document_title: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

question_text: how many cases make it to the supreme court

text: Terms and sittings[edit]

text: A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

text: The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]

text: Appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:

text:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.

text: Original jurisdiction[edit]

text: Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.

text: The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.

text: Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[2] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[3]

text: Selection of cases[edit]

text:
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction has been discretionary.[4] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[5][6]

text: The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court's Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson's first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[7]

text: In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[8][9][10]

text: During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[11]

text: The votes of four Justices at conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.

text: The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.

text: Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.

text: Hearing cases[edit]

text: Filing briefs[edit]

text: Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:

text: Oral arguments[edit]

text: Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.

text: To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[13]

text: The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[14] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.

text: In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it was "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he had already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it was "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney could make the difference for him.[15]

text: Forming opinions[edit]

text: The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]

text: At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[16] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.

text: Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[17] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[18] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.

text: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]

text: The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[19] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

text: Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.

text: The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[20] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[21] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[22] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[23] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

text: A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.

text: After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[24]

text: Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.

text: Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]

text:
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case.
The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.

text: A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[25]

text: Announcement of opinions[edit]

text: Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[26]

text: The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.

text: Reporting and citation of cases[edit]

text: Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[27]

text: The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.

text: Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.


document_title: Hard disk drive

question_text: the amount of storage available on a hard disk drive is measured in

question_tokens: the amount of storage available on a hard disk drive is measured in

root

text: Hard disk drive

text: History[edit]

text:
Improvement of HDD characteristics over time

Parameter
Started with (1956)
Developed to (2017)
Improvement

Capacity
(formatted)
3.75 megabytes[12]
14 terabytes[13]
3.73-million-to-one[14]

Physical volume
68 cubic feet (1.9 m3)[c][6]
2.1 cubic inches (34 cm3)[15][d]
56,000-to-one[16]

Weight
2,000 pounds (910 kg)[6]
2.2 ounces (62 g)[15]
15,000-to-one[17]

Average access time
approx. 600 milliseconds[6]
2.5 ms to 10 ms; RW RAM dependent
about
200-to-one[18]

Price
US$9,200 per megabyte (1961)[19]
US$0.032 per gigabyte by 2015[20]
300-million-to-one[21]

Data density
2,000 bits per square inch[22]
1.3 terabits per square inch in 2015[23]
650-million-to-one[24]

Average lifespan
~2000 hrs MTBF[citation needed]
~2500000 hrs MTBF[25]
1250-to-one[26]

tag: table

text: Hard disk drives were introduced in 1956 as data storage for an IBM real-time transaction processing computer, and were developed for use with general-purpose mainframe and minicomputers. The first IBM drive, the 350 RAMAC in 1956, was approximately the size of two medium-sized refrigerators and stored five million six-bit characters (3.75 megabytes)[12] on a stack of 50 disks.[27]

tag: p

text: In 1962 the IBM 350 RAMAC disk storage unit was superseded by the IBM 1301 disk storage unit,[28] which consisted of 50 platters, each about 1/8-inch thick and 24 inches in diameter.[29] Whereas the IBM 350 used only two read/write heads which were pneumatically actuated[27] and moved in two dimensions, the 1301 was one of the first disk storage units to use an array of heads, one per platter, moving as a single unit. Cylinder-mode read/write operations were supported, and the heads flew about 250 micro-inches (about 6 µm) above the platter surface. Motion of the head array depended upon a binary adder system of hydraulic actuators which assured repeatable positioning. The 1301 cabinet was about the size of three home refrigerators placed side by side, storing the equivalent of about 21 million eight-bit bytes. Access time was about a quarter of a second.

text: Also in 1962, IBM introduced the model 1311 disk drive, which was about the size of a washing machine and stored two million characters on a removable disk pack. Users could buy additional packs and interchange them as needed, much like reels of magnetic tape. Later models of removable pack drives, from IBM and others, became the norm in most computer installations and reached capacities of 300 megabytes by the early 1980s. Non-removable HDDs were called "fixed disk" drives.

text: Some high-performance HDDs were manufactured with one head per track (e.g. IBM 2305 in 1970) so that no time was lost physically moving the heads to a track.[30] Known as fixed-head or head-per-track disk drives they were very expensive and are no longer in production.[31]

text: In 1973, IBM introduced a new type of HDD code-named "Winchester". Its primary distinguishing feature was that the disk heads were not withdrawn completely from the stack of disk platters when the drive was powered down. Instead, the heads were allowed to "land" on a special area of the disk surface upon spin-down, "taking off" again when the disk was later powered on. This greatly reduced the cost of the head actuator mechanism, but precluded removing just the disks from the drive as was done with the disk packs of the day. Instead, the first models of "Winchester technology" drives featured a removable disk module, which included both the disk pack and the head assembly, leaving the actuator motor in the drive upon removal. Later "Winchester" drives abandoned the removable media concept and returned to non-removable platters.

text: Like the first removable pack drive, the first "Winchester" drives used platters 14 inches (360 mm) in diameter. A few years later, designers were exploring the possibility that physically smaller platters might offer advantages. Drives with non-removable eight-inch platters appeared, and then drives that used a 5 1⁄4 in (130 mm) form factor (a mounting width equivalent to that used by contemporary floppy disk drives). The latter were primarily intended for the then-fledgling personal computer (PC) market.

text: As the 1980s began, HDDs were a rare and very expensive additional feature in PCs, but by the late 1980s their cost had been reduced to the point where they were standard on all but the cheapest computers.

text: Most HDDs in the early 1980s were sold to PC end users as an external, add-on subsystem. The subsystem was not sold under the drive manufacturer's name but under the subsystem manufacturer's name such as Corvus Systems and Tallgrass Technologies, or under the PC system manufacturer's name such as the Apple ProFile. The IBM PC/XT in 1983 included an internal 10 MB HDD, and soon thereafter internal HDDs proliferated on personal computers.

text: External HDDs remained popular for much longer on the Apple Macintosh. Many Macintosh computers made between 1986 and 1998 featured a SCSI port on the back, making external expansion simple. Older compact Macintosh computers did not have user-accessible hard drive bays (indeed, the Macintosh 128K, Macintosh 512K, and Macintosh Plus did not feature a hard drive bay at all), so on those models external SCSI disks were the only reasonable option for expanding upon any internal storage.

text: The 2011 Thailand floods damaged the manufacturing plants and impacted hard disk drive cost adversely between 2011 and 2013.[32]

text: Driven by ever increasing areal density since their invention, HDDs have continuously improved their characteristics; a few highlights are listed in the table above. At the same time, market application expanded from mainframe computers of the late 1950s to most mass storage applications including computers and consumer applications such as storage of entertainment content.

text: Technology[edit]

text: Magnetic recording[edit]

text: A modern HDD records data by magnetizing a thin film of ferromagnetic material[e] on a disk. Sequential changes in the direction of magnetization represent binary data bits. The data is read from the disk by detecting the transitions in magnetization. User data is encoded using an encoding scheme, such as run-length limited encoding,[f] which determines how the data is represented by the magnetic transitions.

text: A typical HDD design consists of a spindle that holds flat circular disks, also called platters, which hold the recorded data. The platters are made from a non-magnetic material, usually aluminum alloy, glass, or ceramic, and are coated with a shallow layer of magnetic material typically 10–20 nm in depth, with an outer layer of carbon for protection.[34][35][36] For reference, a standard piece of copy paper is 0.07–0.18 millimeters (70,000–180,000 nm).[37]

text: The platters in contemporary HDDs are spun at speeds varying from 4,200 rpm in energy-efficient portable devices, to 15,000 rpm for high-performance servers.[39] The first HDDs spun at 1,200 rpm[6] and, for many years, 3,600 rpm was the norm.[40] As of December 2013, the platters in most consumer-grade HDDs spin at either 5,400 rpm or 7,200 rpm.[41]

text: Information is written to and read from a platter as it rotates past devices called read-and-write heads that are positioned to operate very close to the magnetic surface, with their flying height often in the range of tens of nanometers. The read-and-write head is used to detect and modify the magnetization of the material passing immediately under it.

text: In modern drives, there is one head for each magnetic platter surface on the spindle, mounted on a common arm. An actuator arm (or access arm) moves the heads on an arc (roughly radially) across the platters as they spin, allowing each head to access almost the entire surface of the platter as it spins. The arm is moved using a voice coil actuator or in some older designs a stepper motor. Early hard disk drives wrote data at some constant bits per second, resulting in all tracks having the same amount of data per track but modern drives (since the 1990s) use zone bit recording – increasing the write speed from inner to outer zone and thereby storing more data per track in the outer zones.

