For those of us on limited Data plans Opera Mini's server side compression is great, not to mention the increased speed. Mind you on my Non-Apple smart phone I have recently started using Bolt browser - it has similar server side compression but gives a more "desktop like" web page appearance.

Exactly what grounds would Adobe sue on? If Apple was offering a competing proprietary product to play Flash media, I could (possibly) see an anti-trust case. But they aren't, they're simply not offering the functionality. This isn't really the same thing as Netscape vs. Microsoft.

Um, You bought a MLC drive and are now complaining about drive wear?
You bought a cheap product. If you would of bought an SLC you wouldn't have the same level of drive wear. I want to say the difference is a factor of 10.

next time get a X25-E.

I'd love to know how the X25-V's are shaping up.

OCZ has the Z-Drive (ZDM841T) which is PCI-E and 1TB which is $3800. They use PCI-E to get around sata's speed limitation, and has a speed of 870MB/s read and 780MB/s write. It seems like that would be a better option, and it isn't new. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227500

The Arch testing repository contains the latest kernel usually within a day or two of release.

I'm reminded of AVP ... except this is the opposite ....

Who ever loses, we win!

Ignoring as much as possible the confounding composition of this summary, there's something very wrong with this bit:

"...but mechanical hard drives are still king when it comes to capacity. That was until the revamped Colossus LT series Solid State Drive came along this week. With up to 1TB..."

Given that standard desktop form factor hard drives with a capacity of 2 TB are readily available for purchase, it doesn't seem that the arrival of the Revamped 1 TB Colossus LT Solid State Drive represents even a slight advantage for SSDs regarding capacity. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, instead of this single SSD, 20 traditional 1 TB hard drives could be purchased with enough budget left for a server board, processor, ram and a few discrete RAID cards.

I'm surprised to see this publicly available, usually such premium-priced products are exclusive to industries with more dollars than sense--film and medical come to mind.

That was my exact response. That's all ISP's have ever been, that's what we pay them to be, that's all we ever wanted. It's scary that they feel entitled to try to be anything else.

If they want to make money from content, they need to start providing it, not leech off those who do it well.

This is a difficult problem indeed. Knowing that they had to manually choose the toolpath plan makes this video much less impressive. A software that could automatically determine the most (or pretty good) efficient toolpath and also detect impossible structures to machine with the hardware provided would be impressive. This way a 3D modeler could simply press the "print" button, see if there are impossible details to machine, fix them, and then go get lunch while it works.

"why should something that is easily remedied with technology be a concern of government?"

Easily remedied with techology? You're kidding right? If spam can be "easily remedied with technology" then why hasn't it been eradicated already?

OK. So the next time my favorite politician says that he is going to make it all better, and that the only thing i have to do is give him my vote, can we get the state to sue her/him when it does not work out.

When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults

That's the beauty of open-ended questions. I get to see how the candidate thinks.

There's no single right or "most appropriate" response, but there are plenty of wrong responses. My expected response is what you describe as:

But think about what some of your other answers would tell me.

If you gave me your first few answers and just left it at that, I'd understand that you had hands-on experience with both languages, but pointing out the differences in comment style would make me want to probe your soft skills a bit. So I'd ask for one or two high-level differences that might make me choose one solution over the other (just to be sure), and then I'd switch to soft-skill questions.

In other words, giving an answer other than what I expect isn't going to doom the interview, but it will definitely help determine its course. :)

they aren't choosing to buy snake oil. they're choosing to buy a product they think will benefit them, which in fact will in no way benefit them in the means advertised by the manufacturer of that product. a lot of scammy stuff is legal (publisher's clearinghouse) but this guy seems to go way over the line with the deception including overpriced books that are at best full of untruths and at worst medically dangerous.

I've used a little bit of CAM software, and it was never *that* automated. You told it what tooling you wanted to use to create which features and it would calculate the path. So you gave the computer insight into the feeds/speed, cutter dimension, length, etc. And, the software didn't know about fixtures. That was up to the job of the machinist to make sure the fixtures weren't in the way (though, that wouldn't be *that* hard to tell a computer where the fixturing will be)

And that is also blatently terrorist.

Not unless all warfare is terrorism. That's certainly a possible position to take, however there's little reason to single out H&N for that.

The more people talk, the more these deep-founded feelings emerge.

Um, what feelings?

