Hard for any SATA drive to distinguish itself on sequential transfers, given that SATA is capped around 550MB/s

Somehow an edit went awry. Thanks for noticing. Fixed.

We spent NINETEEN BILLION DOLLARS on a chat program.

We spent the GDP of Macedonia on a chat program.

We're Facebook. We're a chat program company, and we spent the price of a brand new aircraft carrier on a chat program with enough left over to buy every man, woman and child in America a pizza with everything.

Short Facebook.

How about if you assholes retrain the 3000 people for the 3000 open positions?

Assholes.

The burden of proof is not on me to justify the safety of biological reproduction.

Supremely selfish and cruel thing to do without even the remotest understanding of the potential consequences.

What if this leaves the child diseased or crippled with some kind of birth defect? Or that child's children?

Experimenting on human beings who have no say in the procedure in order to satisfy some ambitious ego is nothing more than an expression of pure evil.

(Yes I realize this is high blasphemy against the holy church of science and that it will be modded -1 "Heathen" I don't care. It needs to be said)

My philosophy: If you can SEE the neighbors -- they're too close!

BTW I looked at your photos. The landscapes are fuckin' AWESOME.

While I agree that the only reason to put acetominophen into opiates is to ensure that the drug cannot be taken beyond a certain dosage without damaging the patient's liver, I do wonder if the reason really is just a vindictive desire to harm addicts as others are stating.

More logical to me is the conclusion that the authorities just want doctors to have to be careful with their prescriptions. If there were no acetominophen doctors could be pretty liberal in how they prescribe dosages with little consequence. But add some acetophinophen, and now doctors have to be very aware that there is a certain maximum dosage built into the drug, and they cannot prescribe at a higher dosage without risking being fined or jailed or sued or whatever it is that happens to doctors that mis-prescribe dangerous drugs.

I suspect that the powers that be have decided that the maximum reasonably beneficial dosage of an opiate is X mg per day, and so they require that enough acetominophen be added so that X mg per day is also the maximum safe dosage. In doing so they limit the ability of any doctor to prescribe more than what they had believed was the maximum beneficial dose. Likely they chose X mg per day because studies shows that it was the dosage that would be beneficial in the majority of cases, and don't see the need for anyone to go above X mg per day and unnecessarily take a larger risk of addiction.

That sounds more reasonable to me than just wanting to hurt addicts.

I don't use illegal drugs and have no interest in doing so but ... right on. I fully support your right to use whatever substance you want on yourself in whatever way you choose. I agree that the language surrounding the drug debate is heavily skewed towards the presumption of a certain anti-drug viewpoint, and I think it's unfortunate that most people are incapable of the strength of resolve necessary to put their own personal fears aside and engage in the discussion on drugs in a logical, open minded manner.

Lucky dog. I took a business trip to the U.K. and developed an abscess on the airplane. By the time I landed I was in excruciating, nearly panic inducing pain. And I had a week long business trip to attend to. I went to a public dentist and they wouldn't do anything for the pain - they gave me some antibiotic pills that they said should take care of the abscess in two or three days. And in the meantime? Just deal with the pain.

I maxed out on ibuprofin and acetominophen, alternating taking about 50% above maximum dose of each every two hours. I would get a slight relief, bringing the pain to almost bearable for about half an hour, and then it would go back up to full pain level. I would sit and rock back and forth in front of the computer in unbearable pain and focus enough energy to concentrate on my job for a few minutes at a time.

I didn't sleep for nearly two days (was badly jetlagged anyway) and not a morsel of food entered my mouth for about 50 hours.

This all started on Wednesday. On Friday night I started to feel a little better, was able to even fall asleep and then on Saturday I woke up and ... the pain was gone. Hallelujah! Coincidentally the two days of rainy crappy weather were over and the sun was out. Just in time for me to enjoy the driving trip to Cardiff I had planned for myself.

When I got back to CA my doctor did a root canal. This was on a tooth that had already had a root canal 7 years earlier but his conclusion was "I guess I missed some nerve endings the first time around".

Alls well that ends well I suppose but ... I would have *killed* for some real painkillers at the time. I've never taken vicodin or any kind of opiate at all, and generally would never want to, but in this case ... I would have made the exception.

I was in part responding to the idea that women get to choose to work lesser hours therefore it's fair they get paid less. Many women don't work lesser hours and the roles they more frequently work in are often lower paid per hour.

The reasons for this are varied and complex, but a significant part of that is the 'higher paid' STEM roles are seen as unattainable for women more than for men - even given a broad background of socio-economic factors.

Women are more likely to be channeled into nurturing or service roles such as teaching, nursing, childcare or aged care, rather than more lucrative roles such as sales or STEM roles. At the lower end of the economy, they are more likely to be a waitress than a construction worker - guess what pays more. Yes being a construction worker may be more physically demanding - but being on your feet all day waiting tables isn't being slack either. In Australia, tradesmen are some of the best paid people, I can assure you that the 'professions' for working class women are not paid nearly as well, they are likely to be a hairdresser or beauty therapist or a masseuse.

And you can bet that the construction industry is unwelcoming to women in very similar ways that IT is. I can tell you I've experienced both first hand having started in Architecture and worked directly on building sites as well as moving into IT and working directly with programmers and other IT types from the position of doing both Tech Support and now as a Systems Analyst.

You say that programming jobs aren't lucrative - that is a relative term. They may not be paid as well as a top performing sales person or someone in finance or banking - but they generally pay better than nursing or teaching or any of the personal care professions women tend to get pushed towards.

It has been shown in many developing countries that the best way to improve your economy is to give women more money. Here's a couple of studies to get you started. It makes no sense to keep 50% of the population explicitly in underpaid roles.

Acknowledging that this is totally a 'devil's advocate' type statement, but I suspect you would find there are plenty of women, particularly single mothers from lower income households, that work more than one lower paid job that total in excess of 40 hours (and some in excess of 60 hours) just to make ends meet.

Many of these women come from backgrounds that don't value education and are not equipped for higher paid roles that would enable them to work more manageable hours at a single job rather than terrible hours at more than one job.

This is not to say there aren't guys who work terrible hours, some in more than one job. But choosing to ONLY work 40 hours is sometimes a luxury afforded to people to can afford to do so, either because the job they have is sufficiently well paid or they have someone else supporting them.

Women also frequently are expected to be the primary partner responsible for child care, to be at home and available when the kids aren't at school, 'allowing' the male partner to put in the extra hours for the greater responsibility and career opportunities that equate to higher incomes.

Much of the push these sort of initiatives promote is not about mandatory quotas when hiring but about providing equal opportunities. Currently the opportunities are not equal, women are still actively discouraged from pursuing STEM jobs and encouraged to work in lower paid, lower status, nurturing based roles. If you want to see men becoming teachers or nurses or aged care - make changes so that the roles are perceived to be as valuable to the community and the bank account as programming or sales or working on an oil rig.