All of those places except Florida have both of those. They are susceptible to drought, but some rather large rivers run through those states.

Nontrivial doesn't necessarily mean large. It just means significant enough that it needs to be accounted for. The actual cost will of course be dependent on the size and complexity of your codebase.

It can be extremely convenient to store application data in the cloud. I use budgeting software that syncs to dropbox, making it possible to switch seamlessly between using the software on my phone and desktop.

That being said, I think the total amount I store on dropbox is about 50MB so it's a very small percentage of my total data.

Christian Scientists have been refusing vaccines since their founding in the 19th century. The guy who said stupidity is universal has it right.

Well the problem is that once you get past a certain time period, you start to run out of sources. Writing was incredibly rare before the 1st millenium BCE and only existed in certain civilizations. It's not a coincidence that we know more about Greece, Egypt, Persia, Babylon, etc. rather than other civilizations. They were the only ones keeping records! Other civilizations only have oral histories, which are certainly interesting but of highly questionable accuracy.

Also the reason why written sources are more numerous and accurate after around, say, the 6th century BC is because that's when people started writing everything down! Although writing existed before then, there was a massive increase in trade during that time period and that's when writing became commonplace. Scholars believe that was the time period in which the Greek legends as well as the first books of the Old Testament were all written. So there is a period ranging around the 6th century BC to the present where we have continuous (and thus accurate) written history being recorded, a written history of the oral traditions of those cultures (that goes back some time but is of questionable accuracy), and then a time of prehistory where we have no information other than what we can put together from archaeological data.

If you look at that wikipedia page you linked, almost all of those dates are based on archaeological data. The way that works is an archaeologist finds a site that looks promising and starts a dig. They find any artifacts in that area, analyze it, date it, compare it to other sites in the region, and extrapolate information based on that. Other scientific fields are also used to help out: chemistry, genetics, linguistics, anthropology, climate science, all of them are used in constructing history. But that's not very precise and extremely dependent on finding good archaeological data, so that's why you have the lack of precision.

Go back 2,000 years and there is quite a bit of archaeological data. Go back 5,000 years and it is is very hard to come by. Go back 10,000 years and it's practically nonexistent. That's why we know so little of prehistoric civilizations. There's literally no other information other than "There were people here, and they left these types of tools" and maybe some bones or cave paintings.

Well, yeah, you have to take that bias into account. You don't just read the Bible and take them at their word for what happened. But you can confirm much of the Bible's historicity via archaeology and referencing contemporary sources.

For example, the Old Testament might say King Johesephus ruled such and such kingdom at such and such time period and he was a terrible, wicked ruler who murdered children and was struck down by God. You can go back and confirm via other methods that there really was a King Johesephus that ruled that kingdom and during that time period. Was he actually as horrible and wicked as described in the Bible? Maybe not. Like you said, the accounts written down in the Bible were from people with a very biased viewpoint so you have to take that into account. But you can confirm or deny a lot of it.

That's what I mean when I say that things in the Bible seem to be fairly accurate after a certain point. Obviously the ancient Jews had their own biases and that has to be taken into account, but we can confirm that many events happened at the same times and places described in the Old Testament. But the further you go back the more inaccurate it gets. The Kingdom of Judah was certainly not the way described in the Old Testament and there is absolutely no evidence for the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, for example.

Compare it to Ancient Greek history. Just because the Illiad is obviously legend doesn't mean the Peloponnesian war didn't happen.

It is a nice bedtime story, but there is nothing to cite to show any of it really happened.

That's not true. Much of the history in the Old Testament (I'm not talking about the fables found in Genesis, but the descriptions of kingdoms and events that have been proven to exist) is severely distorted history at best, but much of it is relevant.

Generally speaking the dividing line is the conquest of Babylon by the Persians. Everything before that is more legend than fact. Everything after that is fairly accurate (but obviously highly biased).

... I see no evidence, quite honestly, that the NSA has the wrong motives.

What about the evidence that the NSA's network is being used for industrial espionage? National security is one thing, but that one's impossible to justify.

At Mach 6 I imagine it probably *is* a spacecraft. Pretty close at least.

That was an excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Exactly. There's nothing stopping someone from configuring Linux any way they so choose, which includes installing commercial, closed-source software. But the moment you make the distro dependent upon proprietary software you loose the thing which makes FOSS special in the first place.

It's a bit disingenuous to paint RMS and the "FOSSies" as uncompromising radicals when it was their efforts and that ideology that created open source and made it what it is today. If progress were impossible with their ideology, we wouldn't even be sitting here discussing the problems with Linux because it wouldn't exist.

I know RMS can be a twat sometimes, but there is a degree of proof for his ideology present in the success of the GNU project and the freedom it has brought to the world of consumer and commercial computing that is impossible to refute. To call him "mililtant" is entirely missing the point. He's just trying to keep his original vision moving forward and quite frankly *everybody* is a Johnny-Come-Lately compared to RMS. Even when you criticize him you have to at least give him the respect he (and by extension his ideology) deserves.

I know it can be frustrating when you just want the damn thing to work correctly, but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by complaining about the 5% that is preventing OSS from dominating OSX and Windows as a commercial force, forgetting the 95% that makes it truly special in the first place.

Right..... those are the only two options: all or none. If you even mention the prospect of raising taxes it's assumed that the goal is a quasi-communist state where no one is allowed to keep any money.

Good post, I would make just one important distinction. The teens were when the progressive side of the Republican party died and the fiscal conservative strain we are so familiar with today became dominant (famously embodied in the Coolidge administration), but the pro-business strain of the GOP existed from the very beginning of the party. In fact that was the major source of strain between Roosevelt's progressivism and the rest of the party, since Roosevelt was so staunchly anti-trust.

To call the Republicans the progressive party is a bit confusing because of all the different connotations the phrases progressive and conservative have gone through since then. In the middle-to-late 19th century murdering natives and Mexicans and giving their land to massive corporations was the height of progressivism, which is a little bit confusing from the modern perspective :)

Oh, please. I graduated from high school ten years ago, and I saw plenty of violence. A girl in my brother's class (middle school age) got her ass kicked by a group of two or three kids, went home and grabbed a baseball bat. She came back and beat them so bad one of the kids ended up with permanent brain damage. How's that for hyper-escalation? One of my friends back then was constantly harassed and bullied, stood up for himself, and got his ass beat nearly every day because of it. This wasn't little kids shoving each other waiting for someone to start something, he got a thorough ass-kicking on a regular basis. Despite it being obvious what was happening, the administration wouldn't give any of the kids responsible more than in-school suspension. Care to guess how successful his education was?

A school is a place of learning. You want to teach a kid how to fight then put them in Krav Maga. School should be a safe haven. Any sort of violence or threatening behavior should warrant a harsh and immediate punishment. There is no place whatsoever for violence or intimidation, and anyone advocating such is completely fucking insane.

Criminal charges are an absolute joke in this situation, but that doesn't mean the kid didn't do anything wrong. He should have been taken aside and informed why what he did was a stupid idea, and possibly given detention or some other sort of mundane punishment. But anyone claiming that schools should be perfectly fine with violence, or (in your case) openly advocating such behavior to "toughen them up" needs to have their head examined. I hope you never have to deal with telling your kid to stand up for himself and then watch him get brutalized.