I would expext that anything that could be expressed in a simple enough equation, could also be described in words easily enough.

But the first example in the summary mentions the Heisenberg uncertainty. Concepts like this are hard to describe in words, but the equations are just as hard to grasp. They are usually completely made up of often obscure variables, each of them standing for another equation, or an abstact concept of its own.
Unless you happen to know each of these, you will not be able to make much sense of the complete equation.
Trying to discover their meaning will quickly lead to even more unknowns for anyone not yet familiar with the topic.

Most people understand the language of the equation itself, which describes the relation of it's parts to each other, But if the parts of the equation are unknowns, how much use is that?

I think the hope is that the UN will be so split about any minor issue concerning the internet, that they will at worst endlessly debate and vote on censorship, but nothing will ever get done. So basicly the internet will forever be left to it's own devices.
This hope is not unfounded, given the previous record of the UN not getting stuff done.

I am not sure I get this.

If the path into orbital passes through earth, what keeps you from building your spacegun on that exact exit point on the other side of earth in the first place and point it into that direction?
Somewhere surely you will have to leave the insides of earth and approach orbit with that path. Which means there is a valid path from earth crust into orbit.

The 125khz chips can be read from several metres if you use the right setup.

It's just usually not the desired. Applications based on these chips often use the limited range to do more selective readings.
Say you want to read ONLY the tag on a single item in a stack and not pick up the other tags close by.

I have developed RFID reader applications for the 4102 (125khz) chips and we could read them easily from 3-5 metres.
Provided we used the right antenna (directional) and maxed the power output of course.

Such a setup might be to big for disguised hacking.

Still, a lot more of 'a few centimeters' should be no problem at all. Given the goal of hacking someone from afar, these previous 'hackers' have failed pretty hard if that's all they got.

VC20 (5KB) -> laptop I currently work with (8GB) = some 1.6 million

I think for the 'enthusiasts' out there, this poll is a couple of magnitudes short.

Didn't know they had electricity in Ebonia.

You'd think all that mud would cause short circuits...

Given that there are several differences in state laws both in the U.S. and EU, you should better ask that.

The Snotzogga.

That just means they can choose which case to prosecute and which one to dismiss because of 'too much work'.
Which would give them even more power.

When everyone is a criminal, but we only go after the ones that we do not like for whatever reason, we can just forget the whole justice thing all together.

There can only be so many different people.
The trick is to spot all the doubles and save on diskspace and computing power!

This idea is not exactly a new one.

Just recently there was that thing:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/02/technology-esea-bitcoin-mining.html

The efficiency is so bad, coupled with expected user backlash, it is a dangerous joke at best.

Nowhere does it say he did not buy the book.
Most likely he did buy it.

The infringement happened, when he tried to publish text on his website. I don't see how buying the book, or buying any number of books for that matter, would have helped.

Aside from that, it is a camera.
Yet there are no pictures said camera took anywhere in the article.

When writing about an image taking device, the first thing right below the headline should be an image taken by said device.
You know, like in the old saying about pictures vs. lots of words.

Maybe the Open Source driver does not support all the same features the NVidia one does?

I mean who can see from their screen if the GPU really did all of the 100+ flashy named video processing tasks and whatever else it was supposed to do?
Maybe it flunked on a certain texture-whatever effect and did a faster, almost as good one?
Maybe NVidia puts more auxillery tasks on the GPU, like physics stuff?

How can we compare the 2 drivers, when one of them is closed? And they dont even run on the same cards for AMD/NVidia...