Why was this the "birthday" and not when two machines were first connected to eachother?
Simple. This was not the first time two hosts were connected together via a serial line. If you only cared about that, you'd have to go back a lot farther. Heck, the first modem dates back to 1962. What made the Internet possible was not the notion of having computers that could talk to other computers. The key change that made the Internet possible was the notion of all the computers speaking a single language and having routers that knew how to pass messages on to other routers, eventually to another computer. That was not realized until the first packet was sent on a packet-switched network, which in its most primitive form, occurred on October 29, 1969.
And if you want a specific recommendation that works very well, any of the Canon Digital Rebel series with an 18-85mm lens are great choices for that. Pricey, but priceless.
Another problem with handwritten notes is that many people experience serious hand cramping after writing continuously for an hour. I could type for a week without getting tired; you don't have to tightly grip a keyboard. I stopped writing stuff by hand entirely back in junior high, with the exception of a couple of teachers who didn't like typed stuff. Handwriting is just too physically draining for what you get out of it. Pen and paper are for *short* notes to myself, marking up copy, etc. Everything else is 1s and 0s.
I've found that, assuming your professor is okay with it, bringing a digital camera with a good zoom lens and shooting pictures of the board as the professor writes on it is the fastest way to take notes. We do this in meetings at work for the same reason. Alternatively, professors who use electronic slides can provide a copy of them electronically, removing the need to waste a lot of the students' time hand-writing copies of the same content unnecessarily. We don't live in ancient times; we aren't training scribes here.
Some people might think that. It really means that the jump is very sudden, regardless of how big it is. That said, by definition, most sudden jumps are big, or else we wouldn't perceive them as a jump, so that's not a particularly surprising interpretation. And in a relativistic sense, a quantum leap of an electron is fairly large... compared with the size of an atom, that is. Not huge, but certainly not tiny.
Even though we both have similar concepts of what the learning curve is referring to, I think the GP's interpretation is backwards, at least from a user interface design perspective. If the learning curve is steep, that means you learn a lot at the very beginning, which means that you have to learn a lot just to get started. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to learn all that stuff up front. Thus, a steep learning curve means that the UI is relatively hard to learn, even if it doesn't take you a huge amount of time.
The ideal learning curve for software is actually fairly linear; the amount you learn at the beginning should be minimal because the UI should be discoverable enough and familiar enough (relative to other software) that you don't need to learn anything of substance to start using it at a basic level. As you get into it more, you should continue to discover things that make your life easier.
There are many exceptions, though. For example, on most freeways speed limits are set based on safety of the rightmost lane. That's the only place they really matter, and only because of exiting and entering traffic. By the fourth lane over, there's no real harm in going faster as long as you aren't going more than about 10-15 MPH faster than the lane to your right (because doing so would mean they might not see you in time to avoid cutting you off while passing another vehicle). Yet they still enforce the same speed limit in every lane. Not to mention that they slow the speed limit down absurdly early in some cases because of rush hour making a mess of things instead of being smart and having time-of-day speed limits for those stretches.
There's no reason in the world for 237 in Sunnyvale to be marked 55 outside of rush hour except as a speed trap. Well, maybe for a hundred feet in the westbound direction where 101 northbound enters, but even then, only because they are too cheap to make that entrance actually safe. There's similarly no reason for highway 17 in Scotts Valley to be marked 65 instead of 70 like it would be in any other state in the U.S. There's no reason for El Camino to go from 40 to 35, back to 40, then back to 35 again as you cross jurisdictional boundaries (or not). And so on.
No, some traffic rules are designed to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes. Others are pretty clearly designed to raise revenue, to force traffic to go slower because neighbors complain about the noise, to make it easier on the people planning the traffic lights, because the city is too cheap to put in a traffic light where one is needed, etc. Like not allowing a left turn on green in most of California merely because there are two turn lanes even if the number of cars coming from the other direction measures in the single digits per day, or not allowing a right turn on red when there's clearly no visual barrier preventing you from seeing vehicles early enough to be safe, or putting "right turn only" signs at nearly every exit to a parking lot, forcing you to go three blocks out of your way every time you try to go from Lowe's to Fry's, putting "emergency vehicle only" left turns into the parking lot instead of putting in a traffic light like they should have, etc.
