It's also just wrong. From 3G onwards phones authenticate the cell towers. Even with a full stack running you wouldn't be easily able to force a phone to associate to your tower, at least not without jamming all the other towers in your vicinity.
For example, scaling the network up to 2000 transactions per second would result in a Bitcoin node downloading about 1 MB per second. No big deal, until you realize that means each node will need about 2.6 TB of bandwidth each month, and that's just to handle the needs of 10% of the population of the United States, assuming 5 transactions per person per day.
As pointed out by another poster, 2.6 TB of transfer quota per month is trivial even by today's standards: anyone can afford that. And should Bitcoin ever scale to those levels it won't be relying on today's resources, it'll be relying on tomorrow's. So your own example falls apart almost immediately.
Also, rather than just guessing what the US population "needs" why not take a look at existing networks? 2000tps is about a fifth of VISA traffic for the whole world. Of course not every transaction goes via VISA, but it should indicate to you that maybe your numbers are once again a bit sketchy.
You can read an article I wrote a long time ago here: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability. It goes over the various ways the system scales up. Performance is unintuitive, there's no substitute for just working it out on the back of an envelope. Bear in mind we live in a world where single websites can generate a large fraction of total internet traffic and not go bankrupt.
A "hostile takeover" merely means that non-owners (the management) are opposed to the owners (shareholders) choosing to sell.
Tools -> Internet Options -> Programs Tab -> Make default
Tools <next page>
Internet Options <next page>
Programs Tab <next page>
Make default <next page>
Well how is a documented protocol for communication different from a backdoor?
On a house, how is the back door different than the front door, other than being on the back side of the house?
No. The hardware never met expectations and it never really got to the kids. Most were confiscated by the local dictators and sold off.
Not just that. I thought the buy-1-give-1 program was awesome and my daughter was four at the time, so I thought it would be perfect. Christmas came and went and I never got a box in the mail. The office was clearly a mess.
I month or two later, I gave up after getting nowhere with those people, bought her a pink eeePC and all was well with the world. Especially ASUS's profit, since they dared to earn it.
I've heard Sugar is the reason many of the kids learned to hack their first machine. That's a feature, not a bug.
People who think they're being clever by overriding my font choices tend to get ignored by me unless it's to apply a -1, Pretentious and Self-Serving. And I've mod points today. Just sayin'...
Seriously, quit trying to do the I'm A Special Snowflake Pretending I'm Using A Retro-Trendy IBM Selectric And Everyone Else Must Participate In My Little Fantasy thing and let your message speak for itself.
No, we already know it's snake oil. See for example Monty's writeup:
Initially, yes. Go with the least expensive hardware possible and a tiny Linux installation and get them out to people who can learn from them.
Getting that hardware price-point was difficult. But they got close.
Then they decided that it needed to run some form of Windows.
They are talking about shutting down an order of magnitude more coal plants. Four nuclear reactors is not going to cut it.
Just look at the title: Silicon Valley's Youth Problem
"Youth" being a code word for:
1. work more than 40 hours a week
2. work for less than the median wage
3. no health issues that will conflict with #1 & #2
4. no husband/wife/kids that will conflict with #1, #2 & #3.
5. okay with #1 - #4 as long as there is a possibility of a percentage of an IPO or buy-out some years in the future.
Fuck that. That's not a problem with a lack of "young" coders. That's a problem with their business plan. Items #1 - #4 are really about cash flow (salaries).
Read the whole article. It's quite good.
It's not "youth" that's the problem. It's banality. "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks." - Jeff Hammerbacher, Facebook. Most of the "app" companies are not "tech" companies. They're fad publishers. The technology for doing routine web apps and phone apps is pretty much standardized now.
The engineering that goes into phone hardware is just awe-inspiring. Electronic design today is brutal. You barely get to use any power, the budget for each function is tiny, the size has to be very small, you have to operate multiple radios without interference right next to each other, and there's a new product to get out every six months. Most of that engineering is not done in the US. That's a big concern. The US probably doesn't have the technology to build a cell phone any more.
It's not as bad as the first dot-com boom. This time, there's usually revenue. Income, even. Even Twitter claims to be profitable (although they're not, really. Look at the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles results, not the ones excluding "one-time expenses".)
So the younger coders are willing to risk a few of their early years in the hopes of a big stock win or buy-out.
Where's the problem?
If there are other systems that need programmers then hire programmers for those other systems. There are programmers who do not fit the "just out of school" demographic. Why not hire those programmers? Why focus on the "young" coders?