The problem is that you're building more and more tooling on top of a painfully decrepit system. Every time you spend more than zero seconds dealing with renaming a file, you've lost money on the deal. Every time you work off HEAD because it's too painful to branch, you're spending developer salaries. I get that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but CVS it utterly and fundamentally broke. You're throwing good money after bad trying to keep it alive.

Hosting Git is dirt cheap. Converting from ${old_terrible_system} to Git is the painful one-time expense. Here's how you do it:

1. Fire up a suitably bit AWS cloud server.
2. Copy your repo to it.
3. Run the command to convert your old repo to Git.
4. Download the new Git repo.
5. Shut down the instance.

You don't buy expensive, power-hungry software that's going to cost an arm and a leg to store, power, and cool for the next year when you only need its brute force for a few hours. The Cloud isn't a magical cure-all, but it's a perfect fit for things like this.

The only true statement in that message is your signature.

--
BMO

So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".

but.that's.wrong.jpg

Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.

Verizon, as a telephone company, doesn't censor "illegal" voice traffic, does it? They do not, last I checked. That's because Verizon is a common-carrier and is not held liable for telephone content over its wires. UPS is not held liable for a pound of weed being shipped through its system, either, because they are a common-carrier. Being held not liable is exchanged for the duty they have to not discriminate against customers and traffic for the common good.

Back in the day of the local BBS being your ISP, system operators could discriminate against abusive/disruptive/trolling users (we wanted that freedom, because resources were tight) being able to ban users/delete traffic. Because BBSes were classified as "information services" (as ISPs are classified right now), holding a kind of editorial power, we fought against common-carrier classification because it would have been onerous. But once a sysop exercised editorial power he/she was held liable for illegal/defamatory/copyright-infringing content hosted on the drives.

Like what happened to Rusty&Edie's.

ISPs have grown beyond the local BBS for well over a decade-and-a-half and ISPs are no longer "editorial." They have become common-carriers in everything but name, and the ISPs like TimeWarner/Cox/Comcast/Charter, etc, want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to be able to discriminate various kinds of traffic and retain editorial power while being not held liable for that traffic.

Sorry, no, they don't get to do that. They are now common-carriers and should be classified that way.

And that's what Net Neutrality is all about.

--
BMO

Further, there is actually quite a bit of evidence that HFCS is NOT the same as other sugars. Industry critics dispute those studies, but they exist.

I understand that this is one of those topics that the Pop Skeptic community has taken under its wing, but not because of evidence one way or the other.

Bocarsly, M. E. "High-fructose Corn Syrup Causes Characteristics of Obesity in Rats: Increased Body Weight, Body Fat and Triglyceride Levels." NIH.gov. National Institutes of Health, Nov. 2010. Web. 16 June 2013

https://www.princeton.edu/main...

Havel PJ (2005). "Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism". Nutrition Reviews 63 (5):133–157.

Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ (2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental Health 8: 2. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-2. PMC 2637263

  LeBlanc BW, Eggleston G, Sammataro D, Cornett C, Dufault R, Deeby T, St Cyr E (26 August 2009). "Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (16): 7369–7376. doi:10.1021/jf9014526. PMID 19645504.

The GP is arguing that there is no body of credible evidence

No, he said he "hasn't seen" any evidence.

The GP is claiming said link doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence

That is not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth. If he'd said that I wouldn't have responded to him.

Here is the entirety of his comment:

I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.

Wait no more, with this new windows watch you will be able to make pauses during your work and stare a wonderful 8-bit blue.
No need to wait for the 16h to drink your tea, with the windows watch you get random bluescreens every time!

Now available with the new RandomFunctionEx32! It is random 7.9999 times in 8!

Call now, and get a free copy of Windows 10 Fisher price edition!

And you believe in Australia?

Say your ERT is engaged in a dynamic entry to deal with a hostage situation. It might be critical to take out a lookout quietly.

Absolutely, positively not. If police departments are doing "dynamic entry" into a hostage situation with the plan to execute lookouts then we have a big problem.

Or say you are trying to get into a drug manufacturing compound that has armed guards with a night raid before they can blow the warehouse (or any similar sort of entry where you need surprise). Silencers can add to your odds of being able to execute.

Police are not supposed to "execute". You've been playing too much Rainbow Six.

The purpose of silencers is to kill undetected. There is no appropriate police activity which requires undetected killing.

And why should anyone care about "recommended" levels of anything?

God, I hope you're not a pharmacist.

I have never seen any study suggesting that

And I have never seen Australia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

participants who drank pop daily had shorter telomeres

I didn't know I had telomeres until about five minutes ago.

And wait a minute, when they say, "pop", are they talking about any carbonated beverage? Is the problem the carbonation or the crap they put in pop to make it sweet and neon-colored and buzz-causing and impervious to going bad for 500 years?

I need to know, because I've become enamored of my Sodastream machine, which turns water into fizzy water. I can't drink pop because I play the chromatic harmonica and any kind of drink with sugar or caramel color will foul up the reeds and valves. But fizzy water is perfect because it's refreshing, and it wets my whistle (which is important for playing the chromatic harmonica) and allows me to belch "When the Saints Go Marching In". Seriously, I love those carbonated belches. I keep them on the down-low when I'm around others, but I've scared the hell out of the cat a few times with a belch that registers 6.4 on the richter scale. It doesn't startle the dog, but she does wag her tail as if to say, "nice rip, bro".

So, does this research mean that the fizzy water I drink (no added flavor, except occasionally I'll add a little spearmint or hibiscus tea) is going to give me stubby little telomeres? And does the length of my telomeres matter as long as they have sufficient girth? I need to know right away.

Yeah. I wasn't sure about all the complaining of the militarization of the police until I noticed that one of the items the Department of Defense was sending police departments was silencers.

There is no appropriate use for a silencer in police work. Not one. A silencer is an assassin's tool. Not law enforcement.

One example? Do you know how much psychological research is being done?

Just check the Slashdot frontpage over the past few weeks and you'll find a lot more instances of con men in Physics. Does this mean that the "current state" of physics research is rife with fraud?

How about economics? Biochemistry? You want con men? Parapsychology is a more rigorous discipline than economics.

Oh, you're right. Sorry. I misread it and thought it was a branch of the mounties for aboriginal regions.

Never mind.