text: In modern drives, the small size of the magnetic regions creates the danger that their magnetic state might be lost because of thermal effects, thermally induced magnetic instability which is commonly known as the "superparamagnetic limit". To counter this, the platters are coated with two parallel magnetic layers, separated by a 3-atom layer of the non-magnetic element ruthenium, and the two layers are magnetized in opposite orientation, thus reinforcing each other.[42] Another technology used to overcome thermal effects to allow greater recording densities is perpendicular recording, first shipped in 2005,[43] and as of 2007 the technology was used in many HDDs.[44][45][46]

text: In 2004, a new concept was introduced to allow further increase of the data density in magnetic recording, using recording media consisting of coupled soft and hard magnetic layers. That so-called exchange spring media, also known as exchange coupled composite media, allows good writability due to the write-assist nature of the soft layer. However, the thermal stability is determined only by the hardest layer and not influenced by the soft layer.[47][48]

text: Components[edit]

text: A typical HDD has two electric motors; a spindle motor that spins the disks and an actuator (motor) that positions the read/write head assembly across the spinning disks. The disk motor has an external rotor attached to the disks; the stator windings are fixed in place. Opposite the actuator at the end of the head support arm is the read-write head; thin printed-circuit cables connect the read-write heads to amplifier electronics mounted at the pivot of the actuator. The head support arm is very light, but also stiff; in modern drives, acceleration at the head reaches 550 g.

text: The actuator is a permanent magnet and moving coil motor that swings the heads to the desired position. A metal plate supports a squat neodymium-iron-boron (NIB) high-flux magnet. Beneath this plate is the moving coil, often referred to as the voice coil by analogy to the coil in loudspeakers, which is attached to the actuator hub, and beneath that is a second NIB magnet, mounted on the bottom plate of the motor (some drives have only one magnet).

text: The voice coil itself is shaped rather like an arrowhead, and made of doubly coated copper magnet wire. The inner layer is insulation, and the outer is thermoplastic, which bonds the coil together after it is wound on a form, making it self-supporting. The portions of the coil along the two sides of the arrowhead (which point to the actuator bearing center) then interact with the magnetic field of the fixed magnet. Current flowing radially outward along one side of the arrowhead and radially inward on the other produces the tangential force. If the magnetic field were uniform, each side would generate opposing forces that would cancel each other out. Therefore, the surface of the magnet is half north pole and half south pole, with the radial dividing line in the middle, causing the two sides of the coil to see opposite magnetic fields and produce forces that add instead of canceling. Currents along the top and bottom of the coil produce radial forces that do not rotate the head.

text: The HDD's electronics control the movement of the actuator and the rotation of the disk, and perform reads and writes on demand from the disk controller. Feedback of the drive electronics is accomplished by means of special segments of the disk dedicated to servo feedback. These are either complete concentric circles (in the case of dedicated servo technology), or segments interspersed with real data (in the case of embedded servo technology). The servo feedback optimizes the signal to noise ratio of the GMR sensors by adjusting the voice-coil of the actuated arm. The spinning of the disk also uses a servo motor. Modern disk firmware is capable of scheduling reads and writes efficiently on the platter surfaces and remapping sectors of the media which have failed.

text: Error rates and handling[edit]

text: Modern drives make extensive use of error correction codes (ECCs), particularly Reed–Solomon error correction. These techniques store extra bits, determined by mathematical formulas, for each block of data; the extra bits allow many errors to be corrected invisibly. The extra bits themselves take up space on the HDD, but allow higher recording densities to be employed without causing uncorrectable errors, resulting in much larger storage capacity.[49] For example, a typical 1 TB hard disk with 512-byte sectors provides additional capacity of about 93 GB for the ECC data.[50]

text: In the newest drives, as of 2009,[51] low-density parity-check codes (LDPC) were supplanting Reed–Solomon; LDPC codes enable performance close to the Shannon Limit and thus provide the highest storage density available.[51][52]

text: Typical hard disk drives attempt to "remap" the data in a physical sector that is failing to a spare physical sector provided by the drive's "spare sector pool" (also called "reserve pool"),[53] while relying on the ECC to recover stored data while the number of errors in a bad sector is still low enough. The S.M.A.R.T (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) feature counts the total number of errors in the entire HDD fixed by ECC (although not on all hard drives as the related S.M.A.R.T attributes "Hardware ECC Recovered" and "Soft ECC Correction" are not consistently supported), and the total number of performed sector remappings, as the occurrence of many such errors may predict an HDD failure.

text: The "No-ID Format", developed by IBM in the mid-1990s, contains information about which sectors are bad and where remapped sectors have been located.[54]

text: Only a tiny fraction of the detected errors ends up as not correctable. For example, specification for an enterprise SAS disk (a model from 2013) estimates this fraction to be one uncorrected error in every 1016 bits,[55] and another SAS enterprise disk from 2013 specifies similar error rates.[56] Another modern (as of 2013) enterprise SATA disk specifies an error rate of less than 10 non-recoverable read errors in every 1016 bits.[57][needs update?] An enterprise disk with a Fibre Channel interface, which uses 520 byte sectors to support the Data Integrity Field standard to combat data corruption, specifies similar error rates in 2005.[58]

text: The worst type of errors are silent data corruptions which are errors undetected by the disk firmware or the host operating system; some of these errors may be caused by hard disk drive malfunctions.[59]

text: Development[edit]

text: The rate of areal density advancement was similar to Moore's law (doubling every two years) through 2010: 60% per year during 1988–1996, 100% during 1996–2003 and 30% during 2003–2010.[60] Gordon Moore (1997) called the increase "flabbergasting,"[61] while observing later that growth cannot continue forever.[62] Price improvement decelerated to −12% per year during 2010–2017,[63] as the growth of areal density slowed. The rate of advancement for areal density slowed to 10% per year during 2010–2016,[64] and there was difficulty in migrating from perpendicular recording to newer technologies.[65]

text: As bit cell size decreases, more data can be put onto a single drive platter. In 2013, a production desktop 3 TB HDD (with four platters) would have had an areal density of about 500 Gbit/in2 which would have amounted to a bit cell comprising about 18 magnetic grains (11 by 1.6 grains).[66] Since the mid-2000s areal density progress has increasingly been challenged by a superparamagnetic trilemma involving grain size, grain magnetic strength and ability of the head to write.[67] In order to maintain acceptable signal to noise smaller grains are required; smaller grains may self-reverse (electrothermal instability) unless their magnetic strength is increased, but known write head materials are unable to generate a magnetic field sufficient to write the medium. Several new magnetic storage technologies are being developed to overcome or at least abate this trilemma and thereby maintain the competitiveness of HDDs with respect to products such as flash memory-based solid-state drives (SSDs).

text: In 2013, Seagate introduced one such technology, shingled magnetic recording (SMR).[68] Additionally, SMR comes with design complexities that may cause reduced write performance.[69][70] Other new recording technologies that, as of 2016[update], still remain under development include heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR),[71][72] microwave-assisted magnetic recording (MAMR),[73][74] two-dimensional magnetic recording (TDMR),[66][75] bit-patterned recording (BPR),[76] and "current perpendicular to plane" giant magnetoresistance (CPP/GMR) heads.[77][78][79]

text: The rate of areal density growth has dropped below the historical Moore's law rate of 40% per year, and the deceleration is expected to persist through at least 2020. Depending upon assumptions on feasibility and timing of these technologies, the median forecast by industry observers and analysts for 2020 and beyond for areal density growth is 20% per year with a range of 10–30%.[80][81][82][83] The achievable limit for the HAMR technology in combination with BPR and SMR may be 10 Tbit/in2,[84] which would be 20 times higher than the 500 Gbit/in2 represented by 2013 production desktop HDDs. As of 2015, HAMR HDDs have been delayed several years, and are expected in 2018. They require a different architecture, with redesigned media and read/write heads, new lasers, and new near-field optical transducers.[85]

text: Capacity[edit]

text: The capacity of a hard disk drive, as reported by an operating system to the end user, is smaller than the amount stated by the manufacturer, which has several reasons: the operating system using some space, use of some space for data redundancy, and space use for file system structures. The difference in capacity reported in SI decimal prefixed units vs. binary prefixes can lead to a false impression of missing capacity.

