Not trying to justify it. Just trying to point out that you will get the same or worse from fanbois of any product, i.e. there was no reason for you to have singled out Android advocates.
I'm informed (rabidly and often) that Android phones already have superior features and that Siri is merely a clone with fancy marketing.
I don't think Android users hold any type of monopoly on obnoxious product advocacy.
Anyway, there is currently nothing available on Android that is comparable to Siri. We have voice recognition that is pretty good, but you have to give your commands to the phone using a predetermined format. With Siri, you just speak to it naturally, and it can usually figure out what you meant.
It's really pretty neat. Not neat enough to get me to switch to iPhone, but I'm very impressed with it.
The purpose of a clustered filesystem is to minimize downtime in the face of a hardware failure. You still need a backup in the case of a software failure or in case you fat finger something, because a mass deletion can replicate to all copies.
The OP was talking about losing data due to hardware RAID controller failure. To me, that sounds like he is asking how to protect against hardware failure, not against accidental file deletion/destruction.
Backup is important, no doubt, but it sounds like OP was asking about protecting against hardware faults.
On the off chance that you're following this, AC, I just wanted to wish you the best. Keep strong. Cherish what time you have been given, and don't stop fighting for the future. It sucks being dealt a shitty hand, but I hope you may still make the most with what you have.
For some people that's true, but empirically a lot of people do make such choices, when given the option to do so legally. For example, quite a few people have do-not-resuscitate and/or "no life support" orders on file.
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, that's still a fairly large step away from facing death, allowing your survival instinct kick in in full force, and still saying, "OK, I am ready to die now." Maybe if you're 90 years old, but my wife is in her 30s.
Don't get me wrong. Over the last year or so, she (and I) have gained a lot of perspective and are beginning to accept the fact that her chances of surviving this are low. The whole family is grateful for the past year and will be grateful for every day, month, and year that she is with us going forward. That's a big change from where we were at the start of this. Where accepting 1 year with gratitude would have felt completely nuts.
A life of being sick with intensive treatments with a near certainty of death at the end? I'd pass.
If you were standing eyeball-to-eyeball with the angel of death, I doubt you'd be so brave. It's one thing to type that into an anonymous Internet forum. It's another thing to do it in real life.
There must be a lot of insane people out there, because it is fairly common (at least in the US) to make the decision to treat for themselves or their loved ones in that situation...
Like I said before, it is rarely so clear that a particular cancer treatment will, for instance, "prolong life by 4-6 weeks, but patient will be miserable".
A friend of the family has terminal cancer, and has been fighting it for about 5 years now. She knew from diagnosis that there was no cure, but it can be controlled temporarily with chemotherapy. There are several chemo regimens that are known to be effective, so she just takes one until her cancer builds resistance to it, and then she moves on to the next. Eventually she will exhaust all known regimens and when that happens, she will die of her cancer. She has lived for 5 years with the side effects of chemo, which can suck, but don't make life unlivable. She has good days and she has bad days, and she generally knows which will be which based on the day of her cycle. On the good days, she is active, and on the bad days, she stays home. I'd say it's about 70/30 good to bad day ratio.
This is a far more common situation than the one that you have described, and it is expensive to treat a patient for cancer for years upon years. If it were me, I could live with 30% bad days to have 70% good days, as opposed to having 0 days.
But that is a whole lot different then if she had a 0% chance of survival, but she could be kept alive for 6 months longer in constant severe discomfort and pain in a hospital bed.
Obviously, no sane person would ruin his final days of life suffering the side effects of treatment that he knows will fail. In practice, however, you will probably not know before you make the decision how much longer the treatment will prolong your life or how well you will tolerate the side effects.
She checked into the local emergency room bleeding out of nearly every orifice of her body. There is no screening for the type of cancer that she has because it is extremely rare.
Actually strictly seen the article doesn't even cover your wife's case.
I agree, and I would even agree that prostate cancer screening does more harm than good. I was really only reacting to a particular part of the summary.
I know of two elderly males that had their prostates removed due to elevated PSA.
