Hahahaha more powerful than having the source code, and being able to rip out any parts of it you don't want lurking in there to begin with? Tell me another one.

Modern SoC GPUs have scalers, they can scale for free and look pretty good while doing it.

You can buy a laser cutter, complete, for around two grand on ebay. Or you can build one for around two grand, if you can get lucky with your laser tube. So why should I be excited about another one in the same price range?

That's what the author says as well, he's obviously selling a product based on RF detection of drones. He claims 1400 foot detection ability, also with the ability to determine the GPS location and altitude (presumably the RF signal from the drone would have that information), as well the location of the operator and the unique drone ID. He glosses over radar, but it seems that radar could be built to identify drones with a reasonable accuracy, although I suppose that birds would cause some amount of false detection. I'm sure that there are plenty of patterns of drone flight and bird flight that could be identified though.

640k ought to be enough for anyone.

There is no need to complicate the scenario. This is what typically happens when people describe this stuff which is great for explaining the theory but they sometimes forget to mention what happens in practice.

Here is what they often forget to mention:
1) I want to make a journey I measure as 100LY. I accelerate then decelerate at 1g for equal amounts of time to stop at my destination.
2) A bunch strange perceptual shit happens..
3) The journey takes less than 100 Y for me.

QED.

I never said it was easy at all. I said that it was not theoretically impossible at all in practical terms. Also that the the above simplification leads people who don't understand the theory to assume it is impossible.

This is a huge difference which you are wilfully ignoring in your desperation to construct a straw man to burn at the stake.

Just because you cannot understand something, does not mean it is rubbish.

This is a gross oversimplification and has been misleading people for decades.

When communicating velocity for practical purposes we always do so in terms of relative velocity with a common frame of reference. We do this because to do otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

It is perfectly "legal" to travel at relative velocities faster than C - even if your starting relative velocities were zero. Now I understand and I assume you know: as you accelerate towards C, wierd things happen to the frames of reference of the traveller and external observer. But this really is irrelevant for practical purposes.

The important point is that to YOUR OWN measurements as taken BEFORE the trip, you travelled faster than the speed of light. This is the common and practical frame of reference that we would use to communicate our velocity. i.e. This was 100 LY away and I covered it in this amount of my time so I travelled at...

THAT, my friend, is what counts here for practical purposes of travel - as opposed to the esoteric world of the theory.

What many here are suggesting (practically speaking) is metaphorically akin to taking a velocity reading of your own body while sprinting on a supersonic jet and concluding you are travelling 6 km/hr as relative to the jet.

And it is a stupid thing to tell the average person because they fail to see the value in jet travel (durrr...I could never run to Paris!). (which is what has happened with space travel)

And likewise you can make anything relative to anything else and make it seem like that comparison is somehow more important.

The important point is that to an independent "observer" and to YOUR OWN measurements as taken BEFORE the trip, you travelled faster than the speed of light.

THAT, my friend, is what counts here for practical purposes.

What you are suggesting (practically speaking) is metaphorically akin to taking a velocity reading of your own body while seated on a supersonic jet and concluding you are travelling 0 km/hr because you are not moving relative to the jet.

And it is a stupid thing to tell the average person because they fail to see the value in jet travel. (which is what has happened with space travel)

Exactly. Or who assumes that SLAs are immutable laws of nature, not promises.

Sometimes it involves adding capabilities to those services that you didn't have in your own data center, like geographic redundancy.

" HP wasn’t able keep up with its competitors. The company’s revenue share dropped from 25.5 percent to 23.8 percent, while its market share by volume dropped 2.6 percentage points to 20 percent, "

For anyone keeping score, this statement means 'HP is not keeping up because they are still in the lead, but the gap is narrower'.

"Dell increased revenue and shipments, but it too wasn’t quite able to keep up with the market. Its share of revenue and shipments each slipped by just under 1 percentage point to 17.1 percent and 19 percent respectively"

This is a little less blatantly wrong, but Dell is the #2 vendor Strictly true since they said keep up with *the market* which in aggregate grew, but being #2 in the market isn't such a dire thing.

" IBM had the third-largest server revenue, followed by Lenovo and Cisco Systems, while Lenovo was third by server shipments, "
This particular statistic is pretty screwed up because it doesn't correct for the situation that IBM sold of x86 based servers partway through the year in some parts of the world, and at the end of the year in other parts of the world. It mentions this, but fails to recognize that IBM's situation partially included Lenovo still. Lenovo's big year to year growth is mostly a changing of ownership currently.

"Cisco’s year-over-year server revenue growth of 44.4 percent was well above average for the industry, and suggests the company is not done capturing incremental market share in the server market"
Impressive and all, but given *after* that increase they still lag behind 4 other companies, it means that big year to year percentages are likely. Just like the lead experiencing a little crowding in a market shouldn't cause anyone to write them off, a large percentage gain by a relatively small player shouldn't send everyone into an excited state. You could write similarly exciting stories about some of the 'lower tier' vendors, but since those aren't exciting brands, they got omitted.