Although our current privacy policy remains in effect, http://www.emusic.com/help/privacy_policy.html, when the acquisition is completed, EMusic's privacy policy will be changing to reflect Dimensional's ownership and your Personal Information (as defined in the privacy policy) will be transferred to Dimensional. Please take a few moments to review this our new policy which will take effect around October 30, 2003. As always, EMusic is firmly committed to consumer privacy and we believe the new policy continues to reinforce this.
Emusic emphasizes that they are committed to their privacy policy as it exists but there is no such claim about or from Dimensional Associates.
Ironic too is the statement,
"Dimensional plans to continue enhancing the EMusic service with new features and content and you can look forward to hearing more once the acquisition has been completed."
Cutting the downloads and jacking up the prices is an enhancement?
Sounds like Dimensional does not in any way really share in Emusic's philosophy and goals. Another hope slaughtered by greed.
... art is truly valued by the majority of society. Which is to say maybe never.
How about this as a theory. How often have you heard an artist explain that they can't help doing what they do? That it's a spiritual fulfillment? Well then, isn't that the reward in and of itself? And maybe subconciously sensing this, society feels that it doesn't need art per se but that if someone feels good about producing it, well then it can be appreciated. But should society pay for it? Historically, it seems the answer is no. It isn't as if, except in relatively rare occasions, that art is asked for on commision (think big picture here e.g. were musicians approached for hire to invent "punk" music as a useful contribution to society or we hire bands for concerts or entertainment but not to create specific songs for us).
So maybe musicians produce music because it satisfies something inside of them. And maybe that's the payback i.e. feeling good about expressing yourself and connecting, perhaps, with others.
Now the music industry is about making money and their M.O. is ostensibly peddling other people's art. But if most of society doesn't really feel the need to pay for it, then what hope is there for any selling scheme if a free source exists?
It seems that the preceding reasoning would mean the music industry should focus on those circumstances where music is readily payed for i.e. the concerts, film scores, etc. The production of CD's would then be viewed as a form of advertising and hence an expense, not a profit making venture. In that light, you would conclude that the music industry should embrace P2P since advertising doesn't get much cheaper.
... but slow to run. I have a 1 Ghz machine. I don't expect big delays in graphic movement while editing a Presentation. Import was pretty decent but with enough flaws to add work to a pretty simple project.
Since presentations are a big part of my life anything that increases the work load is not acceptable. Good effort though and miles from where it was in 5.2. But still miles to go.
What is the music industry thinking? They seem to think people want a perfect copy of their CD. Logically, that would assume that MP3 swappers are audiophiles. BUT all anyone really seems to want is sound quality roughly on par with FM radio play. To get that you don't even have to pump CD 'line out' to your PC. You can mike it from your stereo in to your PC thus circumventing any encryption scheme that doesn't actually deny you the ability to play it on your CD player. So just what exactly is the copy protection against? (I once thought it was to protect from the big pirating cartels in the Far East. But they are rich enough to hire full time encryption crackers or, more likely, steal master recordings.) Oh well, someone is making a buck selling these encryption schemes and the impact on the file swappers is neglible so carry on with life.
...really. How many unsolicited personal emails do you get that are important? Even if you're in an organization with a network, how many corporate emails are not from the company domain? Just filter out anything not from a known source be it your personal or business address book.
Our institution has a central broadcaster for corporate info. Any email for the general worker population is sent via that broadcaster. That's one filter. Coworkers another filter. Personal address book another filter.
That's it. Anyone else goes to Junk and that is checked every couple of days in a dedicated time slot. Nothing gets missed. And time isn't a factor because when was the last time you received some kind of deadline item from someone you didn't know?
Maybe a business has a few machines that really can't implement such a filtering scheme (eg. sales) but not everyone in a business has to be subject anonymous email solicitations. But at home it makes no sense that you have to be inconvenienced by spam. Just look at it statistically, how many emails have you had from addresses you didn't know, that mattered? OK maybe that Nigerian general with the account...
... so I download this, and suddenly things don't run the same on my computer anymore. I guess the difference is it isn't rogue hackers taking over my computer. It's a rogue company.
... outer layers of ions with hot gas trapped inside. Actually, only simulated politicians since in real ones the hot gas is rarely trapped inside for long.
Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.