I am not an expert on this, but this is slashdot, so no expertise is required.:) Anyhow, I think there are less invasive alternatives to prostate removal now.
I sure am glad that they are researching this. Statistically we all have a pretty high chance of being hit with cancer at some point of our life's.
Me too. Cancer just majorly sucks, and we hardly know anything about it, really.
You are lucky. My brother's insurance company bureaucrat did the "government bureaucrat's" part in denying his treatment.
You're correct; we are fortunate. Our insurance provider has not given us too much grief over her treatment. I know that that's not to be taken for granted.
Including the line about government, I think, set a lot of people off. As you say, it doesn't matter which payer is doing the denying. A denial from a private insurer is still a denial, although it's much easier to fight a private insurer, in my experience.
This has nothing to do with government bureaucrats
Not yet in the US, but it does in the UK.
The reality is treating someone who will die no matter what, if the treatment does not extend life by much is not medically worth it.
In reality, there is rarely that type of clarity that goes into medical decision making. In cancer patients, anyway. It's always looking at the data and seeing which options on the table have the greatest probability of success, and if the first-line treatment for a particular cancer doesn't work, the level of confidence in the probabilities drops like a rock.
By way of example, my wife's cancer has several metastases, most of which have decreased in size in response to chemotherapy (suggesting no further presence of active cancer). However, one metastasis has not decreased in size. The best available medical knowledge states that excising a single metastasis from a stage IV patient is unlikely to cure the cancer. All known metastases must be removed in order to be most confident that the cancer has been removed. However, in my wife's case, removing all remaining metastases would not be possible due to tumor presence on 2 vital organs. Luckily, the one metastasis that has not decreased in size (suggesting presence of active cancer) is located on her spleen, which is not a vital organ.
So now the question is: do you perform a splenectomy, which is a minor laparoscopic procedure, with an expected full recovery from the procedure within 1 month? The best data state that the procedure will be very unlikely to cure the cancer. On the other hand, her cancer has become resistant to all known chemotherapy drugs that are effective against her type of cancer. She will surely die soon if the cancer is not killed or removed. It is known to be that aggressive.
I do not know the answer to this question, and indeed we will discuss this very topic tomorrow with her oncologist. I guess my point here is that it is impossible to make general rules or guidelines because our medical knowledge, while vast, is nowhere near good enough. Doctors with good clinical judgment are needed.
If treatment adds only a month of life, a painful puking near death month, why bother?
No sane person, when presented with that tradeoff, would want to ruin his final days of life with the miserable side effects of useless treatment. On the other hand, such clairvoyance is pretty rare. Assuming that this splenectomy happens and it is ineffective, the remaining treatment options begin to test the "is this really going to be worth it?" question. We're looking at stuff that might cure her cancer, but will definitely cause her a great deal of suffering. It is simply not known how much, if any, extra lifespan she will gain. It may cure her cancer and she may live into old age, or it may just cause the rest of her days to suck complete ass.
So, do you do it, or not? How does anyone even begin to answer that question? I don't think there is any way to make a guideline or rule to use here.
as many as 120,000 to 134,000 of those women either have cancers that are already lethal or
There are a lot of cancers that are incurable, but can still be controlled for a while. Statements like this make it sound as though catching these cancers early and controlling them for a while is a worthless endeavor.
My wife is one year into a battle with a cancer that she has only roughly a 25% chance of surviving with treatment. Without treatment, she would have been dead a few weeks after diagnosis. She is grateful to have spent the past year alive instead of dead, and of course the children and I are also grateful. I guess the point that I'm trying to make here is that treating a cancer that will most likely be lethal still has significant value. None of us would have been very happy if some government bureaucrat had told us that since the cancer was so likely to kill her, they wouldn't bother treating.
Oh, that's good. That means you couldn't be hitted by the DNS TTL (bug? feature?) from Amazon, or could you?
I can state with pretty high degree of certainty that you do not understand what you are talking about and are just regurgitating slashdot headlines from a few days ago. I say this because this is not really an Amazon bug. Amazon is following the DNS spec. It is broken clients that are not respecting TTL values that caused the reported issue.
