That was my implication. He may not have been the one who used it, but may not have any knowledge or recollection of where it went.
I'm not going to re-read the article, but did they fix the time of death to before the phone call was made? Do they have evidence showing that his cell was not located at the house? There are plenty of explanations beyond the easy ones. He may have been there, killed her, dropped his phone somewhere in the house, and called it to find it. It's one thing to call your phone from the murder site. It's another to have the police find your phone there.
Any which way, it's circumstantial at best. He'd have to be stupid to take advantage of work equipment, plant the router, have it dial out to his cell to "prove" his innocence, and then make the router disappear. Want proof? Make sure you're a good distance away, start a bar fight, resist arrest, and then you have real proof. A sincere apology and no priors will probably get you probation.
Then again, none of us have all the evidence presented. They may have an air tight case. Using this circumstantial crap really makes it seem that they don't have any real evidence. If they had the murder weapon, her hair in the trunk of his car, his tire tracks at the dump site, and neighbors saying that he carried out "something large" at the time of the disappearance would be more damning than the circumstantial fiction.
Wait.. wait a minute.. You're saying there is life outside of the greater Los Angeles / San Diego area? We were told everyone was dead. Everyone. We were told anything on TV that we saw about the outside world was a dramatization. That whole thing in New York? New Orleans? Haiti? Indonesia? Japan? The hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and earthquakes? The giant comet coming in 2012? That's all real?
Next you're going to tell me the yellow cap we've had on the sky isn't really to protect us from the radiation. Don't tell me it's pollution or something. I don't think we can take any more news like that all at once.
What about the survivors who left Los Angeles to explore to the East? They never came back. We assumed they died in the barren wasteland. Does that mean we can all leave? We can rejoin the world?
The laptop manufacturer is the one directly responsible. You don't sue Bosch for a new car because your fuel injectors don't work; TI because a sensor on your motherboard fails; or Charmin because your toilet backs up. They would be directly responsible in each case, but you didn't purchase the item from them. From the article, the laptops were sold by Dell, Apple, and HP. That means that's who you ask for resolution and possibly reimbursement.
You do realize that this was a "low hanging fruit" case. The pockets at Apple, Dell, and HP are far deeper than the ones at nVidia. nVidia could be responsible for the chip, but it really wasn't their duty to reimburse full value on the computer. They didn't build the computer. If I read other comments correctly, the fault was in that the soldier was not correct applied when attaching the nVidia chip to the motherboard. But you can't hit the motherboard manufacturers, because they may be unbranded. In all those manufacturers, I've seen a variety of motherboard manufacturers, including Intel, FoxConn, and Asus. Wouldn't it make more sense to lay the claim on the people who failed to attach the chip correctly? Oh. Those are still deeper pockets than nVidia has.
It was cheap in that he borrowed it from work, and it was never seen again.
That's circumstantial though. It could have been borrowed from his desk by someone else, who installed it somewhere to be found in about a decade.:) Retail value of $4k at Cisco is nothing in comparison to most of their product lines.
There are events at closed tracks, including private raceways and superspeedways, where drivers can learn to handle their vehicles in high speed, and extremely accurate maneuvering. In the ones I've attended, you are *required* to race in the lowest class the first session (the first weekend of racing). That class usually includes an instructor who rides with you, and teaches you how to manage your vehicle. Once you show proficiency, you can move up in the classes, but it takes several sessions to end up in the higher classes. That's interesting is that even with multiple cars on the tracks, everyone follows the rules and they rarely have accidents. The worst "accident" I've seen are rubbing a wall or spinning off to the infield. If you pay attention when driving on a highway, you'll see evidence of the same things happening in real life. K-rails have tire marks half way up them. Grassy medians have tire tracks where someone spun. And people like to blame blow-outs for such events, but since I've had a few high speed mechanical failures (complete tread separation, or loss of tire pressure), I know they're perfectly manageable events.
Here's a few groups that have events open to the public, that don't generally require specialized race cars. There are others, that's just a sampling.
Learning how to handle your car better in various conditions is a very good thing. most drivers were never taught how to corner, brake efficiently, and have never been on a skid pad.
There are plenty of better drivers than me. There are plenty of better cars than mine.
The laws should be scaled. As they are now, they're written for the lowest common user, but then adjusted up a little bit. Who knows, if such a plan were put into place, I may not ever get the highest classes of licensing. At very least, it would prevent those who themselves or their vehicles, shouldn't be on the road, or driven too fast.
Let me introduce you to a wonderful concept known as disinformation.
If you say almost nothing, and what you say is factual, but let the occasional secret slip, it can be presumed to be true.
If you say a lot, and most of it is fiction, but the occasional fact slips in, it can be presumed to be false.
Sometimes it puts you in a much stronger position to build up your fantasy online persona. It leaves people with lots and lots of information to sift through. The chances of them believing the leaked facts are slimmer than them believing the copious amounts of disinformation.