text: Calculation[edit]

text: Modern hard disk drives appear to their host controller as a contiguous set of logical blocks, and the gross drive capacity is calculated by multiplying the number of blocks by the block size. This information is available from the manufacturer's product specification, and from the drive itself through use of operating system functions that invoke low-level drive commands.[86][87]

text: The gross capacity of older HDDs is calculated as the product of the number of cylinders per recording zone, the number of bytes per sector (most commonly 512), and the count of zones of the drive.[citation needed] Some modern SATA drives also report cylinder-head-sector (CHS) capacities, but these are not physical parameters because the reported values are constrained by historic operating system interfaces. The C/H/S scheme has been replaced by logical block addressing (LBA), a simple linear addressing scheme that locates blocks by an integer index, which starts at LBA 0 for the first block and increments thereafter.[88] When using the C/H/S method to describe modern large drives, the number of heads is often set to 64, although a typical hard disk drive, as of 2013[update], has between one and four platters.

text: In modern HDDs, spare capacity for defect management is not included in the published capacity; however, in many early HDDs a certain number of sectors were reserved as spares, thereby reducing the capacity available to the operating system.

text: For RAID subsystems, data integrity and fault-tolerance requirements also reduce the realized capacity. For example, a RAID 1 array has about half the total capacity as a result of data mirroring, while a RAID 5 array with x drives loses 1/x of capacity (which equals to the capacity of a single drive) due to storing parity information. RAID subsystems are multiple drives that appear to be one drive or more drives to the user, but provide fault tolerance. Most RAID vendors use checksums to improve data integrity at the block level. Some vendors design systems using HDDs with sectors of 520 bytes to contain 512 bytes of user data and eight checksum bytes, or by using separate 512-byte sectors for the checksum data.[89]

text: Some systems may use hidden partitions for system recovery, reducing the capacity available to the end user.

text: Formatting[edit]

text: Data is stored on a hard drive in a series of logical blocks. Each block is delimited by markers identifying its start and end, error detecting and correcting information, and space between blocks to allow for minor timing variations. These blocks often contained 512 bytes of usable data, but other sizes have been used. As drive density increased, an initiative known as Advanced Format extended the block size to 4096 bytes of usable data, with a resulting significant reduction in the amount of disk space used for block headers, error checking data, and spacing.

text: The process of initializing these logical blocks on the physical disk platters is called low-level formatting, which is usually performed at the factory and is not normally changed in the field.[90] High-level formatting writes data structures used by the operating system to organize data files on the disk. This includes writing partition and file system structures into selected logical blocks. For example, some of the disk space will be used to hold a directory of disk file names and a list of logical blocks associated with a particular file.

text: Examples of partition mapping scheme include Master boot record (MBR) and GUID Partition Table (GPT). Examples of data structures stored on disk to retrieve files include the File Allocation Table (FAT) in the DOS file system and inodes in many UNIX file systems, as well as other operating system data structures (also known as metadata). As a consequence, not all the space on an HDD is available for user files, but this system overhead is usually small compared with user data.

text: Units[edit]

text:
Decimal and binary unit prefixes interpretation[91][92]

Capacity advertised by manufacturers[g]
Capacity expected by some consumers[h]
Reported capacity

Windows[h]
macOS ver 10.6+[g]

With prefix
Bytes
Bytes
Diff.

100 GB
100,000,000,000
107,374,182,400
7.37%
93.1 GB
100 GB

1 TB
1,000,000,000,000
1,099,511,627,776
9.95%
931 GB
1,000 GB, 1,000,000 MB

text: The total capacity of HDDs is given by manufacturers using SI decimal prefixes such as gigabytes (1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes) and terabytes (1 TB = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes).[91] This practice dates back to the early days of computing;[93] by the 1970s, "million", "mega" and "M" were consistently used in the decimal sense for drive capacity.[94][95][96] However, capacities of memory are quoted using a binary interpretation of the prefixes, i.e. using powers of 1024 instead of 1000.

text: Software reports hard disk drive or memory capacity in different forms using either decimal or binary prefixes. The Microsoft Windows family of operating systems uses the binary convention when reporting storage capacity, so an HDD offered by its manufacturer as a 1 TB drive is reported by these operating systems as a 931 GB HDD. Mac OS X 10.6 ("Snow Leopard") uses decimal convention when reporting HDD capacity.[97] The default behavior of the df command-line utility on Linux is to report the HDD capacity as a number of 1024-byte units.[98]

text: The difference between the decimal and binary prefix interpretation caused some consumer confusion and led to class action suits against HDD manufacturers. The plaintiffs argued that the use of decimal prefixes effectively misled consumers while the defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability, asserting that their marketing and advertising complied in all respects with the law and that no class member sustained any damages or injuries.[99][100][101]

text: Price evolution[edit]

text: HDD price per byte improved at the rate of −40% per year during 1988–1996, −51% per year during 1996–2003, and −34% per year during 2003–2010.[20][60] The price improvement decelerated to −13% per year during 2011–2014, as areal density increase slowed and the 2011 Thailand floods damaged manufacturing facilities.[65]

text: Form factors[edit]

text:
Past and present HDD form factors

Form factor
(inch)
Status
Dimensions
(Each dimension in mm)
Largest capacity
Platters (max.)
Capacity
per platter (GB)

Length
Width
Height

3.5
Current
146
101.6
19, 25.4 or 26.1[102]
14 TB[103] (October 2017)
8[104]
1,750[i]

2.5
Current
100
69.85
5[105]
7, 9.5,[j] 12.5, 15 or 19[106]

5 TB[107]
5[108]
1,000

1.8
Obsolete
78.5[k]
54
5 or 8
320 GB[15] (2009)
2
220[109]

8
Obsolete
362
241.3
117.5
?
?
?

5.25 (FH)
Obsolete
203
146
82.6
47 GB[110] (1998)
14
3.36

5.25 (HH)
Obsolete
203
146
41.4
19.3 GB[111] (1998)
4[l]
4.83

1.3
Obsolete
?
43
?
40 GB[112] (2007)
1
40

1 (CFII/ZIF/IDE-Flex)
Obsolete
?
42
?
20 GB (2006)
1
20

0.85
Obsolete
32
24
5
8 GB[113][114] (2004)
1
8

text: IBM's first hard drive, the IBM 350, used a stack of fifty 24-inch platters and was of a size comparable to two large refrigerators. In 1962, IBM introduced its model 1311 disk, which used six 14-inch (nominal size) platters in a removable pack and was roughly the size of a washing machine. This became a standard platter size and drive form-factor for many years, used also by other manufacturers.[115] The IBM 2314 used platters of the same size in an eleven-high pack and introduced the "drive in a drawer" layout, although the "drawer" was not the complete drive.

text: Later drives were designed to fit entirely into a chassis that would mount in a 19-inch rack. Digital's RK05 and RL01 were early examples using single 14-inch platters in removable packs, the entire drive fitting in a 10.5-inch-high rack space (six rack units). In the mid-to-late 1980s the similarly sized Fujitsu Eagle, which used (coincidentally) 10.5-inch platters, was a popular product.

text: Such large platters were never used with microprocessor-based systems. With increasing sales of microcomputers having built in floppy-disk drives (FDDs), HDDs that would fit to the FDD mountings became desirable. Thus HDD Form factors, initially followed those of 8-inch, 5.25-inch, and 3.5-inch floppy disk drives. Because there were no smaller floppy disk drives, smaller HDD form factors developed from product offerings or industry standards.

text: As of 2012[update], 2.5-inch and 3.5-inch hard disks were the most popular sizes.

text: By 2009, all manufacturers had discontinued the development of new products for the 1.3-inch, 1-inch and 0.85-inch form factors due to falling prices of flash memory,[134][135] which has no moving parts.

text: While these sizes are customarily described by an approximately correct figure in inches, actual sizes have long been specified in millimeters.

text: Performance characteristics[edit]

text: Time to access data[edit]

text: The factors that limit the time to access the data on an HDD are mostly related to the mechanical nature of the rotating disks and moving heads. Seek time is a measure of how long it takes the head assembly to travel to the track of the disk that contains data. Rotational latency is incurred because the desired disk sector may not be directly under the head when data transfer is requested. These two delays are on the order of milliseconds each. The bit rate or data transfer rate (once the head is in the right position) creates delay which is a function of the number of blocks transferred; typically relatively small, but can be quite long with the transfer of large contiguous files. Delay may also occur if the drive disks are stopped to save energy.

text: An HDD's Average Access Time is its average seek time which technically is the time to do all possible seeks divided by the number of all possible seeks, but in practice is determined by statistical methods or simply approximated as the time of a seek over one-third of the number of tracks.[136]

text: Defragmentation is a procedure used to minimize delay in retrieving data by moving related items to physically proximate areas on the disk.[137] Some computer operating systems perform defragmentation automatically. Although automatic defragmentation is intended to reduce access delays, performance will be temporarily reduced while the procedure is in progress.[138]

text: Time to access data can be improved by increasing rotational speed (thus reducing latency) or by reducing the time spent seeking. Increasing areal density increases throughput by increasing data rate and by increasing the amount of data under a set of heads, thereby potentially reducing seek activity for a given amount of data. The time to access data has not kept up with throughput increases, which themselves have not kept up with growth in bit density and storage capacity.

