I've never eaten any food from Sweden, other than a few candy fish. Is it logical for me to doubt the existence of Swedish agriculture based on it not affecting me (as far as I know)?

I'd like to know where you're finding them for $15, because I can't find any for less than $30 or so in stores around here. They'd be perfectly fine earbuds for $15. The problem is that stores are selling those $15 for at least twice that.

I use cheap $15 earbuds myself - after spending $80 on a headset that broke repeatedly and didn't even sound that good, I swore off expensive headphones in favor of something I could regularly throw into a river and still spend less.

Okay, let's say you have two cars, a Porsche and an NSX (representing a photon and a neutrino, respectively). Both are limited by the same speed limit, which they always travel at (the speed of light).

Well, due to some weird quantum mechanics, every so often that Porsche splits into a pair of motorcycles, because apparently they got bought by Wayne Enterprises or something (in actuality, they split into an electron and anti-electron). They almost immediately join back together (forming a photon again), but while they're motorcycles, they are affected by wind (gravity). They still can't break the speed limit, but sometimes it slows them down just a bit.

When you're traveling almost literally between galaxies, that little bit of slowdown for tiny snippets of time can really make a difference. In this case, the NSX made it here a few hours earlier.

Net neutrality isn't about forbidding high-traffic companies from finding efficient ways to handle that traffic. Doing what Netflix usually does, having a local cache server hosted within the ISP, works because it reduces the amount of traffic leaving the ISP. As long as the ISP charges the same amount to everyone doing so (0 is a good amount - it's a benefit to them - but if they want to charge a nominal fee, fair enough), it's neutral.

Net neutrality is about not letting ISPs slow down traffic unless they get paid twice.

If the only difference between two sites is that one paid the danegeld and the other didn't, they aren't making one faster - they're making the other slower. Deliberately degrading the performance of everyone else is NOT neutral.

It does seem rather similar - a large cluster of cores, laid out in a grid topology. Perhaps they're doing something different with the cache coherency? I couldn't find too much on how Intel's handling that, and it seems to be a focus of the articles on this chip.

Er, Wallops is a launch site, like Canaveral. Pretty much anyone can launch from there - the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport is located there. If you're referring to OSC, who are the major non-government users of Wallops, you're being needlessly confusing.

Also, OSC is good at cobbling together pieces. The Minotaurs are recycled ICBMs, either Peacekeepers or Minuteman missiles. The Antares uses Russian engines, a Ukrainian-designed first stage, then an off-the-shelf solid-fuel second stage. They do remarkably good work considering their limitations, but much of the work of "getting to space" was already done for them, they just had to make it work with their payloads and launch facilities.

SpaceX is doing everything from scratch - much more expensive, but it has the advantage of not making them reliant on anyone else. OSC is already in trouble because Russia is cutting off their supply of engines for Antares. They'll also be in trouble if the US military ever cuts off their supply of old missiles, either because they need them as missiles again, or because they've simply run out. OSC does good work, but they seem to be a dead-end in the long term.

What, exactly, does this mission get us?

The composition of asteroids is fairly well-known, both from the numerous meteorites we've recovered, and from the numerous spacecraft missions, including a sample return (Hayabusa). Unmanned probes can't do nearly the same scope of exploration as a manned mission, but asteroids are small. Does one even deserve a manned mission, much less several manned missions?

What is there to be gained from an asteroid capture and manned exploration? I'm all for manned exploration, but it seems like Mars or Titan or something might be a better target.

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.

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.