0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone. 1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary. 2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not. 3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
- was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
- was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
- was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation. 4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
- Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
- Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
- Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
- And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice. 5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.
Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.
Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.
I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.
Let's not study the usual solution for corporations of making the most minimal modification and claiming a new copyright, which is surely not supposed to happen, but the government can hardly keep up, and will grant despite no significant change.
It's a racket. All I can ask is that it be reasonable, and for a corporation 'reasonable' isn't anything like what I would like it to be. 'Fair' no longer seems to be a concept in law.
The current near-perpetual extensions of copyright isn't 'kicking the can for future generations'. It's granting virtually eternal copyright by redefining 'lifetime' in corporate terms.
And corporations have an unlimited lifetime. Yes, they do:
- If successful, they persist forever.
- If failed, they sell their property to another.
- If the purchaser fails, they repeat. Ad Infinitum.
Perhaps corporate copyright should be limited to the initial originator or purchaser, and any transfers then be limited to reasonable terms. 7-20 years. No extensions. Further sales inherit the limit.
But copyright is so broken it's criminal. Despite the problems, we have greater problems in American to solve, such as the open disdain for and circumvention of law at all levels, in every area.
So long as the States elect Presidents, Senators, and Representatives, they are responsible for their election processes.
To enforce any Federal controls or processes beyond the civil rights of access is an overreach, and time to stop these. Examples of possible DHS overreach I would oppose are:
- Mandating electronic or paper-based polling.
- Supervision of vote counting and or a requirement of approval by federal officials of any sort. Court appeals are already conducted, and are tolerable.
- Federal handling of voting materials.
We've let the Federal government reach into too much already. If there is a groundswell of concern over federal elections, perhaps they should focus on the most recent Presidential election, and the glaring irregularities seen there. Plenty of work to be done in those limited instances, before usurping state management and control of THEIR OWN ELECTIONS.
Most any Ferrari outperforms your V6 anything else sold new today. And Apple would have you believe Macbooks, Airs, etc are more like Ferraris than Mustangs.
"Most space people live in are already fully wired paid for by your taxes"
Um, from the curb to my router is wiring paid for by ME.
But the miles of hardline and cables that bring signal to me are usually built by the evil cable company, and they paid for those, and it's fair that they either be compensated for sharing, or paid for taking it, or left alone.
Municipalities that gave exclusive franchises will find that making them non-exclusive will initially result in much higher costs for subscribers, and then sharing the cable plant will be expensive to competitors. Hanging new cable is not cheap. Once you get into that, it's Economics 101. There is no magic.
Actually, I've read for a few decades that education inversely tracks birth rate; higher education, lower birth rate.
This was once explained as women taking time to finish their education got past the early child bearing years and didn't face the same pressure, along with women being educated did not require a husband, and so children were optional.
Is this no longer operative?
Add in to this young men neither having the resources to start a family nor the inclination or social pressure, and the situation seems entirely predictable.
And I, among many others, will be working when we are predicted to be retired. Earning. Paying into the system.
I'm not sure that when I am forced to retire that anything I paid into will be paying out. And please, try really, really hard to avoid claiming Social Security is a a Ponzi scheme. It was a trust fund, properly funded pension scheme until Congress figured out how to steal the fund. 40%+ Voters are happy to live off of that (it's more commonly known as welfare) at the expense of both future retirees and current taxpayers, of which less then 50% of American can number themselves. The math is not favorable to anyone.
If repeaters in any way convert those photons to electrons so that they can be amplified, cleaned up, and converted back to better, stronger photons, then that is the point where interception does not require breaking the cable or even attaching to it. Certainly the technology exists to extract signals and so listen in.
You doubt this? We've been treated to a few clever ways to listen into PCs, ways we have not thought could be, and some defy shielding.
Remember, every state is eavesdropping on every other state, every single one that has even minimal capabilities. The differences? Some are detected and thwarted. Some are detected and manipulated, and then some recognize it and some don't. Some are completely deceived. Some cannot detect the eavesdropping. And some are victimized by the delivery of supposedly secret information, alteration of that information, and selective disclosure.
But none are innocent, and should not be. Any state that is not doing this is either incompetent or derelict.
It's also the media characterization of Trump's statement as 'asking the Russians' anything.
The sarcasm was dripping off of the last line, the one rarely included in the quote.
