Are you absolutely sure the RIAA or similar wouldn't potentially try to do this if a bad case came down against them? Once a falsehood starts circulating, it's very hard to kill.
Is that really such a bad thing?
Let me put it this way: LET THEM FALSIFY THE DOCUMENTS! When (WHEN) it gets out that some particular party--let's assume the RIAA--has falsified documents in the hopes that it'd sway public opinion, I can't imagine that future proceedings would be all that favorable. Judges may be impartial, but they're also human. Don't tell me for an instant that a justice who knows that the particular party bringing a case before him has falsified the documents of another court is going to look upon them with anything other than suspicion. Heck, there might even be some laws on the books about falsifying or misrepresenting public records.
Regardless, the RIAA might be bloodsuckers, but I'd hope they wouldn't do something that stupid. Swaying public opinion by misrepresenting facts is a very dangerous bridge to cross. You only get one chance, and if it blows up, you're in the drink.
Citizens in Iran and China are tired of the official, government approved information. Now they can also access official, US government approved information. Cool.
Don't worry, it's much worse than that. They'll get to hear the latest gossip about some celebrity no one cares about who happens to be sleeping with/cheating on/caught stealing expensive items (for|with|from) another celebrity no one cares about. Brainrot is a very dangerous thing.
In other news, I hear there's a weapon being developed to turn potentially hostile populations into mindless TV-dependent slaves. It already worked on us!
I wouldn't call you a fool in the strict sense of being unintelligent, because there's plenty of evidence to show that even people who are generally very clever have beliefs in gods or other superstition. But I do believe what you believe to be untrue.
There are generally two types of atheists: those who are reasonable (like yourself and aren't apt to name-calling over a belief system) and those who aren't. I know of a few people in both camps.
Nevertheless, I'm sure you wouldn't find it surprising for me believe that your particularly belief system is incorrect. That's fine, because disagreement is another form of expression, communication, and it's exceedingly handy at cooperatively developing concessions, strengthening one's views, or otherwise thinking more deeply about perspectives one hasn't otherwise considered. (Of course, not all forms of disagreement fall into this category--but bear with me!)
I can imagine someone might call you a "fool" in a more general sense of "accepting something not supported by evidence". Similar to "he's a gullible fool" - this isn't meant to imply a lack of intelligence, nor would I say it's meant to be that offensive, despite the derision.
No, probably not. I admit I was aiming more for "name-calling" but wanted to be polite. In general, I think that there are indeed some atheists who genuinely do feel that anyone of faithful persuasion is an idiot without any comprehension of civilization--perhaps not far detached from fire-wielding cavemen believing in nature/earth/fire/water/air gods. Yes, it could be argued that modern religion isn't that different from such primitive beliefs; I just happen to disagree, and that's not a bad thing. (See previous points.)
If the most disgusting thing in the world was "some people thinking some other people to be fools", I'm not sure that's really that bad!
This is true. Rather, I wish it were true. There'd be a lot less grief in the world if the worst that happened was a handful of exchanges involving finger pointing, some name calling, an argument here and there, and a general blowing off of steam before calling it a day. Unfortunately, it's not.
But, I hope my original point still stands. Both sides of the religious debate have ignoramuses among their ranks. Both sides have their zealots. I prefer more reasonable discourse, and it really does disgust me when:
1) Religious zealots claim the Earth can be only 6000 years old, the Big Bang is a fabrication, evolution is wrong, and [insert other scientific theory here].
and
2) Atheists claim that everyone who subscribes to a religious faith is stupid, maybe not even really human nor civilized, is incapable of rational thought, and otherwise very much like our ape-ish ancestors. Worse, atheists who wish to force their beliefs on others are not at all any different from religious groups who wish to do the same thing--yet some believe their cause is somehow more noble! (Oh, the irony.)
I'm sure you understood what I was getting at with regards to voicing my disgust, so I apologize if these examples were a bit verbose. That surmises roughly what I was hoping to convey, and I hope I did a reasonable job sharing it.
This particular example doesn't even count on its own merits, considering it was meant to be God that gave the holy land back to the Jews, not a British treaty and several thousand heavily armed Jews (not least because their holy book specifies not bearing arms...).
You're right. I was using it as a form of illustration so I could get the OP to clarify what sort of prediction he was specifically looking for.
And guess what? I was right. I specifically stated:
However, I suspect you're looking for scientific predictions.
