Base thunderbolt is faster than USB3. TB2 is twice that, same connector. The problem is lack of power.

TB3 is 4 times as fast as TB1 (so over 4 times as fast as USB3) and finally provides some power.

The connector change is to add power, which wasn't part of the original design because the original design was fiber based, TB over copper was created to bring the cost down, but they still didn't add a power (other than to power the cable transceiver) supply ... that was kind of ... stupid.

They are fixing an initial stupid mistake with the new connector.

... I already have USB3 running over thunderbolt 1. You just hook a USB3 host controller up to the PCIe bus ... which is what Thunderbolt provides.

I plugin 2 cables to dock my laptop. One power, one Thunderbolt.

The result is that when I plugin those two cables, my laptop suddenly sees 3 SSDs (the work at full speed), the Apple Thunderbolt monitor, 3 USB3 ports, external audio, and 2 additional monitors via display port, and a gigabit ethernet connection.

1 connection via thunderbolt hooks up literally 9 devices, and I've not used it yet but it also hooks up to a PCIe enclosure.

This allows my laptop to be pretty sparse on ports and light when I'm on the move, but full of devices when its sitting on my desk at home or the office.

And the thunderbolt connection blows the shitty USB protocol away, even for USB3 ... and I'm using TB1, not 2.

Thunderbolt is external PCIe. Don't knock it until you realize how useful it can be.

Or so that my thunderbolt display only requires one cable for power to the laptop and driving the display.

Best way to describe the problem many people have with many theories I've seen yet. Kudos to you.

People confuse what science suggests with what science can prove. Those are different things. The first one may be right, but it could also be wrong due to unknown factors. The second is almost certainly write because (as a requirement to be actual science) its testable.

Science conflicting with religion isn't the problem, its when some people treat science as if its a religion by having blind faith in theories that have extremely hard to believe data that doesn't match up with common sense.

Common sense can certainly be wrong, but being that the nature of the universe (big bang theory versus god did it) doesn't really make a difference to most people. Doesn't matter which ones true and which one isn't. And lets not ignore the fact that the big bang theory has a metric fuckton of problems with it when you look at where the universe is today. By problems I mean things that don't match up with current observations and can't be tested at all given our current technology.

I personally don't have a problem with the big bang theory in general, but you have to be pretty fucked up in the head to think that everything about the current theories from high level physicists makes sense when they basically end up saying 'well, all these unbreakable rules of physics ... yea, they didn't apply back then ... because' and then they all have varying reasons for it, many of which are simply invented to fit the situation with no evidence that its the way it happened.

You're trying to mix people who use religion to be evil with science. Thats your problem, not a problem of either religion or science. Religion has no place in science, by definition, yet you seem to be pretty religious (i.e. have faith in unprovable things) about science.

You also have a pretty fucked up understanding of Christianity. You might want to start with looking at who actually proposed the big bang theory in the first place, and until you do, shut the fuck up you ignorant twit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Cost of a pilot maybe 50% more than a beat cop, but able to cover the area of 20.

Aircraft maintenance for a UAV thats not doing high stress maneuvers? A few thousand bucks every six months ... if you're maintaining an Airworthiness certificate as you would on a standard passenger aircraft.

Cost. Thats about it. Certification for a very select bit of encryption, hashing and password generation code in my previous job was roughly $50k for the first round ... of which no one has ever succeeded at getting certified on first pass. You pretty much can't pay less than that, and every little bit of complexity you add drives the price up quickly.

Then, the certification is for THAT SPECIFIC code. Any changes to that module and its no longer certified. And by any changes I mean so much as adding a period to some text strings that are never used is enough to do it. ANY change. So you narrow down the module to be certified to the smallest amount of code possible.

No. The OpenBSD team will make it OS agnostic and it will work on OpenBSD, making it OS agnostic doesn't mean they'll port it to other OSes, they do it for themselves. Its pretty fucking retarded that you think they should do it for you for nothing.

Anyone who thinks it does is pretty ignorant. I don't really care what your definition of rich is.

If you think there is only one way to watch 'rented' movies, then you are really pretty stupid. Amazon Prime cost less and is far more useful as it includes more than just movies.

As for the spelling mistake ... you must lead a really sad life.

Yes, because this won't remain 'just for new customers' for very long at all.

Having gone through the certification process myself, people that think that are stupid, paranoid idiots. The certification process is entirely based on finding and fixing known flaws in the encryption process, nothing I saw would indicate any kind of weakening.

Of course, its entirely possible that the NSA was aware that my code was insecure and just didn't request any changes to make it weaker, but the certification process certainly didn't make that apparent.

Wrong.

A specific version of the OpenSSL binaries a LONG time ago received a low level of FIPS 140 certification. That certification was for specific binaries built from a specific code base. The instant a single line of source was changed, the entire FIPS certification is null and void for the new version. Depending not he exact way it was certified it is entirely possible that even compiling the same source code from the version that was certified ... does not itself receive the certification.

NO ONE uses the FIPS certified module as it is broken in many known ways. Anyone who does use it are retarded since its well known to be susceptible to several attacks that make it horribly broken even though it received a low level FIPS certification.

Not contributing back? Are you fucking retarded? The OpenSSL team can always take fixes from the version that OpenBSD creates.

This has nothing to do with Theo's penis and everything to do with OpenSSL being a monstrous pile of crap that its devs are afraid to touch.

So basically what you want them to do is take your pet project, fix the fact that its a bloated pile of crap, and do it for your OS and your requirements which have absolutely nothing to do with theirs?

You've got to be pretty lazy and extremely selfish to make such a retarded comment ... and that goes for all the idiots who modded you insightful.

What they should have done, is created BSDSSL and dropped all the retarded SSLeay and other silly licensing crap that goes with OpenSSL.

And for the record, its unlikely that it won't work out of the box on *BSD, which have a pretty consistent API across all of them.

But hey, you're right, they should totally fix your problems for free because you said so and you weren't willing to do it yourself. Selfish fuck.