RIAA: "They wouldn't be CD's with pirated music on them would they ??"
Wallace: "No sir, Mr. RIAA-man. But you can have a look yourself. I keep them over there in that nuclear reactor. Fill your boots."
Riddle me this: Tihs is iprmoetnt? ipomtnet? ...
on
Can You Raed Tihs?
·
· Score: 1
... iprmoatnt? Wlel,watheevr, teehrs ntohnig wonrg wtih my bllckoos!
Surely, there's a lot to do with context here. How many caught the subject confusion with mispelled "importent" and "impotent"? How many figured out "bollocks"? Context and background seem to be most relevant. Sm ffct f y drp ll cnsnnts.
At Torcon 3, I caught up with Michael Lennick, co-producer of a superb Canadian documentary series about manned spaceflight, Rocket Science. His next project examines the growing phenomenon of people who refuse to believe we ever landed on the moon. Not because he sees them as amusing cranks . . . but because they're becoming as common as Elvis-nuts. And it's hard to argue with their logic: It beggars belief, they say, that we could possibly have achieved moon flight . . . and given it up.
I had never heard that argument but it rings true... and frightening. It puts into stark relief what kind of a society we have become. There are no big dreams that aren't tied to wealth and its acquisition. We are navel gazing away the new millenium on our tiny planet in an unfashionable part of the galaxy.
... Imagine a world where you didn't have to upgrade as often as you change your mind. I now upgrade only every second version or so. I went from Win95 to Win2k and I'll change after Longhorn. Linux is especially frustrating this way because by the time I had my purchased copy of Suse 6.3 perking along nicely, 7.3 was already out! Enough already!
Our campus simply shut down the resnet completely for reasons including security and maintenance. Since all rooms have cable and phone, the students simply hook up with an ISP. Not much inconvenience and the maintenance worries, etc. have vanished. There are lab computers and some "computer rooms" but since those are all under direct IT control life is as hassle free as it can get. The down side is the rude introduction students get to non-subsidized ISP fees. But that is just another cost for education that you can file alongside books, laptops, and home brew kits.
...would cost $467 with Linux, $519 with Windows XP Home, or $589 for Windows XP Professional...
That's just a savings of ~$50 USD on XP Home. Even if you saved twice that much, if your time is worth anything, then the Linux box will cost you that and more in the short run as you hunt down drivers, upgrade packages, and tweak your configuration. Alarmingly this could be a clear demonstration of MS's logic. Bundled with your PC, Windows actually doesn't cost much; a subtle undercutting of the competition. Actually, it argues in spades that what Linux needs is a Killer App. Something to make people say, "I _need_ Linux because I want to do that Killer App." Achieving parity won't unseat Windows and one suspects neither will a meagre cost savings.
Some grip on reality is needed here. Especially for any article with a quote like, "It dawned on me that the key to survival and victory in today's battlefield is information," said Garcia That pearl of wisdom has been around in written form since Sun Tzu so what vaccuum has this person been working in? That aside look at the various conceptual flaws in the article.
"nature can provide ready-made solutions." is a comment made in many fields including computer science. The problem is that nature developed solutions for a carbon based lifeform. Imitations in silicon, steel, polymers cannot hope to achieve the same results. Flocks of birds do fly but they also eat and their cells reproduce and die. Steel and silicon simply dissipate energy (with nothing close to a Krebs cycle for renewal) and wear out (since repair or replacement of steel or silicon is hideously demanding of energy). So on a very fundamental level, solutions found in nature do not completely translate to the current materials of technology. You can get aspects of them, like the imitation of flapping flight, but not the whole package.
But lest you think, "Fine. We'll go with _some_ of the benefits." Think: what are they? The article says Flapping wings allow insects and birds to fly at low speeds, hover, make sharp turns and even fly backward. The latter cite trying to imitate a hummingbird's flight. A hummingbird's flight can already be imitated by helicopters and even the V-22 Osprey. But both the helicopter and the Osprey achieve the desired result (within bounds dictated by inertia and thrust-to-weight ratios) with a structure evolved for maximum efficiency given the materials i.e. the propeller. Even if you are utterly fanatic and feel that flapping is the way to go, consider further the imitation of a hummingbird. The birds virtually eat constantly. In fact, you could argue that the researchers haven't looked to nature very closely for their solutions. Even if you could translate the physical properties of a hummingbird to a machine, nature itself demonstrates that the energy requirements are huge for that type of flight. At least the researchers acknowledge this at the end of the article but the impression is more that it is an afterthought rather than an evident truth even before the research had started.
