Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.
I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA,...
Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.
Surely China's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point: What exactly are you talking about? How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws?
This kind of "freedom speech" is just for the internal audience.
If this study is confirmed it should also prove that cellphones DOES affect the brain. You may not get Alzheimer but, it can, temporally or definitive, affects how your brain works. Like making bad decisions while using your cell phone or get some kind of dementia.
For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room (with dark walls) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you'll get insane headaches.
That's because otherwise you'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.
They should release just 3D glasses with lcd (oled) monitors within the glasses, that would be much cheaper and practical.
It's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release.
What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "sql server" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.
Power supplies are more efficient at lower temperatures (around 25C), so don't send the heat from your processor to the PS as most people do using a horizontal cooler over the heat sink. Instead use a heat sink that have a vertical cooler like Zalman CNPS9500
Flash now supports H.264 which is a power hog codec. Imagine that kind of video endlessly playing on your screen while you're just reading a text. Your processor and power being wasted for nothing.
I know how cookies work, as DoubleClick still know, and many of the bad guys do. And they hope people believe that naive explanation.
Did you ever visit DoubleClick websiste? Probably not, but if you don't delete your cookies as said, you probably have one of them on your machine.
You don't need to "visit site B" as you said, all you need is to open a html page (a site or webmail) that have embedded requests to site B.
Then you're tagged with a cookie from B.
B can sponsor a free-as-in-lunch service and get profile of people (like the email address) from there.
B can operate a store where you bought something before and didn't care to fill all you personal "delivering" data.
B can send spam with embedded requests to pages like www.website.com?id=youremailaddressID and associate a cookie with the email address where the spam was previously sent.
They have your personal data, but they may not have your profile.
Google have a lot of data about you they declare using to target advertisements.
That's how the bad guys get that info from Google.
So I'm site B and need to know people who suffer headache in the US. I set up adwords accordingly and redirect that ad to a brand new url where I've and embedded requests to www.website.com?id=ihaveheadacheID where I associate that with the previously stored personal data cookie (or wait until you request one).
So now I have both your identification (where the email address is usually enough) and know your privacy data I need.
That concern is not just about Google but the other ubiquitous examples you provide would never do something Google is doing because the public is suspicious about them, scrutinize their acts and so don't provide much (behavioral) data.
But everyone is happy about Google collecting your data and selling to someone else for pennies because "Google is no evil". Repeat with me: "Google is no evil"
If they care about privacy they don't need to wait for laws, their urge for laws changes is because they want weaker ones.
Seriously, the Antartic is cooler because southern hemisphere areas over the tropics are hotter than usual, so cooler air masses from Antartic can't go trough them and accumulate down south.
In my country, unless you sue Google, they force you to follow american laws, which seems the only one they spontaneously obey.
Google have sales and development team here, they have servers and private network locally (which they don't say the purpose). Even both the offender and victim being local, when you ask something to Google, the only answer you get is:
"We are US based, fill a DMCA form and send to us by regular mail (in the US) or fax it" and wait about a week until that piece of paper is manually checked and only the content specifically mentioned on that mail is removed.
The copyright violation can be obvious as possible, it's usually the sole purpose of a user account, which is often named after it. But Google offer no help besides the "wait a week for each bit" method.
In that particular case american law fits Google desires of making copyright compliance more difficult.
From what I know from Google if they are calling an international standard on privacy is because they are not liking american privacy laws.
Other countries laws are not a problem since, until now, they usually don't obey them spontaneously.
Privacy information can easily be bought from Google
FTA: "To target their advertising, both Google, which specializes in text ads, (...) collect information on which sites users visit."
As if it was just about visited sites, not about emails, searches, IMs, youTube, blogspot, orkut, user profile,... anyway...
If you need data collected by Google just set up adwords for your needs (location, subject) redirecting to a brand new url. Where you can, for example, see if the redirected users have one of yours two-years-google-style cookie, and relate that cookie with profile data filled by users of your free-as-in-lunch services or with the e-mail addresses of webreaders of your crossite html embedded spam.
