Please name me a server which requires multiple 24x7x365 operation and which should be suspended to disk. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Either the server needs to be up and running or it doesn't. If it doesn't, and therefore can be suspended, it can be upgraded and rebooted.
Yes, I've read plenty on ksplice. Most distributions do not yet include it. Besides, even those that do include it are not exempt from reboot; not by a wide measure. Ksplice is only good for very minor updates which do not change any data structures. Once a structure changes, ksplice is no longer an option.
And assuming ksplice were always an option, it still doesn't change the fact that the justification for this entire thought experiment is as contrived and as poor a practice as they come.
I often see uptimes measured in years. It's not at all unusual for a server to need no driver updates for it's useful lifetime if you spec the hardware based on stable drivers being available. The software needs updates in that time, but not the drivers.
Yes, we've all seen that. It makes for nice bragging rights. But realistically, to presume that one might have a badly leaking application, which can not ever be restarted, and that memory/paging fragmentation is not a consequence, to justify a poor practice is just that, a poor practice. And of course, that completely ignores the fact that there are likely nasty kernel bugs going unfixed. So it means you're advertising a poor practice, which will likely never be required, as an excuse to maintain uptime at the expense of security and/or reliability.
And if you somehow manage to break the odds whereby the poor practice miraculously pays off, you can always create a paging file.
Yes, everything you said is known and understood, but hardly topical.
By paging leaked memory, if the leak is indeed bad enough to justify an abuse of the VM to offset it, chances are you'll be suffering from fragmentation and be on the negative side of the performance curve at some point. Its just silly to believe you'll be running a badly leaking application over the span of years and desire to hide the bug rather than fix it. There is just nothing about that strategy which makes sense.
So to bring this full circle, the troll-moderator, was completely wrong. And while you're post is well intentioned, its nieve at best. More likely the moderator is completely clueless as to the subject matter or the moderation was done out of spite.
A new implementation of existing technique and/or technology can still be noteworthy. If this isn't the case then an F22 is really just a Wright Brother's Flyer - nothing new. My metaphor is absurd, but you get the point.
Sorry. My other post which provides lots of good, accurate information was troll-moderated. Its been forever since I've last seen meta-moderation actually fix a troll moderated post so I'm hoping others will fix it. Not to mention, its information many, many users should learn.
Hopefully yourself and others will read the post and realize why its a bad idea, which ignores the fact its a popular notion.
Unfortunately you're not alone in doing this. Its a deprecated practice that used to make sense, but hasn't made sense to do so in a very long time.
The problem stems when legitimate applications attempt to use that memory. How long does it take to page (read/wirte) 16GB, 4KB at a time? In the event you have legitimate applications which use large amounts of memory run away with a bug, it can effectively bring your entire system to a halt as it will take a long, long time before it runs out of memory.
Excluding Window boxes (they have their own unique paging, memory/file mapping, and backing store systems), generally more than 1/4-1/2 memory is a waste these days. As someone else pointed out, sure you can buy more uptime from leaking applications but frankly, that's hardly realistic in the least. The chances of not requiring a kernel update over the span of a couple years is just silly unless you care more for uptime than you do for security and/or features and/or performance.
The old 1:1+x and 2:1 memory to disk ratios are based on notions of swapping rather than paging (yes, those are two different virtual memory techniques), plus allowing room for kernel dumps, etc. Paging is far more efficient than swapping ever was. These days, if you ever come closing to needing 1:1, let alone 2:1 page file/partition, you're not even close to properly spec'ing your required memory. In other words, with few exceptions, if you have a page file/partition anywhere near that size, you didn't understand how the machine was to be used in the first place.
You might come back and say, one day I might need it. Well, one day you can create a file (dd if=/dev/zero of=/pagefile bs=1024 count=xxxx), initialize it as page (mkswap/pagefile), and add it as a low priority paging device (swapon -p0/pagefile). Problem solved. You may say the performance will be horrible with paging on top of a file system - but if you're overflowing several GB to a page file on top of a file system, the performance impact won't be noticeable as you already have far, far greater performance problems. And if the page activity isn't noticeable, the fact its on a file system won't matter.