That being said, there are measures that Amazon could take to mitigate this issue. The most obvious would be to use virtual IPs (they already support "Elastic IPs" for EC2 instances) and remap an IP to a different load balancer when they need to migrate a customer onto new hardware. Right now, they rely on short DNS TTL values to remap a DNS name to a new IP. Unfortunately, in the real world, not all clients and ISPs respect this value.
Perhaps now that there was a front page article on slashdot, that might alter the priority of fixing this. On the other hand, I think the front page story only garnered about 50 comments, so I guess that might give some clue as to how minor this issue is.
All that being said, none of my EC2-based applications are vulnerable to this issue, as I do not use ELB. I've used nginx since long before ELB was available, and there has been no compelling reason to "upgrade" to ELB and all of its quirks. I don't know if they've fixed this yet, but it used to be that you couldn't even map your zone apex (blahblah.com) to an ELB. It had to be a subdomain (www.blahblah.com). If it ain't broke...
Bottom line: EC2, as well as any shared hosting environment, has its own benefits and drawbacks. If you run your own datacenter, I can virtually guarantee that you won't get pummeled with millions of Netflix API requests. On the other hand, if you run your own datacenter (as in singular datacenter, as opposed to multiple datacenters), I can pretty much guarantee you that your application is more likely to experience unscheduled downtime than a properly-architected EC2 application that is hosted across multiple regions.
I can promise you that both caffeine and nicotine are far more addictive than marijuana.
Each person is different. Some people are able to quit tobacco cold turkey. Other struggle with addiction for decades. Your personal experience does not translate generally to all humans.
Anecdotally, I have seen people struggle with compulsive marijuana abuse. A would agree that it's not the worst thing out there, but I do object when people present it as a risk-free proposition.
Lets be clear about what addiction means by balancing the level of addiction in marijuana against other substances.
I have not studied the subject, but in my observation, addiction to marijuana is fairly comparable to a gambling addiction in terms of ability to stop and destructive behavior that results.
So the real addiction is that of a corrupt government to keeping marijuana illegal
I would tend to agree that marijuana should be legalized, but the claim that marijuana abuse is benign, as far as I have observed, is bullshit. I just don't see it as a good idea to outlaw every activity that lends itself to compulsive behavior. If we did that, we'd have to outlaw video games, the Internet, sex, etc.
Anyone who has used it knows that there is no debate.
I have used it, and from what I've observed, marijuana lends itself to compulsive abuse, just like other conditions that we refer to as "addiction". Gambling addiction, food addiction, etc.
My understanding is that while marijuana does not cause a physical dependence, it does cause a strong psychological dependence, and abuse of the substance leads to similar undesirable outcomes that other substance abuse causes. So I see absolutely no point in splitting hairs over whether or not marijuana causes a physical dependence.
Abuse of marijuana can cause you to use it compulsively, and it can have a strong negative impact on your life. Yes, I have used it before many times, and no, I did not develop a dependence. But several of my friends did, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.:P
...I read their claim that marijuana is addictive. You can lie to my face all you want, but don't expect me to vote for you.
To say that marijuana isn't addictive is completely disingenuous. I'm not able to comment on the specific mechanisms in the body that distinguish compulsive abuse of marijuana and the compulsive abuse of, say, alcohol. But the fact still remains, marijuana absolutely does lend itself to compulsive abuse in many individuals.
I don't know what your experience has been, but it has been my experience that people abuse marijuana in a similar manner to other compulsive behaviors that we label as "addiction". Video game addiction, sex addiction, etc. People like a roommate of mine from college, as well as some other college friends, are not able to function properly in society. Their compulsive marijuana use makes it impossible to hold a job, maintain relationships, etc. In the case of my roommate, he had to hit rock bottom before he got help and is now doing much better.
After seeing what I've seen with my own two eyes, and I've seen a lot, having smoked weed myself during high school and college, I refuse to repeat the old smokers' line that the stuff isn't addictive. I don't really care what biological mechanism drives the compulsive behavior because the results are still the same.