Later you can bomb those people's email addresses with specialized phishing/scams/advertisement.
And Google is still no evil, they just provide the circus which is distracting people from reality and hidden disclaimers.
I'm not talking of the kind of scam that you pay but don't receive. Put those products that promise solutions they don't or only partially provide.
Or silly, poorly made products, where most of investment in the product is buying adwords.
Look the ads Google put on your site. Would they be approved by your advertisement editorial team? Do they make your site less credible? Do they lower the value of your ad space?
Google technology so far is much more focused on being popular, not on quality.
That was good when search algorithms where just about "number of words" and other easily burled techniques. But Google grew up only in size, it keeps applying the same "popular principle" to everything.
If it draws people attention it's good.
For adsense, the good websites are those that just attract people, specially the kind of people that are easily manipulated, those likely to believe on something by just "two lines of text", at least to believe enough to click on them and generate revenue.
People which are "smart" enough to manipulate other people into clicking in their ads, and eventually buying their products, are considered good partners by Google, at least until those partners disappear with their bad products and someone else fit their shoes.
This generally low quality reduce the value of advertisement at all, and so reduce content generator's revenue.
Google doesn't care because it can scale those pennies and attract new people to that model (either scammertisements and content generators).
Soon it will affect the websites themselves. If the ads of a website are bad people will consider the whole experience equally bad and won't visit those websites anymore. If they need some info they won't visit a specialized website anymore. Who they will visit? Google.
Who will show the advertisement on the first line of the search results, bypassing that once credible specialized website.
I wonder how many people who do somehow commercial related searches click on the ads before clicking on the actual search results? Google obviously won't say the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that number is over 50%.
Google, the popular shallow culture to the Internet.
Homeopathy is much more individualized treatment than allopathy, you have much more factors (symptoms/probable causes) to consider, not just the pathology.
What those "scientists" do is ignore that basic homeopathy principle and apply the same treatment to a broad range of patients with different symptoms and probable causes. That shouldn't and won't work.
The kind of study that real simulates homeopathy is to deeply study each patient, prescribe a remedy to each one and later give each one the individually prescribed remedy or the placebo.
Another kind of study with good results is to choose a population not only with the same pathology, but also with the same symptoms and probably causes. And apply the same remedy (or the placebo) to the whole population.
9. Fisher P. An experimental double-blind clinical trial method in homeopathy. Use of a limited range of remedies to treat fibrositis. Br Homoeopathic J 1986;75:142-57.
10. Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al. Effect of homeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). BMJ 1989;299:365-6.
11. Gibson RG, Gibson S, Macneill AD, et al. Homeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980;9:453-9.
12. Aulagnier G. Action d'un traitement homéopatique sur la reprise du transit postopératoire. Homéopathie 1985;6:42-5.
13. Dorfman P, Amodéo C, Ricciotti F, et al. Iléus post-opératoire et homéopathie: bilan d'une evaluation clinique. Cahiers Bio 1992;114:33-9.
14. Barnes J, Resch K, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? J Clin Gastroenterol 1997;25:628-33.
15. Ustianowski PA. A clinical trial of Staphysagria in postcoital cystitis. Br Homoeopathic J 1974;63:276-7.
16. Saruggia M, Corghi E. Effects of homeopathic dilutions of China rubra on intradialytic symptomatology in patients treated with chronic haemodialysis. Br Homoeopathic J 1992;81:86-8.
17. Albertini H, Goldberg W, Sanguy, Toulza. Bilan de 60 observations randomisées. Hypericum - Arnica contre placébo dans les névralgies dentaries. Homéopathie 1984;1:47-9.
18. Weiser M, Strösser W, Klein P. Homeopathic vs convencional treatment of vertigo. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:879-85.
19. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W. Double-blind trial comparing the effectiveness of the homeopathic preparation Galphimia glauca potentisation D6, Galphimia glauca dilution 10-6 and placebo on pollinosis. Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1985;35:1745-7.
20. Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. BMJ 1985;74:65-75.
21. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Mcsharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathy potency with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 1986;ii:881-5.
22. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al. Is evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994;344:1601-6.
23. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ 2000;321:471-6.
24. Carlini A, Braz S, Lanfranco RP, et al. Efeito hipnótico de medicação homeopática e do placebo. Avaliação pela técnica de duplo-cego e cruzamento. Rev AMB 1987;33:83-8.
25. Andrade L, Ferraz MB, Atra E, et al. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Scan J Rheumatol 1991;20:204-8.
26. Jacobs J, Jimenez L, Gloyd S, et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute chidhood diarrhoea. A randomised clinical trial in Nicarágua. Br Homoeopathic J 1993;82:83-6.
27. Klerk ESM, Blommers J, Kuik DJ, et al. Effect of homeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. Br Homoeopathic J 1994;309:1329-32.
That may the case in "Company Financed US" where most scientists that work with medicine, the same who created such standards, receive money from pharmaceutical companies or hope to discover a new drug and became millionaire.
Where health care is drug based to avoid health insure expenses (exams, doctor talk) and habit changes.
But the OP was talking about the UK and the rest of "not pharmaceutical financed medicine" world.
At many of those countries there are approved homeopathic treatments which have been successful including for babies that are unlikely to be suggestioned by placebo.
You can make small changes on an experiment to make it don't work: - Like applying to a kind of patient where homeopathy isn't recommended (different symptoms and probable causes) - Using methods that are popular but not previously proved (as allopathy the variety of homeopathy treatments are not all the same).
There's a lot of people out there obsessed to prove homeopathy doesn't work. They are not concerned about finding if it works (and in which situations it does), but to find a situation where it doesn't work (or shouldn't) and use that make up to say it doesn't work at all.
Eventually they call that situation "proper protocols".
Medicine is (also) an empirical science. It doesn't care much to know "how the treatment works" but "if the treatment works".
That's seems to scare outsiders or those paid to discover cures studying chemicals, but that's how Medicine works. What's most important is the patient wealth, not how the cure is processed.
Homeopathy had a lot of empirical studies showing it's better than placebo. Its effects have been proved even in babies and animals. That's what matter to medicine.
A lot of people have failed to explain how it works but much more repeatedly explaining the ways it doesn't work.
The chemicals have all the rights to say they can't find chemical causes.
But MD also have the rights to make their studies as well and to improve patients health using any empirical proved method.
And you'd end up paying the same as you'd pay for a similar amount of RAM which is 1000x faster than flash drives.
We are talking about vaporware anyway since Seagate didn't say the sizes of the promised flash disks, but considering today sizes (16GB) that's a very niche thing.
Oh, the article title "Seagate to offer solid-state drives in 2008". What about the text "are available in capacities up to 160GB". Did you see? "are" not "will be".
I'm no OS expert but I believe dates/filesizes are kept at the directory index, even if don't they could be kept by the application (file manager) cache, as well the dimensions. If your application doesn't do that it's an application problem. For jumping playlist, don't know about your media player, but doubt you could measure the 7ms difference anyway.
"Solid state drives" is a cool name to be the solution of all the problems, but when you put numbers in place that's much less than promissed.
As said sequential speed is the same, random access is like 10x faster. But a regular user don't access that much files RANDOMLY in very short (70ms) timeframe because most usage patterns for storage/retrieval are likely, filesystem/OS is smart enough to keep files of the same directory physically close and most used files are already at RAM, which is 1000x faster for random access than flash drives.
Your problems are probably enhanced by little RAM or a small and fragmented HD.
Flash disks are not the holy grail, if you suffer from slow start hibernate instead of shutdown.
Slashdot Mirror
GOTO is evil
The "do no evil" is how about Google deal with its users, not with the competition, in this case IPhone from Apple.
Who doesn't remember that Christmas special? Can't be worse than that.
Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.
I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA, ...
Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.
Surely China's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point: What exactly are you talking about? How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws?
This kind of "freedom speech" is just for the internal audience.