This message was sent from an unofficial DoD facility under an unnamed mountain somewhere in the American Southwest.:)
From what I read, that was one of the dead giveaways. A million dollar house with no phones or Internet service. I would have suspected it for a grow house though.:)
You're right. But >99% of the people out there are dumb, and when there's a question asked, they'll answer it.
Some of us blatantly lie. Well, unless people should believe that I live just outside the gates of Area 51, and I work for a secret division of O2STK. Let me give you a ride in my black van, to my unmarked silent black helicopter. I promise you'll make it home in one piece.:)
It can be fun though. Have you ever changed your high school to some random school, and then friended everyone who went to it? Guess what. Most of them will friend you, and give you enough conversation fodder to hold conversations with others that actually went there. After 20-some years, no one remembers everyone they went to school with, so it's pretty easy. It's kind of like party crashing the high school reunion, except you don't have to go anywhere, and the prank lasts an awful lot longer.
This was a class action suit against *NVIDIA*, not the laptop manufacturer. Do you sue Kenmore for the full value of your house because your stove doesn't work, or Kwikset because someone broke into your house?
This whole case was mistargeted. It should have been the class versus the manufacturers who sold the laptops, who could have in turn sued nVidia for their loses.
But hey, if this is the way it works, I'm going to sue Seagate for a new computer next time I have a drive failure. Whoohoo, free computers for life!
Well, your logic is flawed. Rather than arguing if the $12,000 Hyundai is ok, consider what you're really asking for. You want a new $50,000 truck to replace your 4 1/2 year old truck.
No, I would not be happy. And no, I would not buy from them again.
But whens the last time you heard of a manufacturer handing over new cars for old cars just because there was a flaw with it. Think hard. Cite a case for me that matches, and I'll be very very impressed.
Nope, not 1960's. It was passed into law in 1956. The fastest American production car would do a whopping 105 (theoretical max speed). And, I couldn't find where it said 120. I'm pretty sure he either pulled that out of thin air, or heard it from someone who heard it from someone who said it on Fox News.:)
Over the years, I've had conversations with people exactly on this. I've seen a few common conclusions on how it could work.
We'll start with this. I've spent a good amount of time racing (legal, of course). I've had plenty of hours behind the wheel at over 100mph.
My primary car is speed limited at the factory to 165mph. I only use tires rated at 168 mph (W) or 186 mph (Y). I purchase those for the traction quality (too much power for lower traction tires).
My secondary vehicle probably has a top speed around 120. It has truck tires rated at 118 mph (T). It's intended purpose is to move things (i.e., it's a truck), not to drive fast.
1) License plates would be color coded for the max speed permitted.
2) The maximum safe operating speed would be determined by the vehicle.
3) Higher speed vehicles would require semiannual full safety inspections. Worn brakes, tires, or other equipment can lower it to a lower class, or forbid it from operation. And no, we can't trust drivers to do that now.
4) Drivers would be required to prove proficiency to drive higher speed vehicles.
5) All drivers would be retested to show proficiency biennially.
6) A driver licensed for higher speeds may operate a vehicle under their rated class, but no driver may operate a vehicle above their rated class.
7) Enforcement of safety laws (give way to faster traffic, stop for emergency vehicles passing, etc) should be increased. I've *never* known anyone to get a ticket for passing on the right, or failing to yield to faster vehicles, although both laws are on the books in every state I've checked.
8) Enforcement of speed limits would be focused on drivers attempting to drive beyond their rating.
9) Speed limits would be ranged by performance. To a degree I've seen this is some states. They'll have a speed limit for trucks, buses, and any vehicle with trailers, versus any other vehicles. So cars may do 80mph, while trucks can do 65mph.
I probably missed a few points, but those were the big ones discussed. It'll never happen though. At least not here in America, where traffic fines make up a huge part of most cities budgets.
The US interstate highway system was passed in 1956 as the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956", also known as "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956".
It does not reference 120mph speeds. It does reference the defense of the United States, being able to move the military from Point A to Point B rapidly. That is what it was built for. Allowing civilians to travel at higher speeds without limitations such as stop lights is just an added benefit.
I seriously doubt anyone considered a 120 mph design spec. In 1956, the fastest production car in America was the 1956 Buick Century Riviera Hardtop. It's "cruise" speed was 70mph, with a top speed around 105mph. At cruise, it would get about 10mpg. For the most part, I wouldn't want to see that car doing 100mph anywhere. I'm not considering customized hot rods for this conversation. The military wasn't moving anyone around in them.
The roads have improved, as has automotive technology. Drivers are still the weak point. That isn't that I don't agree that we *should* have highways that allow such higher speeds. I do, but there should be serious restrictions on the vehicles and drivers on such highways. The Autobahn is a wonderful example of it. They also have severe restrictions, down to driver behavior. Slower cars MUST give way to faster cars. There is absolutely no passing on the right side. Drivers must be trained in first aid, and are obliged to stop and help in the event of an accident. Tires on the vehicle must be rated for the top speed of the car, or the vehicle marked with the rated tire speed.