"If you're deploying anything straight to production without testing that exact thing somewhere else first, you deserve whatever you get."
So you do own an exact replica of your production environment, including all expensive hardware, load and size for staging purposes?
No, I do not. Neither do I own any of the hardware in my company's production environment. It is all virtual nodes in Amazon's EC2.
But to answer your question: Yes, I do spin up an exact replica of my production environment in EC2 for staging purposes. Once the deployment procedure is executed, and regression testing and load testing are complete, and rollback procedure tested, I terminate the staging resources and deploy to production using the exact same deployment procedure. As you might probably guess, my deployments never result in any four-letter-words being uttered.
you don't want to be pulling your hair out at 2am in the morning... or worse yet, at 2pm in the afternoon, during a deployment/conference/expo/etc.
If you're deploying anything straight to production without testing that exact thing somewhere else first, you deserve whatever you get. RHEL can't cure that level of stupidity.
Hmm, I have an idea. A truly smart thermostat would lie. It would indicate it's set at some crazy temperature, but in reality it would apply a moderate setting. Or better yet, it would lie to everyone but me.
It is a well-known landlording technique to provide a placebo thermostat and hide the real thermostat.
On the off chance that a woman is reading slashdot right now; care to explain this phenomenon to us males. I don't know any men who do this or any women who don't. What is it about having ovaries that makes a person treat an infinitely adjustable feedback temperature control element like a binary on-off switch?
I'm not a woman, but I think I understand why this happens: it's a control thing. Think, "I'm cold and I don't want the heat to shut itself off until I'm nice and toasty warm."
Naturally, it would be much more efficient to just put on a sweater, but we don't confuse women and efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
That really doesn't justify it.
Not trying to justify it. Just trying to point out that you will get the same or worse from fanbois of any product, i.e. there was no reason for you to have singled out Android advocates.
I'm informed (rabidly and often) that Android phones already have superior features and that Siri is merely a clone with fancy marketing.
I don't think Android users hold any type of monopoly on obnoxious product advocacy.
Anyway, there is currently nothing available on Android that is comparable to Siri. We have voice recognition that is pretty good, but you have to give your commands to the phone using a predetermined format. With Siri, you just speak to it naturally, and it can usually figure out what you meant.
It's really pretty neat. Not neat enough to get me to switch to iPhone, but I'm very impressed with it.
If you know who they are, block them and be done with it. Also, don't shop there.
The purpose of a clustered filesystem is to minimize downtime in the face of a hardware failure. You still need a backup in the case of a software failure or in case you fat finger something, because a mass deletion can replicate to all copies.
The OP was talking about losing data due to hardware RAID controller failure. To me, that sounds like he is asking how to protect against hardware failure, not against accidental file deletion/destruction.
Backup is important, no doubt, but it sounds like OP was asking about protecting against hardware faults.
RAID is not a backup solution!
OP never said it was.
It must be hard to walk with your knees jerking around like that.
Nothing to do with government bureaucrats, but everything to do with health insurance corporation bureaucrats and lawyers, which are way worse.
I've fought the government, and I've fought health insurance companies. I'd take the health insurance companies any day of the week.
You can't fight city hall.
On the off chance that you're following this, AC, I just wanted to wish you the best. Keep strong. Cherish what time you have been given, and don't stop fighting for the future. It sucks being dealt a shitty hand, but I hope you may still make the most with what you have.
For some people that's true, but empirically a lot of people do make such choices, when given the option to do so legally. For example, quite a few people have do-not-resuscitate and/or "no life support" orders on file.
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, that's still a fairly large step away from facing death, allowing your survival instinct kick in in full force, and still saying, "OK, I am ready to die now." Maybe if you're 90 years old, but my wife is in her 30s.
Don't get me wrong. Over the last year or so, she (and I) have gained a lot of perspective and are beginning to accept the fact that her chances of surviving this are low. The whole family is grateful for the past year and will be grateful for every day, month, and year that she is with us going forward. That's a big change from where we were at the start of this. Where accepting 1 year with gratitude would have felt completely nuts.