What's amazing is that two of those states are Kentucky and Indiana, where on some of the backroads, it is not uncommon to see people driving down the middle of the road until they see another car coming towards them. For that to be one of the safest places in the country to drive almost certainly has more to do with population (or lack thereof) than good driving habits.:-)
And no, that's not just a joke. My aunt and uncle live in Indiana and used to live in Kentucky. People really do drive down the middle of the road. My great grandfather (also in Kentucky at the time) reportedly said, "It's smoother in the center" or something to that effect....
I realize that income taxes are tiered. A significant portion of the money, however, comes from taxes on business. The poor pay a disproportionately large percentage of that because they spend a larger percentage of their income to buy products that businesses produce. Combine that with the income tax tiered the opposite direction, and it likely balances out to be about the same whether you are rich or moderately poor, assuming that you are at least making enough money to get by.
BTW, the point at which you are paying approximately the federal budged divided by the population, depending on which of the contradictory 2009 budget numbers I believe, is either $40,000 or $56,500. The U.S. median income is about $50,300, so whichever set of numbers you believe, close to half the U.S. (either a little more or less) pays more than average.
Unless my numbers are wrong, it's closer to.03% of the Federal budget. I understand your point that the cost of the launch was spread across a lot of time, and thus it didn't all come out of one week's salary. That said, the amount it took out of the GP's salary in total is in the ballpark.
There are about 141 million workers in the U.S. Therefore, every working person paid, on average, would have paid about $3.54 if it all came out of personal income tax. Even if you divide it equally across the entire U.S. population, every man, woman, and child paid about $1.64, either through direct taxation or through higher costs of products from companies that were taxed. Reality lies somewhere between those two numbers, in all likelihood.
Yeah, the MIL (malfunction indicator lamp) test is pretty asinine, but it does at least have a minor purpose in that if the MIL is on and an emissions control part goes bad later, you could go out of spec without knowing it. Still, I tend to agree that the MIL test should not be a requirement for passing smog.
Back on topic, I wonder how the Ares I-X did on its smog test....
This ties into your second point. You are confusing the "epidemic cycle" timeline with the flu season. Flu season is 5 months long solely due to environmental temperatures - they are the 5 coldest months, which makes the virus easier to transmit via environmental surfaces. That's it. Since we already know that H1N1 has a higher temperature tolerance, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it will have a 5 month "duration". Given the way it's behaved so far, it's more like 10 months - September to June.
That environmental explanation for the flu cycle is only a partial explanation. Otherwise, flu season would be 365 days per year in places where the temperature variation is much smaller, e.g. California. Recent studies suggest that infection rate varies also based on humidity. When your sinuses are dry, you are more susceptible to infectious agents like viruses. This has actually been well understood by some of us for decades, but apparently it took until about a year ago for the scientific community to figure it out. *sigh*
The reason H1N1 started off season is also fairly obvious. It tends to be easier to pick up than the seasonal flu because there are fewer people with immunity. More people to spread it means greater numbers of infections during the off season.
And although environmental factors do play a role in the flu season dying down, were that the only reason, again, we would have flu season in certain western states all year 'round. We don't. Flu dies out anyway. Why? Because of herd immunity. As the number of people who have been exposed to a particular flu strain exceeds a certain threshold, there are not enough people who are susceptible to the strain to continue propagating it to others during its incubation period (after which people stay home and don't infect others very frequently).
To determine the epidemic cycle, as you put it, we have to look at the last big H1N1 pandemic in 1918. How long did it last in any given region? About the same as normal flu---four or five months per wave. Yes, there were about three waves over a two year period, but again, that's exactly what normal flu does as it mutates.
Also, there might be fewer waves in a modern society because rapid movement of people around the globe causes a much more rapid increase in herd immunity globally, reducing the chances of it lasting long enough to mutate sufficiently to trigger a third or fourth wave.
Oh, and the rate of infection may be vastly overblown. If those numbers are right, then this H1N1 strain was actually affecting fewer people than the seasonal flu was during the first wave. This was, of course, out of season. The Florida data seems suspect, as it reports no seasonal flu activity while every other state reported significant seasonal flu. This might have something to do with higher rates of travel to countries with significant H1N1 rates, though.
In the U.S., given that the second wave is not significantly mutated from the first bump, I'd expect the second wave to be maybe 1.5x or 2x the damage of a normal seasonal flu, and I'm not expecting much of a third wave at all, if any. I would expect it to die out in December or January. We'll know for sure in a year or so.