Three decades ago it made sense. These days, its just silly and begging for your system to one day grind to a halt.
PADD had almost no computing power, in and of itself.
By comparison, "almost no computing power", by today's standard is likely to be 486/586 level of power. Now compare that with technology from 300 years in the future. In 300 years, "almost no computing power", likely translates into today's super computers.
If you install something that says "THIS WILL COST YOU MONEY", and it sends SMS that costs you money, how exactly is that a "trojan"?
Because it says it does one things and actually does another. That's what a trojan is.
The fact that the installation tells you it can cost you money and people still install it means people are idiots. This is like anti-virus popping up and saying, application has been detected to do something which doesn't correspond to the type of application you are installing. Wish to continue? The fact this is news worthy implies headline, "User willingly and knowingly accepts virus - anti-virus and Windows is to blame." WTF?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see what's so confusing about it. Its very clear and easy to read. The real confusion stems from the fact that people have been confused by other people's readings, where they have worn tinted glasses while reading and teaching. And I will point out, readings which fly in the face of history.
Hell, you need only look at well known history to properly understand the power provided by proper reading of the US Constitution. States are specifically granted the power of militia. In other words, its not a power ceded to the federal government; contrary to what you're constantly told. The Constitution clearly makes that known. The people have the right to bear arms; otherwise, they would have left it as a role for militia only. In either case, their rights shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That's all very clear. Historically this is completely accurate. And historically, militia frequently owned and even maintained the most powerful military weapons in their homes. And don't get me stated on the privately owned trading companies who welded the great naval power of their time.
So with any reasonable reading the only ambiguity which exists is, must you be a member of a militia to have access to all available weaponry? According to clear reading of, "shall not be infringed", the answer is clearly, "no!" Only that if you wish to have a standing "army", you can be regulated by the state, for the good of the state.
Our forefathers specifically understood revolution may be required. They understood no matter what they wrote, its potential for corruption always exists. Accordingly, as they knew all too well, the possibilities of revolution always exists. You can never assure that if you prevent the citizenry (which is a militia - "citizen army") from rivaling federal forces. Its very clearly their intent both militia and the citizenry are to be properly equipped; albeit with the militia being regulated. In other words, they don't want armed, "thugs", but they do want armed citizens capable of contributing as a militia.
Accordingly, the vast majority of state laws, in accordance with history and many writings of our forefathers, not to mention the US Constitution, are absolutely unconstitutional. I have no doubt many of our forefathers would spit in the face of representatives from states like New York, DC, and California. Laws like theirs are the definition of empowering tyranny.
At the end of the day, ask yourself a very simply question. Why would they make illegal the very actions and equipment they knew would one day be required again; the very actions and equipment they, themselves used? The answer is obvious unless you're an anti-gun, crackpot. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
To be anti-gun is the literal definition of, "Un-American."
Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks.
At no point do I conflate homosexuality with rape. I do however, compare animal behaviors, one of which behaviors YOU compare to homosexuality via your study. I then use YOUR comparison to draw a conclusion with available facts. Just because it speaks extremely poorly of your position is not justification to misrepresent the other's position - as you have attempted to do twice now.
It easy to notice at no point did you attempt to rebut the inescapable conclusion that such comparisons are quackery. Nice hand waving and illogical dismissal, while pathetically attempting to take the high ground. Sad.
In other words, to paraphrase you, "Your reasonable and logical argument blows my position out of the water. That's not what I wanted to hear. The argument shorts any contrived counter argument I'd like to produce based on quackery-science, such as the herring I originally falsified and hoped you would go for. Therefore I'll pretend I never heard it."
I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.
All too often we have reams of context in which we can place these well written documents. All too often interpretation is not required in the least. All too often, interpretation, and a poor one, if not flat out wrong, is what we get.
