I built one of those in a robotics class 10 years ago. We don't particularly think of cockroaches as intelligent thus it is not an AI. Most of our primal functions are purely robotic and easy to implement. Intelligence is something not quite yet defined.

They're not trying to get the bomb (if you can believe their media). They're trying to power their country without relying on foreign oil or foreign tech since historically, they have been hard hit economically by the instability of the region. The bomb may be secondary but nuclear power is still the cheapest power available (if you ignore the NIMBY and regulation problems western nations face)

What would be even cooler is if these trucks could do it without having to stop your car. Like military planes in full flight can refuel, cars should as well.

Or perhaps they did find the holy grail that Nikolai Tesla was working on - free energy, charging through the air.

Yeah, but that's simply inductive charging, basically placing the secondary coil inside or very close to the primary. You still need to have the device in an exact position very close or in the charger for it to work. At that point it doesn't matter whether or not the wires are touching, it's actually more efficient to have the wires touching (and having a charger that is fully reversible and magnetically snaps is optimal at that point).

What I've understood as wireless charging tech has been in concept for years but not yet fully worked out is a wireless charging mat or area where you simply put down your device (eg. on your night stand) and it starts charging. The problem with that is position, area, air gap etc; the tech exists already but they are woefully inefficient and thus put a big strain on the larger batteries.

It IS relevant to this case. Extra peering connections cost 0, zilch (besides the actual hardware cost which is really minimal if you're just popping in a cable into an existing switch)

At the peering centers, after the obvious monthly colocation fees you simply pay for YOUR traffic towards the Internet (upload) and for YOUR to be reachable across the Internet. You don't pay for the amount of data you transfer, you pay per Mbps that you upload disproportionate to what you accept.

So Netflix is paying an amount of money to upload their data, Comcast gets it for free, if they would actually accept the data, it would reduce their peering costs (not by a whole lot but a couple of thousand/month at least). The problem with Comcast however is that Netflix is disrupting their side business (cable etc) so by spending money in blocking Netflix they hope to recap that by more cable subscriptions.

What mainstream? None of my devices (and I have a lot of them) have wireless charge options. There are aftermarket options but looking at the tech, it is incredibly wasteful and destructive to the batteries.

A number of ISP's have pointed and even shown graphs of Comcast/TWC allowing their connections to fill up to 100% even though there is plenty of availability of bandwidth at the peer points.

I have a Foscam clone, nothing wrong with it, great night time view. Convert to B/W and regulating the brightness/contrast should give a very good picture.

Everyone has a price. If the act is simple and has a low-to-none risk of the evidence being pointed towards you and the motivation is large enough, even middle class people can be bought.

If someone tells an employee: here is a USB drive, stick it in a random computer and you won't have to work the rest of your life, I think most employees would do it.

Heck, you don't even have to give them money, all you have to do is give them a free USB drive (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/06/yet_another_peo.html)

Yes, to both.

SMART has in my career not made one difference to notice whether a drive was bad. SMART only shows things after the drive has gone bad already. A rise in the number of read/write retries in a large disk array is immediately noticeable and you don't need SMART to tell you that a drive is bad (and just the timeouts will usually cause the bad drive to be kicked out). Bad data is immediately noticeable (and likewise, will cause the drive to be kicked out) if you use ZFS, even before SMART catches on to an ECC fault.

If they return any relevant SMART data at all, most of the 'important' data is locked behind manufacturer specific codes. SMART is good for desktop drives, useless otherwise.

It's actually due to a bad firmware bug (I've replaced 12 of them in the last few months) which still doesn't seem to have fixed the issue completely.

If you issue a SMART command at the exact same time something is writing to the disk, data is read back corrupted (the read times out or something, the controller kicks it out due to inactivity). If you are monitoring your SMART eg. every hour, you would eventually start having 'bad disks' in a seemingly random fashion. In my case, there could be months between bad disks and other times 2 or 3 would fail at once.

Disabled SMART monitoring on my controller -> no more bad disks (although once a disk has encountered the bug, it will continue to report faulted through SMART).

The demand won't stop, we'll always need more cheap storage and until we can make chips as fast and cheap as we can coat a piece of metal with magnets, we'll have spinning rust. The spinning rust will get heavier and slower though as we are nearing the limits of what is physically possible but that's another decade or 2 away from now.

Eventually SSD will outperform hard drives in cost on other levels (energy usage, price per cubic feet) just as hard drives did to tape and their robots (robots are too expensive to operate and take up too much space for anyone that has their infrastructure in less than half a rack).

Look at tape, even it's demand has not stopped and they're still inventing larger and larger versions because if you can spare a rack to hold your robot, you could hold several PB's worth of data whereas a rack of hard drives barely holds 1PB.

There are also few workloads where block-level dedupe is any better than block-level compression. Most people don't store the same data over and over (yes, disk images of virtual machines, but even there the images stop converging soon after deployment).

With block-level compression I get ~30% for what is basically 'random' data (user home directories and medical imaging data, 100TB). Block-level deduplication would only give me ~15%.

Compression does internal de-duplication already (one of the easiest ways of compressing is finding duplicates and eliminating them, the hardest part of compression is finding the best way of doing it).

Since you asked:
http://www.religioustolerance....

The main problem is that they don't sample your entire DNA, only specific parts of it which sometimes could also match or partial match your siblings (eg. identical twins), parents, clones and other close relatives.

Despite what you may think, DNA tests as performed by police have never been scientifically proven to be globally unique. It is unlikely for someone to have the same DNA markers than you but it's not impossible.