text: Seek time[edit]

text: Average seek time ranges from under 4 ms for high-end server drives[139] to 15 ms for mobile drives, with the most common mobile drives at about 12 ms[140] and the most common desktop type typically being around 9 ms. The first HDD had an average seek time of about 600 ms;[6] by the middle of 1970s, HDDs were available with seek times of about 25 ms.[141] Some early PC drives used a stepper motor to move the heads, and as a result had seek times as slow as 80–120 ms, but this was quickly improved by voice coil type actuation in the 1980s, reducing seek times to around 20 ms. Seek time has continued to improve slowly over time.

text: Some desktop and laptop computer systems allow the user to make a tradeoff between seek performance and drive noise. Faster seek rates typically require more energy usage to quickly move the heads across the platter, causing louder noises from the pivot bearing and greater device vibrations as the heads are rapidly accelerated during the start of the seek motion and decelerated at the end of the seek motion. Quiet operation reduces movement speed and acceleration rates, but at a cost of reduced seek performance.

text: Latency[edit]

text:
Rotational speed
[rpm]
Average rotational latency
[ms]

15,000
2

10,000
3

7,200
4.16

5,400
5.55

4,800
6.25

text: Latency is the delay for the rotation of the disk to bring the required disk sector under the read-write mechanism. It depends on rotational speed of a disk, measured in revolutions per minute (rpm). Average rotational latency is shown in the table on the right, based on the statistical relation that the average latency in milliseconds for such a drive is one-half the rotational period. Average latency (in milliseconds) is computed as 30,000 divided by rotational speed (in rpm).[m]

text: Data transfer rate[edit]

text: As of 2010[update], a typical 7,200-rpm desktop HDD has a sustained "disk-to-buffer" data transfer rate up to 1,030 Mbit/s.[142] This rate depends on the track location; the rate is higher for data on the outer tracks (where there are more data sectors per rotation) and lower toward the inner tracks (where there are fewer data sectors per rotation); and is generally somewhat higher for 10,000-rpm drives. A current widely used standard for the "buffer-to-computer" interface is 3.0 Gbit/s SATA, which can send about 300 megabyte/s (10-bit encoding) from the buffer to the computer, and thus is still comfortably ahead of today's disk-to-buffer transfer rates. Data transfer rate (read/write) can be measured by writing a large file to disk using special file generator tools, then reading back the file. Transfer rate can be influenced by file system fragmentation and the layout of the files.[137]

text: HDD data transfer rate depends upon the rotational speed of the platters and the data recording density. Because heat and vibration limit rotational speed, advancing density becomes the main method to improve sequential transfer rates. Higher speeds require a more powerful spindle motor, which creates more heat. While areal density advances by increasing both the number of tracks across the disk and the number of sectors per track, only the latter increases the data transfer rate for a given rpm. Since data transfer rate performance tracks only one of the two components of areal density, its performance improves at a lower rate.[citation needed]

text: Other considerations[edit]

text: Other performance considerations include quality-adjusted price, power consumption, audible noise, and both operating and non-operating shock resistance.

text: The Federal Reserve Board has a quality-adjusted price index for large-scale enterprise storage systems including three or more enterprise HDDs and associated controllers, racks and cables. Prices for these large-scale storage systems improved at the rate of ‒30% per year during 2004–2009 and ‒22% per year during 2009–2014.[60]

text: Access and interfaces[edit]

text: HDDs are accessed over one of a number of bus types, including as of 2011[update] parallel ATA (PATA, also called IDE or EIDE; described before the introduction of SATA as ATA), Serial ATA (SATA), SCSI, Serial Attached SCSI (SAS), and Fibre Channel. Bridge circuitry is sometimes used to connect HDDs to buses with which they cannot communicate natively, such as IEEE 1394, USB and SCSI.

text: Modern HDDs present a consistent interface to the rest of the computer, no matter what data encoding scheme is used internally. Typically a DSP in the electronics inside the HDD takes the raw analog voltages from the read head and uses PRML and Reed–Solomon error correction[143] to decode the sector boundaries and sector data, then sends that data out the standard interface. That DSP also watches the error rate detected by error detection and correction, and performs bad sector remapping, data collection for Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology, and other internal tasks.

text: Modern interfaces connect an HDD to a host bus interface adapter (today typically integrated into the "south bridge") with one data/control cable. Each drive also has an additional power cable, usually direct to the power supply unit.

text:
Small Computer System Interface (SCSI), originally named SASI for Shugart Associates System Interface, was standard on servers, workstations, Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and Apple Macintosh computers through the mid-1990s, by which time most models had been transitioned to IDE (and later, SATA) family disks. The range limitations of the data cable allows for external SCSI devices.
Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE), later standardized under the name AT Attachment (ATA, with the alias P-ATA or PATA (Parallel ATA) retroactively added upon introduction of SATA) moved the HDD controller from the interface card to the disk drive. This helped to standardize the host/controller interface, reduce the programming complexity in the host device driver, and reduced system cost and complexity. The 40-pin IDE/ATA connection transfers 16 bits of data at a time on the data cable. The data cable was originally 40-conductor, but later higher speed requirements for data transfer to and from the HDD led to an "ultra DMA" mode, known as UDMA. Progressively swifter versions of this standard ultimately added the requirement for an 80-conductor variant of the same cable, where half of the conductors provides grounding necessary for enhanced high-speed signal quality by reducing cross talk.
EIDE was an unofficial update (by Western Digital) to the original IDE standard, with the key improvement being the use of direct memory access (DMA) to transfer data between the disk and the computer without the involvement of the CPU, an improvement later adopted by the official ATA standards. By directly transferring data between memory and disk, DMA eliminates the need for the CPU to copy byte per byte, therefore allowing it to process other tasks while the data transfer occurs.
Fibre Channel (FC) is a successor to parallel SCSI interface on enterprise market. It is a serial protocol. In disk drives usually the Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-AL) connection topology is used. FC has much broader usage than mere disk interfaces, and it is the cornerstone of storage area networks (SANs). Recently other protocols for this field, like iSCSI and ATA over Ethernet have been developed as well. Confusingly, drives usually use copper twisted-pair cables for Fibre Channel, not fibre optics. The latter are traditionally reserved for larger devices, such as servers or disk array controllers.
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). The SAS is a new generation serial communication protocol for devices designed to allow for much higher speed data transfers and is compatible with SATA. SAS uses a mechanically identical data and power connector to standard 3.5-inch SATA1/SATA2 HDDs, and many server-oriented SAS RAID controllers are also capable of addressing SATA HDDs. SAS uses serial communication instead of the parallel method found in traditional SCSI devices but still uses SCSI commands.
Serial ATA (SATA). The SATA data cable has one data pair for differential transmission of data to the device, and one pair for differential receiving from the device, just like EIA-422. That requires that data be transmitted serially. A similar differential signaling system is used in RS485, LocalTalk, USB, FireWire, and differential SCSI.

tag: ul

text: Integrity and failure[edit]

text: Due to the extremely close spacing between the heads and the disk surface, HDDs are vulnerable to being damaged by a head crash – a failure of the disk in which the head scrapes across the platter surface, often grinding away the thin magnetic film and causing data loss. Head crashes can be caused by electronic failure, a sudden power failure, physical shock, contamination of the drive's internal enclosure, wear and tear, corrosion, or poorly manufactured platters and heads.

text: The HDD's spindle system relies on air density inside the disk enclosure to support the heads at their proper flying height while the disk rotates. HDDs require a certain range of air densities in order to operate properly. The connection to the external environment and density occurs through a small hole in the enclosure (about 0.5 mm in breadth), usually with a filter on the inside (the breather filter).[144] If the air density is too low, then there is not enough lift for the flying head, so the head gets too close to the disk, and there is a risk of head crashes and data loss. Specially manufactured sealed and pressurized disks are needed for reliable high-altitude operation, above about 3,000 m (9,800 ft).[145] Modern disks include temperature sensors and adjust their operation to the operating environment. Breather holes can be seen on all disk drives – they usually have a sticker next to them, warning the user not to cover the holes. The air inside the operating drive is constantly moving too, being swept in motion by friction with the spinning platters. This air passes through an internal recirculation (or "recirc") filter to remove any leftover contaminants from manufacture, any particles or chemicals that may have somehow entered the enclosure, and any particles or outgassing generated internally in normal operation. Very high humidity present for extended periods of time can corrode the heads and platters.

