destinyland writes: "An Ohio Emergency Management Agency staged a mock zombie attack Monday using more than 225 volunteers dressed as zombies at an Ohio college. "Organizers hoped the theme would attract more volunteers than previous simulations of industrial accidents or train crashes," the AP reports, quoting a spokesman for the agency as saying that "People got zombie fever here in Delaware." The exercise included decontamination procedures for hazardous materials, and was inspired by an "emergency preparedness" post on the CDC web site citing the popular fascination with zombies. (The number of zombie ebooks in Amazon's Kindle store has increased by 13.9% in just the last two months.) Now, "Dozens of agencies have embraced the idea," the AP reports, "spreading the message that if you're prepared for a zombie attack, you're prepared for just about anything.""
Bocaj writes: I recently spec'd out a large project for our company that included software from Red Hat. It came back from the CIO with everything approved except I have to use CentOS. Why? Because "it's free Red Hat." Personally I really like the CentOS project because it puts enterprise class software in the hands of people who might not otherwise afford it. We are not those people. We have money. In fact I questioned the decision by asking why the CIO was willing to spend money on another very similar project and not this one. The answer was "because there is no free alternative." I know this has come up before and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is still a very persistent issue. Our CIO is convinced that technical support for any product is worthless. He's will to spend money on "one-time" software purchases, but nothing that is an annual subscription. There is data to support that the Red Hat subscription is cheaper that many other up-front paid software products but not CentOS. The only thing it lacks is support, which the CIO doesn't want. Help?
wesbascas writes: Have you ever wanted to play a new PC game, but weren't sure where your PC falls between the minimum and recommended system requirements? I don't have a whole lot of time to game these days and with new hardware perpetually coming out and component vendors often tweaking their model numbering schemes, knowing exactly what kind of experience I'm buying for $60 can be difficult. Luckily, somebody benchmarked Battlefield 3's campaign on a wide range of hardware configurations and detail settings. If you've purchased a system in the past few years you should be in luck. The video cards tested start with the AMD Radeon HD 4670 and Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT, and go up to the brand new Radeon HD 6990 and GeForce GTX 590. I hate it that my aging Radeon HD 4870 isn't going to cut it at 1080p, but am glad that I found out BEFORE buying the game. I suppose it's time for an upgrade anyway, there's no way I'm missing this title.