We still had a few known compatible drive spares when we ordered the untested ones. On the next drive failure our test WAS to use the new model. When it failed, I used an older spare. And since then, yet another failed (seems to happen in groups). I then when on a rampage buying identical *used* spares off Ebay/etc while we are still trying to get the newer models fixed by Seagate.
>My philosophy with this is always buy the extra drive/s when building the RAID/whatever.
Of course we did that. I had lots of drives. And they got used up. Hard drive models change constantly, it wasn't long before we couldn't buy 36GB 15,000 RPM Cheetah drives anymore.
Linux has something like a 50%+ share or more of the server market. And guess what, dude, most of those have hard drives.
And for total computers- all non-MS-Windows machines adds up to probably more than 15% of all computers. Even if you were WalMart and turned away 15% of your potential customers, you would go out of business.
Oh, it gets better. We purchased two expensive 15,000 RPM SCA drives recently to work as backups for our RAID arrays on our Linux servers. Called Seagate *FIRST* to verify compatibility, as well as with Adaptec. Then a few months later when we needed to use one to replace a failed drive, it would NOT negotiate properly, making it useless.
Hours on the phone with Seagate we FINALLY get confirmation that there is a "firmware problem" with the drives we have and we should "upgrade the firmware". We go through the crap of getting a "key" and being sent the firmware only to find that their self-booting program would not run on our servers. Their suggestion? Find some other SCSI SCA machine just lying around and try it there. WE DON'T HAVE any such machines. We asked if we could mail the expensive, useless drives to them so THEY could upgrade the firmware. The response was "you can send in the drives for exchange, but we can't guarantee the drives sent back will have the firmware you need". This is support?????
And, of course, the Seagate referenced page says: "This can be done in Windows - it's easy! Download and run, or simply run as is, the Seagate Drive Detect software program." No mention of Linux, MacOS, Solaris, or BSD. So I guess there is an implied "If you are not using Windows - it's hard!".
Then later in the page, "you can download SeaTools for Windows" with a convenient link. Again, no mention of Linux, MacOS, Solaris, or BSD.
What they don't tell you is that you can create a self-booting (MS)-DOS floppy/CD so you can test your drive, regardless of your OS (as long as the system is X86). Get it here: http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/seatools/seatooldreg but if you DO need to flash it, you have to contact Seagate via Email and wait for a response and code so you can use yet another program to flash the drive.
>Maybe Wal-Mart customers aren't so bad where you live, but here in Arizona, going to a Wal-Mart is not a fun experience, unless you like...
Trust me, it isn't just Arizona. In Virginia it is the same story. Add to that: 50 checkout lanes of which only 8 or so ever seem to be open, so you have to stand in line listening to the kids screaming for 20+ minutes.
I go to the Target across the street as much as possible- it is a TOTALLY different experience. Clean, quality merchandise, quiet, helpful staff. Unfortunately, they just don't carry everything I need, and Walmart put everyone else out of business. So I wait until I can't any more and then reluctantly go to Walmart (wearing earplugs- I kid you not)
Actually, here, the Best Buy is *far* louder, having more annoying, and more head splitting bass crap constantly to the point I can't even go in the store. I much preferred Circuit City. And the sales help at BB was no better than CC- in fact, usually worse (and fewer). But CC kept dropping the ball- carrying less and less interesting stuff at higher and higher prices. They really needed to carry as much DIFFERENT stuff from BB as possible.
Alas, I will greatly miss them (in their old incarnation), I have parted with many thousands of dollars at Circuit City over the years. Online doesn't cut it. I can't see, hold, feel, hear, or try equipment that is sold on-line.
Amen. I can't STAND anything moving on my screen. I am glad I am not alone. I often have to pick up the browser and place parts of it off the screen to be able to read in peace. Adblock + Flashkiller + turning off animated GIF's is a god-send. Unfortunately, many new websites are somehow are now animating sections of the screen without using Flash or GIF's, and they can't be stopped without disabling Javascript:(
That isn't sharing risk, that is *assigning* risk. The problem with that theory is that it isn't fair.