It truly is. Anything was fair game under the previous administration; in fact, even things that weren't true but "sounded good" were modded insightful. Crack a joke about the current administration, and the left-leaning mods have a field day. It shouldn't surprise me. After all, this is Slashdot; no one reads the moderation guidelines and it's so much easier to use them as ammo against viewpoints that aren't well liked...
While it's fruitless for me to point this out, I can't resist...
A note to current moderators: If you read something about Obama someone has posted and it inflames you, before you mod them down, ask yourself this question. "Would I mod this funny/insightful/interesting if it were about Bush?" Fairness either exists or it is a convenient facade. Remember that.
The first chapters of Genesis aren't even consistent among themselves! Still, they diverge wildly from science. Fruiting plants before fish? Birds before land animals?
Bear in mind that there is 1) a great deal of meaning lost in translation from Hebrew to English, particularly in Genesis (the Hebrew reads and can be interpreted differently) and 2) it is believed that the entirety of the Old Testament was created from memory by rabbis after having been damaged or lost in a fire. As a consequence, it is likely that specific ordering of certain verses are incorrect. Again, this is why I stated in my original post (up the chain) that anyone who appeals to the Bible for scientific knowledge is doing themselves a disservice as that isn't the point of the text. But, this is Slashdot, it's important to cherry pick comments we don't like and have fun with them. Read my other posts, you might be surprised.
If you read it generically as plant life -> animal life -> people (yes, the ordering doesn't make any sense since ocean life would be first, but I appeal to #2 above for that specific reason), it makes much more sense. That's how I interpret it, and I might suggest that you read it through a lens of the creation of the universe written by and for the people of antiquity.
Regardless, I must take this as an opportunity to educate you in the terms used to describe biblical structuring; the creation I was discussing in Genesis is only one chapter. What you're debating is the ordering of the verses.
Any useful prediction would suffice. My original point was that ID pretends to be scientific, but does not add anything useful to science. It's not a valid scientific theory because it can't be used to make any kind of verifiable prediction.
That's a fair and reasonable expectation. Since I don't see a religious work directed toward the human condition as something that should be making scientific claims, I tend to agree.
Though, my personal beliefs are that there isn't as strong a disconnect between Genesis and our current scientific theories as many on both sides of the fence would tend to believe. Such a notion is markedly different than making scientific predictions from a religious work, however.
Again, depends on your country. In mine, consumer protection says that if your provider changes some part of the contract after it is signed, you have the right to simply walk away from it as if the contract never existed (essentially voiding it without consequence).
Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but here in the US, consumer protection laws will forever be a joke as long as our law makers are themselves lawyers. By keeping the law vague and the consumer perpetually naive, they ensure their peers will never be without work.
See, just like this. You went from "useful predictions" to "useful", and then (later) on to just "full".
Please present the useful predictions that religion has made, or STFU.
Since most of the religious sorts have been modded into oblivion, I'm curious what sorts of predictions you're looking for. I can think of at least one "prediction:" the creation of the State of Israel. However, I suspect you're looking for scientific predictions.
I'm a Christian, and I suspect I view religion a bit differently from the mainstream sorts. I don't see it as something that is intended to make scientific predictions (anyone who believes that is a fool). Instead, I see the Bible as two things: a history text (the Old Testament) and a general guide for human behavior related to "show by example" (New Testament, specificially Jesus' parables). The Bible itself covers the creation in exactly one chapter; that alone hints to me that it isn't something the text is particularly concerned with. Instead, it is far more interested in the human condition, and that is what is most important.
Although, I'm something of a heretic. I believe evolution and the big bang are excellent explanations detailing our existence. As such, my views have been condemned by Christian peers who still hold firm to the ridiculous notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Likewise, my atheist peers think I'm a fool for my faith. Both extremes disgust me.
Windows fail hard on messing with other partitions and drives on install, thats well known.
+1, Insightful on that.
And yeah, you're right--perhaps it's common sense. It's just a shame that some people immediately set out to shield themselves from blame and point their finger at the OS. Certainly, the OS is partially to blame! But, just a few extra minutes to pop the case and unplug a hard disk can save a heck of a lot of time.
Another example is if you have two disks:/dev/hda and/dev/hdb; they have identical partitions./dev/hdb is Windows,/dev/hda is some flavor of Linux. You neglect to unplug hdb and type: mke2fs -jq/dev/hdb1.
Ooops. Or heck--let's forget the -q option and answer "yes" anyway!
I almost did something similar one evening and caught myself before pressing ENTER (this was before I got into the habit of unplugging devices I didn't want to touch). So, I really have two habits: 1) Don't make hardware or major configuration changes REALLY late at night unless absolutely necessary and 2) unplug.