The US Constitution is one of the easiest to comprehend legal documents around. It was purposely made so. When judges can't understand the US Constitution or don't know where they should refer about ambiguity, its their way of saying they are unfit to sit on the bench. All to often, people take this to infer the Constitution is the problem. In reality, it almost never is.
although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality
I made no such assertion. You did, and only you.. You did for the sole purpose of creating your own false herring to contort and make a counter argument.
The point is, by human standards "rape" and "sexual assault" are common, every day occurrences in the animal world. Period. That's the way things are. Which means, using an animal behavioral standard as justification for human behavior cuts both ways. After all, its natural - animals do it! So if you find compelled to accept these studies then you must also accept behaviors such as rape as an acceptable human behavior. But, using my point, again, my point, its simply best to not accept these studies and ignore them outright because they really are not comparable in the least - its quack science unless you're willing to accept all that comes with it. I'm not! Rape is not acceptable human behavior.
So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus? Again, my point, the conclusions are as bogus as the study.
Find some other way to make your case without invoking bogus science.
This stems from the completely broken Christian concept that children are innocent and therefore must be protected at all costs from anything and everything. Many laws are predicated from this concept. And yet, many laws now allow for the prosecution of minors as adults. Accordingly, this means the laws are specifically built to both protect and brutally punish "innocent" children.
So which is it? Are they innocent or so evil we must prosecute them as bad adults? The fact these conflicting laws exist is more or less proof a legal system is broken. Fix the legal system and you won't have need for completely contradictory laws.
Just food for thought... according to current laws, as little as 100 years ago, some 30% of the world industrialized population were pedophiles. I would bet that some half the population would be criminals in one way or another if the laws were retroactively applied.
Its easy to see why prisons are the fastest growing government service in the US and why the US has more prisoners than many industrialized nations have citizens.
And then there is zero tolerance which is a fancy way of saying, "I'm so dumb, I can't be trusted to perform my job correctly yet I have a gavel or a gun and badge with ultimate control over everyone else's life." Again, zero tolerance is a fancy way of saying the the system is completely broken.
Imagine the multiples of star output it would take to actually traverse 72 lightyears with raw thrust rather than some sort of warp drive.
Given that your statement is extremely open ended, it suggest you don't understand the basics of physics; such as inertia. Ignoring that, one has nothing to do with the other.
It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate.
You're forgetting some very important facts. Back them illiteracy rates were extremely high. As such, orators were common. That was their job. It was a job they took very seriously. They frequently had various tricks ranging from song, poem, sticks, punch patterns, woven pattern, so on and so, to ensure accuracy of oral history. Basically, in their time, based on the standards of the day, the record in which you are demanding, was met. The truth be told, its more likely a higher degree of inaccuracy exists because of translation errors, which are plentiful, than by loss by orators.
For example, a common translation error of Noah's Arc says the entire world flooded. The reality is, a completely different word would have been used if they really meant, "world". They documented a massive, regional flood. Furthermore, the real word for, "world", actually is used elsewhere in original texts. And, the word which is commonly mistranslated as "world" is frequently used as, "all surrounding regions and valleys", elsewhere in various texts. But, the fact that this is one of the most obvious, poor translations is frequently ignored because a flood of the world sounds more "biblical" and makes God's power all that more grandiose and unquestionable, than does a very large, regional flood.
Lastly, you also need to keep in mind, most of the biblical stories exist from multiple authors, all roughly written at roughly the same time. They all document roughly the same stories, varying only slightly in detail. What's considered cannon is more or less the versions which independently confirm each other. As such, if you insist on attacking the credibility of the bible, perhaps you should do it in areas which are well know to actually lack credibility - such as its translations and areas which are omitted because of conflict with other cannon.
There are, in fact, many stories which have been completely omitted but which the authors themselves, held as part of their core beliefs. And in many cases, direct references still exist within their stories. Which raises the question, how can cannon material, believed in by both the original authors and Jesus himself be excluded from cannon? The Book of Enoch is one such, high profile example.
And he has that confidence by the faith, sight unseen, he has in the medical research community. Unless you're asserting he has actively sought out the diabetes research community and interviewed them to obtain said confidence. But we both know you're not asserting that.