Example- let's say a study shows that people that drink alcohol have a higher overall risk for health costs. So how does one fairly discriminate for health insurance? You can't. Instead, an application might say "do you drink alcohol?". How do you answer that? "yes"? "sometimes?" "never?". The factors are far too complex to simplify; it depends on your weight, your genetics, the exact amount, the frequency, the history, the alcohol content, your diet, the amount of sleep you get, your future behaviour, and any number of other factors. Since that is impossible to determine, one just gets labeled "a drinker". So everyone who "drinks" has to pay an equally higher rate. This also indirectly gives insurance companies the power to try and change behaviour or run your life. And if such information is shared with employers, you can find it difficult to find a job if they want to keep their rates low. And once that information is shared, it can be interpreted by any number of entities in any way they like, with or without your knowledge, consent, or explanation.
This is just one example of any number of ones one can think of.
The point of insurance is to SHARE risk, not to discriminate. If everyone paid premiums exactly based on perfect knowledge of risk, then everyone would pay exactly what they end up costing.... so there is no point to have insurance in the first place; just open up a savings account (which one should do, anyways).
The problem with discrimination is that it is a slippery slope of what to pick and where to stop. Of course no system is perfect, just something to think about.
One thing to keep in mind... I think any type of genetic testing or screening should be done anonymously. If you test positively for being at risk for any disease, and that information is entered into a computer, there is a risk that information can be used against you later. Insurance companies and employers would love nothing more than to discriminate against people who have POTENTIAL problems. Even worse, a genetic fingerprint can make its way into some security database without your knowledge or consent, making you a possible suspect in any crime where you might have been casually present. Once collected, you can't "undo" such a thing.
The only truly private information is information not collected, or collected anonymously. Such tests should be for YOUR benefit, not the benefit of others.
1) I don't own an SUV and never have 2) I walk to work 3) I already use CFL in all appropriate locations in my home 4) I am not trying to "rationalize" anything
You need an attitude adjustment! If the information I was told by both GE and Phillips is wrong, then please feel free to correct it. I am glad for that, and hope to learn from it.
But comments personally attacking me and cursing is not only unnecessary, but it is childish and severely hurts your credibility. To assume that I am intentionally spreading misinformation or making up what I was told is just wrong.
In any case, with this new information, I will research again and perhaps now *is* the time I can make the change that I have wanted all along.
>>Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones.
>Huh? The switching power supply in good ones are perfectly capable of using the rated wattage which is way less than the equivalent incandescent.
I have confirmation directly from the manufacturers of dimable CFL's - they use EXACTLY the same amount of electricity if they are at 100% brightness or their lowest (which is only like 30% or something). Based on my calculations- the way I use my most-used lights in my main living area, which are dimmed incandescent floodlamps, they would use about the same amount of electricity as CFL, except I get the color I want, and can dim them to the exact level I want (which is below that of CFL) while still retaining the ability to go full brightness when I want (which is usually just when cleaning).
Now, I admit this was a YEAR ago when I was researching it, and things may have changed since then. Yes, I would love to replace ALL my lighting with something more efficient... but to answer your other questions, I have a *lot* of small and decorative lighting in my house. I prefer yellower light. And I like numerous, indirect, lower wattage lamps. I am sure technology will eventually give me what I need and want, but that time is not now, and I don't want or need the government dictating what type of lighting is best for my environment.
>Or until government regulates incandescent out of existence.
Which many of us hope will not happen. There is no suitable replacement for incandescent in MANY applications. My house has many such.
Flor is generally not dimable. Even those that claim to be really are barely and cost a fortune. Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones. Flor bulbs do not fit in all fixtures, especially decorative ones and small ones. Flor bulbs are UGLY in many types of fixtures, period. Flor FIXTURES are UGLY in many types of applications. Flor light is not pleasing to many people- it is too white/blue or harsh. Flor fixtures often emit lots of RFI. Flor fixtures often emit noise. Flor lamps are not instantly on. Flor lamps are also not instantly 100% bright, many taking MINUTES to reach full brightness.
