"Darling, I won this new mattress in a raffle, I'm so excited, I never win anything! It is finally my turn to win something. I hope it is comfortable. They're going to deliver it next week."
Seriously, that isn't hard. Anybody would need to think about buying this thing is already a practiced liar. Why else would they be suspicious enough to start an investigation when there is no cause? And if there already is cause, that is its own problem that has to be dealt with; this only even has a small chance of success.
And if you have a guest room, two mattresses are harder to explain than one. (unless you're a known compulsive shopper)
Just google "grandma diet" and find out what the term means.
I didn't just place the words "grandma" and "diet" next to each other to imply some new meaning. It is a known term that is used in the context of the discussion. It exists. Deal.
In my experience, most of the customers of small hosting companies are paying for fully managed servers, which includes the backups. Most of the customers won't have any backup other than the code they started with. And they wouldn't know how to make a backup any more than they would know how to shoot a fireball spell out of a chopstick.
This is compounded by human nature applying "trust" based on the quality of the personal relationship you have. If you have a nice conversation, by the end they really really want to give you their root password, have you move all their stuff over for them, and just tell them when it is finished. And then their DNS hasn't propagated yet, and they get really upset and become unsure if they should "trust" you, and get indigestion, and start calling every hour.
The "mounted backup" part is just a bridge too far. Later in the comments he says he swapped of/if on a dd command, so now how does he prep the disk for recovery, which seems to verify the troll.
Uhhh... I'm wasn't talking about "world hunger." There is plenty of food for that, hunger is caused by non-food-related problems and is off topic here.
You do not actually make any point to support your claim that eating "grandma foods" does not solve the problem of good nutrition. I'll stick with what the nutrition researchers recommend by consensus; traditional whole foods.
Some projects I worked on in the 90s still have tape archives of that data.
You can easily have a situation where the backup tools have improved, and there is less overall data loss now, but that the mindset now is sloppy and leads to a lot of errors of types that were less common in the past.
In the past when you did it sloppy, you'd get called out on it; and sometimes it still sucked, because PHB. But when that was the case, it was at least known and accepted that it was technically inferior to not have correct engineering. These days, the average shop believes that 80% is enough, and that 95% completion is too much and a waste of money. In the old days, there was technical consensus that 100% of the desired functionality... was desired.
That's all great, but even a less complete, sloppy backup system would be an improvement here.
Another thing people don't understand about cloud hosting... you should still have your own self-managed, non-cloud server that holds your images and ideally runs your service during the low-traffic hours. Whatever your daily lowest traffic 6 hours is, in most cases, should be traditionally hosted. Cloud is super-duper-awesome-webscale for the peak traffic, no way around that if you have peak traffic hours.
Personally, I can re-deploy (including the latest database backup) from my dev workstation using a simple rake task.
Another problem is; relying on your hosting company for backups. Never do that. The same fire/earthquate/bash script/volcano that makes the backup necessary, would destroy it! Expect the hosting company to have insurance, don't expect them to care if your data gets lost. Especially if it "user error."
This has nothing to do with "PC/internet mentality" and everything to do with the latest anti-waterfall, anti-planning, 80% is all that matters mindset. Traditionally, this was easily solved because there was an engineering mindset.
I came to say, my goal is to only use software and software-based services that I can keep using for 10 years, and 10 years more, and 10 years more.
Get right on it.
I used to always turn to google services first. But there are lots of aspects to trust; if a company wants my trust, they need to refrain from leaving me stranded. The whole, "you didn't pay, don't expect anything" nonsense is tiresome; they also didn't pay me, and they offered the service. Just like if somebody offers me a ride to my destination, and then drops me off halfway there; I might have been a lot better off if they hadn't offered!
The researches were saying all along, "don't change your diet; don't stop eating butter; adopt the traditional guidelines of eating a balanced diet with lots of vegetables and not a lot of added sugars or fats."
