I buy CDs. I rip them so I can get a DRM free copy on my hard drive. I store the CD on a shelf as a backup. I don't give away or sell copies to anyone. I only use one copy at a time so I'm not violating any reasonable interpretation of fair use. I don't have to pay a subscription fee to anyone to listen to the music I have purchased. I don't have to rely on any cloud service to maintain a copy. I don't have to worry about having access to the music I have purchased (which is an issue when I'm in my Jeep in the mountains and I have spotty cell phone coverage).
The artists and producers have made a reasonable profit in supplying the music to me. I am in control of how I access the music I paid for with no reliance on any 3rd party. Everybody wins.
That solution would be a much better solution if the rules for how Google treats punctuation were explicit, easily discoverable and consistent.
If you can point me to a page of documentation revealing these rules, I will appreciate it. Googling for it (assuming it exists) has so far been unsuccessful.
I'm not seeing how that's a failing of the search for an exact phrase. If that exact phrase is not used anywhere, the exact phrase match won't find it. And when you enclose your phrase in double quotes, Google will tell you when an exact match is not found right there up at the top of the result page. That probably means you need to change your exact phrase to something else that might be out there. In the case of LG G3 retailers, you should probably look for cell phone retailers and peruse their websites. It's unlikely someone has compiled a comprehensive list of who sells a particular phone.
It may be frustrating but sometimes the thing you're looking for just isn't out there.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I ran this search
and the first thing it told me was that there was no match at all for that exact phrase. A very useful response to searching an exact phrase. It then went on to try to give me something useful but only after being very informative by telling me it could not find what I was looking for.
Probably because the period is a wildcard character. For the OP, he's looking for a specific string and the advanced search "Find pages with... this exact phrase" option (which, they tell you, is the same as enclosing the string in quotes in the regular search field) is what he is looking for. The fact that you can contrive an example that doesn't do what you want is largely irrelevant.
There's only two reasons California would do this. 1) They are after more tax revenue. 2) Some bureaucrat wants to throw his weight around.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
Good luck fighting their respective lobbies. But yeah, simply eliminating subsidies would be a good first step.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
Yes. I blame all simple sugar (HFCS and cane/beet sugar), specifically the grossly increased consumption in the last few generations. Was that not clear?
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
...and bread, and pretty much every "low fat" food out there, and "healthy" snack bars, and "healthy" breakfast cereal, and...
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
You do see the same with cane/beet sugar. Just not as badly as you do with HFCS. But eating food filled with simple carbohydrates (i.e. any kind of simple sugar) causes you to crave and over consume to one degree or another.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
They would just replace HFCS with something slightly less bad.
Like cane/beet sugar, which is only slightly less bad than HFCS.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
Despite all the propaganda, sugar is not much better than HFCS. Not to take away from how bad HFCS is, because it's terrible. But sugar has no nutritional value and it spikes your insulin almost as bad as HFCS.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm not a fan of banning them either. However, given the rate of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country with strong evidence they are caused by our increased consumption of various kinds of sugar ("real" sugar and HFCS), I would be very much in favor of a relatively high tax on them.
The reason they're used in processed foods is because they are an effective and cheap flavor enhancer. Tax them and they become less economically viable in cheap bulk processed foods. Consumption would naturally go down as alternatives were substituted. And for the people that still consume it in quantity, the tax revenue can be funneled into taking care of the health problems caused by over consumption. Win win.
Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
One can also argue that any kind of refined sugar is not good for you. HFCS is certainly the worst but cane/beet sugar in any form is not healthy in any way. Even the "raw" forms that are just slightly less refined than table sugar are terrible for you, especially in the quantities we consume them.
If you actually read the article you'll see that things are under control.
I have this great real estate deal for you. There's this bridge that's about to come up for sale soon and I want to extend you an offer before I let the news out...
To echo the other response, there's only one reason to maintain the development environment. You want to use it. If you're not going to do upgrades or maintenance, there's no reason to maintain the development environment. Even if the work is sparse over the years, you still need to maintain the development environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Like high fructose corn syrup? Because HFCS doesn't grow on trees, whereas certain red dyes do at least grow on beetles.
You say that as if soaking raw cane/beets in lime to get "raw" sugar is a natural process...
I buy CDs. I rip them so I can get a DRM free copy on my hard drive. I store the CD on a shelf as a backup. I don't give away or sell copies to anyone. I only use one copy at a time so I'm not violating any reasonable interpretation of fair use. I don't have to pay a subscription fee to anyone to listen to the music I have purchased. I don't have to rely on any cloud service to maintain a copy. I don't have to worry about having access to the music I have purchased (which is an issue when I'm in my Jeep in the mountains and I have spotty cell phone coverage).