What virtually all the media reports:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
What was actually said, as one statement, from one site:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice."
Let's unpack this:
- Trump says "Russia, if you're listening,". Sure, they listen. Is Trump actually addressing the Russians?
- Next, "I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,". This is where so many burrow in and wonder if Trump realizes the servers are gone, the emails are no longer 'out there' according to conventional wisdom, so what is he actually saying here? Maybe this is the first line of sarcasm? For those of you at home, yes, this is your signal that Trump is on a roll here, playing all of you and sticking his thumb in the Democrats' eye.
- And then, "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press". And here, if you're even marginally paying attention over the approximately 51 years or so, you are immediately thinking 'oh, yeah, like THAT's gonna happen'. Unless you're a lickspittle Lefty, and you're thinking absolutely nothing. Vacant stare.
- And Trump, as he does so often, delivers the punch line we, mostly, already know is coming: "Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice.". This cannot be reported by the media, for they cannot bring further attention to their abject failure. As we now know, they lie by commission and omission.
And frankly. I hope you still do not get it. We are at the beginning of the post-postpolitical era, where consensus politics that has led to a concerted challenge to capitalism, rise of the Liberal State, emergence of newly reconstituted tyrannies such as, but not limited to, Russia, China, and ISIS/ISIL, and the assertion of political power as the defining, organizing, and exclusive means of social organization. Trump is the anti-politician, who speaks plainly, the way his core constituents/prime audience/fan base do, and they understand him completely. He speaks as a man of action, which a man of business must be, not as a policy wonk or apparatchnik, which most of his opponents are, and not as a thoroughly compromised/complicit globalist politician, who are his enemy and adversaries.
Keep mistaking this campaign for anything approaching conventional. Please.
'To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence'
Thinking that Trump needs to be told what he said is incoherence. His 'rantish and often incoherent' speech is often plain talk, which we are unaccustomed to from politicians.
But keep underestimating Trump. That will work out well. Trust me.
0 - Trump's comment was pure sarcasm, and all those who didn't get it at the moment also don't get Trump, and won;t get why he will win.
1 - Any questions on why you don't get Trump I will not answer. You won't get the answer either.
2 - Every state is attacking every other state's data, and at every level. Some are more successful than others. If you don't think an individual, moderately technology-capable, state is doing this, then they are entirely successful in hiding their efforts, and their success at getting data is unknown, but non-zero. Do not doubt this. Cyberattacks are the single best example of asymmetrical warfare. It is hugely cheaper to defeat Internet security than it is to implement it. Huge payoff.
3 - This is proof that there is no absolute security, only security making it unprofitable to circumvent or compromised security that the compromise is not yet detected.
4 - The DNC hack is unworthy of the FBI's time - they are a private organization. The DCCC hack is also, but because it has the word 'Congressional' in the name, the FBI will be dragged into it.
5 - If the DCCC hack exposes confidential information with a national security exposure, that is a failure of a congressional caucus dealing with sensitive data improperly. More fast and loose with important data? Probably. Consequences? Not likely.
Network failures in such a complex, distributed system cause unexpected problems. 'Router' should be thought of in this scenario as 'data flow device', and of course data is at risk.Transaction rollbacks, session timeouts, more than these cause problems that become data loss events.
Not that SWA is without blame here. At work we had a server failure that impacted thousands of virtual machines. What was a storage failure became a corruption failure, and ultimately we lost most of those VMs. Recovery varied from restore image from backup to, for our team, rebuild from source. Total loss of data of 3 years' data. Rebuild the data for only 9 months due to unforeseen limitations. And silence form the technology team. We had to go to C-level execs to be included in the M&M and analysis, and were asked continually why, since we were just customers. Accountability was not even considered until we demonstrated the ultimate costs for *our* real customers. Even now they keep trying to write it off as unpredictable, and we go back to apparent lack of testing, disaster recovery validation, and the abject failure of a three-letter vendor to recover their flagship system from an error induced by their own software update. After pointing out that the only real penalty for their team is to remove team member, we had to say out loud, in front of execs, "and if we do not, will this happen again?" Of course not, they say. And of course, they could not say that they never lead us to believe that prior to the failure.
