because the people at the top like and want to be the top of the american lifestyle, not the off shore one.

Better codecs are not required, most people consider standard TV good enough, DVD great and Blueray overkill. Many places are getting home Internet upgrades from 24MBit to 100MBit. Portable and general storage mediums are cheaper and more dense per Gb.

We only have to wait another 10 or so years for the MPEG patents to expire (yeah right, I'm sure the standards will be in perpetual patent, as they phase in some new minor changes, when the 30 year old codec is great for use today). So in the grand scheme of things of paying for these "much needed" expensive codecs, forget it. I don't need them today when the alternatives are good enough, the population of the world will get them all for free in a few short years anyway as the patents "should" be expiring. If they don't expire then it is time to go to war on that basis and rewrite the laws (this will happen).

Presumably someone intercepting has more than one route to the victim AS. one to perform the intercept and another to pass on the traffic with to it ends up delivered to the victims AS. so they shunt the traffic inside some MPLS tunnel across their own network (via their inspection device/system).

Now if you are talking about asymmetric routing issues that is a different matter. Since the victim AS won't automatically send the other half of the data stream via your hijacking networking (unless of course you can perform a reciprocal intercept at the other side as well, if it is possible at one sure, then surely it maybe possible at the other).

You are not an English speaker yourself. Well as an English speaker...

Adding "potentially" to the sentence can often be used by technical/engineering people to better describe a scenario of risk. Since other non-technical/non-engineering people look to the statement to fully understand the situation, so it needs to be described as either being a matter of fact, or a matter of professional opinion, or a matter open to debate.

So to describe something as "potentially" is attempting weight the risk, without claiming it as a matter of fact.

I agree with the other poster, potentially harmful != dangerous. On the basis that for me potentially harmful is unlikely to be dangerous (as in less than 50% risk), and "dangerous" is more likely to result in danger (greater than 50% of risk). Again we (the engineers/technical people) are weighting our response via the use of language in this way.

Agree and understand. But you can create as many private keys as you like, you do not have to maintain a single identity.

Other users sending money can send fragments of the total value to different identities.

No no no, it is up to the other flying object to identify itself and clear a friend-or-foe test, otherwise the default resolution is to open fire.

As an OpenSSL contributor I agree the project is a mess.

The project needs 100% code coverage unit testing.
It needs to move to using git as the main SCM repo.
I don't agree with even the source formatting on the basis that it doesn't make it easier to audit the code base, it is an uncommon code formatting choice.
The project needs a gerrit code review system to streamline the limited committer man-hours when integrating new code. One problem in getting patches into the project is you need to find a committer that agrees with it and has time. Git allows easier unlimited forking and code review allows by anyone and facilities multiple people to run their own tree, so may the best maintainer win popularity.
All new code should include a unit test to accept it.
The network / kernel interactions need also unit testing (something I already did in the part to prove an API interaction deficiency in the OpenSSL API design).

Why IE8 ? Win7 Pro is the new XP, so surely IE10 will be the new target ?

Your comment makes sense, you have to anchor the moment to something not in the same axis as the target system pleasure/pain.

Plus is the article makes sense you want to keep that happiness around a little longer to help push a few more items into long-term-storage, not sidetrack the brain into dealing with pain from peppers.

The "muscle" maybe called ego. It is usually this that tries to hold onto the nonsense it thinks is important.

Without the ego there is only the present and the only thing to do in the present is process all feelings without attachment (it is the ego trying to do that 'attaching'). The relaxing you are taking about is the non-attachment.

You run your program 3 times on 3 different hardware setups, get 2 complete results and compare results, which are the same ? The other computation did not complete.

Are you sure you have this right ?

My understanding is the difficulty increases as the limited block range pool gets exhausted, kind of like a quadratic, it just so happens over time that the number of folks mining and the mining performance has also increased.

The fee's get paid to parties involved in signing a transaction. The longer the transaction history of the block the more computationally expensive it is to assist signing. Multiple nodes need to sign a transaction before a systemic consensus is reached that the bitcoin did change possession (i.e. proof of spending) and also ensure double spending is difficult. So over time no one will sign transactions for free, since they become computationally expensive.

The original block finder simply got to spend that block first, he needed other nodes to sign this spending and he may have needed to pay fees to those signing nodes as well as the bulk to the receiving node.

There is no situation that all fees for the infinite lifetime of the block get paid to the original finder. (This is my interpretation of your comment).

My knowledge of bitcoin is very limited and it has been a while since I first looked up on what it is. Please feel free to correct me.

"these days" ? What era was the date it did not have this ? You mean the PHP ecosystem has opened its eyes to finally using some good methodology.

> At the end of the exam, the examiner said this to my uncle: "Well, you passed, but I question your integrity."

"That is your job, suck it up!"

These figures are not completely accurate picture. Most streaming content comes off a load cache boxes on the large ISPs own network. All ISP peer in at least one of their national peering centres to exchange traffic with other national ISPs to reduce the transit requirements. Most internet traffic never leaves the country, UK people use UK google, UK ebay, UK ecommerce sites.

So for example Netflix, BBC, BT TV and things like Windows Updates and Game downloads all come from local cache boxes that are either located inside the ISP network (at a cost to the CDN) or are within the national peering exchange centre and do not stream down transit links.

Sure the cost of 10Gbps links at a national peering centre are expensive but no where near that of you are quoting for transit from a tier-1.