I get what you're saying but by using the term non-issue you're not really being clear. It's a small issue that affects a subset of people doing something specific. However, that subset includes IT professionals.
To clarify, "non-issue" wasn't a term I came up with; I was parroting what the OP said. IMO, if the likely number of people who are affected ranges in the hundreds out of hundreds of thousands--or millions--of users, it's effectively a non-issue, particularly if it can be resolved by new chipset drivers.
I do agree that MS should be held to higher standards. However, Windows is a complicated piece of software and even Windows 7 is riddled with various design and architectural decisions that should have died off in the 90s. I think it's expected that there will be problems during a large-scale rollout and it's a good thing that this particular issue was caught when it was! Fortunately, it appears there are solutions already at hand.
Actually a disk check happens quite frequently for a lot of people. I'd say the affected number is still pretty large. No, not everyone schedules the disk check but Windows will initiate it itself at times, and yes, against a second hard drive.
Did you read the article? It stated rather plainly that the problem was with chkdsk/r. When Windows schedules chkdsk, it's usually after a crash or improper shutdown--and it does not attempt to scan for and fix bad sectors. Never have I seen Windows perform an automatic check in this particular case on other hard disks besides the boot device. Chances are, if chkdsk is run frequently for a lot of people, they're not shutting it down correctly (pulling the plug comes to mind). If that's the case, they're going to have far more trouble than just an OS crash.
So no, I think you're wrong. Very few people manually run chkdsk much less chkdisk/r.
I thought about that before I hit reply. One would've thought I'd learn by now someone would nitpick in spite of the intent behind my post. But, no matter. I'll know better next time to follow my instinct and be far more specific in my posts.
To answer your point: Yes, BIOS is comprised of software, and I think you can largely expect it to the the Right Thing (there are notable exceptions, but for the sake of argument let's assume it does) versus some random bootloader. For the purposes of system integration, most people tend to view it as a hardware component--or a component of hardware--that is significantly different from fix storage, like hard disks, where software would normally be kept. Likewise, we don't tend to view DVD drives as a software component even though they contain embedded firmware.
Disclaimer: I don't like windows, this is just an objective view.
Objective views are hard to come by, but I think you deserve a lot more credit (certainly more than the current +4, informative--someone give this man an extra mod)! Your points can be applied to pretty much any industry, any software, and any major roll out.
Don't run chkdsk before patching. If you need to run chkdsk before a patch comes out for this, I think you should take a look at your hardware, and then reinstall Windows.
The article implies the problem is with chkdsk/r and several other posters farther up the comments section have pointed out that this only affects certain chipsets. Perhaps more interestingly, this issue purportedly only affects the RTM, not the beta or RC.
Don't you have a "Press F12 to select boot device" prompt somewhere between the memory test and the bootloader that would save a bit of time? Are you doing more in the BIOS than just change the boot order to prevent the Windowses from finding each others' drives through hardware enumeration at runtime? Are you elsewise abusing the way that XP and Vista bless secondary hard drives?
Not all machines are like Dells nor are all BIOSes created equal. For example, I tend to use Intel's reference boards at home, and they don't have an F12 option to select a boot device. I'd imagine tjstork's circumstance is similar to mine.
Really, it only takes about 5 seconds longer to go into BIOS and change the drive order and you're not likely to do it every boot. If booting between OSes were more of a concern, it's easy to install grub on one disk and use it to manage booting between all three. But if tjstork is happy with using BIOS, I can't see any reason why an extra key or bootloader would make much of a difference.
When I want to boot to a different drives, I flip the drive order in the BIOS and that way no OS sees any other. I have Linux on one drive, Windows Vista on another and Windows 7 on the third, and each has its own little world.
Same here, except I use grub to boot between the different drives (yes, it's possible). If you were a little more keen on bootloaders, I'd suggest you should give it a try as it'll save having to screw with BIOS--if your BIOS isn't terribly old. I used to do the BIOS flip ages ago. It gets old fast, although it is also foolproof.
I suppose you're right--never trust software to do the right thing.;)
Plopping the 100MB system reserved partition on another drive by default means I need BOTH drives to boot, which is stupid. But yes, my bad for assuming Microsoft would do things in a logical fashion.
To be fair to MS, if a user knows enough to know they have two hard disks and enough to know how to install a second hard disk, they should know how to pop the case open and unplug the one they don't want anything to happen to. Frankly, it'd be a good habit to have, even if you were installing software anointed by Steve Jobs himself.
