Geez! I'm too coordinationally challenged for something like that. Seriously, I can only walk and chew gum 2 out of 3 attempts. Admittedly those around me find that third attempt highly entertaining...

I use my gmail account whenever I sign up for free services. This is serious people! Where will all my spam go? Oh, wait, nevermind...

I remember seeing "Ride the Duck" tours in Branson, MO back in the late 80's or early 90's, so the company has been around for a while. I don't know when the Bay Quakers started. The amphibious vehicle they use for the tours apparently was called a DUKW and was used during WWII. So the reference to ducks by both companies is understandable. I don't know about trademark/soundmark issues as ianal. However I could see people getting confused by the similarities in both companies' marketing strategy. I don't know if the rides deploy in near proximity to each other -- that could definitely lead to confusion. Mostly I think it would be confusing to people spreading/receiving info about the companies via word of mouth. "Yeah, I really liked/hated the one with the duck calls..."

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance3 -- Donald vs. Wolverine

But then what really does...

If this caught on, it it might have some serious environmental ramifications. I'm not sure about the screen itself, but depending upon what they use in the batteries, disposal could become an issue. It's hard enough to get people to dispose of things properly -- let alone recycle them. This sounds like it could just make things worse.

My reaction was to the article which said they were applying for a world record. Also according to the article: "Whether a pattern has been found or if the number will become scientifically useful has yet to be announced." They didn't mention comparing the output of two computers, but that might be a viable point. However, if no one has ever calculated it out that far, how can you be 100% positive that the result is correct? Couldn't you theoretically get the same wrong answer using the same program on two computers? I suppose that would at least prove consistency, but not necessarily accuracy.

Assuming no coding errors...

WHY?!? That was my initial gut reaction to this, and, when it comes to gut reactions, mine is fairly substantial... But all glibness aside, why calculate it out that far? Granted my degree is not in mathematics -- it's in engineering. I tend to look for the application of research. I'm not criticizing the people that did this, I just wondered why/how people got funding to do this.

With pseudo free services such as Flickr, you have to abide by their terms of service. Expect them to err on the side of caution rather than risk litigation by large companies. My guess is they were more worried about Time magazine being referenced than the president. According to their terms of service: "You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or remove any Content that is available via the Yahoo! Services. Without limiting the foregoing, Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo! or submitted to Yahoo!, including without limitation information in Yahoo! Message Boards and in all other parts of the Yahoo! Services." Note the phrase "otherwise objectionable". Nice vague language to give themselves the right to remove just about anything. Even though the image was probably copyrighted, it might not have been removed if the rest of Time magazine cover had not also been reproduced. Some might argue that that was implying that Time some how shared the views of the poster (granted that is a bit of a stretch).

"Ruining" would imply that my ability was at least marginally good to begin with...

I used to work at a university. Software was tied to where the workstation was used (labs vs faculty offices vs office staff). When machines moved, they were re-imaged with appropriate software and names for their new location. In that environment, using building name + room # + station number worked well for labs and general office staff. We used faculty name for faculty desktops and notebooks because these sometimes floated between their offices and research labs (i.e. jsmithpc1, jsmithpc2, jsmithnb). As far as actually tracking down a machine, the name gave you a good starting point. We also kept a database of MAC addresses. If something wasn't where it was supposed to be, I used SNMP and a simple PHP app to find what switch port they were on. Failing that, block the machine at the firewall -- they then had a tendency to find you... This wasn't the most entertaining solution, but it was pretty functional.

3 seconds should kill the electronics. I'm not too sure what it would do to the data on the platters -- I can't imagine that the arcing would be good for them. You need about 3 seconds to make sure the magnetron kicks on, but I wouldn't leave it longer than that. I gotta go with the drill or hammer (for sheer stress relief). If you're really paranoid do a secure erase, put a different file system over it with a few random large files, then physically destroy it. If you have access to safely do so, I like the slag heap idea. Stress relief + thorough destruction = pure IT security goodness!

The best part of the movie was seeing a pig used as a projectile weapon. The movie got some laughs -- probably not intentionally. The base message was sound, but the movie was painful to watch. The first half was tedious, and the second half was just a bunch of special effects with little plot.