Would Google leave if they were winning the game? Surely not, Communist Party support to Baidu is working as expected.
Just add google-analytics.com and others to your host file, pointing to localhost
If this study is confirmed it should also prove that cellphones DOES affect the brain. You may not get Alzheimer but, it can, temporally or definitive, affects how your brain works. Like making bad decisions while using your cell phone or get some kind of dementia.
For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room (with dark walls) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you'll get insane headaches.
That's because otherwise you'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.
They should release just 3D glasses with lcd (oled) monitors within the glasses, that would be much cheaper and practical.
It's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release.
It doesn't merge results from a same website.
What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "sql server" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.
Protocols like SSL (TLS Handshake) can make others send you feedback according to your input.
Power supplies are more efficient at lower temperatures (around 25C), so don't send the heat from your processor to the PS as most people do using a horizontal cooler over the heat sink.
Instead use a heat sink that have a vertical cooler like Zalman CNPS9500
Flash now supports H.264 which is a power hog codec. Imagine that kind of video endlessly playing on your screen while you're just reading a text. Your processor and power being wasted for nothing.
I know how cookies work, as DoubleClick still know, and many of the bad guys do. And they hope people believe that naive explanation.
Did you ever visit DoubleClick websiste? Probably not, but if you don't delete your cookies as said, you probably have one of them on your machine.
You don't need to "visit site B" as you said, all you need is to open a html page (a site or webmail) that have embedded requests to site B.
Then you're tagged with a cookie from B.
B can sponsor a free-as-in-lunch service and get profile of people (like the email address) from there.
B can operate a store where you bought something before and didn't care to fill all you personal "delivering" data.
B can send spam with embedded requests to pages like www.website.com?id=youremailaddressID and associate a cookie with the email address where the spam was previously sent.
They have your personal data, but they may not have your profile.
Google have a lot of data about you they declare using to target advertisements.
That's how the bad guys get that info from Google.
So I'm site B and need to know people who suffer headache in the US. I set up adwords accordingly and redirect that ad to a brand new url where I've and embedded requests to www.website.com?id=ihaveheadacheID where I associate that with the previously stored personal data cookie (or wait until you request one).
So now I have both your identification (where the email address is usually enough) and know your privacy data I need.
That concern is not just about Google but the other ubiquitous examples you provide would never do something Google is doing because the public is suspicious about them, scrutinize their acts and so don't provide much (behavioral) data.
But everyone is happy about Google collecting your data and selling to someone else for pennies because "Google is no evil". Repeat with me: "Google is no evil"
If they care about privacy they don't need to wait for laws, their urge for laws changes is because they want weaker ones.
Hotter summers, cooler winters = climate change
Seriously, the Antartic is cooler because southern hemisphere areas over the tropics are hotter than usual, so cooler air masses from Antartic can't go trough them and accumulate down south.
Google is feeling american privacy law harsh
In my country, unless you sue Google, they force you to follow american laws, which seems the only one they spontaneously obey.
Google have sales and development team here, they have servers and private network locally (which they don't say the purpose). Even both the offender and victim being local, when you ask something to Google, the only answer you get is:
"We are US based, fill a DMCA form and send to us by regular mail (in the US) or fax it" and wait about a week until that piece of paper is manually checked and only the content specifically mentioned on that mail is removed.
The copyright violation can be obvious as possible, it's usually the sole purpose of a user account, which is often named after it. But Google offer no help besides the "wait a week for each bit" method.
In that particular case american law fits Google desires of making copyright compliance more difficult.
From what I know from Google if they are calling an international standard on privacy is because they are not liking american privacy laws.
Other countries laws are not a problem since, until now, they usually don't obey them spontaneously.
Privacy information can easily be bought from Google
... anyway ...
FTA: "To target their advertising, both Google, which specializes in text ads, (...) collect information on which sites users visit."