text: For giant magnetoresistive (GMR) heads in particular, a minor head crash from contamination (that does not remove the magnetic surface of the disk) still results in the head temporarily overheating, due to friction with the disk surface, and can render the data unreadable for a short period until the head temperature stabilizes (so called "thermal asperity", a problem which can partially be dealt with by proper electronic filtering of the read signal).

text: When the logic board of a hard disk fails, the drive can often be restored to functioning order and the data recovered by replacing the circuit board with one of an identical hard disk. In the case of read-write head faults, they can be replaced using specialized tools in a dust-free environment. If the disk platters are undamaged, they can be transferred into an identical enclosure and the data can be copied or cloned onto a new drive. In the event of disk-platter failures, disassembly and imaging of the disk platters may be required.[146] For logical damage to file systems, a variety of tools, including fsck on UNIX-like systems and CHKDSK on Windows, can be used for data recovery. Recovery from logical damage can require file carving.

text: A common expectation is that hard disk drives designed and marketed for server use will fail less frequently than consumer-grade drives usually used in desktop computers. However, two independent studies by Carnegie Mellon University[147] and Google[148] found that the "grade" of a drive does not relate to the drive's failure rate.

text: A 2011 summary of research, into SSD and magnetic disk failure patterns by Tom's Hardware summarized research findings as follows:[149]

text:
Mean time between failures (MTBF) does not indicate reliability; the annualized failure rate is higher and usually more relevant.
Magnetic disks do not have a specific tendency to fail during early use, and temperature has only a minor effect; instead, failure rates steadily increase with age.
S.M.A.R.T. warns of mechanical issues but not other issues affecting reliability, and is therefore not a reliable indicator of condition.[150]
Failure rates of drives sold as "enterprise" and "consumer" are "very much similar", although these drive types are customized for their different operating environments.[151][152]
In drive arrays, one drive's failure significantly increases the short-term risk of a second drive failing.

text: Market segments[edit]

text: Manufacturers and sales[edit]

text: More than 200 companies have manufactured HDDs over time. But consolidations have concentrated production into just three manufacturers today: Western Digital, Seagate, and Toshiba.

text: Worldwide revenue for disk storage declined 4% per year, from a peak of $38 billion in 2012 to $27 billion in 2016. Production of HDDs grew 16% per year, from 335 exabytes in 2011 to 693 exabytes in 2016. Shipments declined 7% per year during this time period, from 620 million units to 425 million.[64] Seagate and Western Digital each have 40–45% of unit shipments, while Toshiba has 13–17%. The average sales price for the two largest manufacturers was $60 per unit in 2015.[157]

text: Competition from solid-state drives[edit]

text: The maximum areal storage density for flash memory used in solid state drives (SSDs) is 2.8 Tbit/in2 in laboratory demonstrations as of 2016, and the maximum for HDDs is 1.5 Tbit/in2. The areal density of flash memory is doubling every two years, similar to Moore's law (40% per year) and faster than the 10–20% per year for HDDs. As of 2016, maximum capacity was 10 terabytes for an HDD,[158] and 15 terabytes for an SSD.[23] HDDs were used in 70% of the desktop and notebook computers produced in 2016, and SSDs were used in 30%. The usage share of HDDs is declining and could drop below 50% in 2018–2019 according to one forecast, because SSDs are replacing smaller-capacity (less than one-terabyte) HDDs in desktop and notebook computers and MP3 players.[159]

text: The market for silicon-based flash memory (NAND) chips, used in SSDs and other applications, is growing rapidly. Worldwide revenue grew 12% per year during 2011–2016. It rose from $22 billion in 2011 to $39 billion in 2016, while production grew 46% per year from 19 exabytes to 120 exabytes.[64]

text: External hard disk drives[edit]

text: External hard disk drives typically connect via USB; variants using USB 2.0 interface generally have slower data transfer rates when compared to internally mounted hard drives connected through SATA. Plug and play drive functionality offers system compatibility and features large storage options and portable design. As of March 2015[update], available capacities for external hard disk drives ranged from 500 GB to 10 TB.[160]

text: External hard disk drives are usually available as pre-assembled integrated products, but may be also assembled by combining an external enclosure (with USB or other interface) with a separately purchased drive. They are available in 2.5-inch and 3.5-inch sizes; 2.5-inch variants are typically called portable external drives, while 3.5-inch variants are referred to as desktop external drives. "Portable" drives are packaged in smaller and lighter enclosures than the "desktop" drives; additionally, "portable" drives use power provided by the USB connection, while "desktop" drives require external power bricks.

text: Features such as biometric security or multiple interfaces (for example, Firewire) are available at a higher cost.[161] There are pre-assembled external hard disk drives that, when taken out from their enclosures, cannot be used internally in a laptop or desktop computer due to embedded USB interface on their printed circuit boards, and lack of SATA (or Parallel ATA) interfaces.[162][163]

text: In GUIs, hard disk drives are commonly symbolized with a drive icon


document_title: Changes in Star Wars re-releases

question_text: when did star wars change to a new hope

question_tokens: when did star wars change to a new hope

text: Changes in Star Wars re-releases

text: Background[edit]

text:
There will only be one [version of the films]. And it won't be what I would call the "rough cut", it'll be the "final cut". The other one will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, "There was an earlier draft of this." The same thing happens with plays and earlier drafts of books. In essence, films never get finished, they get abandoned. At some point, you're dragged off the picture kicking and screaming while somebody says, "Okay, it's done." That isn't really the way it should work. Occasionally, [you can] go back and get your cut of the video out there, which I did on both American Graffiti and THX 1138; that's the place where it will live forever. So what ends up being important in my mind is what the DVD version is going to look like, because that's what everybody is going to remember. The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you'll be able to project it on a 20-foot-by-40-foot screen with perfect quality. I think it's the director's prerogative, not the studio's, to go back and reinvent a movie.

George Lucas[1]

tag: div

text: The 1977 release of Star Wars was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of the United States Library of Congress in 1989.[2] In 2014, the National Film Registry still did not have a copy of the 1977 film; George Lucas refused to submit a copy, stating that he no longer authorized the release of the theatrical version.[3] Lucasfilm offered the altered 1997 Special Edition release, but the Registry refused it as the first published version must be accepted.[4] The Library of Congress, however, received a 35mm print of the film, without the A New Hope subtitle and subsequent alterations, in 1978 as part of the film's copyright deposit.[3][5]

text: Star Wars release history[edit]

text:
1977: Star Wars was theatrically released.[6]
1980: The Empire Strikes Back was theatrically released.[6] A 70mm print of the film differed from the more widely distributed 35mm print in takes of dialogue, visual and sound effects, shot choices, and transitions between shots.[7][8] None of these changes appeared in later releases, with exception of one dialogue change.[8]
1983: Return of the Jedi was theatrically released.[6]
1985: Star Wars, now subtitled A New Hope, was re-released on VHS and in 1989 released on LaserDisc with an improved audio mix. The LaserDisc release, and the CED videodisc also released, sped the film up by three percent to fit the film onto a single disc. Some releases additionally had minor aspect ratio changes.[8]
1993: The original trilogy was released on LaserDisc as "The Definitive Collection". With exception of a THX audio mix, scratch and dirt removal, and color balance changes, it matched the original theatrical releases.[8]
1995: The original trilogy was offered on VHS in a "last chance to own the original" campaign before the films were taken off the market in January 1996 and an altered re-release released in 1997.[9][10]
1997: The Special Edition of the original trilogy was released theatrically and to home media for the twentieth anniversary of Star Wars. This release featured the first significant changes, intended to modernize the films and create consistency with the forthcoming prequel trilogy.[8] The original negatives were also digitally restored.
1999: Episode I – The Phantom Menace was theatrically released.[6]
2002: Episode II – Attack of the Clones was theatrically released.[6]
2004: The original trilogy was released on DVD. Further significant alterations were made.[8]
2005: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith was theatrically released.[6]
2006: Another version of 2004 DVD edition was released. An unaltered version of the trilogy was included on bonus discs; it was same as the 1993 LaserDisc release and was of inferior quality to the restored version.[8]
2011: The original and prequel films were released for Blu-ray. Alterations were made to all films.[8]
2015: The original and prequel films were released digitally to streaming services. It is identical to the Blu-ray release, except for changes to the opening logos and fanfares.[8]

text: Significant changes[edit]

text: Title change to Star Wars[edit]

text: The first film was released in 1977 under the title Star Wars. The subtitles Episode IV and A New Hope were retroactively added to the opening crawl in a subsequent release.[11][12] Accounts differ as to when this change occurred. Some, including Lucasfilm, date the addition to a theatrical re-release on April 10, 1981,[8][11][12] while others place it much earlier at the re-release in July 1978.[13] This change was made to bring the original film in line with the titling of its sequel The Empire Strikes Back, which was released in 1980 with the subtitle Episode V.[8]

text: Han shot first[edit]

text:
Because I was thinking mythologically — should he be a cowboy, should he be John Wayne? And I said, ‘Yeah, he should be John Wayne.’ And when you’re John Wayne, you don’t shoot people [first] — you let them have the first shot.

