Additionally it appears that Louisiana should have been "high on the list of FEMA's biggest disaster mitigation grant program" but received nothing. Here's the article that states this: http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-2 8/cover_story2.html
The article states that the reason Jefferson Parish' potentially high ranking was because it has a disproportionate number of "repetitive loss structures." Those are structures that have suffered flood damage two or more times over a 10-year period and the cost to repair the structure equals or exceeds 25 percent of its market value. This means that the issue being discussed in the article was general flooding due to rain and rising rivers, not levee breaks. Specifically they are talking about areas that have been flooded 2 or more times... which indicates a flood prone area (no surprise considering it's on the delta and below sea level in some places). My point is this article has nothing to do with the levee disaster.
At the end of the article we find this statement:
One possible reason for the non-selection, Rodrigue hypothesizes, was that early in 2004, FEMA auditors discovered that a private consultant hired by the state to administer FEMA money had misallocated funds in Slidell, Mandeville and other places in St. Tammany Parish. "I think it was connected to the fact that there was an ongoing investigation," Rodrigue says, although he noted that other parishes, including Jefferson, were audited by both FEMA and the state during the investigation and came out clean.
So the alleged city government corruption that we've heard about seems to have caused some problems w/ New Orleans getting money. Which it should have... if the local government was improperly allocating the funds we should not continue to give them money until the issue can be properly investigated and we can ensure they are using the funds correctly. Point is, the local government seemed to contribute to their own inability to get the funds... again this is irrelevent because the agument for them to get the money in first place had to do w/ basic flooding, not levee breaks.
The first article... is troubling. I read it and I'm left wondering if money would have solved the problem or not. What would the impact of the proposed projects truly have been? Do we know (considering they wanted to do a 4 year study to even determine how to protect New Orleans)? When would the projects have been completed? Does raising levees really solve the problem. I'm not a structural engineer but I would expect that the point of raising levees is to withstand higher water levels... not keep the levees from breaking Why did we know about this since the 1960s, and then only start acting when 6 people died in a flood in 1995? It is troubling though.
It makes me wonder about why we even let the federal government pay for this kind of stuff? I mean... why shouldn't we reduce federal taxes in order to allow states to raise their taxes as needed to fund the projects that are important to the states? People would have far more control over how the money was spent b/c it would be their local politicians they were dealing with and corruption may be held in check better than it is now because people would care if every dollar wasted was a dollar they paid out in taxes (as opposed to the current system where taxes are paid by all 50 states and dispersed out in projects to the various states).
Anyways, the articles are interesting, the picture is a lame argument (too easily forged, show me real dated proof, and a presidential schedule... and at best all it is says is the President is disengenous... doesn't mean he's doing a bad job).
Hum... if one species could get another species to willingly do what they wanted them too w/o violence... which species would you say is more advanced?
I was really becoming concerned that Google may have gone into bankruptcy... without the unending stream of daily Google articles to reassure me of the companies present, future, and hypothetical activities.
Sir, it is highly unlikely that chickens will ever roost in the Arctic or Antarctic. Not only could they not withstand the extreme climate they do not have the ability to fly the hundreds of miles over open ocean that would be required to make it to either of those regions. Furthermore chickens are not indigenous to either the Arctic or the Antarctic so they would never "come home" to roost as neither of those regions could be properly called "The Home of Chickens". Your science, sir, is all a shambles. Disgraceful... disgraceful.
CEOs of huge corporations usually make decisions like this based on the 20,000 foot view. They just see the large objects, not the details.
So, if he sees more articles in magazines talking about Linux being insecure (right or wrong) and at the same time he sees that software companies say they are "addressing the threat" he decides that Linux isn't good enough anymore.
So you're saying that the decision to use Linux was well thought out and planned, and wasn't the result of the CEO reading articles a couple years ago about how Linux was growing and taking over the enterprise and could save tons of money. But the move off of Linux was just some rash decision. Humm... so when you have no real information about the drivers behind a decisions you just assume that decisions you like are well thought out and decisions you don't like aren't. Right... I'm with you.
Q: What's the difference between maggots and Linux zealots?
A: Maggots love open sores.