OEM PCs with a recovery partition spring to mind here...
Probably so, but how many end users are going to run chkdsk/r? How many would run it on their recovery partition? Hint: Most users wouldn't know what chkdsk is.
The article seems to suggest this occurs on a second physical drive. Other data indicates this only affects certain controller chipsets. In either case, what GreenEnvy22 stated is true; it's a non-issue.
Well, at least it no longer overwrites GRUB when installing (or at least Win7 RC didn't do that) - while XP always did.
Funny, I just wrote up something about this in my last post. You must've been reading my mind! (Although, I didn't exactly experience it with Windows 7.)
Generally, I install other OSes to their own drives. In the XP days, it'd attempt to overwrite grub (or other bootloaders) on drive(s) you weren't installing XP to. Talk about ridiculous! Though, that may have been an artifact of the other drive being reported by BIOS as the primary. I'm not wholly sure.
As a consequence, I've never gone passed that lovely little warning in XP's loader without unplugging everything except the drive I install to. Paranoid? Absolutely. I hate reinstalling things. To me, it's better to spend a few minutes taking some precautions than having a nasty surprise.
I do realize installing to separate partitions might be easier, but hard disks are cheap as are external enclosures. Plus, if I don't like something, I can always treat myself to having another back-up disk/extra space/experiment disk/etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that really such a bad thing?
Let me put it this way: LET THEM FALSIFY THE DOCUMENTS! When (WHEN) it gets out that some particular party--let's assume the RIAA--has falsified documents in the hopes that it'd sway public opinion, I can't imagine that future proceedings would be all that favorable. Judges may be impartial, but they're also human. Don't tell me for an instant that a justice who knows that the particular party bringing a case before him has falsified the documents of another court is going to look upon them with anything other than suspicion. Heck, there might even be some laws on the books about falsifying or misrepresenting public records.
Regardless, the RIAA might be bloodsuckers, but I'd hope they wouldn't do something that stupid. Swaying public opinion by misrepresenting facts is a very dangerous bridge to cross. You only get one chance, and if it blows up, you're in the drink.
Don't worry, it's much worse than that. They'll get to hear the latest gossip about some celebrity no one cares about who happens to be sleeping with/cheating on/caught stealing expensive items (for|with|from) another celebrity no one cares about. Brainrot is a very dangerous thing.
In other news, I hear there's a weapon being developed to turn potentially hostile populations into mindless TV-dependent slaves. It already worked on us!
There are generally two types of atheists: those who are reasonable (like yourself and aren't apt to name-calling over a belief system) and those who aren't. I know of a few people in both camps.
Nevertheless, I'm sure you wouldn't find it surprising for me believe that your particularly belief system is incorrect. That's fine, because disagreement is another form of expression, communication, and it's exceedingly handy at cooperatively developing concessions, strengthening one's views, or otherwise thinking more deeply about perspectives one hasn't otherwise considered. (Of course, not all forms of disagreement fall into this category--but bear with me!)
No, probably not. I admit I was aiming more for "name-calling" but wanted to be polite. In general, I think that there are indeed some atheists who genuinely do feel that anyone of faithful persuasion is an idiot without any comprehension of civilization--perhaps not far detached from fire-wielding cavemen believing in nature/earth/fire/water/air gods. Yes, it could be argued that modern religion isn't that different from such primitive beliefs; I just happen to disagree, and that's not a bad thing. (See previous points.)
This is true. Rather, I wish it were true. There'd be a lot less grief in the world if the worst that happened was a handful of exchanges involving finger pointing, some name calling, an argument here and there, and a general blowing off of steam before calling it a day. Unfortunately, it's not.
But, I hope my original point still stands. Both sides of the religious debate have ignoramuses among their ranks. Both sides have their zealots. I prefer more reasonable discourse, and it really does disgust me when:
1) Religious zealots claim the Earth can be only 6000 years old, the Big Bang is a fabrication, evolution is wrong, and [insert other scientific theory here].
and
2) Atheists claim that everyone who subscribes to a religious faith is stupid, maybe not even really human nor civilized, is incapable of rational thought, and otherwise very much like our ape-ish ancestors. Worse, atheists who wish to force their beliefs on others are not at all any different from religious groups who wish to do the same thing--yet some believe their cause is somehow more noble! (Oh, the irony.)
I'm sure you understood what I was getting at with regards to voicing my disgust, so I apologize if these examples were a bit verbose. That surmises roughly what I was hoping to convey, and I hope I did a reasonable job sharing it.
