I own one, a 2010 Genesis serves me well, I do a fair amount of cross country driving crossing over mountains and it is a pleasure to drive.

I had had a Hyundai Elantra from 2002 that had impressed me greatly with its reliability and how it took everything I through at it from the DC Beltway to water crossings to some (small scale) off roading fun. I could afford something more expensive and "upscale" in 2010, but this met my needs at a much better price, so I am quite happy with it all.

4G cores will be upgraded to server 5G radio networks.

The nice thing about the 3GPP spec is that Packet Cores are an evolution from 3G to 4G and most likely to 5G.

The US will follow the ITU and 3GPP spec because that is what the device manufacturers will be following for the new handsets. Any other prediction is just there for click bait.

I have a generic keyboard with Cherry browns at work and a Mattias quietkey pro with Alps at home. My wife threatened embed the cherry brown keyboard in my skull because of the noise, but she can tolerate the Matias.

Looking at the various mobile networks in the US, most use NAT right now for their CDMA devices. As the LTE networks are rolled out, most are doing dual stacked networks so there is rapidly growing IPv6 ecosystem.

1. The myopia is that they assume everything will be done EXACTLY as it has been done for the last 30 years, which causes the long trip times, the small living spaces, the lack of gravity. When you decide to not use the best technology to do the job, all sorts of bad secondary effects will happen.

My point is mostly that in these reports of "human problems in space" the reports specifically pick out the worst combination of chemical rockets, zero-g conditions and small habitat sizes, all of which are known to be problems, and all of which a long term mission would be avoiding because better solutions already exist that would fix these issues and confer many other benefits. So in essence, I would say this report would be better titled "Using the wrong tech for space missions is bad for the human body"

2. NASA started and then abandoned much of the tech. NERVA's has many successful tests on the ground and where ready for in space testing before the program was cancelled, so while there is still more work required, in no way is this a pie in the sky project, its just mechanical engineering. Expandable habitats are now being developed by Bigelow space craft and there are 2 successful platforms in orbit now, so it development seems well on its way for that project. Tethers or rotating spacecraft is the least developed of technology I have talked about, but the simple tether and counter-weight system is just that, simple so development of could easily be done in LEO

NERVA engines reduce trip times, less time during the trip means less radiation exposure. Nerva engines are already 2x more efficient than chemical rockets, so since mars is.... doable chemically it becomes much easier with a NERVA or other NTR design. Faster trip times reduce infrastructure and consumable needs, it really cascades from there.

Zero G - 2 ways to do it... Big rings give slow rotation which negates vertigo OR you could take a spacecraft and have a long tether to a counter weight and spin the whole ensemble on its center of gravity.

Isolation - Give people more room and more stimulus and reduce the trip times.

Everything I mentioned has already been researched and passed significant testing milestones... and then never really went any further.

We have the answers to the problems, we just have to have the will power to use them.

Every time I see reports like this, I am stunned by the myopia of the researchers. Everything that they list can be easily countered using proven technology.

Radiation - Use a NERVA engine to reduce trip times, the extra power you have from the reactor could be used to have more shielding on the vessel and/or magnetic shielding to protect from charged particles.

Zero G - Spin rotation of the habitat, or spin the craft itself with a counter-weight.

Isolation - Expandable habitats give more room per launch than anything else, so you can have room per person and more people to interact with. Think cruise ship versus submarine.

With the current revolution in the heavy lift industry, all of these technologies render the above problems moot.

I deal with ALU everyday and I say that their networking designs are finest 1990's era engineering I have ever seen. Multi-state spanning tree domains, Deathly fear of routing protocols, insanely expensive routers with crappy performance and odd limitations that are designed solely to sell insanely expensive cards. And that's just their tech, the level of bureaucracy and hate for co-existing with other vendors is astounding.

I have 2010 Genesis and I tend to get a bit above its stated MPG both in city and highway. Highway MPG can be 2-3 over its stated performance using regular unleaded. Premium gas can get another mile or so but the economics are not worth it.

slack 2.7, redhat 4.2, debian, ubuntu, xubuntu

The problem is that since WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties. So if we agree not to use "cyberweapons" and thus do not buld effective counter measures, we leave our stuff open to attack by groups who would not give a second thought to vilating a treaty, be it for cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons.

Not that they really need to hock wares. Thier stuff rocks, it was easily one of the best purchase decisions I ever made and I have never had a regret for it. Not to mention the group I deal with there is very very good at what they do.

Sadly, I sound like a shill, but my expierance with them has been that good.