And is the flapping flight really the goal of ornithopters in this article? In this article it's a flock of small, lightweight robots hovering over Martian land rovers and guiding them to places of interest that seems to be the pitch. So what advantage do ornithopters have over other "eye in the sky" objects like helicopters, blimps, gliders, or high power satellite cameras? There don't seem to be any.
At this point one might even ask, how appropriate is a solution inspired by nature (on Earth) to the environment on Mars? Environments on Earth that are similar to Mars don't have an abundance of life because there isn't much to support the energy requirements of life. Therefore a solution based on "nature" is arguably inappropriate.
And finally, Mars exploration has top priority at the CSA. Sorry but Canada officially bowed out of its option to participate in the Mars exploration program via lack of federal funding. Maybe some Canadian companies will keep their hand in without the CSA but odds are NASA will buy American, and why not?
(As for the submitter's comments, let's put on our thinking caps people. What kind of ride would people in the hull of a flapping aircraft get? Replacement for the Osprey indeed!)
Most of my coworkers (computer science academics) are oblivious to the whole issue. As another post noted, this is preaching to the choir. Some geeks get inconvenienced, so what?
Thanks to our software, when you stop the simulation and ask the computer and the operator, "What do you think is going on right now?" about 90% of the time you get the same answer from both. Such a computer could alert the operator to a problem the operator hasn't picked up on yet.
So 90% of the time they could both be wrong OR 10% of the time they'd be bickering. And this improves the system how? OK, maybe it's cheaper to marry the software but I don't see how it improves air traffic control.
Only 40% use Linux and that doesn't mean they prefer it. And even the site notes the skew in results once the/. crowd got a whiff of a good MS bashing opportunity.
And fer cryin' out loud why put the political spin on this subject line? Have we sunk to the depths of the big bad corporations that we have to taint our news to suit our needs? Or is it that Open Source advocates simply resents MS because they envy its clout and money?
Hard to say which is the loony toon. The "And how do you pillage the ocean..." or the reply with it's "... human intervention most likely...". In the former case declining fisheries is a valid counter. In the latter, well:
a) the natural ocean background radiation
far exceeds the meagre amounts humans have dumped unless you're sitting right next to the dumped core;
b) recent volvanic activity (above (Mt. St. Helen's) and below (black smokers) the ocean) has contributed considerably more "pollution" than human industry has (recall some recent eruptions have tangibly affected the atmosphere _globally_); and
c) research (e.g. work of Jan Veizer) has pointed out far more plausible climate altering effects than our meagre industrial effluent. Speaking of which, we still do not have a proven climate model let alone one of the role of various chemicals within the atmosphere except in the most very general sense.
So is humankind the big baddie? We really don't know. Is it blameless? We really don't know. But why is natural pollution OK, but "unatural"(?) pollution bad? Why does it seem that human activity beyond the most primitive animal functions is "bad"?
It might just be that we humans neither appreciate how truly huge this planet is, how truly insignificant we are, and how profoundly ignorant we still are about all that is around us.
Open Word. Go to/Tools/Options/Edit/ Then modify Editing Options.
BTW, as an experiment, hunt down all the "automatic" features aka default settings. Turn them off. Then use the software and time how long it takes you to start wishing you hadn't messed with the settings.
Right our university has a mix of Unix and Win2K computers with different settings as you go from dept to dept. All I/O is to floppy or some rather rare CD RW.
It would be nice if all the university computers were without a HD. A student would be issued a 2.5". To log on, insert the drive into a bay (like a 2.5" slot or something) on a computer. Voila the computer boots to your personal settings with all I/O going to your drive. Done, pull the drive and walk away. Any computer you use will always give you the same environment.
Just a thought that seems closer with these size drives.
Slashdot Mirror
... policy is altered. To wit:
Although our current privacy policy remains in effect, http://www.emusic.com/help/privacy_policy.html, when the acquisition is completed, EMusic's privacy policy will be changing to reflect Dimensional's ownership and your Personal Information (as defined in the privacy policy) will be transferred to Dimensional. Please take a few moments to review this our new policy which will take effect around October 30, 2003. As always, EMusic is firmly committed to consumer privacy and we believe the new policy continues to reinforce this.