The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good. In other words, it would be just as easy to use these same types of studies to prove rape is a justified human behavior; and therefore should be allowed. And no, I'm not advocating that.
The point being, there are exceedingly few creatures on this planet which are even close to the complex behaviors, social interactions, and emotions to what humans have. Sheep are not one of them. I encourage you to buy lots of salt and use it liberally when reading the sheep study, and other studies like it.
Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me.
Define normal. Exactly. If you want to throw around the word, "normal", then by definition, they are "abnormal." But, we all know what you really meant, so who cares.
Beyond that, to presume gays never force their beliefs on people, unlike all other people, is somehow, magically insane. Gays are no more exempt from intolerance, zealotry, and personal bias than any other group of humanity. If you don't believe this, you've been drinking from the zealot cup of the cult of gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay; my problem is with zealotry. But gays, like many other groups, all have their own zealot cups.
Revising my statements to factually incorrect statements and then arguing they are incorrect doesn't then make your statements correct.
I encourage you to go learn a lot more about WWII. In doing so, you'll learn why my statements were all completely accurate.
To come full circle, the topic is about how overblown the technology of Germany is in history during WWII. The answer is, absolutely not. Accordingly, I'm forced to point you back to one of my original statements, from which you constantly seem to suffer. Do not confuse implementation and deployment of technology with technology. Your hand waving and placing words into my mouth doesn't mitigate that. Additionally, technology is not tactics. Tactics is not technology.
Considering there are endless books and documentaries which contain all of this information, I see no reason to do such poor job here. Either you want to know - or you don't. Its up to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Please name me a server which requires multiple 24x7x365 operation and which should be suspended to disk. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Either the server needs to be up and running or it doesn't. If it doesn't, and therefore can be suspended, it can be upgraded and rebooted.
Yes, I've read plenty on ksplice. Most distributions do not yet include it. Besides, even those that do include it are not exempt from reboot; not by a wide measure. Ksplice is only good for very minor updates which do not change any data structures. Once a structure changes, ksplice is no longer an option.
And assuming ksplice were always an option, it still doesn't change the fact that the justification for this entire thought experiment is as contrived and as poor a practice as they come.
I often see uptimes measured in years. It's not at all unusual for a server to need no driver updates for it's useful lifetime if you spec the hardware based on stable drivers being available. The software needs updates in that time, but not the drivers.
Yes, we've all seen that. It makes for nice bragging rights. But realistically, to presume that one might have a badly leaking application, which can not ever be restarted, and that memory/paging fragmentation is not a consequence, to justify a poor practice is just that, a poor practice. And of course, that completely ignores the fact that there are likely nasty kernel bugs going unfixed. So it means you're advertising a poor practice, which will likely never be required, as an excuse to maintain uptime at the expense of security and/or reliability.
And if you somehow manage to break the odds whereby the poor practice miraculously pays off, you can always create a paging file.
Yes, everything you said is known and understood, but hardly topical.
By paging leaked memory, if the leak is indeed bad enough to justify an abuse of the VM to offset it, chances are you'll be suffering from fragmentation and be on the negative side of the performance curve at some point. Its just silly to believe you'll be running a badly leaking application over the span of years and desire to hide the bug rather than fix it. There is just nothing about that strategy which makes sense.
So to bring this full circle, the troll-moderator, was completely wrong. And while you're post is well intentioned, its nieve at best. More likely the moderator is completely clueless as to the subject matter or the moderation was done out of spite.
A new implementation of existing technique and/or technology can still be noteworthy. If this isn't the case then an F22 is really just a Wright Brother's Flyer - nothing new. My metaphor is absurd, but you get the point.
Sorry. My other post which provides lots of good, accurate information was troll-moderated. Its been forever since I've last seen meta-moderation actually fix a troll moderated post so I'm hoping others will fix it. Not to mention, its information many, many users should learn.
Hopefully yourself and others will read the post and realize why its a bad idea, which ignores the fact its a popular notion.