The artists and producers have made a reasonable profit in supplying the music to me. I am in control of how I access the music I paid for with no reliance on any 3rd party. Everybody wins.
That solution would be a much better solution if the rules for how Google treats punctuation were explicit, easily discoverable and consistent.
If you can point me to a page of documentation revealing these rules, I will appreciate it. Googling for it (assuming it exists) has so far been unsuccessful.
Easy peasy. https://support.google.com/web...
I'm not seeing how that's a failing of the search for an exact phrase. If that exact phrase is not used anywhere, the exact phrase match won't find it. And when you enclose your phrase in double quotes, Google will tell you when an exact match is not found right there up at the top of the result page. That probably means you need to change your exact phrase to something else that might be out there. In the case of LG G3 retailers, you should probably look for cell phone retailers and peruse their websites. It's unlikely someone has compiled a comprehensive list of who sells a particular phone.
It may be frustrating but sometimes the thing you're looking for just isn't out there.
That's a legitimate complaint. It's funny in an ironic way.
The solution, then, is to understand how Google treats punctuation within even a quoted string and modify your search accordingly.
and the first thing it told me was that there was no match at all for that exact phrase. A very useful response to searching an exact phrase. It then went on to try to give me something useful but only after being very informative by telling me it could not find what I was looking for.
Perhaps what you're looking for is not out there and Google is trying as hard as they can to find anything that is remotely relevant.
What does that have to do with the OP's desire to search for specific error messages?
That's been a single character wildcard in regular expressions since the 1970's.
Probably because the period is a wildcard character. For the OP, he's looking for a specific string and the advanced search "Find pages with... this exact phrase" option (which, they tell you, is the same as enclosing the string in quotes in the regular search field) is what he is looking for. The fact that you can contrive an example that doesn't do what you want is largely irrelevant.
Sure, in an unquoted string. But enclosing the whole thing in quotation marks does help.
If all else fails, you can do an advanced search where you can enter an exact phrase to look for.
Try enclosing your error output in quotation marks. That tells Google that you're looking for that phrase, not just that combination of words.
The few bad apples in the basket resulted in us throwing the entire basket out of the window.
Yeah, it's sad that 95% of the ads out there had to ruin it for the rest of them. ;)
There's only two reasons California would do this. 1) They are after more tax revenue. 2) Some bureaucrat wants to throw his weight around.
Good luck fighting their respective lobbies. But yeah, simply eliminating subsidies would be a good first step.
Yes. I blame all simple sugar (HFCS and cane/beet sugar), specifically the grossly increased consumption in the last few generations. Was that not clear?
...and bread, and pretty much every "low fat" food out there, and "healthy" snack bars, and "healthy" breakfast cereal, and...
You do see the same with cane/beet sugar. Just not as badly as you do with HFCS. But eating food filled with simple carbohydrates (i.e. any kind of simple sugar) causes you to crave and over consume to one degree or another.
They would just replace HFCS with something slightly less bad.
Like cane/beet sugar, which is only slightly less bad than HFCS.
Despite all the propaganda, sugar is not much better than HFCS. Not to take away from how bad HFCS is, because it's terrible. But sugar has no nutritional value and it spikes your insulin almost as bad as HFCS.
I'm not a fan of banning them either. However, given the rate of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country with strong evidence they are caused by our increased consumption of various kinds of sugar ("real" sugar and HFCS), I would be very much in favor of a relatively high tax on them.
The reason they're used in processed foods is because they are an effective and cheap flavor enhancer. Tax them and they become less economically viable in cheap bulk processed foods. Consumption would naturally go down as alternatives were substituted. And for the people that still consume it in quantity, the tax revenue can be funneled into taking care of the health problems caused by over consumption. Win win.
One can also argue that any kind of refined sugar is not good for you. HFCS is certainly the worst but cane/beet sugar in any form is not healthy in any way. Even the "raw" forms that are just slightly less refined than table sugar are terrible for you, especially in the quantities we consume them.
If you actually read the article you'll see that things are under control.
I have this great real estate deal for you. There's this bridge that's about to come up for sale soon and I want to extend you an offer before I let the news out...
I told you so.
To echo the other response, there's only one reason to maintain the development environment. You want to use it. If you're not going to do upgrades or maintenance, there's no reason to maintain the development environment. Even if the work is sparse over the years, you still need to maintain the development environment.