But what if we wound up with the transmissibility of H1N1 and the CFR of H5N1?
Then we would take appropriate action to reduce the spread of that new strain, which would not be this strain. There are a million "what if" scenarios. What if it recombined with the immunosuppression of AIDS? What if it recombined with the cancer-causing properties of HPV? Those "what if" scenarios mean we need to calmly take actions to prepare for them, not spread panic in the general public ove
Just because one claims to be Christian does not make it so. Those who do not follow Christ's teachings are not Christian, no matter what name they may call themselves. And I do agree that the Church's stand on condoms might be making the AIDS problem worse, but for most people, I think they're just using that as an excuse not to wear one....:-)
Err, rather, we should not judge any group of people based on their ancient history. I'm sure that was clear in spite of the omission of a very important word, but....
I think you mean that the sons of God were homo sapiens, the daughters of men were the neanderthals (or vice versa), and that the Nephilim were their offspring. And that's quite plausible. There's probably a great deal of factual ancient human history in those early books of the Bible, but they are almost utterly indecipherable because of the primitive understanding of the authors and the generations of degradation through oral tradition.... Our history rapidly converges to factual as the generations progress and humanity becomes more educated on the whole. Even still, when you look at today's scientific papers in ten thousand years, they will read like those early books of the Bible read today. Food for thought.
I notice that this is about visits, not about actual rate of infection. This seems more likely to be caused by everybody going to see the doctor out of fear that their head cold is swine flu.
More children have died from it in the last 3 months then die all year from seasonal flu. That's 'off season'
That's a very disingenuous statement.
First, it is implying that the H1N1 virus is going to pick up during the flu season. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. The flu season typically does follow certain seasonal trends, but that's not true for new strains.
Second, the flu season normally lasts about five months, so if it dies out on schedule, it will have killed about half again more kids than the normal seasonal flu. And probably far fewer people over 30.
WHen you consider 32 thousand die from seasonal flu in a vaccinated populaces, you begin to get the picture of how large the risk is.
That's also disingenuous. The majority of those deaths are typically in the elderly, whereas in this strain, the elderly are showing significant immunity to H1N1. I'm not expecting a staggering death toll from this flu season. It may be elevated, but it certainly is not worthy of the amount of fear it is causing.
The mortality rate, last I checks was 1% and rising. It's over 2% in India.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers, and I'm not familiar with the medical situation in India, but in the U.S., the mortality rate is estimated at about 0.1%, not 1%. About one death per thousand cases. For those who aren't familiar, that's actually a little on the low side for seasonal flu. Now admittedly if we get a strong seasonal flu strain on top of that, it'll be a double dose, but for the moment, it's looking like it will probably be a relatively mild flu season, contrary to what you're saying.
Call me when you see a flu strain with 10x the normal death rate or when it has lasted more than six months without the infection rate dropping. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is all just bullshit fear mongering.
I think the point is that a scanning laser is a terrible solution at any power. Scanning electron beams in computer monitors don't do any harm until you get one that doesn't provide enough safety against malicious signals and you lock the beam in one place and burn a hole through the screen or even start a fire. Imagine if that were your eye. There are plenty of ways to project light on the retina that don't involve collimated scanning beams....
In short, any failure would be human error, but the human error would be choosing the wrong technology for the job. If LCDs don't work by themselves, add microlenses on the front of the panels or even a fluid lens for focusing more precisely. As soon as you depend on a scanning beam and persistence of vision, you're already on a path that no sane person should go down.
Christianity, with its history of inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, pogroms, blood libel, financial parasitism, subjugation of women, repression of science, burning of scientists at the stake, abandonment of adherents, and general pillage... isn't a dangerous cult? Really?
History being the key word. Ancient history, even. In a time period when the world was relatively barbaric compared with the modern world, you'd be hard pressed to find any significant group of people, whether a religion, a nation, or even a corporation that did not commit some sort of atrocities. We should judge any group of people based on their ancient history, just as we do not wish to be judged on the sins of our forefathers, etc. We can only reasonably judge an organization based on the way it behaves in modern times.
No, it wasn't. 32-bit PowerPC libraries and frameworks are still required for running PowerPC apps in Rosetta. Only 64-bit PowerPC code was removed... and maybe 32-bit PowerPC versions of applications, not sure.