Why is a factually accurate, topical, informative, and polite message marked troll?
Unfortunately you're not alone in doing this. Its a deprecated practice that used to make sense, but hasn't made sense to do so in a very long time.
The problem stems when legitimate applications attempt to use that memory. How long does it take to page (read/wirte) 16GB, 4KB at a time? In the event you have legitimate applications which use large amounts of memory run away with a bug, it can effectively bring your entire system to a halt as it will take a long, long time before it runs out of memory.
Excluding Window boxes (they have their own unique paging, memory/file mapping, and backing store systems), generally more than 1/4-1/2 memory is a waste these days. As someone else pointed out, sure you can buy more uptime from leaking applications but frankly, that's hardly realistic in the least. The chances of not requiring a kernel update over the span of a couple years is just silly unless you care more for uptime than you do for security and/or features and/or performance.
The old 1:1+x and 2:1 memory to disk ratios are based on notions of swapping rather than paging (yes, those are two different virtual memory techniques), plus allowing room for kernel dumps, etc. Paging is far more efficient than swapping ever was. These days, if you ever come closing to needing 1:1, let alone 2:1 page file/partition, you're not even close to properly spec'ing your required memory. In other words, with few exceptions, if you have a page file/partition anywhere near that size, you didn't understand how the machine was to be used in the first place.
You might come back and say, one day I might need it. Well, one day you can create a file (dd if=/dev/zero of=/pagefile bs=1024 count=xxxx), initialize it as page (mkswap /pagefile), and add it as a low priority paging device (swapon -p0 /pagefile). Problem solved. You may say the performance will be horrible with paging on top of a file system - but if you're overflowing several GB to a page file on top of a file system, the performance impact won't be noticeable as you already have far, far greater performance problems. And if the page activity isn't noticeable, the fact its on a file system won't matter.
Three decades ago it made sense. These days, its just silly and begging for your system to one day grind to a halt.
PADD had almost no computing power, in and of itself.
By comparison, "almost no computing power", by today's standard is likely to be 486/586 level of power. Now compare that with technology from 300 years in the future. In 300 years, "almost no computing power", likely translates into today's super computers.
If you install something that says "THIS WILL COST YOU MONEY", and it sends SMS that costs you money, how exactly is that a "trojan"?
Because it says it does one things and actually does another. That's what a trojan is.
The fact that the installation tells you it can cost you money and people still install it means people are idiots. This is like anti-virus popping up and saying, application has been detected to do something which doesn't correspond to the type of application you are installing. Wish to continue? The fact this is news worthy implies headline, "User willingly and knowingly accepts virus - anti-virus and Windows is to blame." WTF?
You just can't fix stupid.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see what's so confusing about it. Its very clear and easy to read. The real confusion stems from the fact that people have been confused by other people's readings, where they have worn tinted glasses while reading and teaching. And I will point out, readings which fly in the face of history.
Hell, you need only look at well known history to properly understand the power provided by proper reading of the US Constitution. States are specifically granted the power of militia. In other words, its not a power ceded to the federal government; contrary to what you're constantly told. The Constitution clearly makes that known. The people have the right to bear arms; otherwise, they would have left it as a role for militia only. In either case, their rights shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That's all very clear. Historically this is completely accurate. And historically, militia frequently owned and even maintained the most powerful military weapons in their homes. And don't get me stated on the privately owned trading companies who welded the great naval power of their time.
So with any reasonable reading the only ambiguity which exists is, must you be a member of a militia to have access to all available weaponry? According to clear reading of, "shall not be infringed", the answer is clearly, "no!" Only that if you wish to have a standing "army", you can be regulated by the state, for the good of the state.
Our forefathers specifically understood revolution may be required. They understood no matter what they wrote, its potential for corruption always exists. Accordingly, as they knew all too well, the possibilities of revolution always exists. You can never assure that if you prevent the citizenry (which is a militia - "citizen army") from rivaling federal forces. Its very clearly their intent both militia and the citizenry are to be properly equipped; albeit with the militia being regulated. In other words, they don't want armed, "thugs", but they do want armed citizens capable of contributing as a militia.