As if it was just about visited sites, not about emails, searches, IMs, youTube, blogspot, orkut, user profile,
If you need data collected by Google just set up adwords for your needs (location, subject) redirecting to a brand new url. Where you can, for example, see if the redirected users have one of yours two-years-google-style cookie, and relate that cookie with profile data filled by users of your free-as-in-lunch services or with the e-mail addresses of webreaders of your crossite html embedded spam.
Later you can bomb those people's email addresses with specialized phishing/scams/advertisement.
And Google is still no evil, they just provide the circus which is distracting people from reality and hidden disclaimers.
How much of AdSense Ads are Scam?
I'm not talking of the kind of scam that you pay but don't receive. Put those products that promise solutions they don't or only partially provide.
Or silly, poorly made products, where most of investment in the product is buying adwords.
Look the ads Google put on your site. Would they be approved by your advertisement editorial team? Do they make your site less credible? Do they lower the value of your ad space?
Google technology so far is much more focused on being popular, not on quality.
That was good when search algorithms where just about "number of words" and other easily burled techniques. But Google grew up only in size, it keeps applying the same "popular principle" to everything.
If it draws people attention it's good.
For adsense, the good websites are those that just attract people, specially the kind of people that are easily manipulated, those likely to believe on something by just "two lines of text", at least to believe enough to click on them and generate revenue.
People which are "smart" enough to manipulate other people into clicking in their ads, and eventually buying their products, are considered good partners by Google, at least until those partners disappear with their bad products and someone else fit their shoes.
This generally low quality reduce the value of advertisement at all, and so reduce content generator's revenue.
Google doesn't care because it can scale those pennies and attract new people to that model (either scammertisements and content generators).
Soon it will affect the websites themselves. If the ads of a website are bad people will consider the whole experience equally bad and won't visit those websites anymore. If they need some info they won't visit a specialized website anymore. Who they will visit? Google.
Who will show the advertisement on the first line of the search results, bypassing that once credible specialized website.
I wonder how many people who do somehow commercial related searches click on the ads before clicking on the actual search results? Google obviously won't say the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that number is over 50%.
Google, the popular shallow culture to the Internet.
Yes they do.
Homeopathy is much more individualized treatment than allopathy, you have much more factors (symptoms/probable causes) to consider, not just the pathology.
What those "scientists" do is ignore that basic homeopathy principle and apply the same treatment to a broad range of patients with different symptoms and probable causes. That shouldn't and won't work.
The kind of study that real simulates homeopathy is to deeply study each patient, prescribe a remedy to each one and later give each one the individually prescribed remedy or the placebo.
Another kind of study with good results is to choose a population not only with the same pathology, but also with the same symptoms and probably causes. And apply the same remedy (or the placebo) to the whole population.
9. Fisher P. An experimental double-blind clinical trial method in homeopathy. Use of a limited range of remedies to treat fibrositis. Br Homoeopathic J 1986;75:142-57.
10. Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al. Effect of homeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). BMJ 1989;299:365-6.
11. Gibson RG, Gibson S, Macneill AD, et al. Homeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980;9:453-9.
12. Aulagnier G. Action d'un traitement homéopatique sur la reprise du transit postopératoire. Homéopathie 1985;6:42-5.
13. Dorfman P, Amodéo C, Ricciotti F, et al. Iléus post-opératoire et homéopathie: bilan d'une evaluation clinique. Cahiers Bio 1992;114:33-9.
14. Barnes J, Resch K, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? J Clin Gastroenterol 1997;25:628-33.
15. Ustianowski PA. A clinical trial of Staphysagria in postcoital cystitis. Br Homoeopathic J 1974;63:276-7.
16. Saruggia M, Corghi E. Effects of homeopathic dilutions of China rubra on intradialytic symptomatology in patients treated with chronic haemodialysis. Br Homoeopathic J 1992;81:86-8.
17. Albertini H, Goldberg W, Sanguy, Toulza. Bilan de 60 observations randomisées. Hypericum - Arnica contre placébo dans les névralgies dentaries. Homéopathie 1984;1:47-9.
18. Weiser M, Strösser W, Klein P. Homeopathic vs convencional treatment of vertigo. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:879-85.
19. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W. Double-blind trial comparing the effectiveness of the homeopathic preparation Galphimia glauca potentisation D6, Galphimia glauca dilution 10-6 and placebo on pollinosis. Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1985;35:1745-7.
20. Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. BMJ 1985;74:65-75.
21. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Mcsharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathy potency with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 1986;ii:881-5.
22. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al. Is evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994;344:1601-6.
23. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ 2000;321:471-6.
24. Carlini A, Braz S, Lanfranco RP, et al. Efeito hipnótico de medicação homeopática e do placebo. Avaliação pela técnica de duplo-cego e cruzamento. Rev AMB 1987;33:83-8.
25. Andrade L, Ferraz MB, Atra E, et al. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Scan J Rheumatol 1991;20:204-8.
26. Jacobs J, Jimenez L, Gloyd S, et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute chidhood diarrhoea. A randomised clinical trial in Nicarágua. Br Homoeopathic J 1993;82:83-6.
27. Klerk ESM, Blommers J, Kuik DJ, et al. Effect of homeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. Br Homoeopathic J 1994;309:1329-32.
That may the case in "Company Financed US" where most scientists that work with medicine, the same who created such standards, receive money from pharmaceutical companies or hope to discover a new drug and became millionaire.
Where health care is drug based to avoid health insure expenses (exams, doctor talk) and habit changes.
But the OP was talking about the UK and the rest of "not pharmaceutical financed medicine" world.
At many of those countries there are approved homeopathic treatments which have been successful including for babies that are unlikely to be suggestioned by placebo.
You can make small changes on an experiment to make it don't work:
- Like applying to a kind of patient where homeopathy isn't recommended (different symptoms and probable causes)
- Using methods that are popular but not previously proved (as allopathy the variety of homeopathy treatments are not all the same).
There's a lot of people out there obsessed to prove homeopathy doesn't work. They are not concerned about finding if it works (and in which situations it does), but to find a situation where it doesn't work (or shouldn't) and use that make up to say it doesn't work at all.
Eventually they call that situation "proper protocols".
Medicine is (also) an empirical science. It doesn't care much to know "how the treatment works" but "if the treatment works".
That's seems to scare outsiders or those paid to discover cures studying chemicals, but that's how Medicine works. What's most important is the patient wealth, not how the cure is processed.
Homeopathy had a lot of empirical studies showing it's better than placebo. Its effects have been proved even in babies and animals. That's what matter to medicine.
A lot of people have failed to explain how it works but much more repeatedly explaining the ways it doesn't work.
The chemicals have all the rights to say they can't find chemical causes.
But MD also have the rights to make their studies as well and to improve patients health using any empirical proved method.
And you'd end up paying the same as you'd pay for a similar amount of RAM which is 1000x faster than flash drives.
We are talking about vaporware anyway since Seagate didn't say the sizes of the promised flash disks, but considering today sizes (16GB) that's a very niche thing.
Oh, the article title "Seagate to offer solid-state drives in 2008". What about the text "are available in capacities up to 160GB". Did you see? "are" not "will be".
I'm no OS expert but I believe dates/filesizes are kept at the directory index, even if don't they could be kept by the application (file manager) cache, as well the dimensions. If your application doesn't do that it's an application problem. For jumping playlist, don't know about your media player, but doubt you could measure the 7ms difference anyway.
Good luck fitting 1.3TB in a flash disk.
"Solid state drives" is a cool name to be the solution of all the problems, but when you put numbers in place that's much less than promissed.
As said sequential speed is the same, random access is like 10x faster. But a regular user don't access that much files RANDOMLY in very short (70ms) timeframe because most usage patterns for storage/retrieval are likely, filesystem/OS is smart enough to keep files of the same directory physically close and most used files are already at RAM, which is 1000x faster for random access than flash drives.
Your problems are probably enhanced by little RAM or a small and fragmented HD.
Flash disks are not the holy grail, if you suffer from slow start hibernate instead of shutdown.