To this day, and I will reference this on a call in about 2 hours, when they take up my current top issue, it will be blamed on an unexpected failure. And I'll say 'like $%^&* this spring?'. And every one on the call will remember, and know that I called them out again. And even the C-level is reluctant to actually cost the team anything, since this was a failure of routine maintenance, preferred and strategic vendor failure, recovery and data loss prevention failure, and even a system design deficiency resulting in a significant loss and concurrent brand damage/customer dissatisfaction/recovery cost impacts, or to put it simply, everything failed. No one is willing to acknowledge that all this failed. And they may, unknown to me, be in an investigation that will result in changes, but sadly I doubt it.
SWA will, however, be looking into this, since it is not just lost bookings but huge overtime costs, make up flight costs, penalties, and compensation. My niece was flying then and this turned a 6 hour trip into an 11 hour ordeal with lost baggage and a very unsatisfactory experience at the counters, since after all the systems were down and no info was readily available. We won't know about that. And this is a first for SWA, but Continental failed like this a few years ago, and the USAir merger with an airline to be named later resulted in a huge system merge and a failure similarly. Big systems fail big. It is hard to test recovery when it costs so much to replicate the hardware, and the production system is 24x7x365. Glad I'm not in that business any more, though there is nothing like a realistic DR exercise to sharpen your focus and get the blood flowing, and when it actually works, a huge validation.
"After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic"
Anthropomorphizing tap water isn't working for me. Your tap water is delivered by a corporation (public or not) or via a well or other local source belonging to you, and it is what it is. Filtering and all helps you, good.
Vaping cannot be anything but toxic, and while we're on the subject, chronic exposure to toxins can lead to unfortunate consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
The Left is unified at the voting booth. That is more important than anything.
The faster it burns down, the faster we rebuild it.
OK, here we go...
0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone.
1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary.
2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not.
3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
- was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
- was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
- was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation.
4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
- Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
- Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
- Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
- And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice.
5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are
accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.
Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.
Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.
I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.
We will regre
And if the property is sold to a subsidiary?
Let's not study the usual solution for corporations of making the most minimal modification and claiming a new copyright, which is surely not supposed to happen, but the government can hardly keep up, and will grant despite no significant change.
It's a racket. All I can ask is that it be reasonable, and for a corporation 'reasonable' isn't anything like what I would like it to be. 'Fair' no longer seems to be a concept in law.
The current near-perpetual extensions of copyright isn't 'kicking the can for future generations'. It's granting virtually eternal copyright by redefining 'lifetime' in corporate terms.
And corporations have an unlimited lifetime. Yes, they do:
- If successful, they persist forever.
- If failed, they sell their property to another.
- If the purchaser fails, they repeat. Ad Infinitum.
Perhaps corporate copyright should be limited to the initial originator or purchaser, and any transfers then be limited to reasonable terms. 7-20 years. No extensions. Further sales inherit the limit.
But copyright is so broken it's criminal. Despite the problems, we have greater problems in American to solve, such as the open disdain for and circumvention of law at all levels, in every area.
So long as the States elect Presidents, Senators, and Representatives, they are responsible for their election processes.
To enforce any Federal controls or processes beyond the civil rights of access is an overreach, and time to stop these. Examples of possible DHS overreach I would oppose are:
- Mandating electronic or paper-based polling.
- Supervision of vote counting and or a requirement of approval by federal officials of any sort. Court appeals are already conducted, and are tolerable.
- Federal handling of voting materials.
We've let the Federal government reach into too much already. If there is a groundswell of concern over federal elections, perhaps they should focus on the most recent Presidential election, and the glaring irregularities seen there. Plenty of work to be done in those limited instances, before usurping state management and control of THEIR OWN ELECTIONS.
Which Pontiac GTO would you buy with a 6 cylinder engine?
All this does is drive the price of used Macbooks and replacement batteries up. Thanks a lot,
Most any Ferrari outperforms your V6 anything else sold new today. And Apple would have you believe Macbooks, Airs, etc are more like Ferraris than Mustangs.
"Most space people live in are already fully wired paid for by your taxes"
Um, from the curb to my router is wiring paid for by ME.
But the miles of hardline and cables that bring signal to me are usually built by the evil cable company, and they paid for those, and it's fair that they either be compensated for sharing, or paid for taking it, or left alone.
Municipalities that gave exclusive franchises will find that making them non-exclusive will initially result in much higher costs for subscribers, and then sharing the cable plant will be expensive to competitors. Hanging new cable is not cheap. Once you get into that, it's Economics 101. There is no magic.