To the moderators: This post could be considered to be Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, or Offensive. Please moderate +1 Funny... understanding that we all need to laugh at ourselves and few bad puns ever once in awhile
A dark vision of the future unfolds... as robotic penguins are armed with weapons and tools to build and defend a base on the moon. A bug in the AI software and unforseen consequences of an intense solar radiation storm disrupts the communication between the moon base and NASA's Earth-based monitoring station and changes the course of human history forever... when communication is restored the penguin robots have become autonomous... they begin mining the moon, and replicating themselves... in six months time they have developed a craft to return them to Earth... and then... the hoardes descend on the helpless planet...
March of the Penguins II: The Reckoning (only in Theaters - Summer 2008)
Disregard the parent post. The author is a "known" Linux shill. She'll often post comments bashing MS and anything that paints Linux in a bad light. She'll frequently use ad hominem attacks to attempt to discredit articles posted by those who don't agree with her viewpoints.
How can you debate a point when you must rely on ad hominem?
Despite the fact that her posts are horribly inaccurate she whores for a lot of karma by pandering to the Linux zealots on/. And who is to blame her... after all her post was modded "Informative".
You're right... I should have recognized the fact that he said 'In the end' and just called him out for being a Microsoft bashing zealot who apparently forgot that Linux continues to show gains in the server market, the WMA/WMV has not displaced MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, that the XBox still apparently has to compete aggressively with the Sony Playstation and Nintendo, that MSN is not the only provider of content, mail, instant messangers, Firefox is growing in the browsers pace, etc. Despite the fact that Microsoft still dominates the desktop and the browser wars... MS doesn't categorically reduce the amount of choice in any market they entire (even if that is their intention).
So my argument was stupid and incorrect and his general point was just a bunch of mindless incorrect rhetoric.
but in the end all MS every does is reduce choice Before announcement
Skype
Google Talk (speculation)
Total of 2 potential choices. After announcement
Skype
Google Talk (speculation)
Microsoft's product (to be released)
Total of 3 potential choices. I don't have a degree in advanced mathematics, but it appears that the # of choices has actually increased after Microsoft's announcment.
It is funny though that the con(ned)sumers are still swayed by the MS name. I have heard people in shops debating over buying a mouse for instance and plumped for the MS one because it was Microsoft and therefore would be compatible with their PC.
This is called a brand name. Microsoft certifies Windows compatibility for competing vendors hardware and software. They make no claims that only their hardware or software works on Windows. They have these shiney little decals that indicated that Logitech mice work w/ Windows. Your example only shows that Microsoft has a recognizeable brand name and that consumers seek it out. It seems like consumers are CHOOSING to use Microsoft products.
Space Daily reports that University of Toronto researchers are working on a project that could replace conventional satellites with a miniature version no larger than a milk carton
Silly hosers, everyone knows that Canadians get their milk from a bag not a carton, eh.
Add Jeff Goldblum, a veritabl human wasteland, a waste of flesh and air, to the movie and you'll drive people away from the movies faster than an unsuspecting/.er learning about the goatse troll for the first time. People will begin to read again.
I run an Windows 2003 server behind a simple NAT/firewalled router. I only run spyware protection (from Microsoft). I've been running this box for over 1 year. I have NEVER had a virus, trojan, spyware, etc. I use the Internet from this box (typing this now), connect to my local LAN & Wi-Fi network, run Office, run several freeware Windows Apps, etc.
You're an ignorant wretch and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.
IBM is running its new 90-nm microelectronics fab (in Fishkill, NY) entirely on Linux. So if it's feasible for a plant of that complexity, it should be feasible for a small assembly plant such as Zen Creative's.
Feasible, yes, cost effective or prudent... not necessarily. All the IBM example shows is that IBM, a company with a vast wealth of Linux resources, has invested their energies in creating a production process based on Linux for one of their most costly and complex environments. For a simple production process the cost in developing the Linux solution may not outweigh the benefits of alternative solutions. Also, that cost of development of the solution may become prohibitive if a wealth of expert Linux admins and developers is needed to develop and maintain the solution. Then again... maybe not.
The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative.
I suspect better security management, particularly isolation of their Windows boxes involved in the production process, should substantially reduce the risk of this happening again.
Everyone come down out of their ivory towers and quit trumpeting how great they are for pointing out yet another reason why Google ain't the bees knees. Climb down out of your ivory towers and take a nice dose of reality.
