I tried using a VGA cable and also a DVI to HDMI cable.

On VGA I couldn't get it to go above 1024x768, when I tried forcing a 1366x768 output on the computer it refused to display it (which I found very surprising as there really shouldn't be any significant differences in the sync timings between the two). I can't remember exactly what the results with the DVI to HDMI cable were but I remember having even more trouble..

I admittedly didn't have a video card to hand with an actual HDMI output to try.

Unfortunately in some cases they then go and ruin it by putting inappropriate signal processing in the path which can't be turned off. I have a hanspree TV which has the "FULL HD" badge on it and supposedly has a native resoloution of 1920x1200 but trying to use it as a computer monitor (regardless of input resoloution) results in a blurry mess.

My parents also have a smaller TV (think it's a sharp but I can't remember for sure) that supposedly has a native resoloution of 1366x768 but I never managed to get it to accept a signal at that resoloution.

Maybe I've just been unlucky or buying too cheap but I don't think I would buy a TV for use as a monitor again unless I could try before buying.

Reassembling a raid from drives taken at multiple different times will likely be harder than reassembling from disks taken at the same time because most raid implementations are designed to stop you doing it by accident but with sufficient determination it should be possible.

Do you have a source for that claim? are you sure you have your units right?

Thousands of dollars per megawatt hour I can just about belive, thousands of dollars per kilowatt hour is into the range of the absurd.

Which would be fine if they stuck to doing it in their own languages, unfortunately they cause ambiguity and confusion by writing english text but failling to follow english numeric conventions.

Not sure I would agree with "much of the world" either, from what I can tell it seems to be a mainland european thing.

The people and entities who signed the sponsorship contract must do what they contractually agreed to do (which may be virtually nothing or it may be very specific depends what was in the contract).

Other people aren't bound by that though. Most contributors to open source projects do not have any contract with or obligation to the operators of the project. If they (or their employers if relavent) decide they would rather put their effort into a fork then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

flu kills many more people total but a much lower proportion of those infected.

ebola was a massively deadly up and coming disease with infection counts growing apparently exponentially. Fortunately it seems sufficient resources have been brought in to bring the outbreak under control before it got too big.

ebola also poses a grave threat to healthcare workers and early symptoms are difficult to distinguish from more mundane diseases. This makes it difficult to keep a healthcare system running properly in the face of an ebola epidemic (AIUI it is belived that deaths from this will be greater than the direct ebola deaths).

Radiation in free space decreases as an inverse square law with the distance from the source but AIUI radiation direct from the ruins of the reactor isn't the main concern. The main concern is contamination with reactive fallout and while that will likely decrease with distance there is no reason to belive it will follow an inverse square law and it will be affected by many factors other than distance (such as local weather patterns.

Caching at the phone company is kinda pointless. The time you want proxy caching is when you have a fast local network behind a slow wan and want to reduce the traffic over the WAN.

Afaict the purpose of the phone companies proxy's is not caching. It's purpose at least in my experiance is to reduce bandwidth on the mobile network by reducing image quality.

In my experiance most proxies legitimate or otherwise just pass https through without caching it.

It's certainly possible to set up a proxy that decrypts and hashes https but it has a number of issues.

1: legal, in some jurisdications it may not be legal to interfere with the encryption of certain types of traffic or may make you liable if the information you decrypted leaks out.
2: client configuration, you have to explicitly add the certificate for every client. Having unmanaged client machines is not mutally exclusive with a legitimate desire to cache data.
3: security, your proxy just became a massive target for anyone wanting to attack your users.

There can be good reasons to use it but there are also a couple of reasons to avoid it.

1: overflows are "hidden", with a signed number overflow will usually* result in a nonsensical (very large negative) number, with an unsigned number overflows will usually bring you back to zero which is much less likely to be noticed
2: the rules for operations (especially comparisions) involving a mixture of signed and unsigned types are seriously counter-intuitive.

* Yes I know the C standard doesn't actually require this and modern versions of gcc are being retarded about it in some cases but for the most part it holds true

Yet even in places where shops are allowed to pass on the cost of credit card use to their customers few actually do so.

If you are going to have to pay a price with credit card fees built in may as well take the benefits from using the credit card.

Agreed in general but I don't think a single email counts as "diligent verification". it's doing the bare minimum the browser vendors will let them get away with.

Specifically validating through multiple independent channels so that an attacker would have to compromise all of them to get the certificate.

The proper fix is to get rid of third party CAs entirely and integrate certification of domain ownership with the purchase of the domain.

EV helps a little but the web's page-by-page model works against it. The connection where a form is received and the connection where it is submitted are logically seperate and afaict there is nothing requiring them to use the same certificate. So an attacker who has a regular certicate for a domain that normally uses an EV certificate can avoid MITMing the initial connection (likely the request for the login form) and show the green bar. Then they can MITM the second connection and grab the form data.

I was dissapointed to find that HTTP strict transport security doesn't seem to do anything to address this.

The thing with academic articles is the people and who write the articles and the organisations they work for DON'T get any compensation from the journals. In many cases the reviewers don't either. This applies regardless of whether the paper is worthless drek or a major breakthrough.

People are getting pissed off with a model where research paid for primerally by taxpayers and performed by universities is locked up by journals for their own profit.

I read that after panasonic took over they moved the eneloop production to china and quality took a nosedive, don't know if it's recovered.