They were also saying about saturated fat that "it is probably not all saturated fats, we don't know which ones are dangerous yet, don't change your diet just wait for more research to uncover the details." And the news would even repeat that... and then spend 5 minutes talking about how to change your diet to eliminate butter!
People are idiots, and then later when the researchers were proved right in every part of what they were saying... people just blame them for whatever the media said, or wherever pop culture wandered.
Once transfats were found to be harmful, a lot of researchers were saying right away, "this is good news because none of the traditional fats like butter that people miss are high in transfat. This looks like an issue with certain processed fats, and companies can simply change their recipes."
People still can't figure out what the science says. My advice, if you can't follow the details without getting led around by the nose by the media, just eat "grandma foods" and you'll already be following all the best research, medical advice, and government recommendations.
Processed food is more profitable than whole foods.... that is why corporations and government have been pushing them.
You say that because you obviously don't eat many whole foods.
Processed foods were more profitable... decades ago when few people were concerned about health, other than poor hippies, and 25% of the population smoked cigarettes.
If your diet consisted of a lot of whole foods, you'd be buying them, and you'd understand that consumers pay higher prices for foods that required less work to manufacture. And those hippies are no longer the low-income segment; now, higher income people care more about health.
My question, why are the people who are most strongly against the principles of science the ones who wave the Science flag most vigorously? If they don't believe in the principles, why do they want to be seen as being on some sort of Science Team? Is it as simple as ignorance of what science is, or is it something deeper and more complicated?
I've heard that a number of times, but the thing that seems to have changed at that time is air travel, and the introduction of invasive security theater in airports.
None of other issues that are being debated in American society and politics got their start then.
All the controversial stuff that Cheney got started had been being discussed and debated in various circles since at least the Reagan administration.
And there is even stuff like the travel plans of the Secretary of State that are very secret this week, but are in the news next week. That is such a routine situation, it is even in the news a lot lately...
(Democrats + Voting Rights Act) = (Republicans + Watergate)
If his theory was different, I'd invite him to give a clear explanation. But the above explains over 50% of the statements in modern politics that include references to Nixon.
I hear lots of hand-waving, and accusations of illegal actions on the part of the President. Just this one President. I have to say, your story is a load of horseshit.
You don't actually know what crime you think was committed, but you've already got a suspect. Hmmmmmm.....
And you claim Obama said something... really far from what he said. What he said was a basic truism; it isn't even possible to argue against it. Not all "classified" information is of the same importance. That's just a "duh" type of obvious statement, it doesn't translate to "blah blah Big Brother."
You're just another racist making up fake stories.
You got some derp on your chin. Get back in the pile!
So, you wave your hands and say, "everything is the same, because Obama complained about Bush's policies."
I mean, that makes no sense. Just random words combined with hate.
Explain the exact situation you're claiming is the same, the exact statements, and then provide insightful analysis about why they are the same. Otherwise, no, Obama complained that the Bush administration outed an active intelligence operative for political reasons, and is now pointing out that not all "classified" information is of equal importance to national security.
Classified just means it has a classification, not that it is has the highest classification, and two things that might have the same classification because of operational security needs might have very very different concerns a month later. For example, the travel plans of the Secretary of State might be "classified," but are also public knowledge and low-risk after the travel has already happened.
The huge, huge gap between the different things you think are the same implies irrationally extreme bias on your part. I'm assuming it is for the most likely reason, but of course it could be for other reasons. But I'll just keep assuming it is the most common one unless you admit to a better reason.
When newspapers tell you that people did something like that, it should be pretty obvious that they saw that as an outrageous or funny thing, not a serious request that would be considered. Otherwise, they wouldn't even tell you about it.
Sure, and while minor errors don't refute the main thrust of an argument, they do detract somewhat and make it more difficult to analyze.
In the case of Hispanics, it is a language-based ethnicity, true. In the case of the Ainu, it is genetic.
Race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is not the same in the case of Hispanics, unless you reject the biological basis for race. Which you would, if you studied it; the Cline Maps don't even line up when you're only mapping skin color, but as soon as you add in more than one gene, you have different distribution maps for each gene. The clumpiness of genetic distribution claimed by race is a complete farce; it is a blatant lie. It is just a social concept, based on a single trait that is not representative of geographic distribution of human genetic material.
