(Originally replied to wrong poster, now modified to prevent "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... ")
It's extremely unfair to link to the print version of that article. Anand put an immense amount of time into that (and everything before it!) and scarred quite a few bridges to bring it to light for his readers - there are very, very few reviewers out there that would do that for their readerbase. The least you could do is offer him and his site _some_ respect.

Whoops! Sorry, wrong post!

It's extremely unfair to link to the print version of that article. Anand put an immense amount of time into that (and everything before it!) and scarred quite a few bridges to bring it to light for his readers - there are very, very few reviewers out there that would do that for their readerbase. The least you could do is offer him and his site _some_ respect.

If you delete a partition or even a file, why the *hell* are you expecting it to be reversible? That's "delete" we're talking about here, not "hold my hand recycle bin". Delete. If you don't know in you're soul what you're doing, then why are you even in a partition editor?

I can see how you would draw that conclusion alone on just the numbers, but I think you failed to take into account that hard drives are selling at much faster rates than they did during the times of HDDs, and those rates are accelerating. Since volume is ramping up considerably, manf have insane incentives to increase there economies of scales at commenserate rates, thus lowering the costs.

If you don't believe it, use your same reasoning for SIMMs vs. DIMMs. Then try it against DIMMs vs. DDR1, then DDR2. I picked up two 2GB SODIMM DDR2 modules yesterday for $20/piece.

Heh, yeah, I guess I forgot about that. It's such a habit now to hit Escape immediately when I see the username and password box that I don't even think about it any more. That right there makes it one of the most inconvenient sites I have to visit. At least they do just about everything else right.

I've been using Linux on the desktop since '01, and I can for certain that around 2004 or was when I could visit random sites and have them work without any issues. There are two that I know of that "require" a browser/OS combo, but they let you carry on any way - at your own risk. Of course, they work fine. One is HR Block when filing taxes, the other is CitiCard's virtual/temporary CC# generator webapp.

Nintendo and Sony are based in Japan. No USA == no regulations/pressure to follow GAAP.

Found On Reservation Dump

You're implying that the amount of users a social networking site should have is somehow linear to how many database servers it needs. I have news for you - it doesn't. You also don't mention the roles for the servers, nor the hits per interval, nor even a feature comparison (some may have much harder hitting queries) - and finally, you're outright neglecting to mention hardware. MYB might have 17 quad core, 16x320GB 15k rpm drives compared to facebook's whitebox google model. Your entire post is useless without apples to apples comparisons.

A couple of months ago, salesforce released that their userbase was still 50% IE6:

http://blogs.salesforce.com/user_experience/2008/06/salesforce-and.html

The MAC address is not preserved outside of the local subnet, so unless they had captured packets on her local network (i.e. to here linksys router or CPE cable modem, etc.), the mac address they're picking up would be remarkably similar every time since a TCP/IP packet's source MAC address is always that of the router the packet hit last. It's extremely likely there are at least 5 routers between her computer and the *AA's equipment.

Not just that, but they probably have to format it to a publishable form, as well as proof read, correct and go through all the paperwork to make it so. If you think you can do it faster, I'm sure a clerk of courts job pays somewhere around 12-14$/hour, so be my guest.

Are you seriously suggesting that the lenders ONLY sought to bundle loans because they wanted to mitigate risk from ONLY a portion of their clients? Don't you find that a bit absurd? Would it be too much to suggest that they would seek to mitigate risk no matter the source of the risk?