Incremental improvements are a good thing - Starting w/ the absolute minimum feature set and building on it, all along making sure it works as advertised is a sound strategy. This approach allows you to continuously improve the software, and focus on addressing the issues that arise with the current feature set in a manageable way instead of having to address a mass of problems from all of the half-assed features you had to squeeze in because you had to have all of the bells, whistles, and even legit features. A frequent improvement/release cycle is a common practice for open source software products and Google is adopting a similar approach for its service.
You can't simulate this kind of load accurately - Sure you can run computer models of how the traffic load will behave and how the infrastructure will handle it, but you really don't know how it's going to work until you start putting some real user load on the system. By limiting the feature set, and in particular limiting inter-server communications you naturally limit the amount of load on the system. The users aren't going to switch completely from their current service to GTalk all in one day... so as traffic builds they can adjust the service settings, tweak the servers, do whatever to make sure they can continue to provide a quality service. And back to point #1... once you have a good understanding of the traffic patterns and capacity you can begin introducing new features that may change those patterns in a controlled way.
You can't predict how people will abuse the system - By limiting the feature set Google can better ensure that the system is not seriously abused by individuals who would want to use the system in a way that would annoy/harm the general user population or impact system performance. Connecting to other servers is a risky proposition that deserves careful attention and control to ensure that it works correctly. If Google make a misstep here and allows spammers to spam all of their users, and virii to spread across their system, and poorly managed Jabber servers to cause their messages to not reach their intended destinations you'll have a system that most people wouldn't want to trouble themselves with using. Google can start by controlling the environment while providing a base set of services... and then expand in a way that they can monitor and control to ensure that service is not impacted.
Get real feedback from real users - Instead of dreaming up a hundred things users probably want and squabbling over them internally, why not just release a base product that people will use and get direct feedback from them on what they want. This is what Google has setup... now they can ask their users do you want to jabber w/ other non-GTalk servers? Do you want more emoticons? What about real voice call capabilities? What about being able to search your conversations? What about... The point is let the users help direct the next round of development instead of spending a lot of time developing features for people who don't use the product.
Protect the service the customers want - The underlying principle behind all of this is that you have customers who want a service. The way to attract and keep those customers is by offering them a service they want and that works. Google has started by offering GTalk to a group of users. They'll hone the system, make sure it works, and if it meets their objectives and draws in customers they'll continue to expand on it's feature set in a way that keeps their customers from moving to some other service and continues to attract other customers... all the while being very careful not to make the service unstable or give something to their customers only to have to take it away (premature release of poorly test
Google is a company, people, it runs off money, not fanaticism.
Just think if someone did actually invent an engine that ran off of fanaticism... my goodness... you could power everything on the planet by simply hooking it up to/.
34. You think the reason your co-workers don't want to hear about your Linux hacking stories every morning is because they're idiots and don't understand real technology. In fact it's because you've elected to continue tweaking your Gentoo box each morning for the past 4 days instead of bathing. You smell.
once it warmed up it just vanished from the system...
Yeah, this has to do with the MTC (mean temperature control) settings in the drive. The MTC monitors the average temperature of the drive and adjusts the speed of the drive as the temperature increases or decreases. The point is that at certain high temperature the drive components can actually expand (ever so slightly) and cause friction and physical damage to the drive. When the MTC begins to malfunction it detects the temperature incorrectly and stops the drive at temperatures that will not cause damage. So, the freezer's low temperature, for some reason, can cause the MTC to reset and thereby cause the drive to continue working. This effect may be temporary or relatively permanent. Although once this has occoured you're highly encouraged to purchase a new drive. The MTC is not user serviceable.
"Torvalds explained that a company could decide not to sublicense and call their product "anything MyLinux but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter."
It's all about whether someone wants or need protection
Torvalds later went on to say that "it's a dangerous world out there. You know if you don't buy some protection from me things could happen. You might fall and break your legs, or maybe your house catches fire. Dangerous times."
What an obscure and insightful reference. Great post.