George Lucas in 2015[14]

text: In the Star Wars film, Han Solo is cornered in the Mos Eisley Cantina by the bounty hunter Greedo, and the confrontation ends with Han shooting under the table and killing Greedo. The circumstances of the shot varies between versions of the film. In the original 1977 theatrical release of the film, Han shoots Greedo, and Greedo does not shoot at all.[5] The 1997 Special Edition release of the film alters the scene so that Greedo shoots first and misses, and the scene is altered again in the 2004 DVD release of the film so that Han and Greedo shoot simultaneously.[3]

text: Lucas stated that he always intended for Greedo to have shot first.[15] He felt that the idea of Han shooting first depicts him as "a cold-blooded killer".[15][14] This decision sparked objections that it changed Han's moral ambiguity, fundamentally altered his established character,[16] and diminished his transition from antihero to hero; it became one of the most controversial changes to the films.

text: Biggs Darklighter on Yavin IV[edit]

text: During the production of the Star Wars film, scenes were filmed featuring Biggs Darklighter and his friendship with Luke Skywalker set on Tatooine and at the rebel base on Yavin IV shortly before the attack on the Death Star. The scenes were cut because they were felt to disrupt the pacing of the film, and in the original theatrical release, Biggs is only seen briefly during the attack on the Death Star, in which he dies, and a relationship between Biggs and Luke is never stated. Despite this, Luke reacts strongly to Biggs's death. The 1997 Special Edition of the Star Wars film incorporated the previously deleted scene on Yavin IV. The loss of the scenes at Tatooine and Yavin IV was felt to lessen the significance of Biggs' death, cast Luke's reaction to the death as overly strong, and make the framing of the death as a tragedy confusing. It was felt that the readdition of the Yavin IV scene helped to rectify this issue.[17][18]

text: Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett in Star Wars[edit]

text: The original script for the Star Wars film included a scene between Jabba the Hutt and Han Solo, and the scene was filmed with Harrison Ford, playing Solo, and Declan Mulholland, a stand-in for Jabba.[19][20] Lucas intended to replace Mulholland in post-production with a stop motion character. Due to time limitations and budget constraints, Lucas could not achieve this, and the scene was cut. In the 1997 Special Edition, the scene was reinserted with CGI replacing Mulholland. Because Ford walked too close to Mulholland in the original scene, Han stepping on Jabba's tail, causing Jabba to squeal, was created as a workaround.[19] Boba Fett was also added to the background of the scene.[20] Jabba's design was modified for the 2004 DVD release.[19]

text: The insertion of this scene into the film was criticized for being superfluous to the previous cantina scene, slowing down the pacing, and failing to move the plot forward.[19][20] The original 1997 CGI was also described as "atrocious".[19]

text: Max Rebo Band[edit]

text: The scene in Return of the Jedi in which Jabba the Hutt feeds the dancer Oola to the rancor opens with performance by the Max Rebo Band and its lead singer Sy Snootles. In the original theatrical release, the song is "Lapti Nek", sung for 45 seconds in the fictional language Huttese. The 1997 Special Edition changed the performance to the "less dated" song "Jedi Rocks", which runs nearly 2 minutes.[21]

text: Owen Good of Polygon, though he understood the desire to update the song, described the "Jedi Rocks" performance as "an overproduced intrusion that takes twice as long to add nothing" and felt that it distracted from the intention of the scene: to establish the trapdoor leading to the rancor and Jabba's deadliness. He also felt that "Lapti Nek" was an overall better song and described the vocal performance in "Jedi Rocks" as difficult to listen to or understand and as having "the volume and vocal fry of a higher pitched Tina Turner but none of the soul".[16] Brian Raftery of Wired wrote that replacing "Lapti Nek", which he praised as a track, was "one of Lucas' most salaciously dumb choices" and described "Jedi Rocks" as a Pointer Sisters "rip-off" and a "soul-free strutter, which is so grating that you can almost hear a tone-deaf Lucas beard-smirking approvingly in the background".[22] Ryan Lambie of Den of Geek! similar noted that change negatively altered the tone of the scene and only "replaced one flawed effect with another", writing: "What was once a low-key yet appealing background moment in the movie’s first act had grown into a literal show-stopper—an in-your-face audio-visual spectacle that literally overshadowed the original hand-made effects".

text: The puppet used for Sy Snootles was also replaced with CGI in the Special Edition. This was made because, according to producer Rick McCallum, Lucas could not achieve the "large musical number" he envisioned because characters could not move in certain ways, Sy Snootles could not open her mouth to lip sync correctly, and her eyes did not move. Lambie criticized this decision because it removed almost all evidence of puppeteer Timothy D. Rose's work in the film.[23] The 1997 Special Edition also increased the size of the Max Rebo Band from three members to twelve.[21] While Good wrote that this change was inconsequential,[16] Ratery felt that the additions made the scene "overstuffed" and described the CGI as dead on arrival.[22]

text: Expansion of Oola's death scene[edit]

text: In the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi, Oola's death is filmed from outside the rancor pit: she falls into the pit, and her scream is heard from off-screen. In the 1997 Special Edition, extra shots were inserted depicting her in the pit, including shots where she looks up to the crowd, the pit door being raised, and a shot of her terror. The rancor and Oola as she screams remain off-screen.[18]

text: Femi Taylor, who played Oola, impressed critics with her ability to reprise the role over a decade later without visible difference.[18][20] James Whitbrook at io9 praised the additions to the scene, especially in comparison to the decision to bring the wampa on-screen in the Special Edition of The Empire Strikes Back, writing that it teased the rancor well while still keeping the monster a surprise for Luke's later battle with it.[18] Den of Geek! UK, however, criticized the additions as unnecessary and felt that they made the audience familiar with the pit, lessening fear during Luke's scene in the pit.[20]

text: Addition of Darth Vader's "No!" in Return of the Jedi[edit]

text: At the climax of Return of the Jedi, the Emperor tortures Luke with Force lightning, prompting Darth Vader to throw the Emperor down a chasm and kill him. In the theatrical release and earlier home video releases, Darth Vader watches and acts in silence.[24] The 2011 Blu-ray release adds Darth Vader muttering "No" and then yelling a drawn out "No!", creating a parallel with his similar cry at the end of Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. This addition was described as unnecessary[16][24] and awful sounding,[8] and it was said to "[take] what was once emotional and [make] it laughable" and even ruin the film's climax.[16] It was also felt that the addition displayed a distrust in an audience's ability to interpret Vader's emotions.[16][24] The symmetry created by the parallel was described as "clumsy" and was felt to mock the scene in the prequel.[8][24]

text: Victory celebration in Return of the Jedi[edit]

text: Return of the Jedi ends with a scene of the Rebel Alliance and a village of Ewoks on Endor celebrating the death of the Emperor and victory over the Empire. The original theatrical release of the film featured the song "Ewok Celebration", also known as "Yub Nub", playing over the celebration.[8][22] The 1997 Special Edition release of the film replaced "Ewok Celebration" with score composed by John Williams titled "Victory Celebration",[8] and the scene was lengthened to include shots of celebration on the planets Coruscant,[8][25] Bespin, and Tatooine.[26] The 2004 DVD release further added a shot set on Naboo, in which a Gungan is given a line of dialogue.[8]

text: Consistency between original and prequel trilogies[edit]

text: In The Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor appears via hologram.[27] In the original theatrical 1980 release, he was portrayed by a woman under heavy makeup and voiced by Clive Revill. The Emperor was later played by Ian McDiarmid in Return of the Jedi, and McDiarmid reprised the role for the prequel trilogy.[27][28] To reflect this, the 2004 DVD release of The Empire Strikes Back replaced the woman with McDiarmid and new dialogue was written.[27]