You're right. I was using it as a form of illustration so I could get the OP to clarify what sort of prediction he was specifically looking for.
And guess what? I was right. I specifically stated:
Helps to read the whole thing, doesn't it? ;)
It truly is. Anything was fair game under the previous administration; in fact, even things that weren't true but "sounded good" were modded insightful. Crack a joke about the current administration, and the left-leaning mods have a field day. It shouldn't surprise me. After all, this is Slashdot; no one reads the moderation guidelines and it's so much easier to use them as ammo against viewpoints that aren't well liked...
While it's fruitless for me to point this out, I can't resist...
A note to current moderators: If you read something about Obama someone has posted and it inflames you, before you mod them down, ask yourself this question. "Would I mod this funny/insightful/interesting if it were about Bush?" Fairness either exists or it is a convenient facade. Remember that.
Bear in mind that there is 1) a great deal of meaning lost in translation from Hebrew to English, particularly in Genesis (the Hebrew reads and can be interpreted differently) and 2) it is believed that the entirety of the Old Testament was created from memory by rabbis after having been damaged or lost in a fire. As a consequence, it is likely that specific ordering of certain verses are incorrect. Again, this is why I stated in my original post (up the chain) that anyone who appeals to the Bible for scientific knowledge is doing themselves a disservice as that isn't the point of the text. But, this is Slashdot, it's important to cherry pick comments we don't like and have fun with them. Read my other posts, you might be surprised.
If you read it generically as plant life -> animal life -> people (yes, the ordering doesn't make any sense since ocean life would be first, but I appeal to #2 above for that specific reason), it makes much more sense. That's how I interpret it, and I might suggest that you read it through a lens of the creation of the universe written by and for the people of antiquity.
Regardless, I must take this as an opportunity to educate you in the terms used to describe biblical structuring; the creation I was discussing in Genesis is only one chapter. What you're debating is the ordering of the verses.
How about the eXcessively Marked-up Language?
That's a fair and reasonable expectation. Since I don't see a religious work directed toward the human condition as something that should be making scientific claims, I tend to agree.
Though, my personal beliefs are that there isn't as strong a disconnect between Genesis and our current scientific theories as many on both sides of the fence would tend to believe. Such a notion is markedly different than making scientific predictions from a religious work, however.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but here in the US, consumer protection laws will forever be a joke as long as our law makers are themselves lawyers. By keeping the law vague and the consumer perpetually naive, they ensure their peers will never be without work.
It's interesting you were modded a troll. Had you said the same thing a year or two ago, you would've been rated +5, Insightful.
Since most of the religious sorts have been modded into oblivion, I'm curious what sorts of predictions you're looking for. I can think of at least one "prediction:" the creation of the State of Israel. However, I suspect you're looking for scientific predictions.
I'm a Christian, and I suspect I view religion a bit differently from the mainstream sorts. I don't see it as something that is intended to make scientific predictions (anyone who believes that is a fool). Instead, I see the Bible as two things: a history text (the Old Testament) and a general guide for human behavior related to "show by example" (New Testament, specificially Jesus' parables). The Bible itself covers the creation in exactly one chapter; that alone hints to me that it isn't something the text is particularly concerned with. Instead, it is far more interested in the human condition, and that is what is most important.
Although, I'm something of a heretic. I believe evolution and the big bang are excellent explanations detailing our existence. As such, my views have been condemned by Christian peers who still hold firm to the ridiculous notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Likewise, my atheist peers think I'm a fool for my faith. Both extremes disgust me.
I hope you can develop a taste for soylent green. :)
+1, Insightful on that.
And yeah, you're right--perhaps it's common sense. It's just a shame that some people immediately set out to shield themselves from blame and point their finger at the OS. Certainly, the OS is partially to blame! But, just a few extra minutes to pop the case and unplug a hard disk can save a heck of a lot of time.
Another example is if you have two disks: /dev/hda and /dev/hdb; they have identical partitions. /dev/hdb is Windows, /dev/hda is some flavor of Linux. You neglect to unplug hdb and type: mke2fs -jq /dev/hdb1.
Ooops. Or heck--let's forget the -q option and answer "yes" anyway!
I almost did something similar one evening and caught myself before pressing ENTER (this was before I got into the habit of unplugging devices I didn't want to touch). So, I really have two habits: 1) Don't make hardware or major configuration changes REALLY late at night unless absolutely necessary and 2) unplug.