Until you can address all or most of those issues, there are very valid reasons to prefer incandescent lighting in many situations. I, for one, have replaced about 1/3 of all my lights with flor, but the remaining can't be because of many or all of the above reasons. If anything, tax incandescent lamps to make them cost parity with alternatives, but do not attempt to eliminate MY CHOICE until there is a truly suitable replacement.
Not important enough that we have the time or money to "do it ourselves". Especially when we had expected that many would be done, since we were certainly not alone in wanting those features. But I think what is more interesting about this thread is that: I believe even if we did offer such changes, they wouldn't be accepted into the code tree. And that points back to the premise that the project is becoming "ill".
The perfect example was that an entire "solver" was written for Calc by an "outsider", a long time ago, but not accepted. (Admittedly, I don't know if it was license related, elitism, philosophical, or what).
As I said in another posting, that is not the same as converting EXISTING text to initial caps. That only works while you are typing and is also only for each sentence, not each word.
Certainly there has to be SOME control over what features are added, since one person's feature is another's bloat. But who is to decide which is which? qa.openoffice.org is the only real way that users can provide feedback on bugs, issues, problems, and feature requests. If numerous users make a valid case for why something should be included and it gets lots of votes, but is shot down for no apparent reason, it tends to sour the whole process.
Another example- I requested that the spell checker detect double words: "I would like like to go to the store". Many others requested it also. The OO spell checker ALREADY checks punctuation and initial caps, so this is not a stretch; besides, it is even easy to implement. WordPerfect has had double word detection for eons. Yet, the OO team decided to close the issue and say that double word detection should be in some theoretical language checker add-on rather than in OO!
I don't think you understand what I am asking for- I would want the ability to convert data that was already imported/keyed in all lower or upper to be converted to initial caps. I don't think that can be done with a style, not for already existing text. Of course, I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time); although I would think if there WERE a way, someone would have pointed out how on all the numerous "initial caps" threads in qa.openoffice.org.
I'll be damned! I never even know that was there. I searched for it before, unsuccessfully. So either my search was poor, or the function added at some later time. Thanks for the info, and as for calc- I stand corrected!
As it turns out, somebody did release a macro to at least do plain upper/lower conversion in Calc, which helped tremendously.
In any case, telling end users to "do it themselves" is not a solution to the issues with OO. I, for one, have my plate full with lots of other projects; plus, releasing an obscure macro isn't going to help the 99% of other people who need the feature and can't find this hypothetical macro, don't know it exists, can't figure out how to install it, or know about it and have to figure out how to graft it in every time there is an update...
OO is far from "finished". It is a great suite, but there are *hundreds* of things that need to be added and *thousands* of things that need to be fixed. I have reported a dozen requests for useful features over the years that I and my users really need. Only one or so has ever made it to light.
Want an example? In Writer, you can convert all text to uppercase or lowercase. But there is no function for "Initial Caps". WordPerfect and MS-Word both have that feature, and have for many, many years. Then add some salt to the wound: Calc doesn't have the ability to convert cases AT ALL. When I reported this oversight, there were many supporters, and many duplicate reports. SEVEN YEARS PASSED and it is still not implemented!
That feature is hardly "bloat". I use it all the time when converting data from one type of use or system to another. There are hundreds of similar types of improvements that need to be made.
"Netbooks" were small, light, inexpensive, Linux based, solid state drive machines. Now they seem to be as large as regular sub-notebooks, more expensive, run (or force) MS-Windows, and have hard drives. I fail to see how these almost conventional sub-notebooks are "Netbooks" anymore. Adding a touch screen? Yawn. Here's an idea: Add yet a 1" even bigger screen and an internal optical drive!!! Wow! Innovative!!
Slashdot Mirror
We still had a few known compatible drive spares when we ordered the untested ones. On the next drive failure our test WAS to use the new model. When it failed, I used an older spare. And since then, yet another failed (seems to happen in groups). I then when on a rampage buying identical *used* spares off Ebay/etc while we are still trying to get the newer models fixed by Seagate.
