Having your small town grow to absolutely depend on Starlink rather than a repairable, replaceable cable sounds... kinda bad. If you look in Starlink's yearbook, you'll see that they were voted "Most Likely to Trigger Kessler Syndrome"

I'm sure small town Red State America will have no problem with their fiber rollout being cancelled, only to be replaced by Starlink. After all, Starlink is an ideologically compatible internet for Red States. Blazingly fast... once you get past all the laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatency.

It's nice to see Elon blow up $5 billion dollars worth of wasteful government subsidies to SpaceX!

Saab, the manufacturer of the Swedish Gripen fighter, is pushing the government to send the Gripen fighters to Ukraine "sooner rather than later", with the goal of having training being offered on the fighter soon, possibly to include a fast track for Ukraine to obtain the more advanced Gripen E version of the fighter plane. Although Sweden has not sent any Gripen fighters to Ukraine as yet, last year they sent a defense package to Ukraine which included spare parts for the JAS 39 Gripen worth $214 million. These would allow for Sweden to donate Gripen C & D versions of the fighter to Ukraine. The other day, Saab & ICEYE signed a memorandum of understanding, where Saab would integrate ICEYE's real time satellite data into their combat systems. In practical terms, this could lead to Ukraine eventually having Gripen fighters with software & hardware features capable of "seeing" locations and identified targets in real time, as they approach, even in total darkness. Ultimately, Ukraine is going to have multiple defense "infrastructures" existing in their air force at once, so, in one sense, this is a competition between infrastructures, each trying to expand when possible, and prove their worth and unique capabilities. Ukraine, by aligning its real time satellite recon data with ICEYE, could also find that it aligns it with the Gripen.

It's important to recognize that hydrogen is not an energy source as it currently stands, due to the amount of energy needed to separate it. As such, it's more of a portable storage mechanism for energy, requiring about three times the equivalent amount of energy as battery technology to power vehicles. That means if you want green cars, you can use solar-generated energy to charge three battery-powered vehicles for the energy required to power one hydrogen vehicle. Can you think of a good rationale for requiring three times the amount of green power generation and three times the expense in order to support a hydrogen car infrastructure? No? Neither can I. That's why hydrogen has been a lame duck lately. What this discovery does, essentially, is make it theoretically possible for hydrogen to be about as efficient as TODAY'S battery technology, IF CREATED UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES. That's important, as there could be an energy cost associated with getting urea in a form and to a location required for processing into hydrogen. It also does not address the energy and infrastructure costs stemming from the delivery of hydrogen to the consumer. In other words, it's almost as efficient as batteries today, but probably has some hard scientific limitations on just how efficient this process can get which are more rigid than the technical limitations regarding tomorrow's battery technology, which has been improving considerably. So there are serious reasons to suspect that hydrogen would be rather inefficient compared to batteries in the future. So, it's a temporary draw, but quite possibly a longterm loss. Batteries and flywheels are likely to be the longterm winners.

Take your raid arrays and storage racks and blast them into space. Problem solved. (Good for overheating issues, too!)

Maybe it's me, but this seems like about the first time that someone over at PC Mag has actually said something intelligent about filesharing, rather than tsk-tsking about piracy.

"...until then, I'm with the crypto-anarchists."

An anonymous, consumer/innovation-friendly internet?! That's treas... um... well, it's kinda like common sense, isn't it?!

Given that you can go to Google and do searches capable of finding thousands of illegal mp3s, how do you differentiate sites like Google from The Pirate Bay? Is it their claim similar to that used against Napster, where the prior statements of the site -- and in particular, its name -- were an incitement to illegal behavior on the part of others? If so, couldn't someone else legally operate a Pirate Bay clone, so long as they make a point of never getting close to advocating illegal downloads, or perhaps even specifically warning people not to do so?