Myself, I wouldn't mind 120mph speed limits for my own driving. I know both my primary car and I can handle it. My secondary vehicle may be good up to 100, but I doubt it'll ever go that fast. I've seen too many people driving that can't handle 65mph safely. Even with a 65mph speed limit, I've seen too many people behaving poorly. Maybe if they increased the speed limits to 120, natural selection could take its course. People need to realize, speed limits aren't how fast you're suppose to drive, it's how fast you're allowed to drive. There are circumstances when it's not safe to drive fast (i.e., heavy fog, rain, or through traffic where others are doing 20mph).
You know, you're absolutely right. I think this should be applied to everything. If it's bad, I want it replaced years later with one of equal specifications and original price.
If I bought a house 3 years ago, and found they used Chinese drywall, I should be given a new house of equal qualities and price. If I bought a new car with a later discovered fault, I want another new car.
Oh.. That's not how it works in the real world. We don't dumb luck into getting a free upgrade years later just because we wanted one. If their computer had such a tragic flaw with it, why wasn't it returned for a full refund?
Have you been to a retail electronics store lately? Or shopped online? The Compaq name never went away, it was moved to be the entry/low end computers, while HP reserves their name for the higher end.
They recognized that the average consumer had brand recognition for the name "Compaq". Some had been using the same machine for 5 years and knew it was reliable (ok, for those that it remained reliable). Some had friends of friends who were happy with theirs, and they generally stayed in the range where most consumers could afford to buy the item out of pocket.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein
When flying, I do pay attention to where the exits are. I also go beyond that, and look at where my "assets" are in the event of an emergency. Who looks strong and can follow instructions. It doesn't matter if it's a hijacking, or a plane crash, you will likely need those assets. And ya, the guy who feels it's appropriate to put his laptop on his lap, and bag at his feet, it's still wrong.
I was berated by a flight attendant for having "luggage" on my feet. Turned out it was just my jacket, while I was buckling my seatbelt. Once she saw that's all it was, she was fine with it. I was in snow country, so if we had a failed aborted takeoff (i.e., plane runs off the runway), having my jacket in hand would be nice. I learned in boot camp, sleeping in your underwear may be comfortable until they call a fire drill in the middle of the night when it's around freezing outside. I fell for it once. From then on, I slept dressed. Oddly enough, I was one of few who figured it out. About 2% of the platoon prepared. The rest froze their asses off.
My seatbelt stays buckled from before we push off, until after the jet bridge is in place. My cell is firmly on my hip, and my ID is in my pocket. The only time it comes off is if I have to use the restroom, which I usually take care of before boarding.
I plan ahead. Most don't. Oddly enough, in a disaster, people look to a leader, and in something like an aircraft incident, the implied leaders (flight crew) may not be available. The front of an aircraft may be the least survivable location, depending on the incident. I don't want to be the leader, but a group of survivors will need one or there will be chaos.
If I remember right, my mistaken belief on the location of the FDR(s) was from a few 1980's news reports... So, a bit dated. Back then, the news was filled with them, and they always had "experts" who would babble on about anything, to fill the airtime.
When I fly, I remember the statistics that I have gathered from flights I've been on. 75% take off on time. 98% have the expected flight duration, and 100% have landed in one piece. Screw the FDR, I want the plane to land in one piece (*AND* get to the gate in one piece). I was just flying a couple days ago. We were at the gate, but the jet bridge had not bee completely put in place. I thought about the above video, as I reached for my seatbelt. "Hmmmm, maybe I should leave my seatbelt on."
It seems the Airbus A330 uses either a SSD or tape for storage. They also have a "Quick Access Recorder".
I only found this, because I was under the impression that most aircraft used two FDRs, once in the front, one in the rear, to help assure survival of the data in the event of a nasty catastrophic incident (i.e., very hot fire on part of an aircraft that has broken up upon intersection of the flight path and the surrounding terrain). It appears that is a mistaken belief.
Now all I can say is the missing data is a conspiracy. It must be the undersea aliens.:)
Shredding the drives like in the Google video is essentially putting it through a fragmenter, stage 1 of standard recycling processing. Magnets can then be used to separate out the ferrous metals, and so on.
Thank you. Now it makes more sense. Well, at least the shredding versus melting. Since the unit they're using did not appear to be too large, all it would require is a soundproof room, or a room separate from the offices. One site I did work at had us dispose of our trash ourselves. So we'd tote all the shipping boxes and miscellaneous trash down to the basement, where they had 3 compactors. One was for paper and cardboard. Another was for plastics. The third was for other trash. They were big and noisy, but being in the basement, the noise didn't disturb anyone. That was contained in the "secure" area of the datacenter, behind the mantraps, and ID checkpoints at the entrances.
I knew someone in the IT recycling business. They had some big customers interested in security, such as the DoD. They had a machine much larger than the one shown, which would shred anything put into it. The guarantee was that every piece that came out would have no dimension larger than 0.25 inches.
They sold this mixed scrap metal to other companies who had methods for sorting the various metals out, and then they were paid based on the total metals. This included sending off electronics for their precious metals. They made some good money from the precious metals contained within the electronics, although they were impractical to separate on a small scale.