>My philosophy with this is always buy the extra drive/s when building the RAID/whatever.
Of course we did that. I had lots of drives. And they got used up. Hard drive models change constantly, it wasn't long before we couldn't buy 36GB 15,000 RPM Cheetah drives anymore.
Linux has something like a 50%+ share or more of the server market. And guess what, dude, most of those have hard drives.
And for total computers- all non-MS-Windows machines adds up to probably more than 15% of all computers. Even if you were WalMart and turned away 15% of your potential customers, you would go out of business.
Oh, it gets better. We purchased two expensive 15,000 RPM SCA drives recently to work as backups for our RAID arrays on our Linux servers. Called Seagate *FIRST* to verify compatibility, as well as with Adaptec. Then a few months later when we needed to use one to replace a failed drive, it would NOT negotiate properly, making it useless.
Hours on the phone with Seagate we FINALLY get confirmation that there is a "firmware problem" with the drives we have and we should "upgrade the firmware". We go through the crap of getting a "key" and being sent the firmware only to find that their self-booting program would not run on our servers. Their suggestion? Find some other SCSI SCA machine just lying around and try it there. WE DON'T HAVE any such machines. We asked if we could mail the expensive, useless drives to them so THEY could upgrade the firmware. The response was "you can send in the drives for exchange, but we can't guarantee the drives sent back will have the firmware you need". This is support?????
And, of course, the Seagate referenced page says: "This can be done in Windows - it's easy! Download and run, or simply run as is, the Seagate Drive Detect software program." No mention of Linux, MacOS, Solaris, or BSD. So I guess there is an implied "If you are not using Windows - it's hard!".
Then later in the page, "you can download SeaTools for Windows" with a convenient link. Again, no mention of Linux, MacOS, Solaris, or BSD.
What they don't tell you is that you can create a self-booting (MS)-DOS floppy/CD so you can test your drive, regardless of your OS (as long as the system is X86). Get it here: http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/seatools/seatooldreg but if you DO need to flash it, you have to contact Seagate via Email and wait for a response and code so you can use yet another program to flash the drive.
>Maybe Wal-Mart customers aren't so bad where you live, but here in Arizona, going to a Wal-Mart is not a fun experience, unless you like...
Trust me, it isn't just Arizona. In Virginia it is the same story. Add to that: 50 checkout lanes of which only 8 or so ever seem to be open, so you have to stand in line listening to the kids screaming for 20+ minutes.
I go to the Target across the street as much as possible- it is a TOTALLY different experience. Clean, quality merchandise, quiet, helpful staff. Unfortunately, they just don't carry everything I need, and Walmart put everyone else out of business. So I wait until I can't any more and then reluctantly go to Walmart (wearing earplugs- I kid you not)
Actually, here, the Best Buy is *far* louder, having more annoying, and more head splitting bass crap constantly to the point I can't even go in the store. I much preferred Circuit City. And the sales help at BB was no better than CC- in fact, usually worse (and fewer). But CC kept dropping the ball- carrying less and less interesting stuff at higher and higher prices. They really needed to carry as much DIFFERENT stuff from BB as possible.
Alas, I will greatly miss them (in their old incarnation), I have parted with many thousands of dollars at Circuit City over the years. Online doesn't cut it. I can't see, hold, feel, hear, or try equipment that is sold on-line.
Amen. I can't STAND anything moving on my screen. I am glad I am not alone. I often have to pick up the browser and place parts of it off the screen to be able to read in peace. Adblock + Flashkiller + turning off animated GIF's is a god-send. Unfortunately, many new websites are somehow are now animating sections of the screen without using Flash or GIF's, and they can't be stopped without disabling Javascript :(
That isn't sharing risk, that is *assigning* risk. The problem with that theory is that it isn't fair.
