"Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"
- Ghandi

I founded SuprnovaRadio (or one of it's incarnations) back in 2003, good times. Still own the domain that hosted the site and streams (novasearch.net) that it was hosted on back then too, although it hasn't pointed to a server in ages.

While I'm generally also skeptical, when JPEG2000 was released, decoding images in JavaScript wasn't an option. As such, there's not really any barrier for individual websites to switch, if they're heavily image-driven.

A bigger roadblock might be that these days, bandwidth (and storage) is cheap, and so savings in image size are less relevant than they used to be.

OVH has been doing this for more than a decade. They credit it as one of the reasons they're able to undercut competitors by so much, by eliminating most of their cooling costs. They get their power usage efficiency, which is the ratio of IT equipment power consumption versus facility power consumption, under 1.1 for their newer datacentres.

Sorry, yes. I mean a flight termination system, not a launch abort. Either way, they (and the Russians) really need to use them.

China's launch record is quite good, but when they fail, huge numbers of people die. China doesn't use launch abort systems like the US does. When a US rocket fails, it is destroyed immediately to minimize damage. When a Chinese rocket fails, people die. One launch in the 90s killed over 500 people when a Long March III basically bombed a town and they couldn't stop it due to the lack of any abort system. Atypical to be sure, but they've had other launches that have killed people, and these are just the ones we know about.

Basically what I'm saying is that China really needs to put launch abort systems in their rockets.

And what is the U2F protected by? Nothing. Anybody who gets hold of the dongle can use it, at least getting into the system protected by a mobile app would require them to steal the device *AND* get the password. And not all phones are locked with a password. There are phones locked with biometrics, or patterns that couldn't quite be called a password.

As a company, I wouldn't rely my security on unlock passwords.

So you wouldn't rely on a system that requires a device be stolen and then its password cracked, but you WOULD rely on a system that only requires the device be stolen with no password required?

Once every few weeks, maybe every few months. I'm not using a password as the primary means to unlock my device.

With a dongle, you can be 100% sure that the thief has instant and complete access, because there isn't even a password to protect it.

Do you have any evidence that it is possible to spoof the success of remote wipe on a modern smartphone running the current operating systems? On top of this, there is also the possibility of de-authorizing the device on the server-side with the 2FA provider.

Considering how much more secure the system is than a USB dongle that anybody can grab and plug in, yes. Very much so.

It authenticates that somebody plugged in my dongle. It doesn't authenticate that I was the one who did it.

The smartphone can be lost/forgotten, but at least smartphones tend to be encrypted/locked with the option to remote-wipe. A U2F dongle that is lost would seem to offer no such protection.

The apps for 2FA services tend to offer a rotating key, so it's not a fixed password that can be guessed.

Best on the market? Errm, it has a bunch of deal-killer restrictions. It requires that the device that you're trying to log in on have USB ports (sorry smartphone/tablet users) and you need to carry around a physical token for you to lose/forget instead of having an app on your smartphone. And while it doesn't require any software be pre-installed on the computer (since the device basically simulates a keyboard), it still requires that the system be configured to let random keyboards/USB devices be plugged in.

Which one? 0118999881999119725...3?

No, I expected the telecom company to simply start treating the data fairly. And several of the mobile companies did just that.

It provides an incentive to the mobile companies to raise their caps. They want people to subscribe to their mobile television services, but at the same time, they don't want their customers to say "I don't want that, I would pay too much for the data". It may have no impact, but at least all services are on an equal playing field.

In terms of net neutrality, the CRTC did a heck of a lot more than commission a study, they put their ITMP framework into effect. It's essentially regulation requiring net neutrality be preserved. It's been enforced in the past (when the country's largest cable company was throttling some online games) and has issues currently under review (for a case where mobile phone companies were not counting their own video streaming apps against transfer caps, but were counting apps like Netflix).

It wasn't complicated or simple. We didn't have network neutrality. Then they put some straightforward regulation into effect, and then we did have network neutrality, and a framework for what consumers can do when they need to report a violation.

It's worth noting that the CRTC review of both of the net neutrality violations that I mentioned above were instigated by regular consumers filing a complaint, without any lawyers getting involved (on the consumer side). In the first case, the CRTC ruled against the cableco, and in the second case it's still in progress.

RTFA (second link): they've tried it, and couldn't get a strong enough signal from Hawking.

Indeed. And, I believe, the overwhelming majority of people's opinions.

Unobtrusive ads are more principled than intrusive "GIVE US MONEY!" adverts.