text: Boba Fett's dialogue in The Empire Strikes Back was originally recorded by Jason Wingreen.[3][29] Subsequently, Attack of the Clones revealed Boba to be a clone of Jango Fett, played by Temuera Morrison.[30] To reflect this, Morrison re-recorded Boba's lines for the 2004 DVD release of the film.[3][27][29]

text: In a scene of Return of the Jedi where Darth Vader is unmasked, the 2004 DVD release digitally removed his eyebrows to reflect Anakin burning on Mustafar at the end of Revenge of the Sith.[27]

text: At the end of Return of the Jedi, Darth Vader is redeemed by killing the Emperor to save Luke Skywalker's life, then dies of his injuries shortly after, and appears to Luke as Anakin Skywalker alongside the Force ghosts of Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi. In the 1983 theatrical release, Sebastian Shaw plays this Force ghost in addition to an unmasked Vader. Later, Hayden Christensen was cast as Anakin in the prequel trilogy films Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. To reflect this, the 2004 DVD release of Return of the Jedi controversially replaced Shaw's appearance as the Force ghost with Christensen.[27]

text: In the film The Phantom Menace, the character of Yoda received a major alteration. In the original 1999 theatrical release of the film, Yoda had been portrayed by a puppet; but for the 2011 Blu-ray release, the puppet was replaced in favor of portraying the character with the same CGI-model used for the other two prequels Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. The change was done to create consistency with the other prequels, because The Phantom Menace's puppet looked too different from the other depictions of the character.[31]

text: Response[edit]

text: The first Star Wars won the Academy Awards for Best Visual Effects, Best Production Design, Best Original Score, and the Special Edition changes to the sound mixing, sound effects, and visual effects were felt to have "stripped the film of every aspect that it had won its Academy Awards for".[4]

text: Lance Ulanoff of Mashable, who in 2015 viewed the original theatrical print of Star Wars submitted to the Library of Congress, notes merit to Lucas' belief that technology did not allow him to achieve his vision, noting that a visible marquee around Leia's ship is "so jarring that it temporarily pulls me out of the film" because it is "lack[ing] the seamless quality [he has] come to expect from sci-fi and fantasy". Despite this, he "hate[s] each and every one" of the later added CGI effects and describes positively his ability to view the original print despite "Lucas's meddling".[5]

text: Dave Tach writing for Polygon noted minor changes, such as adding windows to Cloud City on Bespin, adding sparks to Jango Fett's jetpack, or replacing the original Emperor hologram with McDiarmid, as "innocuous" ones that "angered, to a close approximation, nobody" because "there was a solid logic behind those amendments".[16]


document_title: List of FIFA World Cup finals

question_text: who has won the last 10 world cups

question_tokens: who has won the last 10 world cups

text: List of FIFA World Cup finals

text: List of finals[edit]

text:
Key to the list of finals

Match was won during extra time

Match was won on a penalty shoot-out

text: The "Year" column refers to the year the World Cup was held, and wikilinks to the article about that tournament. The wikilinks in the "Final score" column point to the article about that tournament's final game. Links in the "Winners" and "Runners-up" columns point to the articles for the national football teams of the countries, not the articles for the countries.

text:
List of finals matches, their venues and locations, the finalists, and final scores

Year

Winners

Final score[2]

Runners-up

Venue

Location

Attendance

References

1930

Uruguay

4–2

 Argentina

Estadio Centenario

Montevideo, Uruguay

80,000

[7][8]

1934

Italy

  2–1[n 3]

 Czechoslovakia

Stadio Nazionale PNF

Rome, Italy

50,000

[9][10]

1938

Italy

4–2

 Hungary

Stade Olympique de Colombes

Paris, France

45,000

[11][12]

1950[n 4]

Uruguay

2–1[n 5]

 Brazil

Estádio do Maracanã

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

199,854[13]

[14][15]

1954

West Germany

3–2

 Hungary

Wankdorf Stadium

Bern, Switzerland

60,000

[16][17]

1958

Brazil

5–2

 Sweden

Råsunda Stadium

Solna, Sweden

51,800

[18][19]

1962

Brazil

3–1

 Czechoslovakia

Estadio Nacional

Santiago, Chile

69,000

[20][21]

1966

England

  4–2[n 6]

 West Germany

Wembley Stadium

London, England

93,000

[22][23]

1970

Brazil

4–1

 Italy

Estadio Azteca

Mexico City, Mexico

107,412

[24][25]

1974

West Germany

2–1

 Netherlands

Olympiastadion

Munich, West Germany

75,200

[26][27]

1978

Argentina

  3–1[n 7]

 Netherlands

Estadio Monumental

Buenos Aires, Argentina

71,483

[28][29]

1982

Italy

3–1

 West Germany

Santiago Bernabéu

Madrid, Spain

90,000

[30][31]

1986

Argentina

3–2

 West Germany

Estadio Azteca

Mexico City, Mexico

114,600

[32][33]

1990

West Germany

1–0

 Argentina

Stadio Olimpico

Rome, Italy

73,603

[34][35]

1994

Brazil

  0–0[n 8]

 Italy

Rose Bowl

Pasadena, United States

94,194

[36][37]

1998

France

3–0

 Brazil

Stade de France

Saint-Denis, France

80,000

[38][39]

2002

Brazil

2–0

 Germany

International Stadium

Yokohama, Japan

69,029

[40][41]

2006

Italy

  1–1[n 9]

 France

Olympiastadion

Berlin, Germany

69,000

[42][43]

2010

Spain

  1–0[n 10]

 Netherlands

Soccer City

Johannesburg, South Africa

84,490

[44][45]

2014

Germany

  1–0[n 11]

 Argentina

Estádio do Maracanã

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

74,738

[46][47]

2018

France

4–2

 Croatia

Luzhniki Stadium

Moscow, Russia

78,011

Upcoming finals

Year

Team 1

v

Team 2

Venue

Location

Attendance

References

2022

Lusail Iconic Stadium

Lusail, Qatar

2026

TBD

United States

text: Results[edit]

text:
Results by nation

National team

Wins

Runners-up

Total finals

Years won

Years runners-up

 Brazil

5

2

7

1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002

1950, 1998

 Germany

4

4

8

1954, 1974, 1990, 2014

1966, 1982, 1986, 2002

 Italy

4

2

6

1934, 1938, 1982, 2006

1970, 1994

 Argentina

2

3

5

1978, 1986

1930, 1990, 2014

 France

2

1

3

1998, 2018

2006

 Uruguay

2

0

2

1930, 1950

–

 England

1

0

1

1966

–

 Spain

1

0

1

2010

–

 Netherlands

0

3

3

–

1974, 1978, 2010

 Czechoslovakia

0

2

2

–

1934, 1962

 Hungary

0

2

2

–

1938, 1954

 Sweden

0

1

1

–

1958

 Croatia

0

1

1

–

2018

text:
Results by confederation

Confederation

Appearances

Winners

Runners-up

UEFA

28

12

16

CONMEBOL

14

9

5

text: Footnotes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ This follows FIFA's consideration that the national teams of West Germany/Germany, Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia, and USSR/Russia are combined respectively for record-keeping.[3]

Jump up ^ Technically the 1958 final was also between two first timers, but Brazil's 1950 group game defeat is generally counted as a previous "final" appearance for the team.

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes.[9][10]

Jump up ^ The 1950 FIFA World Cup did not have a final, rather, the tournament was decided by a 4-team round robin phase.

Jump up ^ Not the final but the decisive match of the final group stage.

