You use KiB instead of KB, don't you?

KiBbles & bits? Absolutely!

In some ways, the great success of Ethernet is that it became the name we gave to whatever technology won out.

No, ethernet remained relevant because it was able to improve, while maintaining backwards compatibility along the way, so your investment was never wasted.

10Base-T cards still had BNC connectors on them, letting you transition smoothly from one to the other.

100Base-Tx was backwards compatible with 10Mbps hubs & NICs.

Gigabit offered backward compatibility with 100Base-Tx.

Switching between fiber and copper is just a matter of swapping the GBIC/SFP transceivers in a switch, with the underlying device having no clue that the media is different.

Newer standards retained backward compatibility with older, less robust cabling... From CAT-3 to CAT-5, to CAT-5e/6, to CAT-6a.

Even though ethernet of today doesn't look like it did, originally. The upgrade path was always simple, smooth, and inexpensive, so it is very much an unbroken chain back to the beginning, and hooking up a modern PC to one of the first ethernet devices is a simple matter of physical-layer conversion.

...I've got a bridge somewhere that needs to be sold that you might be interested in.

Bitcoin does irrefutability (i.e. the ability to prove that a transaction occurred, and occurred only once). I can thus prove that I do, in fact, own all Bitcoin I possess.

It never has been anonymous. There are characteristics that make it more difficult to trace the payer, but the protocol and implementation have never been configured (or designed) to be a strongly anonymous technology.

The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.

That's my impression as well. The domain owners seem to have played the WIPO, along with any (likely) dislike the WIPO has for men like Paul who would dismantle countless copyright extensions and protections that he feels overreach the reasonable limits of copyright's intent.

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.

Didn't the token get lost in the ethernet?

She's hot in a world where this is hot:

http://www.therichest.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/marissa-mayer.jpg

Everyone is entitled to their own sexual opinions, but when graded on a curve of American CEOs, judged by American hetero men, she's hot.

Any sufficiently old company eventually becomes a real-estate and finance business.

I told you now ten times: you are wrong.

A static variable is not static for the length of the program, whatever you want to say with that.

I can assign it values as often as I want.

You are even to dumb, to copy paste my simple example of two c files into an editor and compile and link them.

Because if you would do that you had figured meanwhile: I'm right. And you are wrong.

Your last line is even more wrong and clearly states that you have not much clue about computing.

Yes, ofc the static variable still exists. Hence it is not a shared variable of the objects. And no, that is where you are wrong' in C# and Java it is not statically allocated. They live on the heap in the class. That is why it is called in computer sciense 'class variable' or 'class method'.

As I pointed out in my C examples, here my final one:
sample.c:
        int a;
        static int b;

        func() { static int c; }
------

All variables above are "static allocated". Also 'a'! And as I explained before: the static does not mean static allocated it means: only vissible in this scope.
The variable a can be referenced by any C file linked with 'sample.c'. The variable 'b' can't because the linker wont allow it, it is confinded to the sample.c/sample.o file.
The variable 'c' however is something special, and I'm tired to explain you what it does and how it works as you have shown so far: you have no clue about what you are talking and you either are to dumb or to full of hatret to comprehend what I type.

Hint: program a week in C.
Then program a week in C++.

Then: figure where C# puts its "static variables" and how Java does it ... and then please have the dignity to facepalm.

Fhe problem if someone tries to explain something scientific to a layman is that it starts to become half wrong.

For fusion the sun needs pressure that brings hydrogen atomes close enough together to fuse.

Not: pressure. Not energy.

The pressure comes from gravity and heat.

The only energy created is the energy set free as photones and as kinetic energy of the resulting helium nucleus.

In that process no mythical gravitational energy or any thermal energy is consumed.

The the idea or claim that you have to "spend some energy" first to get something out: is wrong.

The fetus are not killed or malformed by the radiation but concieved by women or fathered by men who where at the bomb site.
I talk about children born 10 to 30 years later! Japan had plenty of them. When I was young and in school the long term effects of the bombing where wuite often discussed in public. What you think why the anti atom movement especially anti atom weapons movement in germany is so strong? Everyone saw the victims in TV. There where exchange programs between Japan and european countries to help them. Why don't you google e.g. "black rain" or simply read one of the many world literature prices winning japanese books about the topic? You easy find a few hundret books written by eye wittnesses that also cover the decades after the war. Books like crimes or love stories, not scientific books or research papers, books that start 1940 and cover till 1975 or what ever. There are plenty.

This is not the first law of thermodynamics ...
Perhaps you like to read up the laws on wikipedia?

Your second law is wrong also. Perhaps you should read that also up un wikipedia?

Mother Theresa would no doubt have printed a medical tool for removing IUDs.

Which would have been totally useless since most of the countries and places she setup shop didn't have access to birth control to begin with.

India, with its huge population, had a large program making IUDs available at no cost to people in the poorer regions who wanted them.

Mother Theresa's work included providing medical treatment to the poor in many of these same regions. Her clinics were noted for removing the government-provided IUDs of women who were there for other procedures, without seeking permission or even informing the woman that it had been done.

Don't you just pull on the string?

Not if you don't want to kill or sterilize the woman.