An interesting quote from the wikipedia article you cited:
"[Simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker." [4]
RTFA. The Russian scientists believe the increasei n global temperature is due to sun spot activities, not human activities... unless we're causing the sun spots!! OMGWTFLOLBBQ
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally it appears that Louisiana should have been "high on the list of FEMA's biggest disaster mitigation grant program" but received nothing. Here's the article that states this: http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-2 8/cover_story2.html
The article states that the reason Jefferson Parish' potentially high ranking was because it has a disproportionate number of "repetitive loss structures." Those are structures that have suffered flood damage two or more times over a 10-year period and the cost to repair the structure equals or exceeds 25 percent of its market value. This means that the issue being discussed in the article was general flooding due to rain and rising rivers, not levee breaks. Specifically they are talking about areas that have been flooded 2 or more times... which indicates a flood prone area (no surprise considering it's on the delta and below sea level in some places). My point is this article has nothing to do with the levee disaster.
At the end of the article we find this statement:
One possible reason for the non-selection, Rodrigue hypothesizes, was that early in 2004, FEMA auditors discovered that a private consultant hired by the state to administer FEMA money had misallocated funds in Slidell, Mandeville and other places in St. Tammany Parish. "I think it was connected to the fact that there was an ongoing investigation," Rodrigue says, although he noted that other parishes, including Jefferson, were audited by both FEMA and the state during the investigation and came out clean.
So the alleged city government corruption that we've heard about seems to have caused some problems w/ New Orleans getting money. Which it should have... if the local government was improperly allocating the funds we should not continue to give them money until the issue can be properly investigated and we can ensure they are using the funds correctly. Point is, the local government seemed to contribute to their own inability to get the funds... again this is irrelevent because the agument for them to get the money in first place had to do w/ basic flooding, not levee breaks.
The first article... is troubling. I read it and I'm left wondering if money would have solved the problem or not. What would the impact of the proposed projects truly have been? Do we know (considering they wanted to do a 4 year study to even determine how to protect New Orleans)? When would the projects have been completed? Does raising levees really solve the problem. I'm not a structural engineer but I would expect that the point of raising levees is to withstand higher water levels... not keep the levees from breaking Why did we know about this since the 1960s, and then only start acting when 6 people died in a flood in 1995? It is troubling though.
It makes me wonder about why we even let the federal government pay for this kind of stuff? I mean... why shouldn't we reduce federal taxes in order to allow states to raise their taxes as needed to fund the projects that are important to the states? People would have far more control over how the money was spent b/c it would be their local politicians they were dealing with and corruption may be held in check better than it is now because people would care if every dollar wasted was a dollar they paid out in taxes (as opposed to the current system where taxes are paid by all 50 states and dispersed out in projects to the various states).
Anyways, the articles are interesting, the picture is a lame argument (too easily forged, show me real dated proof, and a presidential schedule... and at best all it is says is the President is disengenous... doesn't mean he's doing a bad job).
Hum... I do believe we've found a thinking man in the midst of the mob.
Great post.
Hum... if one species could get another species to willingly do what they wanted them too w/o violence... which species would you say is more advanced?
I was really becoming concerned that Google may have gone into bankruptcy... without the unending stream of daily Google articles to reassure me of the companies present, future, and hypothetical activities.
the chickens will come home to roost.
Sir, it is highly unlikely that chickens will ever roost in the Arctic or Antarctic. Not only could they not withstand the extreme climate they do not have the ability to fly the hundreds of miles over open ocean that would be required to make it to either of those regions. Furthermore chickens are not indigenous to either the Arctic or the Antarctic so they would never "come home" to roost as neither of those regions could be properly called "The Home of Chickens". Your science, sir, is all a shambles. Disgraceful... disgraceful.
CEOs of huge corporations usually make decisions like this based on the 20,000 foot view. They just see the large objects, not the details.
So, if he sees more articles in magazines talking about Linux being insecure (right or wrong) and at the same time he sees that software companies say they are "addressing the threat" he decides that Linux isn't good enough anymore.
So you're saying that the decision to use Linux was well thought out and planned, and wasn't the result of the CEO reading articles a couple years ago about how Linux was growing and taking over the enterprise and could save tons of money. But the move off of Linux was just some rash decision. Humm... so when you have no real information about the drivers behind a decisions you just assume that decisions you like are well thought out and decisions you don't like aren't. Right... I'm with you.
Q: What's the difference between maggots and Linux zealots?
A: Maggots love open sores.