Actually, I've read for a few decades that education inversely tracks birth rate; higher education, lower birth rate.
This was once explained as women taking time to finish their education got past the early child bearing years and didn't face the same pressure, along with women being educated did not require a husband, and so children were optional.
Is this no longer operative?
Add in to this young men neither having the resources to start a family nor the inclination or social pressure, and the situation seems entirely predictable.
And I, among many others, will be working when we are predicted to be retired. Earning. Paying into the system.
I'm not sure that when I am forced to retire that anything I paid into will be paying out. And please, try really, really hard to avoid claiming Social Security is a a Ponzi scheme. It was a trust fund, properly funded pension scheme until Congress figured out how to steal the fund. 40%+ Voters are happy to live off of that (it's more commonly known as welfare) at the expense of both future retirees and current taxpayers, of which less then 50% of American can number themselves. The math is not favorable to anyone.
The U.S. population is not declining. Immigration. Pay attention.
No surprise. Men have never engaged in lesbianism as much as women have. Can we have some meaningful data here, please?
Oh, wait, /. Sry.
If repeaters in any way convert those photons to electrons so that they can be amplified, cleaned up, and converted back to better, stronger photons, then that is the point where interception does not require breaking the cable or even attaching to it. Certainly the technology exists to extract signals and so listen in.
You doubt this? We've been treated to a few clever ways to listen into PCs, ways we have not thought could be, and some defy shielding.
Remember, every state is eavesdropping on every other state, every single one that has even minimal capabilities. The differences? Some are detected and thwarted. Some are detected and manipulated, and then some recognize it and some don't. Some are completely deceived. Some cannot detect the eavesdropping. And some are victimized by the delivery of supposedly secret information, alteration of that information, and selective disclosure.
But none are innocent, and should not be. Any state that is not doing this is either incompetent or derelict.
It's also the media characterization of Trump's statement as 'asking the Russians' anything.
The sarcasm was dripping off of the last line, the one rarely included in the quote.
What virtually all the media reports:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
What was actually said, as one statement, from one site:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice."
Let's unpack this:
- Trump says "Russia, if you're listening,". Sure, they listen. Is Trump actually addressing the Russians?
- Next, "I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,". This is where so many burrow in and wonder if Trump realizes the servers are gone, the emails are no longer 'out there' according to conventional wisdom, so what is he actually saying here? Maybe this is the first line of sarcasm? For those of you at home, yes, this is your signal that Trump is on a roll here, playing all of you and sticking his thumb in the Democrats' eye.
- And then, "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press". And here, if you're even marginally paying attention over the approximately 51 years or so, you are immediately thinking 'oh, yeah, like THAT's gonna happen'. Unless you're a lickspittle Lefty, and you're thinking absolutely nothing. Vacant stare.
- And Trump, as he does so often, delivers the punch line we, mostly, already know is coming: "Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice.". This cannot be reported by the media, for they cannot bring further attention to their abject failure. As we now know, they lie by commission and omission.
And frankly. I hope you still do not get it. We are at the beginning of the post-postpolitical era, where consensus politics that has led to a concerted challenge to capitalism, rise of the Liberal State, emergence of newly reconstituted tyrannies such as, but not limited to, Russia, China, and ISIS/ISIL, and the assertion of political power as the defining, organizing, and exclusive means of social organization. Trump is the anti-politician, who speaks plainly, the way his core constituents/prime audience/fan base do, and they understand him completely. He speaks as a man of action, which a man of business must be, not as a policy wonk or apparatchnik, which most of his opponents are, and not as a thoroughly compromised/complicit globalist politician, who are his enemy and adversaries.
Keep mistaking this campaign for anything approaching conventional. Please.
There is no security, only obstacles in excess of the value of the successful assault.
Anything secure will need non electronic verification, which will fail if voters don't confirm their ballot. Which they won't.
Paper can't be compromised so easily. Writing the numbers down in a public process could work. . We just have to adopt transparent elections.
And in the words of a brilliant realist, "yeah, like that's gonna happen".
Every state is attacking every other state. Some are attacking themselves.
It's the ultimate assymetrical warfare. And hugely successful.
SWA is just an acronym. Luv refers to an old motto / ad campaign, notice they have a heart shape in most of their imagery.