I didn't quite get the Google demonstration on their destruction of a drive. First they wipe it, verify it's wiped, bend the plates, and then shred it? Why? It would save a lot of time and manpower to just shred them.
I work for a company now that is under strict guidelines, both by contracts with 3rd parties and federal law. There are stacks of old unserviceable hard drives (don't work, and are generally under 40GB). are currently kept in a safe. The agreement I've come to with everyone is that we will be melting them down. A little (say 5 pounds) of home-brew thermite, and we'll have a nice chunk of molten metal to give to a recycler. If done properly, you wouldn't recognize any piece of it as being a drive when we're done. Good luck trying to recover from *that*.:)
Since the DTV abortion, lots of people have horrible times getting "broadcast" stations in. We'll use myself and my friends as an example. I'm only mentioning friends as I was the one helping them try to get set up.
At 4 different residences, within 20 miles of the center of the metro area, analog broadcasts were strong on local stations. In practice, you could go about 75 to 100 miles out, and still get excellent reception. At 75 to 100 miles, you needed a TV tower. 50' usually did fine.
Now, at the residences within 20 miles, even when you know the tower is within just a few miles (visually identified the tower, and verified the registration for broadcasting the stations in question) , it's really hit and miss. In the spot I'm sitting right now, we could easily pick up 8 to 10 analog stations, with no audio disruption and no visible errors (i.e., snow), even with cheap rabbit ear antenna. Now since the DTV move, we get the sideband/subchannel broadcast of a TV station's 24 hour weather, and a Christian broadcasting station about 60 miles away. If we're lucky, we'll receive a few seconds at a time of usable signal, and the rest is too weak. It manifests itself as frozen blocks on the screen, which I'm sure anyone still trying to use broadcast TV is seeing.
And then you wonder, "Why did they push this on us?".
TV went from a novelty rebroadcast of radio with pictures, to a corporation driven marathon of "who can get the most viewers" and "who can sell the most ad spots". TV also became a public safety matter, getting information out to the general public quickly, through EBS alerts (severe weather, natural disasters, civil unrest, etc). Where I am, growing up about 75 miles from where I am now, we would get EBS weather notices almost daily during the summer, warning of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. They provided evacuation information to anyone with a TV and a cheap antenna, so they would be able to know what to do.
Then the money concerns.
Broadcasters couldn't identify precisely what their viewership was, except with a few services including Nielsen. Those were just approximations based on a sample group, and extrapolated to the entire broadcast area. Saying there are 10 million people in a broadcast area, and 10% of the sample group reports watching a show doesn't mean that you really have 1 million people watching the show.
The advertisers wanted to know what they were buying. The stations wanted to make sure they capitalized everything they could. And of course, the cable companies wouldn't mind gaining viewers in the least. Broadcast stations don't lose out on that deal. They are paid by the cable companies to rebroadcast their copyrighted materials. The old analogue cable converters are almost completely out of use, and cable users have digital boxes which report back what show is being viewed. On top of that, DVRs are kind enough to report back when someone is time-shifting the shows, what ads they're skipping, and which shows they're watching repeatedly. They're all datapoints that guide the stations in what they should show to monetize their product.
DTV doesn't report back to the station who's watching what. But, with the pathetic service of DTV, you have two choices. If you're lucky, watch a few channels some of the time, or get cable service.
This wasn't a strictly broadcast encouraged change. While, yes, you can get a better picture, if you happen to be in the sweet spot of service. Manufacturers now had a way to encourage people to buy new hardware. (TV). For anyone with money to buy a new TV, they looked at their choices. Spent $100 for a digital to analog converter. Spend $100 on a new crappy TV that supports digital TV. or switch over to cable. Oh, you're getting cable. You ought to take advantage of the HiDef channels. To do that, you need the better TV.
You'd usually want to use "convert" in front of that, although it looks like they're supporting it without now, at least for some functions.
I use it a lot, because I work with people of different backgrounds. I may have a rough guess at some things, but the familiarity simply isn't there. I got pretty good at judging kilometers, and kph when driving around foreign countries. Still, because the USA doesn't measure in kilometers, it's easier for me to do miles in my head. 60mph is one mile every 60 seconds, so if my GPS says it's 1.5 miles, I have 60 seconds to get into the proper lane without upsetting anyone. That is the main reason I use my GPS. Everything looks the same where I live, so I need that accurate measure to warn me.
If the USA finally switch o the metric system, I'd adjust in about a week (the same time it took for me to adjust to driving in foreign countries. I'd suspect most people would adjust just about as fast.
Then again, I have become used to both systems. I was discussing the temperature with someone a cold state. She said her thermometer read 7C. I said it was about 40F. I was cold enough for us both to say it was cold.:)
Slashdot Mirror
That was my implication. He may not have been the one who used it, but may not have any knowledge or recollection of where it went.