Ramble ramble.
A life of being sick with intensive treatments with a near certainty of death at the end? I'd pass.
If you were standing eyeball-to-eyeball with the angel of death, I doubt you'd be so brave. It's one thing to type that into an anonymous Internet forum. It's another thing to do it in real life.
There must be a lot of insane people out there, because it is fairly common (at least in the US) to make the decision to treat for themselves or their loved ones in that situation...
Like I said before, it is rarely so clear that a particular cancer treatment will, for instance, "prolong life by 4-6 weeks, but patient will be miserable".
A friend of the family has terminal cancer, and has been fighting it for about 5 years now. She knew from diagnosis that there was no cure, but it can be controlled temporarily with chemotherapy. There are several chemo regimens that are known to be effective, so she just takes one until her cancer builds resistance to it, and then she moves on to the next. Eventually she will exhaust all known regimens and when that happens, she will die of her cancer. She has lived for 5 years with the side effects of chemo, which can suck, but don't make life unlivable. She has good days and she has bad days, and she generally knows which will be which based on the day of her cycle. On the good days, she is active, and on the bad days, she stays home. I'd say it's about 70/30 good to bad day ratio.
This is a far more common situation than the one that you have described, and it is expensive to treat a patient for cancer for years upon years. If it were me, I could live with 30% bad days to have 70% good days, as opposed to having 0 days.
But that is a whole lot different then if she had a 0% chance of survival, but she could be kept alive for 6 months longer in constant severe discomfort and pain in a hospital bed.
Obviously, no sane person would ruin his final days of life suffering the side effects of treatment that he knows will fail. In practice, however, you will probably not know before you make the decision how much longer the treatment will prolong your life or how well you will tolerate the side effects.
How was your wife's cancer discovered?
She checked into the local emergency room bleeding out of nearly every orifice of her body. There is no screening for the type of cancer that she has because it is extremely rare.
Actually strictly seen the article doesn't even cover your wife's case.
I agree, and I would even agree that prostate cancer screening does more harm than good. I was really only reacting to a particular part of the summary.
I know of two elderly males that had their prostates removed due to elevated PSA.
I am not an expert on this, but this is slashdot, so no expertise is required. :) Anyhow, I think there are less invasive alternatives to prostate removal now.
I sure am glad that they are researching this. Statistically we all have a pretty high chance of being hit with cancer at some point of our life's.
Me too. Cancer just majorly sucks, and we hardly know anything about it, really.
You are lucky. My brother's insurance company bureaucrat did the "government bureaucrat's" part in denying his treatment.
You're correct; we are fortunate. Our insurance provider has not given us too much grief over her treatment. I know that that's not to be taken for granted.
Including the line about government, I think, set a lot of people off. As you say, it doesn't matter which payer is doing the denying. A denial from a private insurer is still a denial, although it's much easier to fight a private insurer, in my experience.
This has nothing to do with government bureaucrats
Not yet in the US, but it does in the UK.
The reality is treating someone who will die no matter what, if the treatment does not extend life by much is not medically worth it.
In reality, there is rarely that type of clarity that goes into medical decision making. In cancer patients, anyway. It's always looking at the data and seeing which options on the table have the greatest probability of success, and if the first-line treatment for a particular cancer doesn't work, the level of confidence in the probabilities drops like a rock.
By way of example, my wife's cancer has several metastases, most of which have decreased in size in response to chemotherapy (suggesting no further presence of active cancer). However, one metastasis has not decreased in size. The best available medical knowledge states that excising a single metastasis from a stage IV patient is unlikely to cure the cancer. All known metastases must be removed in order to be most confident that the cancer has been removed. However, in my wife's case, removing all remaining metastases would not be possible due to tumor presence on 2 vital organs. Luckily, the one metastasis that has not decreased in size (suggesting presence of active cancer) is located on her spleen, which is not a vital organ.