Actually, in my experience, with mechanical drives, you're more likely to have a failure in a drive that gets less use and spins down frequently than in a drive that is being written to constantly. The drives I've dealt with that never spin down have excellent life (e.g. drives in TiVo hardware that write pretty much continuously). Flash is poorly suited for that particular workload, but in practice, it's a workload that you'll almost never see in the real world, with the notable exception of DVRs and high volume servers.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Simple. This was not the first time two hosts were connected together via a serial line. If you only cared about that, you'd have to go back a lot farther. Heck, the first modem dates back to 1962. What made the Internet possible was not the notion of having computers that could talk to other computers. The key change that made the Internet possible was the notion of all the computers speaking a single language and having routers that knew how to pass messages on to other routers, eventually to another computer. That was not realized until the first packet was sent on a packet-switched network, which in its most primitive form, occurred on October 29, 1969.
Either that or the first two letters were supposed to be "OM".
And if you want a specific recommendation that works very well, any of the Canon Digital Rebel series with an 18-85mm lens are great choices for that. Pricey, but priceless.
Another problem with handwritten notes is that many people experience serious hand cramping after writing continuously for an hour. I could type for a week without getting tired; you don't have to tightly grip a keyboard. I stopped writing stuff by hand entirely back in junior high, with the exception of a couple of teachers who didn't like typed stuff. Handwriting is just too physically draining for what you get out of it. Pen and paper are for *short* notes to myself, marking up copy, etc. Everything else is 1s and 0s.
I've found that, assuming your professor is okay with it, bringing a digital camera with a good zoom lens and shooting pictures of the board as the professor writes on it is the fastest way to take notes. We do this in meetings at work for the same reason. Alternatively, professors who use electronic slides can provide a copy of them electronically, removing the need to waste a lot of the students' time hand-writing copies of the same content unnecessarily. We don't live in ancient times; we aren't training scribes here.
Some people might think that. It really means that the jump is very sudden, regardless of how big it is. That said, by definition, most sudden jumps are big, or else we wouldn't perceive them as a jump, so that's not a particularly surprising interpretation. And in a relativistic sense, a quantum leap of an electron is fairly large... compared with the size of an atom, that is. Not huge, but certainly not tiny.
Even though we both have similar concepts of what the learning curve is referring to, I think the GP's interpretation is backwards, at least from a user interface design perspective. If the learning curve is steep, that means you learn a lot at the very beginning, which means that you have to learn a lot just to get started. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to learn all that stuff up front. Thus, a steep learning curve means that the UI is relatively hard to learn, even if it doesn't take you a huge amount of time.
The ideal learning curve for software is actually fairly linear; the amount you learn at the beginning should be minimal because the UI should be discoverable enough and familiar enough (relative to other software) that you don't need to learn anything of substance to start using it at a basic level. As you get into it more, you should continue to discover things that make your life easier.
Just my $0.02.
There are many exceptions, though. For example, on most freeways speed limits are set based on safety of the rightmost lane. That's the only place they really matter, and only because of exiting and entering traffic. By the fourth lane over, there's no real harm in going faster as long as you aren't going more than about 10-15 MPH faster than the lane to your right (because doing so would mean they might not see you in time to avoid cutting you off while passing another vehicle). Yet they still enforce the same speed limit in every lane. Not to mention that they slow the speed limit down absurdly early in some cases because of rush hour making a mess of things instead of being smart and having time-of-day speed limits for those stretches.
There's no reason in the world for 237 in Sunnyvale to be marked 55 outside of rush hour except as a speed trap. Well, maybe for a hundred feet in the westbound direction where 101 northbound enters, but even then, only because they are too cheap to make that entrance actually safe. There's similarly no reason for highway 17 in Scotts Valley to be marked 65 instead of 70 like it would be in any other state in the U.S. There's no reason for El Camino to go from 40 to 35, back to 40, then back to 35 again as you cross jurisdictional boundaries (or not). And so on.
No, some traffic rules are designed to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes. Others are pretty clearly designed to raise revenue, to force traffic to go slower because neighbors complain about the noise, to make it easier on the people planning the traffic lights, because the city is too cheap to put in a traffic light where one is needed, etc. Like not allowing a left turn on green in most of California merely because there are two turn lanes even if the number of cars coming from the other direction measures in the single digits per day, or not allowing a right turn on red when there's clearly no visual barrier preventing you from seeing vehicles early enough to be safe, or putting "right turn only" signs at nearly every exit to a parking lot, forcing you to go three blocks out of your way every time you try to go from Lowe's to Fry's, putting "emergency vehicle only" left turns into the parking lot instead of putting in a traffic light like they should have, etc.