I'm not going to re-read the article, but did they fix the time of death to before the phone call was made? Do they have evidence showing that his cell was not located at the house? There are plenty of explanations beyond the easy ones. He may have been there, killed her, dropped his phone somewhere in the house, and called it to find it. It's one thing to call your phone from the murder site. It's another to have the police find your phone there.
Any which way, it's circumstantial at best. He'd have to be stupid to take advantage of work equipment, plant the router, have it dial out to his cell to "prove" his innocence, and then make the router disappear. Want proof? Make sure you're a good distance away, start a bar fight, resist arrest, and then you have real proof. A sincere apology and no priors will probably get you probation.
Then again, none of us have all the evidence presented. They may have an air tight case. Using this circumstantial crap really makes it seem that they don't have any real evidence. If they had the murder weapon, her hair in the trunk of his car, his tire tracks at the dump site, and neighbors saying that he carried out "something large" at the time of the disappearance would be more damning than the circumstantial fiction.
Oh ok.
Wait.. wait a minute .. You're saying there is life outside of the greater Los Angeles / San Diego area? We were told everyone was dead. Everyone. We were told anything on TV that we saw about the outside world was a dramatization. That whole thing in New York? New Orleans? Haiti? Indonesia? Japan? The hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and earthquakes? The giant comet coming in 2012? That's all real?
Next you're going to tell me the yellow cap we've had on the sky isn't really to protect us from the radiation. Don't tell me it's pollution or something. I don't think we can take any more news like that all at once.
What about the survivors who left Los Angeles to explore to the East? They never came back. We assumed they died in the barren wasteland. Does that mean we can all leave? We can rejoin the world?
The laptop manufacturer is the one directly responsible. You don't sue Bosch for a new car because your fuel injectors don't work; TI because a sensor on your motherboard fails; or Charmin because your toilet backs up. They would be directly responsible in each case, but you didn't purchase the item from them. From the article, the laptops were sold by Dell, Apple, and HP. That means that's who you ask for resolution and possibly reimbursement.
You do realize that this was a "low hanging fruit" case. The pockets at Apple, Dell, and HP are far deeper than the ones at nVidia. nVidia could be responsible for the chip, but it really wasn't their duty to reimburse full value on the computer. They didn't build the computer. If I read other comments correctly, the fault was in that the soldier was not correct applied when attaching the nVidia chip to the motherboard. But you can't hit the motherboard manufacturers, because they may be unbranded. In all those manufacturers, I've seen a variety of motherboard manufacturers, including Intel, FoxConn, and Asus. Wouldn't it make more sense to lay the claim on the people who failed to attach the chip correctly? Oh. Those are still deeper pockets than nVidia has.
It was cheap in that he borrowed it from work, and it was never seen again.
That's circumstantial though. It could have been borrowed from his desk by someone else, who installed it somewhere to be found in about a decade. :) Retail value of $4k at Cisco is nothing in comparison to most of their product lines.
Where? I heard everything East of Palm Springs and North of Santa Clarita was destroyed in Y2K.
Well, it is, and isn't.
There are events at closed tracks, including private raceways and superspeedways, where drivers can learn to handle their vehicles in high speed, and extremely accurate maneuvering. In the ones I've attended, you are *required* to race in the lowest class the first session (the first weekend of racing). That class usually includes an instructor who rides with you, and teaches you how to manage your vehicle. Once you show proficiency, you can move up in the classes, but it takes several sessions to end up in the higher classes. That's interesting is that even with multiple cars on the tracks, everyone follows the rules and they rarely have accidents. The worst "accident" I've seen are rubbing a wall or spinning off to the infield. If you pay attention when driving on a highway, you'll see evidence of the same things happening in real life. K-rails have tire marks half way up them. Grassy medians have tire tracks where someone spun. And people like to blame blow-outs for such events, but since I've had a few high speed mechanical failures (complete tread separation, or loss of tire pressure), I know they're perfectly manageable events.
Here's a few groups that have events open to the public, that don't generally require specialized race cars. There are others, that's just a sampling.
http://www.myautoevents.com/
http://www.hookedondriving.com/
http://www.drivenasafl.com/
http://www.drivepetty.com/
Learning how to handle your car better in various conditions is a very good thing. most drivers were never taught how to corner, brake efficiently, and have never been on a skid pad.
No one ever said natural selection was fair to everyone.
It's not fair if an idiot leads a bear back to camp who eats everyone in their sleep. Natural selection made us taste like meat. :)
There are plenty of better drivers than me. There are plenty of better cars than mine.
The laws should be scaled. As they are now, they're written for the lowest common user, but then adjusted up a little bit. Who knows, if such a plan were put into place, I may not ever get the highest classes of licensing. At very least, it would prevent those who themselves or their vehicles, shouldn't be on the road, or driven too fast.
Let me introduce you to a wonderful concept known as disinformation.
If you say almost nothing, and what you say is factual, but let the occasional secret slip, it can be presumed to be true.
If you say a lot, and most of it is fiction, but the occasional fact slips in, it can be presumed to be false.
