TFA is about the Wii being less capable than its peers, so it sounds like your complaint should be with the great-grandparent. Nobody was misquoted, the grandparent just directly challenged the great-grandparent's attempt to minimize the importance of what TFA is about (and blaim the publishers instead).

Well since they've offered it to the highest bidder, notionally some third party could offer $bignumber for the data and then use it for this sort of purpose. Of course that doesn't seem terribly likely, the SMS cost data (and therefore the analysis) would be seen as tainted, and the hackers could still decide to also provide the data to some or all of the other bidders...

It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.

TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.

Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.

There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.

By avoiding the appearance of being suspicious, and therefore avoiding being blacklisted in the first place.

Because major multinational Joe-Blow, Inc., is not comfortable buying joe-blow.tld1 and letting whoever wants to buy joe-blow.tld2, which they could use in a way that damages Joe-Blow's reputation. There is some legal recourse to that, depending on the specifics, but that takes time and is anything but guaranteed. Why risk it? So most large companies (and indeed, many smaller companies) just buy a bunch of permutations of their domain name, including different TLDs and common misspellings. They will generally ignore ccTLDs (of which there are over 250) except maybe the one for their own country, but will often buy several or all of the no-restrictions gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, and if they feel like it .biz, .info, and maybe the others). ICANN is moving toward creating more gTLDs.

So in effect, increasing the supply of gTLDs stands to artificially increase the demand as well, thus offsetting any price pressure.

What you are describing is in the same vein as the Creative Commons Founders' Copyright, although I am not sure that there is a workable way to also offer the work under a permissive license until the conversion to public domain. Alternately, you could simply wait 14 years (or what have you) and then declare your work to be in the public domain. CC can help you with that too. Of course, all of this assumes that they will still exist in 14 or however many years.

I assume you realize that "maximum theoretical speed of the interface" and "real-world performance" are not the same thing.

Both of Intel's Mini-ITX desktop boards with the Atom have the CPU passively cooled. However, they have a fan for the chipset (which consumes more power), and that may be the source of your confusion. At least some Atom-based notebooks do have cooling fans, but I couldn't say if they all do.

Additionally, the (theoretical) recovery methods for wiped data all rely on electron microscopes taking extremely high precision measurements. Your hard drive does not contain an electron microscope, nor would that be economical.

I think the GP has confused "realistically doable" with "easy". No one, to my knowledge, has ever argued that recovering a wiped drive would be a trivial undertaking. Only that, to a determined attacker with appropriate resources, it might be possible to do in a reasonable amount of time. And the question is really whether or not that is true.

I didn't even see the "previous interview" and "next interview" links on the articles until I deliberately set about finding such links. I did spot the links under "recent features", but those will eventually move down the queue and out of sight. So it's actually somewhat helpful for TFS to link to the 3 articles. Granted, better web design could have made the additional links unnecessary.