What's amazing is that two of those states are Kentucky and Indiana, where on some of the backroads, it is not uncommon to see people driving down the middle of the road until they see another car coming towards them. For that to be one of the safest places in the country to drive almost certainly has more to do with population (or lack thereof) than good driving habits. :-)
And no, that's not just a joke. My aunt and uncle live in Indiana and used to live in Kentucky. People really do drive down the middle of the road. My great grandfather (also in Kentucky at the time) reportedly said, "It's smoother in the center" or something to that effect....
I realize that income taxes are tiered. A significant portion of the money, however, comes from taxes on business. The poor pay a disproportionately large percentage of that because they spend a larger percentage of their income to buy products that businesses produce. Combine that with the income tax tiered the opposite direction, and it likely balances out to be about the same whether you are rich or moderately poor, assuming that you are at least making enough money to get by.
BTW, the point at which you are paying approximately the federal budged divided by the population, depending on which of the contradictory 2009 budget numbers I believe, is either $40,000 or $56,500. The U.S. median income is about $50,300, so whichever set of numbers you believe, close to half the U.S. (either a little more or less) pays more than average.
Unless my numbers are wrong, it's closer to .03% of the Federal budget. I understand your point that the cost of the launch was spread across a lot of time, and thus it didn't all come out of one week's salary. That said, the amount it took out of the GP's salary in total is in the ballpark.
There are about 141 million workers in the U.S. Therefore, every working person paid, on average, would have paid about $3.54 if it all came out of personal income tax. Even if you divide it equally across the entire U.S. population, every man, woman, and child paid about $1.64, either through direct taxation or through higher costs of products from companies that were taxed. Reality lies somewhere between those two numbers, in all likelihood.
Yeah, the MIL (malfunction indicator lamp) test is pretty asinine, but it does at least have a minor purpose in that if the MIL is on and an emissions control part goes bad later, you could go out of spec without knowing it. Still, I tend to agree that the MIL test should not be a requirement for passing smog.
Back on topic, I wonder how the Ares I-X did on its smog test....
Except in Chicago. There, the 10-year-olds vote frequently---sometimes more than once---alongside the dead people.
That environmental explanation for the flu cycle is only a partial explanation. Otherwise, flu season would be 365 days per year in places where the temperature variation is much smaller, e.g. California. Recent studies suggest that infection rate varies also based on humidity. When your sinuses are dry, you are more susceptible to infectious agents like viruses. This has actually been well understood by some of us for decades, but apparently it took until about a year ago for the scientific community to figure it out. *sigh*
The reason H1N1 started off season is also fairly obvious. It tends to be easier to pick up than the seasonal flu because there are fewer people with immunity. More people to spread it means greater numbers of infections during the off season.
And although environmental factors do play a role in the flu season dying down, were that the only reason, again, we would have flu season in certain western states all year 'round. We don't. Flu dies out anyway. Why? Because of herd immunity. As the number of people who have been exposed to a particular flu strain exceeds a certain threshold, there are not enough people who are susceptible to the strain to continue propagating it to others during its incubation period (after which people stay home and don't infect others very frequently).
To determine the epidemic cycle, as you put it, we have to look at the last big H1N1 pandemic in 1918. How long did it last in any given region? About the same as normal flu---four or five months per wave. Yes, there were about three waves over a two year period, but again, that's exactly what normal flu does as it mutates.
Also, there might be fewer waves in a modern society because rapid movement of people around the globe causes a much more rapid increase in herd immunity globally, reducing the chances of it lasting long enough to mutate sufficiently to trigger a third or fourth wave.
Oh, and the rate of infection may be vastly overblown. If those numbers are right, then this H1N1 strain was actually affecting fewer people than the seasonal flu was during the first wave. This was, of course, out of season. The Florida data seems suspect, as it reports no seasonal flu activity while every other state reported significant seasonal flu. This might have something to do with higher rates of travel to countries with significant H1N1 rates, though.
In the U.S., given that the second wave is not significantly mutated from the first bump, I'd expect the second wave to be maybe 1.5x or 2x the damage of a normal seasonal flu, and I'm not expecting much of a third wave at all, if any. I would expect it to die out in December or January. We'll know for sure in a year or so.
