I agree with most everything you say but there are a few factors that you are not addressing, most of them centering around cost and benefit analysis.

1) How much data is there?
2) How critical is it (e.g. what are the costs of replacing the data or in-operation due to lack of data)?
3) Recovery costs - Do offsite backups actually fit into a disaster recovery plan that works for your company? Can you replace your production network and hardware quickly?

The thing I was reacting to are statements like 'a backup is only a good backup if it is on tape' and shipping tapes to an offset is easy and cost effective backup solution.

These are not feasible statements to make if you are responsible for backing up databases that are anything over a few hundred GBs. I don't even know if there are tapes fast enough to backup that up in a single hour.

A good backup solution is tailored to meet the needs of the environment. There are indeed very general guidelines and best practices to follow but you can't treat everything like it is mission-critical finance data for a global bank.

The main fault here was that they had fail-over and called it backups.

There is no one dogmatic way to look at backups. If you think there is, good luck finding a job in 10 years when conditions have changed.

An offsite copy to a backup server behind a firewall with an entirely different setup is pretty secure, especially if any access info is stored on that server in a pull config and the server does not have the ability to push backups.

When you have two nearly identical machines and consider that a backup... well, go back and read the original post.

Hey, if someone can give a plausible (not probable) explanation of pending disaster, we better sit up and listen!

Facts are for ... well, idiots who don't see the need for radical change of the status quo.

Thank you.

For once a post that said exactly what I would said... only better.

1) You are right. I don't know what I am talking about.

2) Evidently neither do scientists if there isn't a workable definition of species.

In that case, evolution does exist because it could describe hereditary changes within a 'species' to a different 'species' better suited to a particular climate over time. That's a point I made earlier.

I guess the confusion is all in the semantics. I remember when Pluto was a planet.

He is confusing selective breeding with evolution, that is why.

Evolution seeks to define creation of new species.

All of the samples he mentioned support Mendel's work but not necessarily Darwin's.

You can not create a new species through breeding because by definition species can not interbreed.

Let's classify what we are talking about.

Evolution is a process of change in generation severe enough to result in the arise of new species.

Hereditary change within a species is very proven and isn't a debately point to me.

So, the two issues that are debateable are origin of life and the origin of a species.

Thus, hereditary change amongst fruit flies doesn't prove that a new species could evolve from these changes.

If evolution was an active, random force, we would see many more mutated and/or sterile offspring to account for the amount of randomity that would have to occur to make pools large enough to breed new species from.

We do see species develop into sub-species when they are moved to a different environment with different factors. I do not know if we've had observations of tracking the start of a new species through generations of change though.

The tailoring of a species to a specific environment over generations actually to me proves that generational change isn't random but is somehow activated when it is needed. That argues for some sort of intelligence in the process that is explained by neither creationism or evolutionism.

Yeah, unfortunately what is taught in public education passes through the filter of an elected legislature that is not scientific.

It isn't the most proved theory that gets taught, it is the one that has caught sway in the media and pop culture which sometimes does happen to be the most proved theory, especially since grant money is influenced by similar factors.

You see in real science we observe, then experiment and finally draw conclusions.

You say this in a world where a lot of scientific research is done on a per hire basis to validate a preconceived notion.

The problem is that the origins of life theory is taught in school... at least, it was covered in my high school textbook. The first cells converged magically from the primal ooze being struck by lightening, or something along those lines.

I think there is too much evidence to deny that life changes from generation to generation.

However, the lack of a random pool that the selection would occur from available to study in present time disproves the concept that it occurs as randomly and directionlessly as it was explained to me in school.

Well, no theory can be complete without practical application. Neither creationists or evolutions can create new life or spawn new species. The ideas of heredity are used in breeding of plants and animals. Thus, there is proof that life in plants and animals can be altered from generation to generation.

Perhaps the cirriculum should include a discussion of the theory, alternate theories, holes in the major ones, etc. and leave it up for the student to decide for himself.

However, that would change the way most public education works too drastically where one is spoon fed the current hegemony.

I feel the same way if you start with the assumption evolution is a process of selection from a random pool.

I would think there would be a much larger number of mutant babies in any given species if that were the case.

I don't see how that can be explained away with starting the assumption that there are forces that trigger mutation that just aren't present now. Perhaps species evolve past the need for random evolution as a survival mechanism.

If so, wouldn't there be some level of life low enough to observe this phenomenon in its raw random nature with mutations occuring, even in mitosis.

There is a real lack of evidence for random evolution in my opinion which makes me feel that there is intelligence behind it somewhere, not necessarily 'God, the Creator' waving his hands, but some force other than random physics and chemistry.

How does modern evolution theory address this dilemma?

So, it is bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution? Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because .... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms. Obviously, challenging his conclusions and conclusions based on his conclusions is bad. It would almost be, well, blasphemy? The science community sure seems unscientific some time.

I agree... you need to learn how to use your resources.

If you, as a peer, find someone on a team that is unsufferable for these sort of generic reasons, you would be served best to do things and opening your mouth to lambast them.

A) People often scream most loudly at others for those crimes that they themselves are committing. Before you scream at Josh, take a look at your habits. Are you just jealous because he is better at 'bullying others into compliance'?

B) Look at the business you are in and take a hard objective look at what he brings to the table and understand that upper management looks at the current bottom line and will never get too caught up in details, like documentation.

So, this sort of stuff boils down to how a team is managed. If there is still a justifiable grievance, take it up with the team manager or lead. No one starts off as a perfect team member but villianizing them only makes it harder for the team to form as you are busily choosing sides for people.

Finally, keep in mind A above. If your sole intention is to make Josh pay for his sloppiness and don't really care too much about team building, you are probably in that category.

I concur. Advertising is a driving force for a lot of services that would not survive with out it.

Broadcast television would never have made it long term. Likewise, premium channels wouldn't have taken off if there was an established user base for the free content.

Radio is free because it is paid for by the marketers.

Newspapers are largely supported by advertisement with a minimal amount of revenue coming from the distribution.

Trying to remove advertising from free services can be far more damaging to our economy than piracy or theft because it is a meme that grabs popular emotion (who does want to be bothered by unwanted communication) without any insight in to what the driving forces of our economy are.