Sometimes it puts you in a much stronger position to build up your fantasy online persona. It leaves people with lots and lots of information to sift through. The chances of them believing the leaked facts are slimmer than them believing the copious amounts of disinformation.
This message was sent from an unofficial DoD facility under an unnamed mountain somewhere in the American Southwest. :)
From what I read, that was one of the dead giveaways. A million dollar house with no phones or Internet service. I would have suspected it for a grow house though. :)
You're right. But >99% of the people out there are dumb, and when there's a question asked, they'll answer it.
Some of us blatantly lie. Well, unless people should believe that I live just outside the gates of Area 51, and I work for a secret division of O2STK. Let me give you a ride in my black van, to my unmarked silent black helicopter. I promise you'll make it home in one piece. :)
It can be fun though. Have you ever changed your high school to some random school, and then friended everyone who went to it? Guess what. Most of them will friend you, and give you enough conversation fodder to hold conversations with others that actually went there. After 20-some years, no one remembers everyone they went to school with, so it's pretty easy. It's kind of like party crashing the high school reunion, except you don't have to go anywhere, and the prank lasts an awful lot longer.
Think a little harder about this too..
This was a class action suit against *NVIDIA*, not the laptop manufacturer. Do you sue Kenmore for the full value of your house because your stove doesn't work, or Kwikset because someone broke into your house?
This whole case was mistargeted. It should have been the class versus the manufacturers who sold the laptops, who could have in turn sued nVidia for their loses.
But hey, if this is the way it works, I'm going to sue Seagate for a new computer next time I have a drive failure. Whoohoo, free computers for life!
Well, your logic is flawed. Rather than arguing if the $12,000 Hyundai is ok, consider what you're really asking for. You want a new $50,000 truck to replace your 4 1/2 year old truck.
No, I would not be happy. And no, I would not buy from them again.
But whens the last time you heard of a manufacturer handing over new cars for old cars just because there was a flaw with it. Think hard. Cite a case for me that matches, and I'll be very very impressed.
Nope, not 1960's. It was passed into law in 1956. The fastest American production car would do a whopping 105 (theoretical max speed). And, I couldn't find where it said 120. I'm pretty sure he either pulled that out of thin air, or heard it from someone who heard it from someone who said it on Fox News. :)
Over the years, I've had conversations with people exactly on this. I've seen a few common conclusions on how it could work.
We'll start with this. I've spent a good amount of time racing (legal, of course). I've had plenty of hours behind the wheel at over 100mph.
My primary car is speed limited at the factory to 165mph. I only use tires rated at 168 mph (W) or 186 mph (Y). I purchase those for the traction quality (too much power for lower traction tires).
My secondary vehicle probably has a top speed around 120. It has truck tires rated at 118 mph (T). It's intended purpose is to move things (i.e., it's a truck), not to drive fast.
1) License plates would be color coded for the max speed permitted.
2) The maximum safe operating speed would be determined by the vehicle.
3) Higher speed vehicles would require semiannual full safety inspections. Worn brakes, tires, or other equipment can lower it to a lower class, or forbid it from operation. And no, we can't trust drivers to do that now.
4) Drivers would be required to prove proficiency to drive higher speed vehicles.
5) All drivers would be retested to show proficiency biennially.
6) A driver licensed for higher speeds may operate a vehicle under their rated class, but no driver may operate a vehicle above their rated class.
7) Enforcement of safety laws (give way to faster traffic, stop for emergency vehicles passing, etc) should be increased. I've *never* known anyone to get a ticket for passing on the right, or failing to yield to faster vehicles, although both laws are on the books in every state I've checked.
8) Enforcement of speed limits would be focused on drivers attempting to drive beyond their rating.
9) Speed limits would be ranged by performance. To a degree I've seen this is some states. They'll have a speed limit for trucks, buses, and any vehicle with trailers, versus any other vehicles. So cars may do 80mph, while trucks can do 65mph.
I probably missed a few points, but those were the big ones discussed. It'll never happen though. At least not here in America, where traffic fines make up a huge part of most cities budgets.
The US interstate highway system was passed in 1956 as the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956", also known as "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956".
It does not reference 120mph speeds. It does reference the defense of the United States, being able to move the military from Point A to Point B rapidly. That is what it was built for. Allowing civilians to travel at higher speeds without limitations such as stop lights is just an added benefit.
I seriously doubt anyone considered a 120 mph design spec. In 1956, the fastest production car in America was the 1956 Buick Century Riviera Hardtop. It's "cruise" speed was 70mph, with a top speed around 105mph. At cruise, it would get about 10mpg. For the most part, I wouldn't want to see that car doing 100mph anywhere. I'm not considering customized hot rods for this conversation. The military wasn't moving anyone around in them.
The roads have improved, as has automotive technology. Drivers are still the weak point. That isn't that I don't agree that we *should* have highways that allow such higher speeds. I do, but there should be serious restrictions on the vehicles and drivers on such highways. The Autobahn is a wonderful example of it. They also have severe restrictions, down to driver behavior. Slower cars MUST give way to faster cars. There is absolutely no passing on the right side. Drivers must be trained in first aid, and are obliged to stop and help in the event of an accident. Tires on the vehicle must be rated for the top speed of the car, or the vehicle marked with the rated tire speed.