To the moderators: This post could be considered to be Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, or Offensive. Please moderate +1 Funny... understanding that we all need to laugh at ourselves and few bad puns ever once in awhile
A dark vision of the future unfolds... as robotic penguins are armed with weapons and tools to build and defend a base on the moon. A bug in the AI software and unforseen consequences of an intense solar radiation storm disrupts the communication between the moon base and NASA's Earth-based monitoring station and changes the course of human history forever... when communication is restored the penguin robots have become autonomous... they begin mining the moon, and replicating themselves... in six months time they have developed a craft to return them to Earth... and then... the hoardes descend on the helpless planet...
March of the Penguins II: The Reckoning (only in Theaters - Summer 2008)
Disregard the parent post. The author is a "known" Linux shill. She'll often post comments bashing MS and anything that paints Linux in a bad light. She'll frequently use ad hominem attacks to attempt to discredit articles posted by those who don't agree with her viewpoints.
/. And who is to blame her... after all her post was modded "Informative".
How can you debate a point when you must rely on ad hominem?
Despite the fact that her posts are horribly inaccurate she whores for a lot of karma by pandering to the Linux zealots on
You're right... I should have recognized the fact that he said 'In the end' and just called him out for being a Microsoft bashing zealot who apparently forgot that Linux continues to show gains in the server market, the WMA/WMV has not displaced MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, that the XBox still apparently has to compete aggressively with the Sony Playstation and Nintendo, that MSN is not the only provider of content, mail, instant messangers, Firefox is growing in the browsers pace, etc. Despite the fact that Microsoft still dominates the desktop and the browser wars... MS doesn't categorically reduce the amount of choice in any market they entire (even if that is their intention).
So my argument was stupid and incorrect and his general point was just a bunch of mindless incorrect rhetoric.
Before announcement
Total of 2 potential choices.
After announcement
Total of 3 potential choices. I don't have a degree in advanced mathematics, but it appears that the # of choices has actually increased after Microsoft's announcment.
It is funny though that the con(ned)sumers are still swayed by the MS name. I have heard people in shops debating over buying a mouse for instance and plumped for the MS one because it was Microsoft and therefore would be compatible with their PC.
This is called a brand name. Microsoft certifies Windows compatibility for competing vendors hardware and software. They make no claims that only their hardware or software works on Windows. They have these shiney little decals that indicated that Logitech mice work w/ Windows. Your example only shows that Microsoft has a recognizeable brand name and that consumers seek it out. It seems like consumers are CHOOSING to use Microsoft products.
Space Daily reports that University of Toronto researchers are working on a project that could replace conventional satellites with a miniature version no larger than a milk carton
Silly hosers, everyone knows that Canadians get their milk from a bag not a carton, eh.
Add Jeff Goldblum, a veritabl human wasteland, a waste of flesh and air, to the movie and you'll drive people away from the movies faster than an unsuspecting /.er learning about the goatse troll for the first time. People will begin to read again.
Creative was FIRST.
Apple, in collaboration with George Lucas, has released new high-definition digitally enhanced video showing that in-fact Apple was first.
I run an Windows 2003 server behind a simple NAT/firewalled router. I only run spyware protection (from Microsoft). I've been running this box for over 1 year. I have NEVER had a virus, trojan, spyware, etc. I use the Internet from this box (typing this now), connect to my local LAN & Wi-Fi network, run Office, run several freeware Windows Apps, etc.
You're an ignorant wretch and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.
IBM is running its new 90-nm microelectronics fab (in Fishkill, NY) entirely on Linux. So if it's feasible for a plant of that complexity, it should be feasible for a small assembly plant such as Zen Creative's.
Feasible, yes, cost effective or prudent... not necessarily. All the IBM example shows is that IBM, a company with a vast wealth of Linux resources, has invested their energies in creating a production process based on Linux for one of their most costly and complex environments. For a simple production process the cost in developing the Linux solution may not outweigh the benefits of alternative solutions. Also, that cost of development of the solution may become prohibitive if a wealth of expert Linux admins and developers is needed to develop and maintain the solution. Then again... maybe not.
The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative.
I suspect better security management, particularly isolation of their Windows boxes involved in the production process, should substantially reduce the risk of this happening again.
Everyone come down out of their ivory towers and quit trumpeting how great they are for pointing out yet another reason why Google ain't the bees knees. Climb down out of your ivory towers and take a nice dose of reality.