Just a couple hundred years ago it would not have been presumed that somebody with pale skin who is a mix of Spaniard and Mayan would be the same race as somebody from SE England. Spaniards and Saxons the same race?! What? Only in modern times, which hints at the idiocy of it even without the maps or anthropological study. Now somebody might say, they're both "white" and they might even both be Hispanic. But the reasons for calling them "white" have to do only with their skin color + social conventions, not with the genetic group packages claimed by the concept of "race."
No, you're trying to tell me those things, but since you don't know who is me and who is you, I'm going to assume you're posting drunk and I'm not even going to consider any of it at this time.
You're using "strawman" to mean, "an argument I already said I think is wrong." That isn't what it means.
And, who cares what the average is? The exceptions or problems are exactly what you look at to see if something makes sense. The whole issue is about less-common-than-average situations.
The lack of comprehension is on your part; you're hand-waving and claiming that biology only allows your conclusions, but actually biology doesn't tell us anything about which restroom to use. Which restroom do other apes use? Oh... right.
You're not only saying that some people don't matter, you seem to believe that because some people have rare conditions that they actually don't exist. That's not a strawman, but it is incorrect.
Race is not biological either. It is a social construct. Genetic studies show that there is a different geographic distribution for each trait; there are not geographic biological groupings that amount to what is called "race." The lines are in completely different places than where the "races" start and stop.
Ethnicity can be either 100% social, or 100% genetic, depending on the ethnicity and context.
Slashdot Mirror
"Darling, I won this new mattress in a raffle, I'm so excited, I never win anything! It is finally my turn to win something. I hope it is comfortable. They're going to deliver it next week."
Seriously, that isn't hard. Anybody would need to think about buying this thing is already a practiced liar. Why else would they be suspicious enough to start an investigation when there is no cause? And if there already is cause, that is its own problem that has to be dealt with; this only even has a small chance of success.
And if you have a guest room, two mattresses are harder to explain than one. (unless you're a known compulsive shopper)
The Truth Is Out There!!!
What they should be focusing on is having the sensors detect your technique and the app can teach you better moves.
Stopping reading at the R-word. You failed to communicate, sorry.
Just google "grandma diet" and find out what the term means.
I didn't just place the words "grandma" and "diet" next to each other to imply some new meaning. It is a known term that is used in the context of the discussion. It exists. Deal.
If you had changing requirements, you weren't doing waterfall. Sorry.
Even state secrets are subject to FOIA acts and even if decades pass they are eventually released. These should not be any different.
Yeah. If MS wins this case, I'll commit to leaving windows installed on at least 1 computer in my office.
I might not plug it into the network, but I'll find some use for it.
In my experience, most of the customers of small hosting companies are paying for fully managed servers, which includes the backups. Most of the customers won't have any backup other than the code they started with. And they wouldn't know how to make a backup any more than they would know how to shoot a fireball spell out of a chopstick.
This is compounded by human nature applying "trust" based on the quality of the personal relationship you have. If you have a nice conversation, by the end they really really want to give you their root password, have you move all their stuff over for them, and just tell them when it is finished. And then their DNS hasn't propagated yet, and they get really upset and become unsure if they should "trust" you, and get indigestion, and start calling every hour.
The "mounted backup" part is just a bridge too far. Later in the comments he says he swapped of/if on a dd command, so now how does he prep the disk for recovery, which seems to verify the troll.
Uhhh... I'm wasn't talking about "world hunger." There is plenty of food for that, hunger is caused by non-food-related problems and is off topic here.
You do not actually make any point to support your claim that eating "grandma foods" does not solve the problem of good nutrition. I'll stick with what the nutrition researchers recommend by consensus; traditional whole foods.
Some projects I worked on in the 90s still have tape archives of that data.
