Unfortunate IT decisions.
At home, I’m used to worrying about whether the electronics in my smoker are adequately protected against the fat dripping down from the pork shoulders above.
But in an office environment — uh oh. Worse Than Failure has the story:
Dan: Is there an air conditioner running in the server room?
Sydney: Yes. Well, I mean, not in the cupboard, but there’s air conditioning in the room.
Dan: “The cupboard?”
Sydney: Yeah, the cupboard in the kitchenette.
Dan: Oh. That could be an issue… are there any vents or fans on the cupboard?
Sydney: Well, no. But Boyd usually leaves the cupboard doors open.
Dan: Hmm… it could still get hot in there…
Sydney: It doesn’t get too hot, though, it works perfect for the pies.
Dan: “The pies?”
In other news:
This is unfortunate, but I am tempted to defend both IBM and the TSA here. Laptop components have a lot of design constraints already, and the battery shape isn’t so gunlike that they should have realized it would cause problems. The TSA, meanwhile, sees something marginally suspicious and checks the bag out. They didn’t red-flag its owner for a body search or do anything ridiculous. Seems like a reasonable security response.
Still, though, it’s disconcerting to think that any L-shaped metal object could slow you down at the airport. It reminds me of the time the TSA announced that “toy transformer robots” that “form a toy gun” would be confiscated. My reaction back in 2002 — I can’t find the email where I said this — was something like this:
Does that mean you’ll have to demonstrate the transformation sequence for any robot toy you bring on? But the TSA should know there are triple-changers, so just showing your robot turning into a plane wouldn’t be enough. Generalizing that, even if you show N transformed states, how does the TSA know there isn’t a N+1th state that is a gun? Would they haul you into a room with a whiteboard and make you prove it?