The Itanium could "natively" run x86 code using dedicated hardware. The Elbrus design used a software translation system instead.

Later versions of the Itanium changed to a software translation layer which not only removed some hardware, it also accelerated x86 code execution speed. But x86 compatibility is still architectural in Itanium - not for Elbrus.

Hardware isn't always better.

Not really comparably as the infrastructure for video streaming have to be considerably larger in storage/network bandwidth and also distributed geographically to avoid bottlenecks.

Not to mention that Youtube actually pay for some of its content. ;)

Remember that the actual content is produced free of charge by volunteers. Are 230 employees needed for infrastructure maintenance and development?

According to the designers the Elbrus design is better than the Itanium. I personally don't really doubt that given the amount of problems the Itanium design have.

Eh... Nope.
It is using the Elbrus architecture which is a variant of the EPIC* architecture (like that of the Intel/HP Itanium). This is a variant of the Elbrus 2000 design which was much hyped.

(* EPIC = explicit parallel instruction coding, more comparable with VLIW designs than CISC/RISC ones)

Read the parent post again. Repeat until you understand his point.

Yes.

10nm chips have been manufactured and demonstrated by Samsung, Intel plans on producing 10nm chip in 2016. 10nm isn't a problem, process development is close to finished. 7nm doesn't seem to present any physical problem.
And 3nm transistors have been manufactured. Not in a commercial manufacturing process but not only can they be made - they are demonstrated to be working.

So you are way off.

10nm is proven possible. Samsung have demonstrated some 10nm chips already.

Transistors have been made much smaller in process development labs so we know that the scaling will continue some time into the future.

Why do the writer think protected information should be given to a unverified person over an untrusted service? Doing so is illegal in most civilized places and many uncivilized ones too.

Yes you are. It should be plainly obvious why it is a strawman but for you: the idea that reboots aren't important.
Or perhaps this is clearer: You aren't the world, for some uses reboot time can be critical (though those systems normally use specialized operating systems), for a kernel developer reboot time may be a bottleneck, some people prefer to shut down a computer rather than use hibernation, a huge amount of people uses notebook computers and those aren't designed to be always on.

USB ports are very protected so while you could perhaps destroy a port the computer wouldn't have any problem. But there are ways... http://kukuruku.co/hub/diy/usb...

Also you are talking of something that fucks with the computer when one plug it in, the story is about a device that does something when removed.

IIRC the Wang 2200 (my first computer) had 90kB 5.25" floppies.

I was thinking the same thing. There's no reason for the scaling to be easily predictable before there is a model to base the prediction on.

The problem would be the floppy disk controller, 1.44Mb drives requires the controller to read/write 2x the rate of 720kb ones.