You're mixing the two. Either the bombings were militarily justified or not. If your feelings about the war crimes of the military are influencing your decision, then you're considering collective punishment, albeit with an excuse up your sleeve.

Of course dropping atomic bombs was militarily justified, being the most effective means available to force Japan to surrender with least casualties to the USA. The question is whether it was morally justified, and to determine that you have to consider more than just what strategy happens to be most convenient.

There is a difference between collective punishment, where causing suffering is the goal in itself, and collateral damage, where suffering is the unfortunate side effect of the means chosen to achieve a goal.

Abandoning the planned de-industrialisation of the axis countries is widely considered a strategic decision rather than an act of compassion.

The fact that compassion is an evolved trait strongly suggests it's often the best strategic decision :).

Most military superior technologies only avoid deaths of your own combatents, and increase the numbers of civilian casualties, as with air strikes and nuclear weapons.

Being superior enough means you don't have to resort to carpet-bombing cities to win. And having less casualties on your side decreases the chances of your own troops taking their anger out on locals on occupied areas, as happened in Vietnam.

Morally and philosophically this is indeed an interesting question, but the rules of war are quite clear about this.

Rules of war attempt to codify morality.

I wasn't suggesting that. But if you drop a bomb on a city and then point to one man who's in charge, that's running from responsibility for your actions. It was the american military which decided to bomb the city and kill thousands of civilians, not Hirohito.

100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 80,000+ in Nagasaki, so it's more like hundreds of thousands.

Tell me, who is responsible for the Germans who died in WWII, Churchill or Hitler? Because the former certainly ordered more bombing raids that killed them than the latter. Yes, US Army dropped the atomic bombs, but it was Japan who pushed things to the point where that was the best available solution.

Rape is unavoidable when you have an army of rough men occupy a country. Massacres are unavoidable when you have thousands of frustrated soldiers with heavy weaponry under pressure.

Neither rape nor massacres are unavoidable. They happen when nihilism and anger win over discipline and moral restraints.

The historical context is that nationaist sentiment was extremely strong in the former half of the twentieth century. Combined with an enemy stereotype that had been built up over the previous years and the overall racial hostility towards asians in the era, many Americans indeed considered the entire people of Japan to be responsible and punishable. This sentiment is reflected in the reporting of the time.

Really, now? And all the reports of Japanese atrocities, told by the very people who suffered them 60 years after the war ended, are they too just propaganda? You know, the atrocities Japanese directed against other asians?

But yes, you are quite correct about ultra-nationalism being the main reason for war, you're simply not associating it with the countries which practiced it: Germany, Japan and Italy.

But these days we should know that not every japanese person was a homicidal, genocidal and suicidal maniac who suddenly turned peaceful after getting a nuclear slap on the wrist and was eternally thankful when Uncle Sam arrived and gave him cookies.

Of course not, the same as not all Germans were Nazis. Are you suggesting these countries should had been allowed to conquer the world and divide it amongst themselves, which is what they specifically attempted?

And, once again, it was Japan who began the war and refused to end it before getting "nuclear slap on the wrist", not "Uncle Sam".

It is hard for example to imagine similar actions against Germany, even though they were involved in an equal number of deaths with a more targeted and thorough execution.

Similar actions, such as firebombing Dresden, which killed 30,000 people?

The reason Germany didn't get nuked is simply that they were beaten before the Allies got any. Instead, they got hit with conventional weapons to pretty much the same level of devastation. For that matter, so was Japan before atomic bombs. You keep on trying to find some kind of racist, nationalist motive behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the simple fact is that they were perfectly in line with general level of devastation in WWII. It was a huge war with some extremely nasty people in it, and that's what it ultimately escalated to.

As for nationalism and racism, Imperial Japan was guilty of both, and committed many if not most of its atrocities because of them. Ask any of their neighbours for the details.

Swoosh.... You just don't get it do you?

No, I can't say I do. You keep on suggesting that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was motivated by racism, despite all evidence that points to it being a purely military decision, and now seem to be implying that it was okay for Japanese to perform racism-motivated atrocities against their neighbours. If I had to guess, I'd say you are trying to pervert logic to make the US seem the villain here, most likely because of fashion, liberal guilt or a particularly pathetic example of Japanese nationalism.

But, perhaps you could clarify: what did you wish to communicate with your choice of emphasis?