They'll fire 5000 people. Only around 300 are expected to find a new job at JIP.
I wish them the best.

> Even in a block chain type system, domains or TLDs would be
> awarded first come, first served (like today with the hierarchical
> system) and then transferred from one party to another (like today).

I'm not really sure if I can follow you here. There is no rule that says
a domain name must be indefinitely associated with a certain owner.
Key signing of a domain name could be limited in time with a voting system
that repeats on domain name expiration. Revocation certs could be issues
if a domain name is abused.
Also, I don't really understand why you'd want to introduce a central block chain?
In a decentralized DNS system, I would think a GPG-like schema seems more fit?
The P2P distribution would then be limited to a simple DHT.
(though I admit I am not very knowledgeable on this topic).

Well, but how is that different from the current DNS cache poisoning problems?
A strong authenticiation scheme like DNSSEC could solve such an issue.

A few years ago a bunch of people from Sweden announced they would create a distributed, non-trackeable DNS system. What happened to that?

Maybe there were price differences between the US and European markets? Back then we didn't have the Euro,
but it would have been around 450â for a C64 I guess. Nobody I knew that had a C64 used floppies, as the floppy drive
was too expensive. Everyone used tape around here.
According to Wikipedia the price for a C64+Disk drive was around 900$ at that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
And that only gave you a computer with basic, limited expansion and no monitor.
I'm not denying that the PCjr was expensive, IBM was always a premium brand,
but you did get something more than the average home computer.

True, but a C64 with a floppy drive and monitor would exceed the 1000$ barrier as well.
The lack of dedicated graphics memory was an issue yes, but there were expansion packs for that.

DOS was more than just some FAT routines. There was a program loader, driver model (albeit a very naive one), system services (I/O, etc.), basic system tools (format, debug, command.com, etc.).
For what PCs were at that time, it was probably the best you could whish for.

The keyboard was horrible, yes, but that was fixed within months (I think people could swap the keyboards for free?).
But for the money you got a lot more than the other home computers: a floppy drive, a computer that had a real
operating system, 128K of RAM!, compatibility with most PC applications, etc. Plus this was the computer that made
the Sierra Adventure games shine! (the enhanced graphics and sound made Leisure suit larry a lot better looking than its PC counterpart).
The BIOS interrupt changes may have caused some problems (the keyboard was mapped to the NMI, so you couldn't
touch it while transfering files f.i.) or compatibility issues, but that was only of minor concern at the time.
I still don't consider the PCjr a poorly engineered machine. There were better contenders in that category (some of the Franklin PCs, for instance)

I don't know why this got modded up. The "hipster generation" wasn't the one that killed research.
The "hipster generation" wasn't the one that shifted focus on short-term profit, that effected mergers between tech giants
(only to be followed by closing down whole divisions or offshoring everything). You blame these guys for trying to find their way
into a market that was already rotten before they entered it?

You mention various semiconductor companies. Who was it that killed about every CPU architecture that isn't x86?
Who is the generation that is again awakening interest in other ones (ARM, MIPS64, etc.)? I'm not trying to defend these
design/poseur types you see on every occasion, but their doing is not what killed Silicon Valley.

Thanks for the response!
I'm surprised to hear that's only 2% of the population, but I guess that is not including the workers that don't own soil/cattle themselves.

No, but you can replace them by importing cheap foreign labour (actually more like modern slavery), which results in the same thing.
Only thing stopping them from doing that would be local legislature, but I suppose some lobbying would solve that.

That is assuming those companies are willing to stay in the U.S. when minimum wage were to increase.
Take for instance the Benelux: a lot of companies there moved to Germany in the last 20 years because the minimum wages over there are lower.
I guess U.S. companies would shift to Mexico or other neighbouring countries as well. Either that or they would collectively raise their prices, so that the net cost of living for these people would not (significantly) increase.

As a non-American, I was unfamiliar with this food stamp program (we don't have specific food-oriented services here in my country, it's up to the local communities and cities to provide welfare benefits).
However, when I look at the number of participants per state, I notice the rural states (Wyoming, etc.) are way lower: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
My question: why is this so? Is it a problem of logistics, or is the average American farmer better off than the ones who live in the cities?

The one does not exclude the other.