Not to mention the uncharacteristically calm and decently-written paragraph in the Dec 26 2:19pm message that looks like it was written by somebody else:

To all our pre-order customers looking for information on the status of their orders after a busy couple of months The PS3 Avengers are on their way from our Manufacturing plant overseas. We are aware that everyone is anticipating having their Avengers under their Christmas Tree and were doing our best to get these orders shipped out as fast as possible. We appreciate you as loyal customers and for supporting our company. Customers will start receiving their products this week before Christmas and After Christmas and into the New Year. As a token of our appreciation we are offering all our pre-order customers and new customers 10$ off your next order with us just enter Avenger1001 at Checkout. Thank you and Happy Holidays!

- RG>

Was he promising any particular ship date? Or does the eBay ad suggest (or not deny) it would ship after January 9?

I'm surprised I haven't seen any mention of the NY Times feature on "Bad publicity is a good thing" "marketing" technique from November 2010. Essentially, through negative association, get your link to the top of the Google results of people searching for something, and let the stupid/ignorant customers continue to buy from you, ignoring the many red flags.

- RG>

That one's also solved. From TFA:

"One time throughout the world, one date throughout the world," they write, in a January 2012 Global Asia article about their proposals.

The full quote, not included in TFA is "One time throughout the world, one date throughout the world, one birthday throughout the world."

- RG>

I suspect that another contributing factor is the Long Tail. That is, as Wikipedia expands, the newest articles are of topics that are of interest to fewer people. Being seen less, they are less likely to be corrected.

- RG>

Man is my math rusty. I was thinking 5m*5m*5m instead of 5m*1m*1m. I was thinking "that's a hell of a big SUV!"

- RG>

The work that charities do is all the hard, unglamorous work that needs to get done that isn't being done by anyone else. It is inherently inefficient. This is not even counting the "administrative overhead" worries that people like to complain about.

You want to avoid administration? Give to something local, run by volunteers, that isn't a registered charity and therefore doesn't need to hire a bookkeeper, accountant, and auditor just to manage their books. Don't bother with whether something is "efficient" or not, look at what they do and see if that's something you think needs to get done.

Donating money to a local food bank, for example, is a lot more efficient than giving canned foods purchased at market rates. (and many of those are charitable)

And if you really want to contribute something effective, donate your time and skills. That's far more valuable than a couple hundred dollars once a year, and is often left out of calculations of charities' "efficiency".

- RG>

People's diaries and letters are published all the time, especially after they're dead and no longer have a say in the matter. And those are things that aren't initially published in a public medium.

- RG>

No they don't.

Why can't I see all my Tweets? My Tweet count is _,___. Are they lost?

The good news is they're not lost or gone! We have all your Tweets. The bad news is that we currently only allow you to see the 3200 most recent Tweets (this could also be construed as good news, as that number could be lower than 3200). We do not currently plan to change this limit, but we welcome your feedback - just send a mention to @feedback.

From the Twitter FAQs.

- RG>

Yeah, and then if you put batteries at the end of the cable, you wouldn't even have to plug it in to the computer!

- RG>

Also, it's only Microsoft that will stop supporting it. I still get support (insofar as it's possible) through the warranty/service plan I got from my hardware vendor.

- RG>

Did it stop you from speeding?

- RG>

Actually, it's the other way around. They build streets with a "design speed" 20 km/h (or whatever the equivalent is in miles) higher than the intended speed limit, ostensibly as a safety measure. This means wider lanes, shallower curves, more level roads, etc.

The end result is that people go a lot faster because they feel safer.

Unfortunately, in North America it's almost like they have to do this because the idiots on this continent don't realize that you *have* to go the speed limit (or faster) *all the time*. If there is poor visibility, or the roads are wet or icy, you should slow down.

BTW, the kids in that video could have insulated themselves from the angry drivers with a second row of cars behind the first one.

- RG>

Actually, it's the other way around. They build streets with a "design speed" 20 km/h (or whatever the equivalent is in miles) higher than the intended speed limit, ostensibly as a safety measure. This means wider lanes, shallower curves, more level roads, etc.

The end result is that people go a lot faster because they feel safer.

Unfortunately, in North America it's almost like they have to do this because the idiots on this continent don't realize that you *have* to go the speed limit (or faster) *all the time*. If there is poor visibility, or the roads are wet or icy, you should slow down.

- RG>

And Welshie! He was my favourite!

- RG>

Yes, but the quote cites recent prosecutions as a reason why the botnets have not reduced output entirely.

- RG>