Perhaps the drives themselves don't, but the servers or DASD boxes they're sitting in are very susceptible to dust. I realize the article says the hard drives failed, but further down they talk about needing to replace the servers. I'm asserting that it was more likely the dirt and debris that ultimately caused the problem, not the sound.

Thank you. Moreover, I would bet that it wasn't the sound, but the particulates that did it. Whether this was Halon, or FM-200, or some other "clean agent", if you've ever seen a Data Center after one of those goes off, it's covered in powder and dust. The idea that they're truly "clean" is complete crap. Sure, they won't soak your gear in water, but it's not this lovely, clean, unobtrusive gas like the sales folks tell you it is.

I should know better than to feed a "false flag" theorist, but um, you're full of shit:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43740626

No, you're misunderstand me. The reducing their footprint comes from the "collaborative office" transformation (or whatever they're calling it nowadays). You know, take a floor that has about 20 cubicles and 6 offices and "transform" it into an open plan with corrals with seats for 45. You pack them in like goddamn sardines but tell them it's so that you'll "spark creativity" or whatever.

That part reduces your footprint significantly.....even including the folks who come in from home. Typically it's a two phased approach. First you take the office and squeeze it down and wait for the first wave of folks to quit. Next, you bring in the poor folks who've worked from home for 10 years and see how long they can endure a commute and being in a bull pen all day....which typically doesn't last long.

It's evil, but it's effective. HP did this while I was with them.

From what I've observed (and been part of) is that the main reason companies get into the cancelling of remote positions is for money. They want to save money anywhere they can. Usually this is folded in with a transformation to an "open, collaborative work environment" where offices and cubicles are removed so everybody can be fun and vibrant and bubbling with ideas and cross pollination.

Except it's not about that. At all.

The reason companies cancel their Work From Home jobs and remove the cubes and offices is to a) reduce their real estate footprint which reduces their rent and b) piss off enough people that they'll quit. That way, the company doesn't have to pay severance. It's a veiled way of performing layoffs and it works like a charm.

Unfortunately, the companies who started this trend (GE for example) have abandoned it because they learned that once you let that play out, all of your best folks leave, taking all the tribal knowledge with you. The companies still doing this shit now are the dumbasses who are so far behind the times they can't see straight.

Nail on the head

What an absurd statement. You're throwing the word "communist" around and expect to be taken seriously?

But what's strange is they're saying that condensation caused a flash event in a TRANSFORMER, not switchgear. That sounds off to me. A transformer provides plenty of heat, and I can't see how a transformer inside the building would suddenly succumb to "condensation" resulting from extended rains. If that's the case, why hasn't this happened during extended rain events prior to this?

I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Of course, I realize this is a preliminary report.

I've seen this happen at HP, then again at Xerox. Many large companies starting doing this, particularly once Yahoo started doing it. It's usually combined with revamping the workspace into a "collborative" work environment (you know, the ones where they don't allow any offices or cube walls....one big open space so that everyone can collaborate.....what a load of shit that is).

The REAL reason they force folks back into the new office is:
A) they know people have come to love working from home, and many will not be able to handle a long commute after working from home for years, so they'll quit....which is much cheaper than laying them off (and paying severance) or even firing them (and potentially paying unemployment)

B) those folks who stay can now be squeezed into a smaller footprint because they've removed all the bulky cubes and offices, thus less real estate costs because they've reduced the amount of square footage they're occupying.


This is a finance exercise pure and simple.

Hey hey hey, now wait a minute.....

Everyone knows in Soviet Russia, the commerce controls YOU.

Man, you really like to be obtuse don't you?

Listen, dipshit, yes, fuel efficiency is science and engineering......that was fucking PUSHED by regulation. You think those companies like Ford and Chrysler just decided to do something nice for the planet because it was the right thing to do? Hell no. They did it because regulations tightened on emissions and efficiency, so they were forced to adapt. And I love your anecdotal horse shit "hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement" trip. What the hell are you even talking about here?? Where do you live that you don't see any substantial use of hybrid vehicles?

And yes, initially hybrids were cost prohibitive, but that has evolved due to regulation and subsidization. The problem with you curmudgeonly fucks is that you can't see past your own nose, and you cannot imagine the steps necessary to initiate a true sea change. Guys like you who love to believe that they're financial analysts try to boil things down to back of the napkin comparisons, when the reality is so much more complex.

But, go ahead and be an asshole, I don't care. We smart folks will happily leave you behind.

I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?

No one's talking about banning the internal combustion energy, dude. Just like we didn't just ban CFCs, we phased out the CFC based refrigerants over 20 years, and you know what? It worked.

So, why don't you get that enormous cock off your chest and quit accusing people of being "hippie idealists" who are essentially saying the same thing you are? Any idiot with half a brain recognizes that our planets reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end street, and everyone agrees renewables is the way to go (well.....except those die hard Trumpies.....they just want their coal jobs back...).

I've seriously struggled to understand this. How are you actually trying to point to some DNC "conspiracy". To be clear, I was a Bernie Supporter, I voted for him, I wanted him to win. Thus, I should be filled with angst and bile for the violation here.

But, I'm not. Know why?

Because I understand that politics is a game. Bernie was awesome because he went against the grain. Why then is it so hard to believe that the DNC was nervous and threatened by him? Why is it surprising to anyone that they might have a preference for Hillary given her husband's popularity as a president? And most importantly, Bernie lost the primary fair and square.

This talk of "conspiracy" is just garbage and noise. You're trying to move the argument to that storyline so we move away from the hacking aspect. That's a sad diversion attempt.

Exactly. I've been working in Facilities Management for 16 years. I have a LOT of experience with Building Automation systems and Building Monitoring systems. If these dummies were stupid enough to put their Building Automation System on the Internet and didn't bother to put the infrastructure in place to provide adequate security and/or failsafe modes for controller or communications failures, then they deserve what they got.

This is not the way the pros do it. I've never heard of this management company, and it's clear why.....they suck. There is no reason this should have happened. I'd be willing to bet that someone took a shortcut so he/she wouldn't have to come in after hours to respond to issues, so they grabbed an old copy of PC Anywhere and installed in on a client machine or something stupid like that. Too often, I see cases like this where human laziness ends up being the culprit.

That's part of the problem, they've cancelled the "free" option. And they've raised their prices in most markets. They're just getting ready to roll out here in Charlotte, NC, and I was initially excited, but I'm not anymore. Sure, they're offering gigabit speeds, and while you can get that through the others, it's more expensive with them. That said, if they really wanted mass adoption, they should've kept the cheaper plans and lower (but competitive) speeds in place. Why should I switch to them when I'm getting 30 Mbps and 300 digital channels for about $100/month?