In regards to the previous comments, I hope this sheds some light on the situation. MYOPORUM THRIPS CONTROl The genus Myoporum (Myoporaceae), native to Australia and New Zealand, contains several popular ground cover and tree species that are widely planted in Southern California because of their aesthetic beauty, minimal management needs, low water requirement, and lack of pests. Because of its hardiness, Myoporum is also considered by some to be an invasive species threatening natural habitat areas in California. Since 2005, an exotic species of thrips new to the U.S. is causing great damage to landscape plantings and nursery stock of Myoporum in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. Currently two species of Myoporum are affected, M. laetum and M. 'Pacificum'. Live thrips and damage have not yet been observed on M. parvifolium, another common low growing Myoporum species. In general, little is known about this pest of Myoporum. The invasive thrips has only recently been described in the scientific literature from samples collected in California and sent to Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). It is a new genus, Klambothrips, and the new species name is Klambothrips myopori Mound and Morris (Mound and Morris 2007). It does not yet have a common name. Damage to Myoporum by this thrips is characterized by gall-like symptoms and distortion of new leaves. Terminal growth can be severely stunted and leaf curling or folding with thrips populations' within the folds is common. This characteristic is similar to Cuban laurel thrips, Gynaikothrips ficorum Marchal, on Ficus species in that reaching the populations within the folds with pesticides can be problematic. Klambothrips myopori was first observed in Southern California in Orange County in 2005. CDF A declared the thrips a "Q" rated pest and endeavored to eradicate the pest from landscape plantings using Merit (imidacloprid). However, time and funding lacked and resources were diverted to infestations of more serious invasive pests like Diaprepes. Therefore, landscape plantings of Myoporum became more heavily infested with thrips over time, and the aesthetic quality of the plantings waned. No further efforts to eradicate this pest were attempted by CDF A. In late 2006, we performed an efficacy trial using three products against the K. myopori in the hopes of identifying products that may be used in management of this pest. Methods Host Plant Site and Experimental Design: A landscape setting of Myoporum 'Pacificum� groundcover alongside a caddy shack at a golf course in Oceanside, CA was used for the trial. The 22 meter by 1.5 meter planting was separated into sixteen 1.2m2 plots to accommodate four treatments with four replicates. Since the treated area was linear, a completely randomized design was used to assign treatments to each plot, and a buffer area between blocks that may have received drift was not evaluated. The thrips infestation in this planting was moderate to heavy. Treatments and Application Method: Treatments included a control (untreated) and foliar applications of three selected pesticides: Avid (abamectin) @ 8floz/100 gal, Merit 21 (imidacloprid) @ 45ml/100 gal, and Conserve (spinosad) @ 200ml/100 gal. No surfactants were used in this trial. Treatments were applied twice (on September 30 and October 13, 2006) using a backpack sprayer with a flat fan nozzle at 25-35 psi. Sampling and Analysis: Thrips populations were assessed through samples consisting of six terminals (10cm) arbitrarily taken from the center of each plot. These were bagged and taken back to the laboratory for assessment of the number of live thrips/sample/plot. In the laboratory, the terminals were placed in 85% alcohol in a quart sized food container, allowed to sit for several minutes and then shaken to dislodge the thrips from the twisted foliage. The alcohol was then poured through fine mesh screening material, which was then placed under a stereomicroscope to count the number of thrips. A t-test for location was used to test treatment means against a fixed value (m�= control mean) on each sample date. Observations were made to identify any biological agents that may be affecting thrips populations. Biological agents identified were counted in the sampling procedure above. In addition to the number of thrips per sample, a rating of the damage caused by the thrips was assessed at selected dates. A damage scale from 0-10 was used to assess the level of damage per terminal on a random group of terminals in each plot, 0 = 0% of the leaves on the terminal growth were damaged and 10 = 100 % of the leaves were galled and damaged. A pointer was placed at random to six different positions within the block and a rating was given to the terminal that was touching the pointer. Data were analyzed using the Mann Whitney U-test (�= 0.05); each treatment verses the control on each date. Results and Conclusions Spinosad (Conserve) significantly reduced the mean number of thrips compared to the control between Sept 13 and Oct 17 (Figure 1). Imidacloprid (Merit) significantly reduced the mean number of thrips compared to the untreated control between Sept 26 and Oct 11. Abamectin (Avid) did not reduce the mean number of thrips compared to the control on any date. The amount of damage observed on Myoporum declined over time in all treatments during the length of the trial. Statistically significant reductions in the number of damaged terminals were observed following the second treatment application on Sept 13 (Figure 2). Minute pirate bugs, Orius tristicolor (White), natural predators of thrips, were observed in almost every sample (Figure 3) indicating that predation was occurring by a native predator on this exotic pest. The mean number of Orius per sample date remained stable in the untreated control throughout the trial. In contrast, the mean number of Orius per sample date declined over time on treated foliage and no Orius were observed in imidacloprid treated foliage on the last two sample dates. The data indicate that two applications of imidacloprid or spinosad will reduce the number of thrips and significantly reduce the amount of damage to infested Myoporum. The Myoporum used in this trial were very heavily infested which may explain why abamectin (Avid) did not appear to reduce thrips numbers as much as the imidacloprid or spinosad. However, abamectin (Avid) did reduce the damage over time, which suggests that there was some effect on the thrips' population dynamics. For better success, a curative or preventative treatment of thrips products should be applied earlier in the population cycle, or earlier in the year when population levels are initially lower. All pesticide treatments appeared to have an effect on the number of minute pirate bugs observed in the samples. However, with the exception of the imidacloprid treated foliage, Orius were always present. The data suggest that imidacloprid has a detrimental effect on minute pirate bugs over time, taking them to extinction. It is not clear, however, whether the effect comes directly from treated foliage or feeding on treated foliage, or whether it comes indirectly from feeding on treated thrips. Further investigation is needed to answer that question. While we report that a great number of the predatory Orius tristicolor were observed feeding on K. myopori in our trials, a significant reduction of thrips numbers or damage to terminals was not observed (see untreated controls, Figures I & 2). The small reduction in damage to untreated plants observed over time indicates that there may be seasonal variation and some degree of recovery by infested plants. Control of K. myopori and reduction in damaged Myoporum will most likely involve the use of insecticides. However, other beneficials, resistant cultivars, and other IPM methods may be available in the future. More trials are planned using new and older chemistries in the near future on both landscape plantings and in the nursery. References Cited Mound, L. A. and D. C. Morris. 2007. A new thrips pest of Myoporum cultivars in California, in a new genus ofleaf-galling Australian Phlaeothripidae (Thysanoptera). Zootaxa. 1495: 35-45. Acknowledgments The authors thank Mr. Joe Neri and J.C. Resorts for providing the location for this trial at Arrowood G.C.