You can easily have a situation where the backup tools have improved, and there is less overall data loss now, but that the mindset now is sloppy and leads to a lot of errors of types that were less common in the past.
In the past when you did it sloppy, you'd get called out on it; and sometimes it still sucked, because PHB. But when that was the case, it was at least known and accepted that it was technically inferior to not have correct engineering. These days, the average shop believes that 80% is enough, and that 95% completion is too much and a waste of money. In the old days, there was technical consensus that 100% of the desired functionality... was desired.
That's all great, but even a less complete, sloppy backup system would be an improvement here.
Another thing people don't understand about cloud hosting... you should still have your own self-managed, non-cloud server that holds your images and ideally runs your service during the low-traffic hours. Whatever your daily lowest traffic 6 hours is, in most cases, should be traditionally hosted. Cloud is super-duper-awesome-webscale for the peak traffic, no way around that if you have peak traffic hours.
Personally, I can re-deploy (including the latest database backup) from my dev workstation using a simple rake task.
Another problem is; relying on your hosting company for backups. Never do that. The same fire/earthquate/bash script/volcano that makes the backup necessary, would destroy it! Expect the hosting company to have insurance, don't expect them to care if your data gets lost. Especially if it "user error."
This has nothing to do with "PC/internet mentality" and everything to do with the latest anti-waterfall, anti-planning, 80% is all that matters mindset. Traditionally, this was easily solved because there was an engineering mindset.
LOL it sounds like it would be something that nobody would say. But I don't think you actually paid attention this time.
I came to say, my goal is to only use software and software-based services that I can keep using for 10 years, and 10 years more, and 10 years more.
Get right on it.
I used to always turn to google services first. But there are lots of aspects to trust; if a company wants my trust, they need to refrain from leaving me stranded. The whole, "you didn't pay, don't expect anything" nonsense is tiresome; they also didn't pay me, and they offered the service. Just like if somebody offers me a ride to my destination, and then drops me off halfway there; I might have been a lot better off if they hadn't offered!
The researches were saying all along, "don't change your diet; don't stop eating butter; adopt the traditional guidelines of eating a balanced diet with lots of vegetables and not a lot of added sugars or fats."
They were also saying about saturated fat that "it is probably not all saturated fats, we don't know which ones are dangerous yet, don't change your diet just wait for more research to uncover the details." And the news would even repeat that... and then spend 5 minutes talking about how to change your diet to eliminate butter!
People are idiots, and then later when the researchers were proved right in every part of what they were saying... people just blame them for whatever the media said, or wherever pop culture wandered.
Once transfats were found to be harmful, a lot of researchers were saying right away, "this is good news because none of the traditional fats like butter that people miss are high in transfat. This looks like an issue with certain processed fats, and companies can simply change their recipes."
People still can't figure out what the science says. My advice, if you can't follow the details without getting led around by the nose by the media, just eat "grandma foods" and you'll already be following all the best research, medical advice, and government recommendations.
Processed food is more profitable than whole foods.... that is why corporations and government have been pushing them.
You say that because you obviously don't eat many whole foods.
Processed foods were more profitable... decades ago when few people were concerned about health, other than poor hippies, and 25% of the population smoked cigarettes.
If your diet consisted of a lot of whole foods, you'd be buying them, and you'd understand that consumers pay higher prices for foods that required less work to manufacture. And those hippies are no longer the low-income segment; now, higher income people care more about health.
Oh yeah, the science was settled.
The science was never settled.
Science will never be "settled."
My question, why are the people who are most strongly against the principles of science the ones who wave the Science flag most vigorously? If they don't believe in the principles, why do they want to be seen as being on some sort of Science Team? Is it as simple as ignorance of what science is, or is it something deeper and more complicated?
I've heard that a number of times, but the thing that seems to have changed at that time is air travel, and the introduction of invasive security theater in airports.
None of other issues that are being debated in American society and politics got their start then.
All the controversial stuff that Cheney got started had been being discussed and debated in various circles since at least the Reagan administration.