Jump up ^ Score was 2–2 after 90 minutes.[22][23]

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes.[28][29]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 120 minutes. Brazil won 3–2 on penalties.[36][37]

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 120 minutes. Italy won 5–3 on penalties.[42][43]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes.[44][45]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes.[46][47]

tag: ol


document_title: Here There Be Tygers (1968 short story)

question_text: meaning of here there be tygers by stephen king

text: Here There Be Tygers (1968 short story)

text: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
"Here There Be Tygers"

Author
Stephen King

Country
United States

Language
English

Published in
Skeleton Crew

Publisher
Putnam

Media type
Print (Paperback)

Publication date
1985

text: "Here There Be Tygers" is a short story by Stephen King. It was originally published in the Spring 1968 issue of Ubris magazine, and collected in King's Skeleton Crew in 1985. This story is extremely short, and written from the perspective of a boy who believes a tiger is lurking in his school bathroom.[1]

text: The title references the phrases used by medieval cartographers when they put warnings on unexplored portions of their maps. The phrase was also used in King's later story "The Reploids." In the film version of King's novel The Dark Half, the story Thad's mother looks at is a copy of this story.

text: As Stephen King noted in the foreword to Skeleton Crew, this is one of the first stories King ever wrote.[citation needed] It was written when King was a high school student.

text: Plot[edit]

text: Charles is a third grader. He really needs to go to the bathroom and his "mean" teacher Miss Bird asks him if he has to go before she allows him, embarrassing him. ("Very well Charles. You may go to the bathroom and urinate. Is that what you need to do? Urinate?") Arriving at the lavatory, he peeks around the corner, and sees a tiger lying on the bathroom floor. He stands at the door, too afraid to enter. Eventually a child named Kenny Griffen comes to get him. Charles begins to cry and Kenny leads him in, saying that he made up the tiger. Charles escapes out of the bathroom, and when he forces himself to go back in, he sees the tiger has a torn piece of Kenny's shirt on its claw. Charles decides to relieve himself in the sink, but Miss Bird catches him. She goes around the corner to find Kenny, and Charles leaves the bathroom. He returns to his classroom and begins reading Roads to Everywhere. The story ends.


question_text: who is in charge of minister of personnel public grievances and pensions

text:
Minister of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Kārmika, Loka Śikāyata Aura Peṃśana Maṃtrī

Emblem of India

Incumbent
Narendra Modi
since 26 May 2014

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Style
The Honourable

Member of
Cabinet

Reports to
Prime minister

Residence
7, Lok Kalyan Marg (as Prime minister)

Seat
South Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi

Nominator
Prime minister

Appointer
President

Formation
1 August 1970; 47 years ago (1970-08-01)

First holder
Indira Gandhi

Unofficial names
Personnel Minister, Minister of Personnel

Deputy
Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

text: The Minister of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (IAST: Kārmika, Loka Śikāyata Aura Peṃśana Maṃtrī) is the cabinet minister in charge of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The position is generally held by the prime minister, but sometimes it has been held by other senior members of the cabinet, such as Minister of Home Affairs. The minister is generally assisted by a minister of state. The position is considered to be a powerful one as the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is the cadre controlling authority of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS),[1] and is the administering agency of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB).[2][3]

text: List of ministers[edit]

text:
Ministers and Ministers of State of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions[4][5]hide

Lok Sabha
Sr. No.
Cabinet minister
Portrait
Political party
Term
Days
Minister of state
Portrait
Political party
Term
Days

4th
1
Indira Gandhi
Prime minister

Indian National Congress

1 August 1970
24 March 1977
2,427
Ram Niwas Mirdha

Indian National Congress

23 August 1970
10 October 1974
1,509

5th

Om Mehta

10 October 1974

24 March 1977

896

6th

2

Charan Singh
Deputy prime minister and home minister

Janata Party

26 March 1977

30 June 1978

461

—

3

Morarji Desai
Prime minister

1 July 1978

23 January 1979

206

4

Yashwantrao Chavan
Deputy prime minister and home minister

Indian National Congress (Socialist)

28 July 1979

13 January 1980

890 days

7th

5

Zail Singh
Home minister

Indian National Congress

14 January 1980

22 June 1982

days

6

R. Venkataraman
Home minister

22 June 1982

2 September 1982

72 days

7

Prakash Chandra Sethi
Home minister

2 September 1982

19 July 1984

686 days

8

P. V. Narasimha Rao
Home minister

19 July 1984

31 December 1984

165 days

8th

9

Rajiv Gandhi
Prime minister

31 December 1984

2 December 1989

1797 days

Kamakhya Prasad Singh Deo

Indian National Congress

31 December 1984

25 September 1985

days

P. Chidambaram

26 December 1985

2 December 1989

days

9th

10

V. P. Singh
Prime minister

Janata Dal

2 December 1989

10 November 1990

343 days

—

11

Chandra Shekhar
Prime minister

Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

10 November 1990

21 June 1991

223 days

10th

(8)

P. V. Narasimha Rao
Prime minister

Indian National Congress

21 June 1991

16 May 1996

1791 days

Margaret Alva

Indian National Congress

/

21 June 1991

16 May 1996

days

11th

12

Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Prime minister

Bharatiya Janata Party

16 May 1996

1 June 1996

16 days

—

13

H. D. Deve Gowda
Prime minister

Janata Dal

1 June 1996

21 April 1997

324 days

S. R. Balasubramoniyan

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)

27 June 1996

17 March 1998

days

14

I. K. Gujral
Prime minister

22 April 1997

18 March 1998

330 days

12th

(12)

Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Prime minister

Bharatiya Janata Party

19 March 1998

30 January 2003

1778 days

Kadambur R. Janarthanan

18 March 1998

8 April 1999

days

13th

Vasundhara Raje[a]

Bharatiya Janata Party

9 April 1999

30 January 2003

1392 days

Arun Shourie[b]

22 November 1999

1 September 2001

710 days

15

L. K. Advani
Deputy prime minister and home minister

30 January 2003

22 May 2004

478 days

Harin Pathak

30 January 2003

22 May 2004

478 days

14th

16

Manmohan Singh
Prime minister

Indian National Congress

23 May 2004

26 May 2014

3655 days

Suresh Pachouri

Indian National Congress

23 May 2004

6 April 2008

days

Prithviraj Chavan

6 April 2008

10 November 2010

days

15th

V. Narayanasamy

11 November 2010

26 May 2014

days

16th
17
Narendra Modi
Prime minister

Bharatiya Janata Party

27 May 2014
Incumbent
1461
Jitendra Singh

Bharatiya Janata Party

27 May 2014
Incumbent
1461

Notes

Jump up ^ Co-served with Arun Shourie from 22 November 1999 to 1 September 2001 (710 days).
Jump up ^ Co-served with Vasundhara Raje.


document_title: The Heat Is On (Glenn Frey song)

question_text: who played sax on the heat is on

question_tokens: who played sax on the heat is on

text: The Heat Is On (Glenn Frey song)

text: History[edit]

text: According to Frey, he was invited to an early screening of the film, and about two months later was sent a demo of a song written by Keith Forsey and Harold Faltermeyer to be used in the film to see if he was interested in singing the song. Frey agreed, and recorded the vocal part in one day. The following day he played the guitar and recorded the background vocals, and was paid $15,000 for the work.[1]

text: The mid-to-up-tempo recording featured a steady drumbeat, synthesizer, and guitar, with a repeated saxophone riff framing the lyrical message. The guitar solo is played by Frey himself.[2]

text: The song became a major hit single, reaching No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in March 1985, behind "Can't Fight This Feeling" by REO Speedwagon.[3]  It was also popular internationally, reaching No. 2 on the Australian Singles Chart in 1985 and gaining peaks of No. 8 on the Canadian Singles Chart and No. 12 on the UK Singles Chart.[4] In the United States, it is the highest charting solo single by any member of the Eagles.

text: The music video for the song received heavy MTV airplay. It showed a film editor assembling scenes for Beverly Hills Cop while Frey and a band played the song in the adjacent room, with action scenes from the movie then directly interspersed. Among the musicians shown in the video is saxophone player Beverly Dahlke-Smith (the actual recording being made by session horn player David Woodford[5]) and Frey's long-time drummer, Michael Huey.

text: The recording subsequently appeared on Frey's albums Glenn Frey Live (1993) and Solo Collection (1995) as well as on some various-artists "top hits" collections.

text: Track listings[edit]

text: 7" singleNo.TitleWriter(s)Length1."The Heat Is On"Keith Forsey, Harold Faltermeyer3:452."Shoot Out"Harold Faltermeyer2:44Total length:06:29

text: 12" singleNo.TitleRemixerLength1."The Heat Is On (extended version)" 6:042."The Heat Is On (dance version)"Brian Reeves5:403."The Heat Is On (dub version)"Brian Reeves2:39Total length:14:23

text: Personnel[edit]

text:
Glenn Frey - vocals, guitar solo, backing vocals
Rick Vito - guitar
Harold Faltermeyer - keyboards, bass
Keith Forsey - drums, backing vocals

text: Charts[edit]

text:
Chart (1985-86)

Peakposition

Australia (Kent Music Report)[6]

2

Belgium (Ultratop 50 Flanders)[7]

27

Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40)[8]

27

Canada Top Singles (RPM)[9]

8

France (SNEP)[10]

47

Germany (Official German Charts)[11]

4

Netherlands (Single Top 100)[12]

19

New Zealand (Recorded Music NZ)[13]

22

Norway (VG-lista)[14]

2

Sweden (Sverigetopplistan)[15]

5

Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade)[16]

5

UK Singles (Official Charts Company)[17]

12

US Billboard Hot 100[18]

2

US Mainstream Rock (Billboard)[19]

4