Myself, I wouldn't mind 120mph speed limits for my own driving. I know both my primary car and I can handle it. My secondary vehicle may be good up to 100, but I doubt it'll ever go that fast. I've seen too many people driving that can't handle 65mph safely. Even with a 65mph speed limit, I've seen too many people behaving poorly. Maybe if they increased the speed limits to 120, natural selection could take its course. People need to realize, speed limits aren't how fast you're suppose to drive, it's how fast you're allowed to drive. There are circumstances when it's not safe to drive fast (i.e., heavy fog, rain, or through traffic where others are doing 20mph).
You know, you're absolutely right. I think this should be applied to everything. If it's bad, I want it replaced years later with one of equal specifications and original price.
If I bought a house 3 years ago, and found they used Chinese drywall, I should be given a new house of equal qualities and price. If I bought a new car with a later discovered fault, I want another new car.
Oh.. That's not how it works in the real world. We don't dumb luck into getting a free upgrade years later just because we wanted one. If their computer had such a tragic flaw with it, why wasn't it returned for a full refund?
Have you been to a retail electronics store lately? Or shopped online? The Compaq name never went away, it was moved to be the entry/low end computers, while HP reserves their name for the higher end.
They recognized that the average consumer had brand recognition for the name "Compaq". Some had been using the same machine for 5 years and knew it was reliable (ok, for those that it remained reliable). Some had friends of friends who were happy with theirs, and they generally stayed in the range where most consumers could afford to buy the item out of pocket.
One of my favorite quotes is...
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
- Robert A. Heinlein
When flying, I do pay attention to where the exits are. I also go beyond that, and look at where my "assets" are in the event of an emergency. Who looks strong and can follow instructions. It doesn't matter if it's a hijacking, or a plane crash, you will likely need those assets. And ya, the guy who feels it's appropriate to put his laptop on his lap, and bag at his feet, it's still wrong.
I was berated by a flight attendant for having "luggage" on my feet. Turned out it was just my jacket, while I was buckling my seatbelt. Once she saw that's all it was, she was fine with it. I was in snow country, so if we had a failed aborted takeoff (i.e., plane runs off the runway), having my jacket in hand would be nice. I learned in boot camp, sleeping in your underwear may be comfortable until they call a fire drill in the middle of the night when it's around freezing outside. I fell for it once. From then on, I slept dressed. Oddly enough, I was one of few who figured it out. About 2% of the platoon prepared. The rest froze their asses off.
My seatbelt stays buckled from before we push off, until after the jet bridge is in place. My cell is firmly on my hip, and my ID is in my pocket. The only time it comes off is if I have to use the restroom, which I usually take care of before boarding.
I plan ahead. Most don't. Oddly enough, in a disaster, people look to a leader, and in something like an aircraft incident, the implied leaders (flight crew) may not be available. The front of an aircraft may be the least survivable location, depending on the incident. I don't want to be the leader, but a group of survivors will need one or there will be chaos.
If I remember right, my mistaken belief on the location of the FDR(s) was from a few 1980's news reports... So, a bit dated. Back then, the news was filled with them, and they always had "experts" who would babble on about anything, to fill the airtime.
When I fly, I remember the statistics that I have gathered from flights I've been on. 75% take off on time. 98% have the expected flight duration, and 100% have landed in one piece. Screw the FDR, I want the plane to land in one piece (*AND* get to the gate in one piece). I was just flying a couple days ago. We were at the gate, but the jet bridge had not bee completely put in place. I thought about the above video, as I reached for my seatbelt. "Hmmmm, maybe I should leave my seatbelt on."
It seems the Airbus A330 uses either a SSD or tape for storage. They also have a "Quick Access Recorder".
I only found this, because I was under the impression that most aircraft used two FDRs, once in the front, one in the rear, to help assure survival of the data in the event of a nasty catastrophic incident (i.e., very hot fire on part of an aircraft that has broken up upon intersection of the flight path and the surrounding terrain). It appears that is a mistaken belief.
Now all I can say is the missing data is a conspiracy. It must be the undersea aliens. :)
Thank you. Now it makes more sense. Well, at least the shredding versus melting. Since the unit they're using did not appear to be too large, all it would require is a soundproof room, or a room separate from the offices. One site I did work at had us dispose of our trash ourselves. So we'd tote all the shipping boxes and miscellaneous trash down to the basement, where they had 3 compactors. One was for paper and cardboard. Another was for plastics. The third was for other trash. They were big and noisy, but being in the basement, the noise didn't disturb anyone. That was contained in the "secure" area of the datacenter, behind the mantraps, and ID checkpoints at the entrances.
I knew someone in the IT recycling business. They had some big customers interested in security, such as the DoD. They had a machine much larger than the one shown, which would shred anything put into it. The guarantee was that every piece that came out would have no dimension larger than 0.25 inches.