To clarify, "non-issue" wasn't a term I came up with; I was parroting what the OP said. IMO, if the likely number of people who are affected ranges in the hundreds out of hundreds of thousands--or millions--of users, it's effectively a non-issue, particularly if it can be resolved by new chipset drivers.
I do agree that MS should be held to higher standards. However, Windows is a complicated piece of software and even Windows 7 is riddled with various design and architectural decisions that should have died off in the 90s. I think it's expected that there will be problems during a large-scale rollout and it's a good thing that this particular issue was caught when it was! Fortunately, it appears there are solutions already at hand.
Did you read the article? It stated rather plainly that the problem was with chkdsk /r. When Windows schedules chkdsk, it's usually after a crash or improper shutdown--and it does not attempt to scan for and fix bad sectors. Never have I seen Windows perform an automatic check in this particular case on other hard disks besides the boot device. Chances are, if chkdsk is run frequently for a lot of people, they're not shutting it down correctly (pulling the plug comes to mind). If that's the case, they're going to have far more trouble than just an OS crash.
So no, I think you're wrong. Very few people manually run chkdsk much less chkdisk /r.
I thought about that before I hit reply. One would've thought I'd learn by now someone would nitpick in spite of the intent behind my post. But, no matter. I'll know better next time to follow my instinct and be far more specific in my posts.
To answer your point: Yes, BIOS is comprised of software, and I think you can largely expect it to the the Right Thing (there are notable exceptions, but for the sake of argument let's assume it does) versus some random bootloader. For the purposes of system integration, most people tend to view it as a hardware component--or a component of hardware--that is significantly different from fix storage, like hard disks, where software would normally be kept. Likewise, we don't tend to view DVD drives as a software component even though they contain embedded firmware.
Objective views are hard to come by, but I think you deserve a lot more credit (certainly more than the current +4, informative--someone give this man an extra mod)! Your points can be applied to pretty much any industry, any software, and any major roll out.
The article implies the problem is with chkdsk /r and several other posters farther up the comments section have pointed out that this only affects certain chipsets. Perhaps more interestingly, this issue purportedly only affects the RTM, not the beta or RC.
I'd imagine you could read the partition type from the raw disk itself if you were so adventurous.
He said bash, not clobber!
Not all machines are like Dells nor are all BIOSes created equal. For example, I tend to use Intel's reference boards at home, and they don't have an F12 option to select a boot device. I'd imagine tjstork's circumstance is similar to mine.
Really, it only takes about 5 seconds longer to go into BIOS and change the drive order and you're not likely to do it every boot. If booting between OSes were more of a concern, it's easy to install grub on one disk and use it to manage booting between all three. But if tjstork is happy with using BIOS, I can't see any reason why an extra key or bootloader would make much of a difference.
Same here, except I use grub to boot between the different drives (yes, it's possible). If you were a little more keen on bootloaders, I'd suggest you should give it a try as it'll save having to screw with BIOS--if your BIOS isn't terribly old. I used to do the BIOS flip ages ago. It gets old fast, although it is also foolproof.
I suppose you're right--never trust software to do the right thing. ;)
To be fair to MS, if a user knows enough to know they have two hard disks and enough to know how to install a second hard disk, they should know how to pop the case open and unplug the one they don't want anything to happen to. Frankly, it'd be a good habit to have, even if you were installing software anointed by Steve Jobs himself.
Probably so, but how many end users are going to run chkdsk /r? How many would run it on their recovery partition? Hint: Most users wouldn't know what chkdsk is.
The article seems to suggest this occurs on a second physical drive. Other data indicates this only affects certain controller chipsets. In either case, what GreenEnvy22 stated is true; it's a non-issue.
Funny, I just wrote up something about this in my last post. You must've been reading my mind! (Although, I didn't exactly experience it with Windows 7.)
Generally, I install other OSes to their own drives. In the XP days, it'd attempt to overwrite grub (or other bootloaders) on drive(s) you weren't installing XP to. Talk about ridiculous! Though, that may have been an artifact of the other drive being reported by BIOS as the primary. I'm not wholly sure.
As a consequence, I've never gone passed that lovely little warning in XP's loader without unplugging everything except the drive I install to. Paranoid? Absolutely. I hate reinstalling things. To me, it's better to spend a few minutes taking some precautions than having a nasty surprise.
I do realize installing to separate partitions might be easier, but hard disks are cheap as are external enclosures. Plus, if I don't like something, I can always treat myself to having another back-up disk/extra space/experiment disk/etc.