a liar.

This is one of the many issues which peer review is designed to overcome. As far as I can tell it works extremely well. There's certainly no evidence that it works wonderfully in my field but breaks down in other fields.

As a subscriber to Nature I find it interesting that when we're talking about amino acids Nature is a highly respected international weekly journal of science but.... when we're talking climate science it's the nexus of an evil, duplicitous, Socialist, Marxist, environmentalist cabal bent on destroying the fabric of American society.

The key phrases you are looking for are "rainbow tables"; "time / memory trade-off"; "distributed computing"; "embarrassingly parallel"; "GPGPU Computing" and probably "More's Law".

So now computers are faster than when they cooked that "100,000 years" phrase. They are employing many different computers with multiple cores. GPUs are much faster at this calculation that X86 processors. Rainbow tables are ingenious methods to store precomputed results, so the actual cracking is simple comparisons between encrypted text with known values and the data you are attacking.

you are absolutely right... and it amazes how desperately some folks want to be bamboozled

As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.

1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name. It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.
2: They & hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data & correspondence and the published data. They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.
3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates. This is what you are doing.
4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.
5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.

I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science. I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community. It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.

except the denialists & obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.