Of course it can, given how many useful open source solutions are available nowadays.
Considering the total cost of 6000$ for a single server, you would be dropping 12k from the get-go for two servers (though you should really lease over a 12 month period if you can't afford it) and then you need to add colo costs for the machines, which can be around 300-400$ per machine in a single unit colocation environment, depending on your location. This brings us to 21600$ in the first year for two machines colocated in separate datacenters, without any sysadmin costs;
The article states S3 would cost 60,000$ per year, and this doesn't include any bandwidth costs, whereas the colocation setup would include some decent bandwidth per month. Over time, it's easy to see how a lot of money can be saved.
Also, S3 is designed for 99.99% availability, but they only guarantee 99.9% through SLA, which isn't extremely spectacular. Hitting 99.9% isn't particularly hard if you have a sys admin worth his salt to set things up right, and with your own solution you can have more direct access to the file system as well as the ability to adhere to any regulations.
So I get huge speeds, virtually no i/o wait and when I delete something I can be sure it's gone forever? The only problem left to solve is huge capacities for these devices at relatively affordable prices.
Google has set a maximum contribution of $1,000,000 associated with the Google Chrome for a Cause extension. You agree Google may change this maximum contribution at its sole discretion.
Since UK2 doesn't really have a CDN product themselves, as they resell HighWinds and Level3, their interest is a bit lower as opposed to SoftLayer which has million dollar contracts signed with InterNAP for connectivity and DC space, which also sells content delivery.
My guess is it's not really about kicking out the competition but mostly the fact that they can't realistically offer the said bandwidth for the advertised price, which is far too low for a quality network blend.
I found that a small apartment in NY was around 2500 or more, and in roughly the same area airbnb had something for 1800, plus the whole social experience if you're into that.
The charges were for copyright violations. It was merely a way to tell them to stop, as Blizzard has done this in the past, having lawyers show up to the doors of people making or promoting wow emulators.
I've jumped to the conclusions on the article and this puzzled me:
"The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content."
Because media outlets are forced to make their videos available to the iPhone without being able to use Flash, this means that Flash is no longer needed?