So now the question is: do you perform a splenectomy, which is a minor laparoscopic procedure, with an expected full recovery from the procedure within 1 month? The best data state that the procedure will be very unlikely to cure the cancer. On the other hand, her cancer has become resistant to all known chemotherapy drugs that are effective against her type of cancer. She will surely die soon if the cancer is not killed or removed. It is known to be that aggressive.
I do not know the answer to this question, and indeed we will discuss this very topic tomorrow with her oncologist. I guess my point here is that it is impossible to make general rules or guidelines because our medical knowledge, while vast, is nowhere near good enough. Doctors with good clinical judgment are needed.
If treatment adds only a month of life, a painful puking near death month, why bother?
No sane person, when presented with that tradeoff, would want to ruin his final days of life with the miserable side effects of useless treatment. On the other hand, such clairvoyance is pretty rare. Assuming that this splenectomy happens and it is ineffective, the remaining treatment options begin to test the "is this really going to be worth it?" question. We're looking at stuff that might cure her cancer, but will definitely cause her a great deal of suffering. It is simply not known how much, if any, extra lifespan she will gain. It may cure her cancer and she may live into old age, or it may just cause the rest of her days to suck complete ass.
So, do you do it, or not? How does anyone even begin to answer that question? I don't think there is any way to make a guideline or rule to use here.
Quality of life is much bigger issue than money.
Not if you are the payer.
I wish your wife well.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
as many as 120,000 to 134,000 of those women either have cancers that are already lethal or
There are a lot of cancers that are incurable, but can still be controlled for a while. Statements like this make it sound as though catching these cancers early and controlling them for a while is a worthless endeavor.
My wife is one year into a battle with a cancer that she has only roughly a 25% chance of surviving with treatment. Without treatment, she would have been dead a few weeks after diagnosis. She is grateful to have spent the past year alive instead of dead, and of course the children and I are also grateful. I guess the point that I'm trying to make here is that treating a cancer that will most likely be lethal still has significant value. None of us would have been very happy if some government bureaucrat had told us that since the cancer was so likely to kill her, they wouldn't bother treating.
Oh, that's good. That means you couldn't be hitted by the DNS TTL (bug? feature?) from Amazon, or could you?
I can state with pretty high degree of certainty that you do not understand what you are talking about and are just regurgitating slashdot headlines from a few days ago. I say this because this is not really an Amazon bug. Amazon is following the DNS spec. It is broken clients that are not respecting TTL values that caused the reported issue.
That being said, there are measures that Amazon could take to mitigate this issue. The most obvious would be to use virtual IPs (they already support "Elastic IPs" for EC2 instances) and remap an IP to a different load balancer when they need to migrate a customer onto new hardware. Right now, they rely on short DNS TTL values to remap a DNS name to a new IP. Unfortunately, in the real world, not all clients and ISPs respect this value.
Perhaps now that there was a front page article on slashdot, that might alter the priority of fixing this. On the other hand, I think the front page story only garnered about 50 comments, so I guess that might give some clue as to how minor this issue is.
All that being said, none of my EC2-based applications are vulnerable to this issue, as I do not use ELB. I've used nginx since long before ELB was available, and there has been no compelling reason to "upgrade" to ELB and all of its quirks. I don't know if they've fixed this yet, but it used to be that you couldn't even map your zone apex (blahblah.com) to an ELB. It had to be a subdomain (www.blahblah.com). If it ain't broke...
Bottom line: EC2, as well as any shared hosting environment, has its own benefits and drawbacks. If you run your own datacenter, I can virtually guarantee that you won't get pummeled with millions of Netflix API requests. On the other hand, if you run your own datacenter (as in singular datacenter, as opposed to multiple datacenters), I can pretty much guarantee you that your application is more likely to experience unscheduled downtime than a properly-architected EC2 application that is hosted across multiple regions.
I can promise you that both caffeine and nicotine are far more addictive than marijuana.
Each person is different. Some people are able to quit tobacco cold turkey. Other struggle with addiction for decades. Your personal experience does not translate generally to all humans.
Anecdotally, I have seen people struggle with compulsive marijuana abuse. A would agree that it's not the worst thing out there, but I do object when people present it as a risk-free proposition.