Incremental improvements are a good thing - Starting w/ the absolute minimum feature set and building on it, all along making sure it works as advertised is a sound strategy. This approach allows you to continuously improve the software, and focus on addressing the issues that arise with the current feature set in a manageable way instead of having to address a mass of problems from all of the half-assed features you had to squeeze in because you had to have all of the bells, whistles, and even legit features. A frequent improvement/release cycle is a common practice for open source software products and Google is adopting a similar approach for its service.
You can't simulate this kind of load accurately - Sure you can run computer models of how the traffic load will behave and how the infrastructure will handle it, but you really don't know how it's going to work until you start putting some real user load on the system. By limiting the feature set, and in particular limiting inter-server communications you naturally limit the amount of load on the system. The users aren't going to switch completely from their current service to GTalk all in one day... so as traffic builds they can adjust the service settings, tweak the servers, do whatever to make sure they can continue to provide a quality service. And back to point #1... once you have a good understanding of the traffic patterns and capacity you can begin introducing new features that may change those patterns in a controlled way.
You can't predict how people will abuse the system - By limiting the feature set Google can better ensure that the system is not seriously abused by individuals who would want to use the system in a way that would annoy/harm the general user population or impact system performance. Connecting to other servers is a risky proposition that deserves careful attention and control to ensure that it works correctly. If Google make a misstep here and allows spammers to spam all of their users, and virii to spread across their system, and poorly managed Jabber servers to cause their messages to not reach their intended destinations you'll have a system that most people wouldn't want to trouble themselves with using. Google can start by controlling the environment while providing a base set of services... and then expand in a way that they can monitor and control to ensure that service is not impacted.
Get real feedback from real users - Instead of dreaming up a hundred things users probably want and squabbling over them internally, why not just release a base product that people will use and get direct feedback from them on what they want. This is what Google has setup... now they can ask their users do you want to jabber w/ other non-GTalk servers? Do you want more emoticons? What about real voice call capabilities? What about being able to search your conversations? What about... The point is let the users help direct the next round of development instead of spending a lot of time developing features for people who don't use the product.
Protect the service the customers want - The underlying principle behind all of this is that you have customers who want a service. The way to attract and keep those customers is by offering them a service they want and that works. Google has started by offering GTalk to a group of users. They'll hone the system, make sure it works, and if it meets their objectives and draws in customers they'll continue to expand on it's feature set in a way that keeps their customers from moving to some other service and continues to attract other customers... all the while being very careful not to make the service unstable or give something to their customers only to have to take it away (premature release of poorly test
Google is a company, people, it runs off money, not fanaticism.
/.
Just think if someone did actually invent an engine that ran off of fanaticism... my goodness... you could power everything on the planet by simply hooking it up to
34. You think the reason your co-workers don't want to hear about your Linux hacking stories every morning is because they're idiots and don't understand real technology. In fact it's because you've elected to continue tweaking your Gentoo box each morning for the past 4 days instead of bathing. You smell.
once it warmed up it just vanished from the system...
Yeah, this has to do with the MTC (mean temperature control) settings in the drive. The MTC monitors the average temperature of the drive and adjusts the speed of the drive as the temperature increases or decreases. The point is that at certain high temperature the drive components can actually expand (ever so slightly) and cause friction and physical damage to the drive. When the MTC begins to malfunction it detects the temperature incorrectly and stops the drive at temperatures that will not cause damage. So, the freezer's low temperature, for some reason, can cause the MTC to reset and thereby cause the drive to continue working. This effect may be temporary or relatively permanent. Although once this has occoured you're highly encouraged to purchase a new drive. The MTC is not user serviceable.
Can you count the number of gross and avoidable administration mistakes, boys and girls?
Is the answer, one... not running Microsoft Windows?
Bye karma... it was nice to know you.
"Torvalds explained that a company could decide not to sublicense and call their product "anything MyLinux but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter."
It's all about whether someone wants or need protection
Torvalds later went on to say that "it's a dangerous world out there. You know if you don't buy some protection from me things could happen. You might fall and break your legs, or maybe your house catches fire. Dangerous times."
What an obscure and insightful reference. Great post.
An interesting quote from the wikipedia article you cited:
"[Simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker." [4]
Ah, thanks for settling this one for us. If they only would have talked w/ you before they made their bet they could have saved themselves $10,000.
RTFA. The Russian scientists believe the increasei n global temperature is due to sun spot activities, not human activities... unless we're causing the sun spots!! OMGWTFLOLBBQ