Example- let's say a study shows that people that drink alcohol have a higher overall risk for health costs. So how does one fairly discriminate for health insurance? You can't. Instead, an application might say "do you drink alcohol?". How do you answer that? "yes"? "sometimes?" "never?". The factors are far too complex to simplify; it depends on your weight, your genetics, the exact amount, the frequency, the history, the alcohol content, your diet, the amount of sleep you get, your future behaviour, and any number of other factors. Since that is impossible to determine, one just gets labeled "a drinker". So everyone who "drinks" has to pay an equally higher rate. This also indirectly gives insurance companies the power to try and change behaviour or run your life. And if such information is shared with employers, you can find it difficult to find a job if they want to keep their rates low. And once that information is shared, it can be interpreted by any number of entities in any way they like, with or without your knowledge, consent, or explanation.
This is just one example of any number of ones one can think of.
The point of insurance is to SHARE risk, not to discriminate. If everyone paid premiums exactly based on perfect knowledge of risk, then everyone would pay exactly what they end up costing.... so there is no point to have insurance in the first place; just open up a savings account (which one should do, anyways).
The problem with discrimination is that it is a slippery slope of what to pick and where to stop. Of course no system is perfect, just something to think about.
One thing to keep in mind... I think any type of genetic testing or screening should be done anonymously. If you test positively for being at risk for any disease, and that information is entered into a computer, there is a risk that information can be used against you later. Insurance companies and employers would love nothing more than to discriminate against people who have POTENTIAL problems. Even worse, a genetic fingerprint can make its way into some security database without your knowledge or consent, making you a possible suspect in any crime where you might have been casually present. Once collected, you can't "undo" such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattica comes to mind
The only truly private information is information not collected, or collected anonymously. Such tests should be for YOUR benefit, not the benefit of others.
Let me be the first (?) to say "Yay"!!
IE has been dominating and destroying the Web for far too long. The lower market share will indicate increased platform diversity and consumer choice.
You need to "F" off, you coward.
1) I don't own an SUV and never have
2) I walk to work
3) I already use CFL in all appropriate locations in my home
4) I am not trying to "rationalize" anything
You need an attitude adjustment! If the information I was told by both GE and Phillips is wrong, then please feel free to correct it. I am glad for that, and hope to learn from it. But comments personally attacking me and cursing is not only unnecessary, but it is childish and severely hurts your credibility. To assume that I am intentionally spreading misinformation or making up what I was told is just wrong. In any case, with this new information, I will research again and perhaps now *is* the time I can make the change that I have wanted all along.
>>Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones.
>Huh? The switching power supply in good ones are perfectly capable of using the rated wattage which is way less than the equivalent incandescent.
I have confirmation directly from the manufacturers of dimable CFL's - they use EXACTLY the same amount of electricity if they are at 100% brightness or their lowest (which is only like 30% or something). Based on my calculations- the way I use my most-used lights in my main living area, which are dimmed incandescent floodlamps, they would use about the same amount of electricity as CFL, except I get the color I want, and can dim them to the exact level I want (which is below that of CFL) while still retaining the ability to go full brightness when I want (which is usually just when cleaning).
Now, I admit this was a YEAR ago when I was researching it, and things may have changed since then. Yes, I would love to replace ALL my lighting with something more efficient... but to answer your other questions, I have a *lot* of small and decorative lighting in my house. I prefer yellower light. And I like numerous, indirect, lower wattage lamps. I am sure technology will eventually give me what I need and want, but that time is not now, and I don't want or need the government dictating what type of lighting is best for my environment.
>Or until government regulates incandescent out of existence.
Which many of us hope will not happen. There is no suitable replacement for incandescent in MANY applications. My house has many such.
Flor is generally not dimable. Even those that claim to be really are barely and cost a fortune.
Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones.
Flor bulbs do not fit in all fixtures, especially decorative ones and small ones.
Flor bulbs are UGLY in many types of fixtures, period.
Flor FIXTURES are UGLY in many types of applications.
Flor light is not pleasing to many people- it is too white/blue or harsh.
Flor fixtures often emit lots of RFI.
Flor fixtures often emit noise.
Flor lamps are not instantly on.
