Wait... You don't want to use a SSD because it might fail after 10 years of hard use? And how long are your hard drives lasting? I ask because I've rarely *ever* had a standard hard drive last 10 years.

"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. First known use: circa 1912" - Merriam Webster, (who is owned by Encyclopedia Britannica)

The correct usage of a word is what the majority of its users say it is. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Has Twitter *ever* used direct browser data to advertise? I thought 100% of their business model was giving paid suggestions depending on your public tweets and follow list. The DNT toggle won't change that. They're essentially not changing anything. It's not like Twitter has regular ads on the site. They're all paid stream inserts and paid trending topics. The paid inserts have never been based off a cookie or off-site browser behavior.

False positives? Gah! Not what I meant.

Got a call from my bank a couple days ago saying that someone had cloned my debit card and was trying to brute force my pin number. Of course, they locked out the card after a couple false positives, but at least I know now where they got my card info from.

I thought the whole reason they were doing 48 FPS was to solely for the benefit of the 3D version. Of course, that only makes sense if they're using active shutter 3d glasses. (24 FPS/eye) It's always better to have too many frames than not enough. They can always remove, but you can't add and be true to life.

If the energy costs are similar or more, then it doesn't matter. Greenpeace doesn't care about equipment cost or deployment cost. It's 100% energy. Theoretically, the energy cost should be similar between cloud and non-cloud. However, server farms a single point of energy purchase with the potential to greatly reduce the amount of energy coming from fossil fuels. Therefore, focusing on cloud data centers and trying to reduce their fossil fuel intake has a high impact potential over trying to get each tiny company to find alternative sources of energy.

If companies don't like estimates by Greenpeace, perhaps they should reveal official numbers backed up by data. A single statement from Apple off-handedly spouting a number doesn't it make it any truer than Greenpeace estimating the cost. Sorry, I just don't believe unverified numbers from the likes of Apple. Google's response: Urs Hoelzle Google’s Senior Vice President for Technical Infrastructure - "The company welcomed the Greenpeace report and believed that it would intensify the industry’s focus on renewable energy." Adding: "We’ve put a significant time and resources into making Google as energy efficient as possible, using renewable energy, and investing in the sector. We welcome reports like this, as they bring additional attention to these important issues for the industry.

Right. I'm sure Apple isn't skewing the numbers at all to make themselves look better. *wink* *wink*