Emusic emphasizes that they are committed to their privacy policy as it exists but there is no such claim about or from Dimensional Associates.
Ironic too is the statement,
"Dimensional plans to continue enhancing the EMusic service with new features and content and you can look forward to hearing more once the acquisition has been completed."
Cutting the downloads and jacking up the prices is an enhancement?
Sounds like Dimensional does not in any way really share in Emusic's philosophy and goals. Another hope slaughtered by greed.
... being met here?
a) Top human vs Top computer: computers defending champs;
b) Elegance of tactics: humans (computers still brute force);
c) Efficiency (wins/joules): humans for forseeable future; and
d) Number of Wins: Average Human vs Average Computer: computers rule (sorry but people who beat computers of any level are seriously in the minority).
Pessimistically, humans take the occasional battle but the war has been lost.
... art is truly valued by the majority of society. Which is to say maybe never.
... but not ha-ha.
How about this as a theory. How often have you heard an artist explain that they can't help doing what they do? That it's a spiritual fulfillment? Well then, isn't that the reward in and of itself? And maybe subconciously sensing this, society feels that it doesn't need art per se but that if someone feels good about producing it, well then it can be appreciated. But should society pay for it? Historically, it seems the answer is no. It isn't as if, except in relatively rare occasions, that art is asked for on commision (think big picture here e.g. were musicians approached for hire to invent "punk" music as a useful contribution to society or we hire bands for concerts or entertainment but not to create specific songs for us).
So maybe musicians produce music because it satisfies something inside of them. And maybe that's the payback i.e. feeling good about expressing yourself and connecting, perhaps, with others.
Now the music industry is about making money and their M.O. is ostensibly peddling other people's art. But if most of society doesn't really feel the need to pay for it, then what hope is there for any selling scheme if a free source exists?
It seems that the preceding reasoning would mean the music industry should focus on those circumstances where music is readily payed for i.e. the concerts, film scores, etc. The production of CD's would then be viewed as a form of advertising and hence an expense, not a profit making venture. In that light, you would conclude that the music industry should embrace P2P since advertising doesn't get much cheaper.
Funny world
... but slow to run. I have a 1 Ghz machine. I don't expect big delays in graphic movement while editing a Presentation. Import was pretty decent but with enough flaws to add work to a pretty simple project.
Since presentations are a big part of my life anything that increases the work load is not acceptable. Good effort though and miles from where it was in 5.2. But still miles to go.
... when a wait of 4-5 seconds is too long?
What is the music industry thinking? They seem to think people want a perfect copy of their CD. Logically, that would assume that MP3 swappers are audiophiles. BUT all anyone really seems to want is sound quality roughly on par with FM radio play. To get that you don't even have to pump CD 'line out' to your PC. You can mike it from your stereo in to your PC thus circumventing any encryption scheme that doesn't actually deny you the ability to play it on your CD player. So just what exactly is the copy protection against? (I once thought it was to protect from the big pirating cartels in the Far East. But they are rich enough to hire full time encryption crackers or, more likely, steal master recordings.) Oh well, someone is making a buck selling these encryption schemes and the impact on the file swappers is neglible so carry on with life.
...really. How many unsolicited personal emails do you get that are important? Even if you're in an organization with a network, how many corporate emails are not from the company domain? Just filter out anything not from a known source be it your personal or business address book.
...
Our institution has a central broadcaster for corporate info. Any email for the general worker population is sent via that broadcaster. That's one filter. Coworkers another filter. Personal address book another filter.
That's it. Anyone else goes to Junk and that is checked every couple of days in a dedicated time slot. Nothing gets missed. And time isn't a factor because when was the last time you received some kind of deadline item from someone you didn't know?
Maybe a business has a few machines that really can't implement such a filtering scheme (eg. sales) but not everyone in a business has to be subject anonymous email solicitations. But at home it makes no sense that you have to be inconvenienced by spam. Just look at it statistically, how many emails have you had from addresses you didn't know, that mattered? OK maybe that Nigerian general with the account
... so I download this, and suddenly things don't run the same on my computer anymore. I guess the difference is it isn't rogue hackers taking over my computer. It's a rogue company.