And there is even stuff like the travel plans of the Secretary of State that are very secret this week, but are in the news next week. That is such a routine situation, it is even in the news a lot lately...
Here is the formula:
(Democrats + Voting Rights Act) = (Republicans + Watergate)
If his theory was different, I'd invite him to give a clear explanation. But the above explains over 50% of the statements in modern politics that include references to Nixon.
I hear lots of hand-waving, and accusations of illegal actions on the part of the President. Just this one President. I have to say, your story is a load of horseshit.
You don't actually know what crime you think was committed, but you've already got a suspect. Hmmmmmm.....
And you claim Obama said something... really far from what he said. What he said was a basic truism; it isn't even possible to argue against it. Not all "classified" information is of the same importance. That's just a "duh" type of obvious statement, it doesn't translate to "blah blah Big Brother."
You're just another racist making up fake stories.
You got some derp on your chin. Get back in the pile!
So, you wave your hands and say, "everything is the same, because Obama complained about Bush's policies."
I mean, that makes no sense. Just random words combined with hate.
Explain the exact situation you're claiming is the same, the exact statements, and then provide insightful analysis about why they are the same. Otherwise, no, Obama complained that the Bush administration outed an active intelligence operative for political reasons, and is now pointing out that not all "classified" information is of equal importance to national security.
Classified just means it has a classification, not that it is has the highest classification, and two things that might have the same classification because of operational security needs might have very very different concerns a month later. For example, the travel plans of the Secretary of State might be "classified," but are also public knowledge and low-risk after the travel has already happened.
The huge, huge gap between the different things you think are the same implies irrationally extreme bias on your part. I'm assuming it is for the most likely reason, but of course it could be for other reasons. But I'll just keep assuming it is the most common one unless you admit to a better reason.
When newspapers tell you that people did something like that, it should be pretty obvious that they saw that as an outrageous or funny thing, not a serious request that would be considered. Otherwise, they wouldn't even tell you about it.
Sure, and while minor errors don't refute the main thrust of an argument, they do detract somewhat and make it more difficult to analyze.
In the case of Hispanics, it is a language-based ethnicity, true. In the case of the Ainu, it is genetic.
Race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is not the same in the case of Hispanics, unless you reject the biological basis for race. Which you would, if you studied it; the Cline Maps don't even line up when you're only mapping skin color, but as soon as you add in more than one gene, you have different distribution maps for each gene. The clumpiness of genetic distribution claimed by race is a complete farce; it is a blatant lie. It is just a social concept, based on a single trait that is not representative of geographic distribution of human genetic material.
Just a couple hundred years ago it would not have been presumed that somebody with pale skin who is a mix of Spaniard and Mayan would be the same race as somebody from SE England. Spaniards and Saxons the same race?! What? Only in modern times, which hints at the idiocy of it even without the maps or anthropological study. Now somebody might say, they're both "white" and they might even both be Hispanic. But the reasons for calling them "white" have to do only with their skin color + social conventions, not with the genetic group packages claimed by the concept of "race."
are you trying to tell me that ...
No, you're trying to tell me those things, but since you don't know who is me and who is you, I'm going to assume you're posting drunk and I'm not even going to consider any of it at this time.
The things I said, are the things I was saying.
You're using "strawman" to mean, "an argument I already said I think is wrong." That isn't what it means.
And, who cares what the average is? The exceptions or problems are exactly what you look at to see if something makes sense. The whole issue is about less-common-than-average situations.
The lack of comprehension is on your part; you're hand-waving and claiming that biology only allows your conclusions, but actually biology doesn't tell us anything about which restroom to use. Which restroom do other apes use? Oh... right.
You're not only saying that some people don't matter, you seem to believe that because some people have rare conditions that they actually don't exist. That's not a strawman, but it is incorrect.
Race is not biological either. It is a social construct. Genetic studies show that there is a different geographic distribution for each trait; there are not geographic biological groupings that amount to what is called "race." The lines are in completely different places than where the "races" start and stop.
Ethnicity can be either 100% social, or 100% genetic, depending on the ethnicity and context.