"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions -The fifth person is defendant."

Sounds convincing, until you realize that this would also be true if they were prosecuting any one of the other four.

The cost of cycling an EV battery is about 50 cents per kWh (source). In many cases, electricity from the grid is far cheaper than that from the battery, even when the battery can be charged for free.

Assuming that Tesla can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. It would then make sense to use the battery whenever the difference between what you pay for electricity and what you can get for it is less than 25 cents (plus a few cents to account for losses in the battery). But the profit, if any, would be small, and the initial investment is high.

I don't think that anybody who is on the grid today will benefit from going off it. This technology currently only makes sense for new construction in remote areas. But maybe a decade from now, prices will have come down, and there will be a huge market for this. Tesla will then have a big share of that market.

How is this different from what ICANN did when tried to get every major brand to pay them $185.000 for a gTLD?

There's an app that instantly wipes your (android) phone after X incorrect attempts. Set X=1 before going through customs.

I don't think it's about the "cool" factor as much as the fact that the same people that own the military industry also own the politicians who make these decisions.

I wouldn't call it "covered". What is says is: "If randomly distributed, the probability of the same redundant piece being hosted on the same controlled node is statistically quite small." It does not attempt to quantify what "quite small" means. So I'll try to do that.

Assume that you have a million blocks stored in the network. Each block is stored as three identical copies. Then assume that 1 % of the storage network is taken down at the same time. The probability that all copies of an individual block got lost is one in a million. However, the probability that at least one out of your one million blocks was lost is approximately 1-1/e or 63 %. So in this scenario, you are more likely than not to have lost data.

The bitcoin transaction chain is public, so in theory it is possible to track stolen bitcoins. People could arbitrarily decide not to accept bitcoin from tainted sources (or not to accept bitcoin at all) and that would make life much harder for thieves and extortionists. However, the accepted practice is that all bitcoins are equal. There is no governing authority that has the power to declare that certain transactions are "tainted".

If a mechanism for declaring bitcoin "tainted" would be introduced today, it would not only affect the original thieves, but also a large number of innocent extortionists and drug dealers who just happened to run their bitcoin through the same "tumbler" as the thieves. The whole system would collapse. So it's not going to happen.

Yep. Not checking your own spelling while attacking someones grammar on slashdot is stupid.

Dyslexia, on the other hand, does not appear to be correlated to intelligence.
 

It is basically impossible to make a return trip to Mars because of the fuel requirements, which is why there has not been any manned missions, and will likely not be any in the near future. It takes a lot of fuel to deliver a very small amount of fuel to Mars. There'd have to be a long series of fuel delivery flights before a manned mission. For those, fuel efficiency is of course priority one.

As was the case here. The the Bush/Cheney administration knew that they wouldn't get any useful intelligence from torture, but they wanted "evidence" pointing towards Saddam, so that they could start another war.

I use Mint on my desktop, but write "Ubuntu" when I search on google. I think a lot of people do this.

You get more/better hits when you search for "Ubuntu" and the proposed solution will work on Mint 99.9 % of the time.

It's not meant to be the strongest link in the chain. Just a link in the chain. If, every time someone connects in a suspicious way, you call their cell-phone to verify, or ask for an extra one-time password, or at the very least send them an email, then you can detect/prevent a lot of fraud. (This applies not only to Tor, but to any type of "unusual" connection, for example connecting from Russia five minutes after using a credit card in the U.S.)

It was probably because of what this guy said.

You use long division for any of those things???

Rsync will happily detect and copy changes without propagating whole files, yes. But only on network transfers, and it requires reading the entire file on both ends. When backing up to a local (removable) hard drive, which is what we are discussing here, it is usually faster to copy the file once than to checksum it twice, so that is what rsync does by default.

I have compared the tools, and I do know what they do. I found a hundredfold improvement in the time to backup a set of virtual machines on a linux server after switching from rsync to ZFS.