They sold this mixed scrap metal to other companies who had methods for sorting the various metals out, and then they were paid based on the total metals. This included sending off electronics for their precious metals. They made some good money from the precious metals contained within the electronics, although they were impractical to separate on a small scale.
I didn't quite get the Google demonstration on their destruction of a drive. First they wipe it, verify it's wiped, bend the plates, and then shred it? Why? It would save a lot of time and manpower to just shred them.
I work for a company now that is under strict guidelines, both by contracts with 3rd parties and federal law. There are stacks of old unserviceable hard drives (don't work, and are generally under 40GB). are currently kept in a safe. The agreement I've come to with everyone is that we will be melting them down. A little (say 5 pounds) of home-brew thermite, and we'll have a nice chunk of molten metal to give to a recycler. If done properly, you wouldn't recognize any piece of it as being a drive when we're done. Good luck trying to recover from *that*. :)
Since the DTV abortion, lots of people have horrible times getting "broadcast" stations in. We'll use myself and my friends as an example. I'm only mentioning friends as I was the one helping them try to get set up.
At 4 different residences, within 20 miles of the center of the metro area, analog broadcasts were strong on local stations. In practice, you could go about 75 to 100 miles out, and still get excellent reception. At 75 to 100 miles, you needed a TV tower. 50' usually did fine.
Now, at the residences within 20 miles, even when you know the tower is within just a few miles (visually identified the tower, and verified the registration for broadcasting the stations in question) , it's really hit and miss. In the spot I'm sitting right now, we could easily pick up 8 to 10 analog stations, with no audio disruption and no visible errors (i.e., snow), even with cheap rabbit ear antenna. Now since the DTV move, we get the sideband/subchannel broadcast of a TV station's 24 hour weather, and a Christian broadcasting station about 60 miles away. If we're lucky, we'll receive a few seconds at a time of usable signal, and the rest is too weak. It manifests itself as frozen blocks on the screen, which I'm sure anyone still trying to use broadcast TV is seeing.
And then you wonder, "Why did they push this on us?".
TV went from a novelty rebroadcast of radio with pictures, to a corporation driven marathon of "who can get the most viewers" and "who can sell the most ad spots". TV also became a public safety matter, getting information out to the general public quickly, through EBS alerts (severe weather, natural disasters, civil unrest, etc). Where I am, growing up about 75 miles from where I am now, we would get EBS weather notices almost daily during the summer, warning of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. They provided evacuation information to anyone with a TV and a cheap antenna, so they would be able to know what to do.
Then the money concerns.
Broadcasters couldn't identify precisely what their viewership was, except with a few services including Nielsen. Those were just approximations based on a sample group, and extrapolated to the entire broadcast area. Saying there are 10 million people in a broadcast area, and 10% of the sample group reports watching a show doesn't mean that you really have 1 million people watching the show.
The advertisers wanted to know what they were buying. The stations wanted to make sure they capitalized everything they could. And of course, the cable companies wouldn't mind gaining viewers in the least. Broadcast stations don't lose out on that deal. They are paid by the cable companies to rebroadcast their copyrighted materials. The old analogue cable converters are almost completely out of use, and cable users have digital boxes which report back what show is being viewed. On top of that, DVRs are kind enough to report back when someone is time-shifting the shows, what ads they're skipping, and which shows they're watching repeatedly. They're all datapoints that guide the stations in what they should show to monetize their product.
DTV doesn't report back to the station who's watching what. But, with the pathetic service of DTV, you have two choices. If you're lucky, watch a few channels some of the time, or get cable service.
This wasn't a strictly broadcast encouraged change. While, yes, you can get a better picture, if you happen to be in the sweet spot of service. Manufacturers now had a way to encourage people to buy new hardware. (TV). For anyone with money to buy a new TV, they looked at their choices. Spent $100 for a digital to analog converter. Spend $100 on a new crappy TV that supports digital TV. or switch over to cable. Oh, you're getting cable. You ought to take advantage of the HiDef channels. To do that, you need the better TV.
You'd usually want to use "convert" in front of that, although it looks like they're supporting it without now, at least for some functions.
I use it a lot, because I work with people of different backgrounds. I may have a rough guess at some things, but the familiarity simply isn't there. I got pretty good at judging kilometers, and kph when driving around foreign countries. Still, because the USA doesn't measure in kilometers, it's easier for me to do miles in my head. 60mph is one mile every 60 seconds, so if my GPS says it's 1.5 miles, I have 60 seconds to get into the proper lane without upsetting anyone. That is the main reason I use my GPS. Everything looks the same where I live, so I need that accurate measure to warn me.
If the USA finally switch o the metric system, I'd adjust in about a week (the same time it took for me to adjust to driving in foreign countries. I'd suspect most people would adjust just about as fast.
Then again, I have become used to both systems. I was discussing the temperature with someone a cold state. She said her thermometer read 7C. I said it was about 40F. I was cold enough for us both to say it was cold. :)