hello, the machine is only 3 years old,yes i did destroy all the data on it after i formatted.i still have the larger drive but it won't read it. last night a neighbor gave me a windows 2000 disc and i formatted the drive again and it worked;it saw the full capacity of the drive and is ready to use, however when i try to bring the second drive with 225 + gigs of data on it it will not see it no matter how i switch things around bios won't read it, so i took it out, the drive i have working is set to master and is the only drive in the pc but bios says it is a secondary slave drive but it is on the primary ide channel and set to master!!everything in bios is set to auto detect drives,but as soon as i connect the other drive as a slave drive and reboot, the computer freezes and gets stuck on the post screen and hangs.funny thing is when i take that drive and put it in the hard drive enclosure that converts regular drives to use with usb and plug it into the computer i am on right now and reboot, windows comes up and says : found new hardware,mass storage usb device,your hardware is installed and ready to use,it even gives me a new drive letter,shows the drive as a western digital drive but... when i click on the drive letter it says please insert a disk into drive j....hmmm

you can change those buttons to look just like they did in firefox 2 if you would prefer. I will provide you with some links you can research you will fine many tips and tricks you will likely find helpful. Ultimate List of Firefox 3 Tips and Tricks Shrink the Super-sized Back Button that link will provide the help for your large buttons issue. You know you can click on View then toolbars then customize and from the box that opens choose new icons to drag onto your bar or select small icons or many other options. Here is a link that might be useful: learn firefox

Now don't get carried away PK, of course you are going to have to buy another. Heck 3 or 4 maybe as you are obviously not too old seeing you are still giving those hogs a home. All electronics have built in obsolescence you know. Lenovo is Chinese owned, they bought up IBM. I have not read much bad about the company, I think Mikie who hangs out here owns a Lenovo which he seems happy with. You could Google 'Lenovo complaints' or 'Lenovo reviews' or even include the specific model and see what others think but be sure you read the complaints fairly as there are those who complain about silly things. Honest complaints are worth reading of course.