Flor lamps are also not instantly 100% bright, many taking MINUTES to reach full brightness.
Until you can address all or most of those issues, there are very valid reasons to prefer incandescent lighting in many situations. I, for one, have replaced about 1/3 of all my lights with flor, but the remaining can't be because of many or all of the above reasons. If anything, tax incandescent lamps to make them cost parity with alternatives, but do not attempt to eliminate MY CHOICE until there is a truly suitable replacement.
Not important enough that we have the time or money to "do it ourselves". Especially when we had expected that many would be done, since we were certainly not alone in wanting those features. But I think what is more interesting about this thread is that: I believe even if we did offer such changes, they wouldn't be accepted into the code tree. And that points back to the premise that the project is becoming "ill".
The perfect example was that an entire "solver" was written for Calc by an "outsider", a long time ago, but not accepted. (Admittedly, I don't know if it was license related, elitism, philosophical, or what).
Then happily they just added it :) I will admit that I have not yet upgraded our systems to 3 yet. So 1/2 Yay!! Thanks for the info
As I said in another posting, that is not the same as converting EXISTING text to initial caps. That only works while you are typing and is also only for each sentence, not each word.
I couldn't have worded that better myself.
Certainly there has to be SOME control over what features are added, since one person's feature is another's bloat. But who is to decide which is which? qa.openoffice.org is the only real way that users can provide feedback on bugs, issues, problems, and feature requests. If numerous users make a valid case for why something should be included and it gets lots of votes, but is shot down for no apparent reason, it tends to sour the whole process.
Another example- I requested that the spell checker detect double words: "I would like like to go to the store". Many others requested it also. The OO spell checker ALREADY checks punctuation and initial caps, so this is not a stretch; besides, it is even easy to implement. WordPerfect has had double word detection for eons. Yet, the OO team decided to close the issue and say that double word detection should be in some theoretical language checker add-on rather than in OO!
I don't think you understand what I am asking for- I would want the ability to convert data that was already imported/keyed in all lower or upper to be converted to initial caps. I don't think that can be done with a style, not for already existing text. Of course, I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time); although I would think if there WERE a way, someone would have pointed out how on all the numerous "initial caps" threads in qa.openoffice.org.
In any case, it was just one example.
I'll be damned! I never even know that was there. I searched for it before, unsuccessfully. So either my search was poor, or the function added at some later time. Thanks for the info, and as for calc- I stand corrected!
As it turns out, somebody did release a macro to at least do plain upper/lower conversion in Calc, which helped tremendously.
In any case, telling end users to "do it themselves" is not a solution to the issues with OO. I, for one, have my plate full with lots of other projects; plus, releasing an obscure macro isn't going to help the 99% of other people who need the feature and can't find this hypothetical macro, don't know it exists, can't figure out how to install it, or know about it and have to figure out how to graft it in every time there is an update...
OO is far from "finished". It is a great suite, but there are *hundreds* of things that need to be added and *thousands* of things that need to be fixed. I have reported a dozen requests for useful features over the years that I and my users really need. Only one or so has ever made it to light.
Want an example? In Writer, you can convert all text to uppercase or lowercase. But there is no function for "Initial Caps". WordPerfect and MS-Word both have that feature, and have for many, many years. Then add some salt to the wound: Calc doesn't have the ability to convert cases AT ALL. When I reported this oversight, there were many supporters, and many duplicate reports. SEVEN YEARS PASSED and it is still not implemented!
That feature is hardly "bloat". I use it all the time when converting data from one type of use or system to another. There are hundreds of similar types of improvements that need to be made.
"Finished"?? Absolutely not.
"Netbooks" were small, light, inexpensive, Linux based, solid state drive machines. Now they seem to be as large as regular sub-notebooks, more expensive, run (or force) MS-Windows, and have hard drives. I fail to see how these almost conventional sub-notebooks are "Netbooks" anymore. Adding a touch screen? Yawn. Here's an idea: Add yet a 1" even bigger screen and an internal optical drive!!! Wow! Innovative!!