https://buy.louisck.net/
Louis C.K. made a comedy special by himself for distribution entirely online with no DRM (aside from having a reasonable download limit to prevent bandwidth abuse), and he's asking $5 for it. I first torrented it. I liked it, and I support him as a comedian; so I bought it (And at that price? How can you not?), showed it to several of my friends, and they all bought it too. You might think he's made no profit, but in 12 days, he made over 1 million dollars. And that was over a month ago. Who knows how much more he's made since then. Sounds like he's got it figured out pretty well.

What does this mean for sites like YouTube? I know they make an effort to keep copyright infringement to a minimum, but they don't catch everything. Are all those working for Google to be held responsible?

There should be an option to encrypt the Recovery images in a similar fashion to what TrueCrypt does. Then, when you go to "refresh" your system, you have to enter your encryption password.
For added security, Windows 8 could allow you to make a bootable recovery USB. Then you can just make your recovery USB stick, and throw it in a drawer somewhere. Then when your computer gets infected all to hell, just plug in your recovery stick, boot to it, and then let the USB reinstall the image you made. That way, there's no possible way that malware can still be present on your refreshed install unless it was already there when you made your image, or if you plugged the USB into a booted, infected machine.

It's nice to see more and more manufacturers providing the option for customers unlock the bootloaders for their Android devices, but does it really have to void the warranty? I mean, can't they determine if a failure was a direct result of unlocking the bootloader? If you unlock your phone's bootloader and then brick your phone trying to install some weird crap, then it's clearly your fault and shouldn't be covered by your warranty, but if your screen dies or your battery explodes, it probably has nothing to do with whether or not you unlocked the device's bootloader.

It's not faster loading webpages that keeps me on Chrome. It's the faster, smoother UI.

Exactly. And, WHY did it reduce piracy? Was it truly because of the highly restrictive DRM making it "harder" for pirates? Or was it because not even pirates decided the game was worth the trouble, let alone the average gamer? I know I certainly didn't (and won't) buy any Ubisoft games. And EA is next on my list of "publishers not to give money to."

Who said your router has to keep logs? I'm pretty sure I've disabled that lovely little gem. Also, I find it good practice to spoof the MAC address of every computer that connects to the network.

In other news, scientists in Kansas have completed an experiment and determined that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is a liquid at room temperature, and that water is, in fact, wet. We can only ponder the implications this has for the human race and life on Earth.

I don't care about SYSmark telling me whether any given Intel CPU is better than any given AMD CPU or vice versa. What I really care about is finding out if the newly released Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU is truly better than the old Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU. By the time I get to the point of looking into concrete numbers from benchmarks, I've already decided whether I'm going to get an AMD or an Intel processor. The real problem that I have with all this benchmarking crap is why these manufacturers don't just provide us with coherent naming schemes for their CPU's (and GPU's too) so we as customers can fully understand the product they're trying to sell us.

Now if they could figure out how to let me take my phone anywhere, i.e. a cell phone, and keep the same service, features, and prices, we could finally have a cell phone carrier in the U.S. worth having.

I guess no one bothered to look in the options when they created their Google Profile and uncheck the "Make my profile visible to search" box. Don't blame Google for your own misdoings.

I would imagine that by 2015, the mining for bitcoin will have slowed quite a bit. But, by then it should have hopefully gained enough popularity that it can function as just a p2p economy.

My mistake then. I was basing my information off of this: http://www.bitcoinminer.com/post/5622597370/hashing-difficulty-244139

Either the network strength has significantly increased in the past week, or one of those two sites shouldn't be trusted. Your source looks more reliable.

Ok, yes, but the difficulty would increase for everyone mining as well. Last I checked, the entire bitcoin network had a mining strength of 1,747 Ghash/s. The Kraken alone has about 367 Ghash/s. That's 21% of the entire network. With all that power coming into the network at once, you're still bound to make a TON of bitcoins, because you're essentially taking a substantially large portion of bitcoins from other miners. I did neglect to factor in the scaling of difficulty (and that's why I said it was a rough calculation. Maybe I should've emphasized "rough" more), so you may not make as much as 1,511.61 BTC/day, but you're still going to make quite a bit (no pun intended).

I did some rough calculations regarding NICS's Kraken Cray XT5 and bitcoin mining. FYI, The Kraken was the 8th fastest supercomputer in Novermber of 2010. I determined that if the supercomputer put forth all of it's resources to mine bitcoins, it could generate 1,511.61 per day (or about $8,450.53/day). Granted, the Kraken has just regular CPU's doing the calculations. I could only imagine what a Cray supercomputer with GPU's in it would be capable of...