As others have said, pretty much all of the value of digital camera is in the back. The front/top basically is for mounting the lens, but also contains some useful features like the shutter button.

Let's think how a digital back is going to interface with the film mechanics: no doubt some kind of mechanism could detect the shutter press and/or film winding, but it all sounds a bit clunky and you've still to to wind the 'film' to cock the shutter. Digital cameras just do this and I doubt a 35mm digital back containing these special mechanisms (and especially with such low expected production runs) could be made any cheaper than a low or even mid-range digital.

The real value of your old stuff is the lenses. I've got a reasonable selection of older Nikon AI lenses (and a couple of F3 bodies) and I use them with a D7000 which cost about double your 'few hundred dollars' desired price. Works great (the APS format is very usable but you can get full frame bodies as well, e.g. D750) and also takes very nice looking videos. I can't see the F3s ever getting used again - even if they suddenly turned into 'digital' camera (that motor drive is pretty hefty and I wouldn't want to bother with winding again).

This chair.

where do you get your fertilizer for example?

The Haber-Bosch process fixes nitrogen from the air. All it needs is power.

I don't buy that. Surely the horizon in de Sitter space is eternally expanding, so the entropy on the horizon's surface is always increasing. We can walk through an expanding phase space without needing to recur.

Because quantum mechanics.

If we end up in eternal de Sitter space (looks likely), then we can look forward to existing as an infinite sequence of Boltzmann Brains.

That's a great picture of Freeman Dyson.

During this period, 2 disks died at his place on the Raid 5 NAS backup, and nobody noticed.

In all this "RAID is not a backup" back-and-forth, has nobody noticed that the NAS was the backup? Multiple disks failing on the backup is not a problem. since you've still got the main copy (i.e. the main respository if you're a company with things like websites). You just laugh and renew the backup.

Now, reading between the lines, it may be that this deployed (production?) VM with the website may have been the 'main' repository. In which case, the failure of this company is only a question of a (rather short-term) when. Suicides of lead developers notwithstanding.

When Intel refused to license the 386 for second sourcing IBM refused to buy it, instead sticking with the 286 (which they made) damned near until the Pentium was released.

I developed on OS/2 in the late 80s. I used various IBM PS/2 machines, including Model 80 (Intel 386DX) and Model 55 (Intel 386SX).

So it can't quite be true that IBM refused to buy the 386.

No. Because I don't place my resume on a job board.

If I did (presumably because I wanted a job), I'd be pleased to be getting 30 offers a month. (Is that all?)

Rather than just configuring Windows not to automatically reboot when updates are available?

There was no ssh 'back in the day'. First version was in 1995.

There's a lot of bad feeling on this thread about the extension of copyright, but there are a lot of positives. For example:

- Copyright income lets bands keep on making great music. It's likely that with a short copyright term, U2 wouldn't have made an album after 1990.

- The income allows artist to perform great philanthropic and charitable deeds. Let's face it: the United Nations as it is today is almost completely down to Bono.

- Artists support great works in other fields. E.g. would the Ferrari LaFerrari exist without buyers who relied on copyright income? I think not and that would be a tragedy.

This is a modest extension and a good thing for everybody.

and that is all that there will be left --- according to current theories at any rate!

Well, that and you as an infinite series of Boltzmann Brains in various states of psychosis.

Some folks have recommended nabbing some passing asteroids and detonating them in the Martian atmosphere, just to create more atmosphere as they burn up.

Even if it didn't create more atmosphere, wouldn't that be a cool thing to do just for the hell of it?

If 1600W is enough, then just buy two vacuum cleaners. Duh.

That is incorrect. The validity of a transaction depends only on how it relates to the transactions that precede it. Mining simply keeps track of the "official" history of transactions, to guard against double-spend attacks.

Transactions are useless unless they're confirmed in the blockchain. That's the whole point of bitcoin. Mining and the blockchain is all there is to bitcoin.

And that's another problem: the energy used for mining depends on the hashrate, not transaction rate. It's true that increasing popularity of Bitcoin rises both, but trying to calculate "energy per transaction" on that basis is pretty much the same as trying to calculate "drowned people per litre of ice cream consumed" on the basis that warm weather increases both.

You might have noticed that my calculation started off with network hash rate because that's where the energy is being used. I don't really think it's that important a calculation anyway, but I did it to show the $35 per transaction of the OP was incorrect. Indeed, if the transaction rate goes up faster than the hash rate, then the transaction cost is even lower.

Instead of criticizing, maybe you can come up with a better cost per transaction for bitcoin (because there surely is one).