It's probably going to be removed by the means of air ducts and high flow fans. The size of a case is not directly linked to its heat removal capacity. Sure it helps with piss-poor heat management with no ducted or at least heavily directed air flow and semi-random fan selection and placement as seen in most generic ATX cases, but it's still perfectly possible to remove a huge amount of heat from a very tightly packed case. It's somewhat more expensive and requires more know-how and though wchich increases the final cost, but it's nothing for someone who can afford dual 5790s.

I guess the key is "ARM" here. Unfortunately, x86 laptops are equipped with either internally connected USB card readers (the worst of both worlds, really) or some PCI-based Ricoh crap that generates roughly 800 interrupts/s during a file transfer.

USB is a CPU-bound bus. It requires every packet to be at least partially processed by the CPU. MMC is even worse, the damn things does almost everything in software as most MMC "controllers" out there are just GPIO passthroughs. A side effect of this is that the CPU is unable to enter deeper C-states when a file transfer to/from a thumbdirve or an MMC card is in progress, wasting significant amounts of power on something so trivial.

An SSD connected to the SATA bus, on the other hand, is able to perform a bulk data transfer using DMA and wake up the CPU when all the requested data is already in the memory, to be processed at once.

Conclusion: sometimes there's more to some things than you expect, so be wary when making over-the-top dismissive comments.

What you're saying is very interesting, but in contradiction to my experience with GoogleBot's behavoiur.

I've seen GoogleBot-images do a normal crawl of the images on the site, respecting robots.txt and all, and then, start a crawl over the images it was explicitly forbidden from indexing, from the same IP (*definitely* a Google IP, not an impostor), just with the User-Agent header changed to an empty string. Nice, eh? It was way too fast and way too cordinated to be triggered by human action. And if there was actually a human involved in telling the bot to return to the site, *ahem*, "incognito" a few seconds later, I'd be more than happy to tell them to bugger off properly when they're told to.

A guy with a Barret M107, a handful of .50 BMG bullets with "for this patent bullshit" engraved on them and an escape helicopter would help, too.

Every time I read about scumbags like this, I'm more and more convinced that this is indeed the only way.

I don't get something in your reasoning - care to explain?

When Joe Shmoe downloads Corporation X's software from TPB, installs it and makes money using it, and they find out, they send a legal letter demanding that Joe removes the software and pays up $x (for very high values of x) or gets dragged through court (and ends up paying many times $x) for violation of the license. After that, Joe Shmoe is broke and Corporation X starts lobbying for new laws against software piracy.

When FooShmoo & Co. downloads Mr FLOSS Developer's GPL-licensed software from his website, puts it in their FooBox 2.0 and sells it without distributing the source code or allowing for its proper use, and he finds out, he first asks them to comply in an informal manner, then he tries to publicize the problem hoping that FooShmoo & Co. will comply to prevent bad publicity, and only when this fails, he goes to the FSF or the likes and asks for help, which usually means a legal letter demanding that they comply, or be dragged through court (and end up complying and paying the legal fees) for violation of the license. After that, FooShmoo & Co. can go on with its business and Mr FLOSS Developer is content that his rights as an author are finally respected.

And yet, you present the latter situation in a derogatory manner. Why?

That went into evdev, I guess, which is an abstraction layer for all input devices. Most probably just a 0 changed to 1 in some device ID table to tell evdev to relay rumble events to the pad (which might not be the default to, e.g., prevent dumb pads from locking up). Just a guess, though.

Eh, what? This is what I wrote, in order:

1. I had never experienced the problem myself.
2. Badly designed HDDs are known to screw with journaling filesystems, it could be that reiserfs is vulnerable to this.
3. I was talking about something else than you tthough I was.
4. I asked you to stop the "fixed that for you" crap that you claim so openly to hate yourself.
5. I asked an honest, serious on-topic question (and I'm still expecting an honest, serious, on-topic response).

Where exactly among those points did I "blame the user"? At worst, it was "*maybe* blame the hardware", which is not that unreasonable. If you feel so personal about your HDDs, well, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings,but I suspect it was just another instance of reading things that are not really there.

Now, what about the question I had?

Never, ever had reiserfs corrupt itself, even after kernel panics, power failures and the likes. Are you sure your HDDs were not playing tricks on you with false cache flush confirmations to look better in benchmarks?

I was talking about outside influences - physical HDD damage, another OS screwing something up while the OS using the reiserfs partition is off, etc. Stick to your signature and do not skew my words in your favor in a pseudo-smart-assy way, will you?

And even if what you said was true (which my experience doesn't confirm), is there any other Linux filesystem that is actually capable of any serious data recovery when the standard fsck fails?

Personally, I'm using reiserfs (that is, reiser3, not reiser4) solely due to its outstanding disaster recovery capabilities. No matter what happens to the media or the filesystem itself, "reiserfsck --rebuild-tree" is going to bring back everything that was not directly overwritten or corrupted. I've had many things happen to my disks (head crashes, several gigabytes from the beginnig of the partition being overwritten by a borked OS isntaller, "rm -rf blah/ *" instead of "rm -rf blah/*" and so on), and every single time, --rebuild-tree recovered everything that still was there to be recovered. As far as I know, this is due to the fact that all the filesystem metadata is distributed evenly throughout the partition, heavily replicated and identifiable using some kind of magic hashes even when there is no higher-order structure left (so a --rebuild-tree process can just do a linear scan of the damaged partition and find all the "dangling" inodes with ease).

As far as I know, this is not possible (especially using the standard fsck utility as with reiserfs) with the ext* family of filesystems.

So, does btrfs have similar capabilities? If so, I'm going to be quite interested in testing it, even though I'm not using Ubuntu.

Surely a robot programmer who tests his safety-related code on himself and lives must be quite good at what he does? I suppose that he's going to find that video useful, should he choose to search for a new job...

Would you, as a regulator, risk that the families of the killed passengers might be able, with the help of a good lawyer, to convince the judge that such waivers were null and void and your permission to fly was illegal? That would probably mean a life on jail, and it's really not unheard of in judical world to successfully contest such a waiver.

It's easy to call people names if you're not those people and (probably) don't actually know a quack about practical and legal aspects of their work.

I'm getting so many packs of 15s that I would be rich if it was possible to sell them. "Disable Ads" checked since around 2007.

Where did you get those and how many vans full of men in black suits showed up before your door to present the buyout offer?

Sure, you're right, they're a-OK from a legal point of view, but they still are a bunch of douchebags. If nothing else, because they flood the search indexes of Amazon and Google with useless crap that matches almost anything and makes it harder to find relevant publications. This benefits absolutely no one. Actually, I don't see how it could benefit even them and Amazon, as I can't imagine anyone buying this crap for any purpose, other than maybe some extravagant and expensive kind of toilet paper.

Additionally, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, which is not as well-defined and, arguably, as important (well, from a legal point of view, it's not important at all) as the license, but it is there nontheless. People who create content and release it under permissive licenses still have their right to say that they don't appreciate some uses of their work, even though they allow it. Of course, any wise author will admit that it's just the price of making Free things, but even wise people need to rant and gripe sometimes.