Accordingly, the vast majority of state laws, in accordance with history and many writings of our forefathers, not to mention the US Constitution, are absolutely unconstitutional. I have no doubt many of our forefathers would spit in the face of representatives from states like New York, DC, and California. Laws like theirs are the definition of empowering tyranny.
At the end of the day, ask yourself a very simply question. Why would they make illegal the very actions and equipment they knew would one day be required again; the very actions and equipment they, themselves used? The answer is obvious unless you're an anti-gun, crackpot. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
To be anti-gun is the literal definition of, "Un-American."
Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks.
At no point do I conflate homosexuality with rape. I do however, compare animal behaviors, one of which behaviors YOU compare to homosexuality via your study. I then use YOUR comparison to draw a conclusion with available facts. Just because it speaks extremely poorly of your position is not justification to misrepresent the other's position - as you have attempted to do twice now.
It easy to notice at no point did you attempt to rebut the inescapable conclusion that such comparisons are quackery. Nice hand waving and illogical dismissal, while pathetically attempting to take the high ground. Sad.
In other words, to paraphrase you, "Your reasonable and logical argument blows my position out of the water. That's not what I wanted to hear. The argument shorts any contrived counter argument I'd like to produce based on quackery-science, such as the herring I originally falsified and hoped you would go for. Therefore I'll pretend I never heard it."
I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.
Lol - right...
I couldn't agree more!
All too often we have reams of context in which we can place these well written documents. All too often interpretation is not required in the least. All too often, interpretation, and a poor one, if not flat out wrong, is what we get.
The US Constitution is one of the easiest to comprehend legal documents around. It was purposely made so. When judges can't understand the US Constitution or don't know where they should refer about ambiguity, its their way of saying they are unfit to sit on the bench. All to often, people take this to infer the Constitution is the problem. In reality, it almost never is.
Some stats allow prosecution of minors as young as 10 as an adult.
although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality
I made no such assertion. You did, and only you.. You did for the sole purpose of creating your own false herring to contort and make a counter argument.
The point is, by human standards "rape" and "sexual assault" are common, every day occurrences in the animal world. Period. That's the way things are. Which means, using an animal behavioral standard as justification for human behavior cuts both ways. After all, its natural - animals do it! So if you find compelled to accept these studies then you must also accept behaviors such as rape as an acceptable human behavior. But, using my point, again, my point, its simply best to not accept these studies and ignore them outright because they really are not comparable in the least - its quack science unless you're willing to accept all that comes with it. I'm not! Rape is not acceptable human behavior.
So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus? Again, my point, the conclusions are as bogus as the study.
Find some other way to make your case without invoking bogus science.
This stems from the completely broken Christian concept that children are innocent and therefore must be protected at all costs from anything and everything. Many laws are predicated from this concept. And yet, many laws now allow for the prosecution of minors as adults. Accordingly, this means the laws are specifically built to both protect and brutally punish "innocent" children.
So which is it? Are they innocent or so evil we must prosecute them as bad adults? The fact these conflicting laws exist is more or less proof a legal system is broken. Fix the legal system and you won't have need for completely contradictory laws.
Just food for thought... according to current laws, as little as 100 years ago, some 30% of the world industrialized population were pedophiles. I would bet that some half the population would be criminals in one way or another if the laws were retroactively applied.
Its easy to see why prisons are the fastest growing government service in the US and why the US has more prisoners than many industrialized nations have citizens.
And then there is zero tolerance which is a fancy way of saying, "I'm so dumb, I can't be trusted to perform my job correctly yet I have a gavel or a gun and badge with ultimate control over everyone else's life." Again, zero tolerance is a fancy way of saying the the system is completely broken.
Imagine the multiples of star output it would take to actually traverse 72 lightyears with raw thrust rather than some sort of warp drive.