... outer layers of ions with hot gas trapped inside. Actually, only simulated politicians since in real ones the hot gas is rarely trapped inside for long.
Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.
RIAA: "They wouldn't be CD's with pirated music on them would they ??"
Wallace: "No sir, Mr. RIAA-man. But you can have a look yourself. I keep them over there in that nuclear reactor. Fill your boots."
... iprmoatnt? Wlel,watheevr, teehrs ntohnig wonrg wtih my bllckoos!
Surely, there's a lot to do with context here. How many caught the subject confusion with mispelled "importent" and "impotent"? How many figured out "bollocks"? Context and background seem to be most relevant. Sm ffct f y drp ll cnsnnts.
At Torcon 3, I caught up with Michael Lennick, co-producer of a superb Canadian documentary series about manned spaceflight, Rocket Science. His next project examines the growing phenomenon of people who refuse to believe we ever landed on the moon. Not because he sees them as amusing cranks . . . but because they're becoming as common as Elvis-nuts. And it's hard to argue with their logic: It beggars belief, they say, that we could possibly have achieved moon flight . . . and given it up.
... and frightening. It puts into stark relief what kind of a society we have become. There are no big dreams that aren't tied to wealth and its acquisition. We are navel gazing away the new millenium on our tiny planet in an unfashionable part of the galaxy.
I had never heard that argument but it rings true
... my CPU fan? Now that's a silencing challenge that will make money.
... Imagine a world where you didn't have to upgrade as often as you change your mind. I now upgrade only every second version or so. I went from Win95 to Win2k and I'll change after Longhorn. Linux is especially frustrating this way because by the time I had my purchased copy of Suse 6.3 perking along nicely, 7.3 was already out! Enough already!
Our campus simply shut down the resnet completely for reasons including security and maintenance. Since all rooms have cable and phone, the students simply hook up with an ISP. Not much inconvenience and the maintenance worries, etc. have vanished. There are lab computers and some "computer rooms" but since those are all under direct IT control life is as hassle free as it can get. The down side is the rude introduction students get to non-subsidized ISP fees. But that is just another cost for education that you can file alongside books, laptops, and home brew kits.
...would cost $467 with Linux, $519 with Windows XP Home, or $589 for Windows XP Professional...
That's just a savings of ~$50 USD on XP Home. Even if you saved twice that much, if your time is worth anything, then the Linux box will cost you that and more in the short run as you hunt down drivers, upgrade packages, and tweak your configuration. Alarmingly this could be a clear demonstration of MS's logic. Bundled with your PC, Windows actually doesn't cost much; a subtle undercutting of the competition. Actually, it argues in spades that what Linux needs is a Killer App. Something to make people say, "I _need_ Linux because I want to do that Killer App." Achieving parity won't unseat Windows and one suspects neither will a meagre cost savings.
The original was Captain Joseph Kittinger who freefell for some 4.5 minutes. He had serious thrill issues.
Some grip on reality is needed here. Especially for any article with a quote like, "It dawned on me that the key to survival and victory in today's battlefield is information," said Garcia That pearl of wisdom has been around in written form since Sun Tzu so what vaccuum has this person been working in? That aside look at the various conceptual flaws in the article.
"nature can provide ready-made solutions." is a comment made in many fields including computer science. The problem is that nature developed solutions for a carbon based lifeform. Imitations in silicon, steel, polymers cannot hope to achieve the same results. Flocks of birds do fly but they also eat and their cells reproduce and die. Steel and silicon simply dissipate energy (with nothing close to a Krebs cycle for renewal) and wear out (since repair or replacement of steel or silicon is hideously demanding of energy). So on a very fundamental level, solutions found in nature do not completely translate to the current materials of technology. You can get aspects of them, like the imitation of flapping flight, but not the whole package.
But lest you think, "Fine. We'll go with _some_ of the benefits." Think: what are they? The article says Flapping wings allow insects and birds to fly at low speeds, hover, make sharp turns and even fly backward. The latter cite trying to imitate a hummingbird's flight. A hummingbird's flight can already be imitated by helicopters and even the V-22 Osprey. But both the helicopter and the Osprey achieve the desired result (within bounds dictated by inertia and thrust-to-weight ratios) with a structure evolved for maximum efficiency given the materials i.e. the propeller. Even if you are utterly fanatic and feel that flapping is the way to go, consider further the imitation of a hummingbird. The birds virtually eat constantly. In fact, you could argue that the researchers haven't looked to nature very closely for their solutions. Even if you could translate the physical properties of a hummingbird to a machine, nature itself demonstrates that the energy requirements are huge for that type of flight. At least the researchers acknowledge this at the end of the article but the impression is more that it is an afterthought rather than an evident truth even before the research had started.