Their IATA code is. WN, possibly from an old parent airline...
'To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence'
Thinking that Trump needs to be told what he said is incoherence. His 'rantish and often incoherent' speech is often plain talk, which we are unaccustomed to from politicians.
But keep underestimating Trump. That will work out well. Trust me.
0 - Trump's comment was pure sarcasm, and all those who didn't get it at the moment also don't get Trump, and won;t get why he will win.
1 - Any questions on why you don't get Trump I will not answer. You won't get the answer either.
2 - Every state is attacking every other state's data, and at every level. Some are more successful than others. If you don't think an individual, moderately technology-capable, state is doing this, then they are entirely successful in hiding their efforts, and their success at getting data is unknown, but non-zero. Do not doubt this. Cyberattacks are the single best example of asymmetrical warfare. It is hugely cheaper to defeat Internet security than it is to implement it. Huge payoff.
3 - This is proof that there is no absolute security, only security making it unprofitable to circumvent or compromised security that the compromise is not yet detected.
4 - The DNC hack is unworthy of the FBI's time - they are a private organization. The DCCC hack is also, but because it has the word 'Congressional' in the name, the FBI will be dragged into it.
5 - If the DCCC hack exposes confidential information with a national security exposure, that is a failure of a congressional caucus dealing with sensitive data improperly. More fast and loose with important data? Probably. Consequences? Not likely.
Whoop. Expect more of these.
Wow. You've never done this for a living, right?
Network failures in such a complex, distributed system cause unexpected problems. 'Router' should be thought of in this scenario as 'data flow device', and of course data is at risk.Transaction rollbacks, session timeouts, more than these cause problems that become data loss events.
Not that SWA is without blame here. At work we had a server failure that impacted thousands of virtual machines. What was a storage failure became a corruption failure, and ultimately we lost most of those VMs. Recovery varied from restore image from backup to, for our team, rebuild from source. Total loss of data of 3 years' data. Rebuild the data for only 9 months due to unforeseen limitations. And silence form the technology team. We had to go to C-level execs to be included in the M&M and analysis, and were asked continually why, since we were just customers. Accountability was not even considered until we demonstrated the ultimate costs for *our* real customers. Even now they keep trying to write it off as unpredictable, and we go back to apparent lack of testing, disaster recovery validation, and the abject failure of a three-letter vendor to recover their flagship system from an error induced by their own software update. After pointing out that the only real penalty for their team is to remove team member, we had to say out loud, in front of execs, "and if we do not, will this happen again?" Of course not, they say. And of course, they could not say that they never lead us to believe that prior to the failure.
To this day, and I will reference this on a call in about 2 hours, when they take up my current top issue, it will be blamed on an unexpected failure. And I'll say 'like $%^&* this spring?'. And every one on the call will remember, and know that I called them out again. And even the C-level is reluctant to actually cost the team anything, since this was a failure of routine maintenance, preferred and strategic vendor failure, recovery and data loss prevention failure, and even a system design deficiency resulting in a significant loss and concurrent brand damage/customer dissatisfaction/recovery cost impacts, or to put it simply, everything failed. No one is willing to acknowledge that all this failed. And they may, unknown to me, be in an investigation that will result in changes, but sadly I doubt it.
SWA will, however, be looking into this, since it is not just lost bookings but huge overtime costs, make up flight costs, penalties, and compensation. My niece was flying then and this turned a 6 hour trip into an 11 hour ordeal with lost baggage and a very unsatisfactory experience at the counters, since after all the systems were down and no info was readily available. We won't know about that. And this is a first for SWA, but Continental failed like this a few years ago, and the USAir merger with an airline to be named later resulted in a huge system merge and a failure similarly. Big systems fail big. It is hard to test recovery when it costs so much to replicate the hardware, and the production system is 24x7x365. Glad I'm not in that business any more, though there is nothing like a realistic DR exercise to sharpen your focus and get the blood flowing, and when it actually works, a huge validation.
Please do not feed the ACs. They will only multiply.
Thalidomide.
"After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic"
Anthropomorphizing tap water isn't working for me. Your tap water is delivered by a corporation (public or not) or via a well or other local source belonging to you, and it is what it is. Filtering and all helps you, good.
Vaping cannot be anything but toxic, and while we're on the subject, chronic exposure to toxins can lead to unfortunate consequences.
It's not benign.