Then we would take appropriate action to reduce the spread of that new strain, which would not be this strain. There are a million "what if" scenarios. What if it recombined with the immunosuppression of AIDS? What if it recombined with the cancer-causing properties of HPV? Those "what if" scenarios mean we need to calmly take actions to prepare for them, not spread panic in the general public ove
Just because one claims to be Christian does not make it so. Those who do not follow Christ's teachings are not Christian, no matter what name they may call themselves. And I do agree that the Church's stand on condoms might be making the AIDS problem worse, but for most people, I think they're just using that as an excuse not to wear one.... :-)
Err, rather, we should not judge any group of people based on their ancient history. I'm sure that was clear in spite of the omission of a very important word, but....
I think you mean that the sons of God were homo sapiens, the daughters of men were the neanderthals (or vice versa), and that the Nephilim were their offspring. And that's quite plausible. There's probably a great deal of factual ancient human history in those early books of the Bible, but they are almost utterly indecipherable because of the primitive understanding of the authors and the generations of degradation through oral tradition.... Our history rapidly converges to factual as the generations progress and humanity becomes more educated on the whole. Even still, when you look at today's scientific papers in ten thousand years, they will read like those early books of the Bible read today. Food for thought.
I notice that this is about visits, not about actual rate of infection. This seems more likely to be caused by everybody going to see the doctor out of fear that their head cold is swine flu.
That's a very disingenuous statement.
First, it is implying that the H1N1 virus is going to pick up during the flu season. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. The flu season typically does follow certain seasonal trends, but that's not true for new strains.
Second, the flu season normally lasts about five months, so if it dies out on schedule, it will have killed about half again more kids than the normal seasonal flu. And probably far fewer people over 30.
That's also disingenuous. The majority of those deaths are typically in the elderly, whereas in this strain, the elderly are showing significant immunity to H1N1. I'm not expecting a staggering death toll from this flu season. It may be elevated, but it certainly is not worthy of the amount of fear it is causing.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers, and I'm not familiar with the medical situation in India, but in the U.S., the mortality rate is estimated at about 0.1%, not 1%. About one death per thousand cases. For those who aren't familiar, that's actually a little on the low side for seasonal flu. Now admittedly if we get a strong seasonal flu strain on top of that, it'll be a double dose, but for the moment, it's looking like it will probably be a relatively mild flu season, contrary to what you're saying.
Call me when you see a flu strain with 10x the normal death rate or when it has lasted more than six months without the infection rate dropping. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is all just bullshit fear mongering.
I think the point is that a scanning laser is a terrible solution at any power. Scanning electron beams in computer monitors don't do any harm until you get one that doesn't provide enough safety against malicious signals and you lock the beam in one place and burn a hole through the screen or even start a fire. Imagine if that were your eye. There are plenty of ways to project light on the retina that don't involve collimated scanning beams....
In short, any failure would be human error, but the human error would be choosing the wrong technology for the job. If LCDs don't work by themselves, add microlenses on the front of the panels or even a fluid lens for focusing more precisely. As soon as you depend on a scanning beam and persistence of vision, you're already on a path that no sane person should go down.
History being the key word. Ancient history, even. In a time period when the world was relatively barbaric compared with the modern world, you'd be hard pressed to find any significant group of people, whether a religion, a nation, or even a corporation that did not commit some sort of atrocities. We should judge any group of people based on their ancient history, just as we do not wish to be judged on the sins of our forefathers, etc. We can only reasonably judge an organization based on the way it behaves in modern times.
No, it wasn't. 32-bit PowerPC libraries and frameworks are still required for running PowerPC apps in Rosetta. Only 64-bit PowerPC code was removed... and maybe 32-bit PowerPC versions of applications, not sure.
Somebody, quick! I need a golden delicious and a branding iron!
Do not look into goggles with remaining eye.
Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?
Actually, in my experience, with mechanical drives, you're more likely to have a failure in a drive that gets less use and spins down frequently than in a drive that is being written to constantly. The drives I've dealt with that never spin down have excellent life (e.g. drives in TiVo hardware that write pretty much continuously). Flash is poorly suited for that particular workload, but in practice, it's a workload that you'll almost never see in the real world, with the notable exception of DVRs and high volume servers. :-)