No, but they can reduce their tax burden while gaining some control over where their resources help the community.

Lots and lots of Ethernet ports. Wireless is insufficient for the True Geek.

I thought this was Slashdot. This should be the home of people hacking devices and breathing new life into them.

PLEASE STOP OFFERING THIS ADVICE.

Increasing your WAP broadcast power does nothing to improve signal in the other direction, so while it will make your mobile devices show more bars, it won't actually improve network performance. TCP doesn't work unless a host can both send and receive (packets need to be ACKed), so even if the client receives further away from the WAP, it'll stop getting new packets if it can't notify the sender that those packets were received.

All that really happens when you increase broadcast power is an increase in interference with neighboring WAPs, which tends to lead other people to the conclusion that they also need to increase broadcast power in order to overcome the interference that you created.

1. slow burnout of emitter gear due to thermal degradation (yes, clock chips and transistors get hot, as do solder tracks and joints). Thermal runaway can occur if a solder joint fails and arcs, or overvoltage causes signal tracks to vapourise. 2. ionising radiation, particularly on unshielded components such as antenna conductors (I've seen something like this occur on an externally mounted amateur radio antenna: the sunward side of the antenna completely degraded, the result being that the only signals received (or sent) were on the shadow side). 3. component quality on consumer gear is not as stringent as it could be. Components can and do fail, and considering the number of components in a lot of consumer gear, it's a wonder any of it actually leaves the factory. 4. the noise floor of several years ago was far, far lower than it is now. The ERP of newer gear is (by design or by necessity) higher than older gear as more and more transmitters have to share the band. As a result, the signal quality taking a dive may be at least partly illusory. The equipment may actually be perfectly fine. 5. parasitic structures in semiconductor packages may be the catalyst for failure, either immediate or delayed. Such structures may be as small as a single atom of chlorine embedded in a crystal of germanium - innocuous at first (undetectable, even), but over time and use, that contamination will alter the chemistry of the semiconductor, possibly causing it to bond with the package material and rendering it useless. This might not even be an issue in high powered gear like regulators but in something like a microprocessor, it's a showstopper.

Please name names

Please see sgt_doom's explanation . . .

Install Microsoft Security Essentials and forget about it.

It hogs the CPU and makes the disk thrash like a Dickensian schoolmaster. So even if it misses any malware or viruses they won't have time to do anything nasty.

While I agree it's better to avoid the whore than to wear the condom, but if you know you're going to visit the whore anyway better suit up.

From what I understand, SSD die because of "write-burnout" if they are FLASH based and from what I understand the majority of SSDs are flashed based now. So while I haven't actually had a drive fail on me, I assume that I would be able to still read data off a failing drive and restore it, making it an ideal failure path. I did a google search and found a good article on the issue: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/data-recovered-failed-ssd/

Filesystems, generally speaking, aren't resilient to the underlying disk geometry changing after they've been laid down. There's reserved space to replace bad cells as they start to die, but the disk won't shrink. Eventually, though, you get parts of the disk dying in an unrecoverable way and the drive is toast.

My understanding from the apology was that there WAS a 5 second delay, and the guy in charge of The Button didnt press it in the 5 second time.

Why is it okay to show Bear Grylls mudering animals needlessly?

Before anyone starts jumping on Fox News for whatever axe they have to grind with them, please substitute Fox News with "CNN" or "MSNBC" and ask yourself if your vitriol would be just the same.