Given that your statement is extremely open ended, it suggest you don't understand the basics of physics; such as inertia. Ignoring that, one has nothing to do with the other.
Nuff said.
It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate.
You're forgetting some very important facts. Back them illiteracy rates were extremely high. As such, orators were common. That was their job. It was a job they took very seriously. They frequently had various tricks ranging from song, poem, sticks, punch patterns, woven pattern, so on and so, to ensure accuracy of oral history. Basically, in their time, based on the standards of the day, the record in which you are demanding, was met. The truth be told, its more likely a higher degree of inaccuracy exists because of translation errors, which are plentiful, than by loss by orators.
For example, a common translation error of Noah's Arc says the entire world flooded. The reality is, a completely different word would have been used if they really meant, "world". They documented a massive, regional flood. Furthermore, the real word for, "world", actually is used elsewhere in original texts. And, the word which is commonly mistranslated as "world" is frequently used as, "all surrounding regions and valleys", elsewhere in various texts. But, the fact that this is one of the most obvious, poor translations is frequently ignored because a flood of the world sounds more "biblical" and makes God's power all that more grandiose and unquestionable, than does a very large, regional flood.
Lastly, you also need to keep in mind, most of the biblical stories exist from multiple authors, all roughly written at roughly the same time. They all document roughly the same stories, varying only slightly in detail. What's considered cannon is more or less the versions which independently confirm each other. As such, if you insist on attacking the credibility of the bible, perhaps you should do it in areas which are well know to actually lack credibility - such as its translations and areas which are omitted because of conflict with other cannon.
There are, in fact, many stories which have been completely omitted but which the authors themselves, held as part of their core beliefs. And in many cases, direct references still exist within their stories. Which raises the question, how can cannon material, believed in by both the original authors and Jesus himself be excluded from cannon? The Book of Enoch is one such, high profile example.
And he has that confidence by the faith, sight unseen, he has in the medical research community. Unless you're asserting he has actively sought out the diabetes research community and interviewed them to obtain said confidence. But we both know you're not asserting that.
...just something to ponder...
But if aliens exist, its possible they are responsible for the story of creation. Not all permutations require they be mutually exclusive.
God loves everybody.
Unless your testicles have been crushed or your penis has been cut off. Seriously. Look it up yourself. Its in Deuteronomy, IIRC.
The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good. In other words, it would be just as easy to use these same types of studies to prove rape is a justified human behavior; and therefore should be allowed. And no, I'm not advocating that.
The point being, there are exceedingly few creatures on this planet which are even close to the complex behaviors, social interactions, and emotions to what humans have. Sheep are not one of them. I encourage you to buy lots of salt and use it liberally when reading the sheep study, and other studies like it.
Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me.
Define normal. Exactly. If you want to throw around the word, "normal", then by definition, they are "abnormal." But, we all know what you really meant, so who cares.
Beyond that, to presume gays never force their beliefs on people, unlike all other people, is somehow, magically insane. Gays are no more exempt from intolerance, zealotry, and personal bias than any other group of humanity. If you don't believe this, you've been drinking from the zealot cup of the cult of gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay; my problem is with zealotry. But gays, like many other groups, all have their own zealot cups.
I think your key ingredient might be time travel
Customer: I gotta get these pills to my girlfriend.. four months ago.
Einstein Express. When it absolutely, positively, has to be there the day before yesterday.
Revising my statements to factually incorrect statements and then arguing they are incorrect doesn't then make your statements correct.
I encourage you to go learn a lot more about WWII. In doing so, you'll learn why my statements were all completely accurate.
To come full circle, the topic is about how overblown the technology of Germany is in history during WWII. The answer is, absolutely not. Accordingly, I'm forced to point you back to one of my original statements, from which you constantly seem to suffer. Do not confuse implementation and deployment of technology with technology. Your hand waving and placing words into my mouth doesn't mitigate that. Additionally, technology is not tactics. Tactics is not technology.
Considering there are endless books and documentaries which contain all of this information, I see no reason to do such poor job here. Either you want to know - or you don't. Its up to you.