And is the flapping flight really the goal of ornithopters in this article? In this article it's a flock of small, lightweight robots hovering over Martian land rovers and guiding them to places of interest that seems to be the pitch. So what advantage do ornithopters have over other "eye in the sky" objects like helicopters, blimps, gliders, or high power satellite cameras? There don't seem to be any.
At this point one might even ask, how appropriate is a solution inspired by nature (on Earth) to the environment on Mars? Environments on Earth that are similar to Mars don't have an abundance of life because there isn't much to support the energy requirements of life. Therefore a solution based on "nature" is arguably inappropriate.
And finally, Mars exploration has top priority at the CSA. Sorry but Canada officially bowed out of its option to participate in the Mars exploration program via lack of federal funding. Maybe some Canadian companies will keep their hand in without the CSA but odds are NASA will buy American, and why not?
(As for the submitter's comments, let's put on our thinking caps people. What kind of ride would people in the hull of a flapping aircraft get? Replacement for the Osprey indeed!)
Most of my coworkers (computer science academics) are oblivious to the whole issue. As another post noted, this is preaching to the choir. Some geeks get inconvenienced, so what?
Thanks to our software, when you stop the simulation and ask the computer and the operator, "What do you think is going on right now?" about 90% of the time you get the same answer from both. Such a computer could alert the operator to a problem the operator hasn't picked up on yet.
So 90% of the time they could both be wrong OR 10% of the time they'd be bickering. And this improves the system how? OK, maybe it's cheaper to marry the software but I don't see how it improves air traffic control.
Only 40% use Linux and that doesn't mean they prefer it. And even the site notes the skew in results once the /. crowd got a whiff of a good MS bashing opportunity.
And fer cryin' out loud why put the political spin on this subject line? Have we sunk to the depths of the big bad corporations that we have to taint our news to suit our needs? Or is it that Open Source advocates simply resents MS because they envy its clout and money?
Hard to say which is the loony toon. The "And how do you pillage the ocean..." or the reply with it's "... human intervention most likely...". In the former case declining fisheries is a valid counter. In the latter, well:
a) the natural ocean background radiation
far exceeds the meagre amounts humans have dumped unless you're sitting right next to the dumped core;
b) recent volvanic activity (above (Mt. St. Helen's) and below (black
smokers) the ocean) has contributed considerably more "pollution" than human industry has (recall some recent eruptions have tangibly affected the atmosphere _globally_); and
c) research (e.g. work of Jan Veizer) has pointed out far more plausible climate altering effects than our meagre industrial effluent. Speaking of which, we still do not have a proven climate model let alone one of the role of various chemicals within the atmosphere except in the most very general sense.
So is humankind the big baddie? We really don't know. Is it blameless? We really don't know. But why is natural pollution OK, but "unatural"(?) pollution bad? Why does it seem that human activity beyond the most primitive animal functions is "bad"?
It might just be that we humans neither appreciate how truly huge this planet is, how truly insignificant we are, and how profoundly ignorant we still are about all that is around us.
Ah. I guess I was just so inspired by Knoppix but didn't clutch in on the importance of the hardware detection. Thanks.
Open Word. /Tools/Options/Edit/
Go to
Then modify Editing Options.
BTW, as an experiment, hunt down all the "automatic" features aka default settings. Turn them off. Then use the software and time how long it takes you to start wishing you hadn't messed with the settings.
Right our university has a mix of Unix and Win2K computers with different settings as you go from dept to dept. All I/O is to floppy or some rather rare CD RW.
It would be nice if all the university computers were without a HD. A student would be issued a 2.5". To log on, insert the drive into a bay (like a 2.5" slot or something) on a computer. Voila the computer boots to your personal settings with all I/O going to your drive. Done, pull the drive and walk away. Any computer you use will always give you the same environment.
Just a thought that seems closer with these size drives.