That's the nice thing about Bitcoin: it is less dependent on trust than all other payment systems.

Most significantly, as a Bitcoin user, you do not have to trust a central authority or 3rd party (eg. Paypal or a bank) that may initiate chargebacks, or freeze your accounts, because there is no middleman in Bitcoin.

Of course you need to trust the Bitcoin design itself. But the system has proven its robustness so far, and will (hopefully) continue to do so. If you are curious you may find a list of attacks or flaws, that the Bitcoin network has successfully repelled so far here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents Personally I have rarely found an open source community that was so full of smart people. And I say this with 13+ years of using and contributing to a lot of open source projects.

This is untrue. At work I have set up many times Apache serving different HTTPS name-based virtual hosts using the same IP and port. It is possible by creating a certificate with different "subject alternative names" (for example by passing a configuration file to "openssl req -config xxx" defining subjectAltName=DNS:"foo.example.com",DNS:"bar.example.com"). Here is an example of a certifcate valid for both foo.example.com and bar.example.com. (All OSes support subject alt names, even XP!)

$ openssl x509 -noout -text < server.crt
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: CN=My Custom CA
Validity
Not Before: Oct 11 00:00:00 2007 GMT
Not After : Oct 12 00:00:00 2020 GMT
Subject: CN=foo.example.com
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
RSA Public Key: (3072 bit)
Modulus (3072 bit):
...
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints:
CA:FALSE
X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:foo.example.com, DNS:bar.example.com
Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption
...

I have worked with dozens of 1U servers from Dell, HP, Supermicro, whitebox, etc, and I have never seen the RAM DIMMs at a 45 degrees angle. Last time DIMMs were at a 45 degrees was 15+ years ago (EDO RAM I think?)

And Linux has bcache.
And Solaris has L2ARC for ZFS (zpool add XXX cache cXdXtX).

Both of these technologies allow the OS to uses a fast SSD as a general cache device for data on slower HDDs.

So, instead you turned all the comments to pedantic responses about relativity of simultaneity.

See what you did?

What's new, compared to other past announcements that "GSM has been broken" is that, 3 days ago, the A5/1 Project just wrote the piece of code to perform lookups in the "Berlin rainbow table set". The table set is 2TB and has been computed some time ago and can be obtained from various origins (the project member who wrote the lookup code --Frank Stevenson-- offered the arrangement of swapping preloaded disks for cash at the Schiphol airport). See my blog for some more info about these recent developments.

Just like these claw crane games that you find in vide arcades or amusement parks: those with a joystick to control a crane to grab stuffed animals or whatnot. Curious, one day I browsed the web to find operator's manuals, and they are programmed to make it look like the crane accidentally drops objects. The operator can enter parameters to define the average price of prizes, the average winning rate, etc so that in the end, just like slot machines, the payout percentage can be controlled very precisely. For more info read Machine configuration and chances of winning.

Knowing this completely takes the fun out of it, doesn't it ?

Disabling javascript is not sufficient. The malicious site could very well redirect to the malicious page after a long period of time, say 10min, with:

<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="600;url=http://example.com/malicious-gmail-login-page" />

Although it is a little less sophisticated, it would work. Personally I have always been using 2 browsers for other reasons (to defend myself against CSRF vulnerabilities) and it turns out that doing so also protects me from 'tabnapping', even though CSRF and tabnapping are 2 completely different attacks. I described my setup here. This is a good example of defense-in-depth: using a security policy that ends up preventing future attacks that were unknown at the time the policy was implemented :-)

There is an oil spill in the Gulf?

Why waste 2 whole spindles on ZFS root pool? Partition each of your 5x1.5TB with a small 20-30GB slice, and a bigger one covering the rest of the disk. Create a 3-way mirror on 3 of the small slices for the root pool, with the 2 remaining small slices as hot spares. Create a 5-way raidz on the 5 large slices for your data pool.

And the 8-core Opteron 6128 2.0GHz starts at $280.

Compare to Intel's cheapest 8-core processor, the Xeon x6550 2.0GHz that sells for $2500. ten times the price! When people tell you AMD provides more value per $, here is the proof!

WOOOOOOOOOSH.

First link: author is vague and incorrect; OpenSolaris supports most common onboard SATA controllers. I have personally run it on nVidia MCP55 and above, Intel ICH7 and above, AMD SB600 and above, and OpenSolaris usually support all these very common chipsets/onboard SATA controllers.
Second link: the author is using unsupported dev builds of OpenSolaris.
Third link: the post is 2 years old and evidence suggests unreliable hardware.
Fourth link: the author complains about FreeBSD, not OpenSolaris.
Fifth link: the author concluded corruption was caused by unreliable hardware.

Search for "$NAME_OF_TECHNOLOGY unreliable" and google will always return thousands of results.

Personally I have a rather pleasant experience with ZFS. I have been using it for 3+ years at work and at home on 5-6 machines with about 50 drives total. It has been rock solid so far. And it has saved my life a couple times when drives died.

But most users don't care how much theoretical space a "32-bit filesystem" has. They have 1TB drives and want to know practically how many hours of high-def videos they can store on it, how many Bluray movies they can rip. Try doing your computations with a "1TB" drive mixed with power of 2. prefixes.

I have posted the following mulitple times on slashdot: contrary to popular belief, power of 10 prefixes are much more common than power of 2 prefixes in the computer industry. The only few places where the latter are used are to refer to RAM capacities and file sizes, whereas power-of-10 prefixes apply to most other areas and all units (not "only bitrates", as some claim): storage capacity, clock frequency, stream bandwidth, baud, pixel numbers, data throughput, processing power, etc.

• An 32 GB USB flash drive is 32 * 10^9 byte (power of 10)
• A 16 GB SD card is 16 * 10^9 byte (power of 10)
• A 50 GB dual-layer Blu-ray Disc is 50 * 10^9 byte (power of 10)
• A 4.7 GB single-layer DVD is 4.7 * 10^9 byte (power of 10)
• A 2.5 GHz processor is 2.5 * 10^9 Hz (power of 10)
• A PC6400 (as in 6400 MByte/s) memory module is 6400 * 10^6 byte/s (power of 10)
• A 25.6 GFLOPS CPU core is 25.6 * 10^9 FLOPS (power of 10)
• A 128 kbit/s audio stream is 128 * 10^3 bit/s (power of 10)
• An 8 kbaud V.92 modem is 8 * 10^3 baud (power of 10)
• A 6 Mpixel digital camera is 6 * 10^6 pixel (power of 10)
• A 4000 MB/s HyperTransport link is 4000 * 10^6 byte/s (power of 10)
• A 480 Mbit/s USB2 link is 480 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
• A 5.0 Gbit/s PCI-E 2.0 lane (after 8b/10b encoding) is 5.0 * 10^9 bit/s (power of 10)
• A 500 MB/s PCI-E 2.0 lane (before 8b/10b encoding) is 500 * 10^6 byte/s (power of 10)
• A 1 Gbit/s ethernet card is 1 * 10^9 bit/s (power of 10)
• A 54 Mbit/s 802.11g network is 54 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
• A 6.0 Gbit/s SATA link (after 8b/10b encoding) is 6.0 * 10^9 bit/s (power of 10)
• A 600 MB/s SATA link (before 8b/10b encoding) is 600 * 10^6 byte/s (power of 10)
• A 6 Mbit/s DSL line is 6 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
• Curiosity: a 1.44 MByte floppy disk is 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 byte (mix of power of 10 and 2)
• And of course, a 1.5 TByte hard disk drive is 1.5 * 10^12 byte (power of 10)

Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...