I think "thrust" might be more appropriate here.

You ARE a dim-witted douchebag.

ARE.

This is marketing, pure and simple. Seagate is a major player in the hard drive business, but not in the SSD business. All we have here is the CTO of a hard drive manufacturer saying that the technology that current looks like it's most likely to put him out of a job won't put him out of a job for at least a decade. So his customers certainly shouldn't consider SSD over hard drives at least until then. That gives them plenty of time to work on their own SSD solution.

You're not nearly ambitious enough. Personally, I recommend going for the classic "double-nads-to-chesty". Difficult, yes, but the payoff is well worth it.

A year ago you were earning $75K/year. Now business has slowed and you're earning $68K/year. Would you say that the recession has had no significant effect on your income?

As I heard it, the old CD long boxes were designed so that music stores wouldn't have to replace their racks. Two CD cases side by side were the same size as a single vinyl record case.

So under what circumstances does Mr. Herdener believe it's okay to delete content from his customers' devices? What legitimate use is there for this capability?

Try searching IMDB for "Beauty and the Beast" or "Cinderella", and see how effective these hypothetical lawyers have been.

"Critical hit", perhaps?

That's pretty much my attitude towards IE (and every other browser, actually): I'll support whatever I'm being paid to support. My employer will happily sign off on a spec that requires IE4 compatibility as long as the client writes a big enough check. Sure, we'll tell him it's a waste of money and provide stats on browser market shares. But ultimately the client knows his users better than we do. We'll price it out, and either it's worth the money to him or it isn't.

For my personal sites I refuse to use browser specific hacks. Over the years I've found that it's better to stick with standards compliant code. I work on them in my spare time, so I want my work to have longevity. A hack could easily break in future browsers, while standard code only becomes better supported as time goes on.

If the fire marshal is getting the job done through vigorous inspections to make sure everyone's up to code, then nobody's going to question him. A fire safety inspection isn't something that offends the sensibilities. And, more importantly, it isn't illegal.

But what if this effective fire marshal claimed that the reason the city was so safe from fires was that he was torturing his employees to ensure their compliance? "I beat them regularly to keep them in line, and they get the job done. I could stop beating them, but then they would slack off and that would make the city less safe. Is relieving the suffering of a few civil servants worth putting millions of Americans in danger? I don't think so."

Regardless of how effective he is, we need to ask if this is something that we as a society want to condone. And it's certainly reasonable to ask "Is this really effective? And even if it is, are there methods that are as effective that don't involve physically assaulting the fire inspectors?"

Furthermore, some of us are going to say "Fuck it, I don't care if it works, this is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it! He needs to stop this shit right fucking now! If putting out the occasional fire is the price of living in a civilized society, then so be it."

[Citation needed]

Who are these guys who said everyone pirates because of DRM?

Not necessarily sick. Just sufficiently motivated.

Bullshit. I filled up 8 gigs on my iPod just ripping my CDs. My roommate's music collection is over 50 GB, all from CDs he's purchased.

No, this is not a worthy cause and is potentially quite dangerous. This isn't about health, this is about collecting more money for the government. And that means that the government will decide what's unhealthy based on how big the budget shortfall is in any given year.