Lets be clear about what addiction means by balancing the level of addiction in marijuana against other substances.
I have not studied the subject, but in my observation, addiction to marijuana is fairly comparable to a gambling addiction in terms of ability to stop and destructive behavior that results.
So the real addiction is that of a corrupt government to keeping marijuana illegal
I would tend to agree that marijuana should be legalized, but the claim that marijuana abuse is benign, as far as I have observed, is bullshit. I just don't see it as a good idea to outlaw every activity that lends itself to compulsive behavior. If we did that, we'd have to outlaw video games, the Internet, sex, etc.
Its easier to quit smoking pot than it is to stop drinking soda.
Having done both extensively, I have to disagree.
Anyone who has used it knows that there is no debate.
I have used it, and from what I've observed, marijuana lends itself to compulsive abuse, just like other conditions that we refer to as "addiction". Gambling addiction, food addiction, etc.
My understanding is that while marijuana does not cause a physical dependence, it does cause a strong psychological dependence, and abuse of the substance leads to similar undesirable outcomes that other substance abuse causes. So I see absolutely no point in splitting hairs over whether or not marijuana causes a physical dependence.
Abuse of marijuana can cause you to use it compulsively, and it can have a strong negative impact on your life. Yes, I have used it before many times, and no, I did not develop a dependence. But several of my friends did, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :P
...I read their claim that marijuana is addictive. You can lie to my face all you want, but don't expect me to vote for you.
To say that marijuana isn't addictive is completely disingenuous. I'm not able to comment on the specific mechanisms in the body that distinguish compulsive abuse of marijuana and the compulsive abuse of, say, alcohol. But the fact still remains, marijuana absolutely does lend itself to compulsive abuse in many individuals.
I don't know what your experience has been, but it has been my experience that people abuse marijuana in a similar manner to other compulsive behaviors that we label as "addiction". Video game addiction, sex addiction, etc. People like a roommate of mine from college, as well as some other college friends, are not able to function properly in society. Their compulsive marijuana use makes it impossible to hold a job, maintain relationships, etc. In the case of my roommate, he had to hit rock bottom before he got help and is now doing much better.
After seeing what I've seen with my own two eyes, and I've seen a lot, having smoked weed myself during high school and college, I refuse to repeat the old smokers' line that the stuff isn't addictive. I don't really care what biological mechanism drives the compulsive behavior because the results are still the same.
"If you're deploying anything straight to production without testing that exact thing somewhere else first, you deserve whatever you get."
So you do own an exact replica of your production environment, including all expensive hardware, load and size for staging purposes?
No, I do not. Neither do I own any of the hardware in my company's production environment. It is all virtual nodes in Amazon's EC2.
But to answer your question: Yes, I do spin up an exact replica of my production environment in EC2 for staging purposes. Once the deployment procedure is executed, and regression testing and load testing are complete, and rollback procedure tested, I terminate the staging resources and deploy to production using the exact same deployment procedure. As you might probably guess, my deployments never result in any four-letter-words being uttered.
Excellent question, though.
you don't want to be pulling your hair out at 2am in the morning... or worse yet, at 2pm in the afternoon, during a deployment/conference/expo/etc.
If you're deploying anything straight to production without testing that exact thing somewhere else first, you deserve whatever you get. RHEL can't cure that level of stupidity.
Hmm, I have an idea. A truly smart thermostat would lie. It would indicate it's set at some crazy temperature, but in reality it would apply a moderate setting. Or better yet, it would lie to everyone but me.
It is a well-known landlording technique to provide a placebo thermostat and hide the real thermostat.
On the off chance that a woman is reading slashdot right now; care to explain this phenomenon to us males. I don't know any men who do this or any women who don't. What is it about having ovaries that makes a person treat an infinitely adjustable feedback temperature control element like a binary on-off switch?
I'm not a woman, but I think I understand why this happens: it's a control thing. Think, "I'm cold and I don't want the heat to shut itself off until I'm nice and toasty warm."
Naturally, it would be much more efficient to just put on a sweater, but we don't confuse women and efficiency.