They fucked up by not having adequate backup power systems.

Everything in the generator hall was fine AFAIK except outside power was down and backup generators were trashed by the tsunami. And that was is, there were no better protected generators, no generators that could run from the heat of the reactor, and no plan to fly in working generators. Derp.

I'm with you there.
I wonder how this little beastie connects to the internet. Through the HDMI enabled monitor, or through the keyboard and mouse!?! I guess you'd connect it to a USB hub.

These images look nice, interesting angles. They probably look slick because they've been post resized sharpened, the smaller versions on Gizmodo have been gently sharpened to make them pop a bit, it's a common photographic trick.
Even if you have a sharp 12-24 megapixel image, it can always use some sharpening when it's downsized for the web. If you don't sharpen after downsizing, photographs still look great but not as crisp as they could.
(And yes, if you sharpen the full size image and then downsize, the downsizing obliterates the sharpening done at full size.)

Exactly, that's a much better price point. Don't hold your breath waiting for it though, I don't think it will ever happen for CPU's again.

I tend to agree with other posters, it's not worth voiding your warranty for. I've paid 20% extra for extended warranty before.

I just checked a price list, the price difference is about AU$80-100, ~$390 compared to $480. I wonder how long that difference will stay.

The Sr perchlorate injectors of the PSLV (the predecessor to GSLV) go into the 1st stage main engine (the solid), but those plumbing problems were with the GSLV's strap-ons. The PSLV had solid strap-ons, so I would guess they could not steer. The GSLV has liquid strap-ons, so I would guess they don't bother steering the main engine at all.
I didn't read this before my original post, but the GSAT-5P wiki article and linked reference say that the strap-ons stopped responding to commands, and the vehicle was destroyed by range safety. I suspect we're being given an oversimplified version of things there, unless self-destruct is a two stage thing. I think either it lost it's top, then was self-destructed ~10 secs later, or it wasn't self destructed at all and just progressively failed because of aero loads after loss of control of the strap-ons.
I'm not an expert with inside knowledge, I'm just reading the reports and trying to interpret.
Here's a deshaked version of the failure (done by me from ). You can see the vehicle rolls towards the camera, with some yaw to the left, then stage 3 falls off. Then through to stage 1+2 destruction.

So it looks like the GSLV yawed beyond limits, upper stages (I think stage 3 plus payload) broke off (0:34 on video), then stage 1+2 kept going, initially with decreased yaw (it got knocked back on course upon stage 3 separation), but then increasing yaw until 0:45 when stage 2 broke away from stage 1 and the strap-ons broke off too.
The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?

From the uploaders comments in youtube:

Uh yeah, what's the deal? Youtube can go up to 4000 horizontal lines, and this is supposed to be sourced from "high definition" and film, so it should be available at least in 720p. It was posted 3 days ago, so that should be plenty of time for youtube to encode hidef.