Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 1 Mar 2007 13:02 Big Bertha Thing burster Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/gammaray.html 16K Web Page Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.astro.seti Gamma Ray Bursters v1.0 01 feb 2000 Greg Goebel public domain Contents List:- 1.THE DISCOVERY OF GRBS 2.PINPOINTING A GRB 3.CAUGHT IN THE ACT 4.COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY Big Bertha Thing publication The statistics for Big Bertha Thing postings published on sci.astro are as follows:- 20 No. 50K primary postings (out of 26) 2 No. 600K ditto (out of 4) 12 No. off-topic postings (out of 200) 4 No. 50K secondary postings (out of 26) 20 No. 4K ditto (out of 26) 20 No. 2K ditto (out of 26) 24 No. astronomical postings (out of 2000) There was almost zero response to the above, which were spread over 28 days, at the rate of two days per week. Book-burners deleted the archive of Net Access Policy postings prior to 2nd November 1998. Bertha saved those, with the exception of replies and published 12. The above were also posted to the Onenet conference Astronomy & Space. Here days 18, 19, 20, were minimal keep-off-the-grass days and on days 27 and 28 they broke ranks. The on-topic filibuster of sound-bite journalism ended, at 42 days old. (The beginning of the end of spam.) Thank you, Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk From: Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem Subject: Re: Big Bertha Thing warlord Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:21:24 +0000 Saturday, November 15, 1997 12:40:38 PM Message From: Tony Lance Subject: Re(2): Fwd(3): Outlandish Request for Volunteers To: Carol Yeats Cc: Rick Holyomes George Ho-Yow FC Mods Discussion Philip Sims Big Bertha Thing 6(with apologies for use of CTRL R) Please accept my apologies for troubling you. It will not of course be repeated. However 3 mods have responded to my call to help out on the Conf. by volunteering. In emergency situations, needs must. You and your fellow mods number 3 I see. Mods have broad shoulders and thick skins and I trust compassion. Thank you, Tony Lance. Big Bertha Thing 7 By way of light relief, a similar general apology, to the one above, would bring solace and comfort, to the victims of such well intentioned postings. Please put it in a Big Bertha and address to CP Conf., Mods Conf. and Philip Sims. That of course, would be the end of spam.
From: nonsense on 1 Mar 2007 18:25 Phil Carmody wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >>>ls -lu >> >>I assume you had a point. snip blather > So his point wasn't worth getting. Every time you touch a file it is written to. Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.
From: Ken Smith on 1 Mar 2007 21:31 In article <87fy8paqu8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> >ls -lu >> >> I assume you had a point. > >I think his point is that access time is part of the metadata >that accompanies the file. It is not stored into the data part of the file. The file's sectors are not rewritten so there is no change to that part. I believe that it is the time you close the file and not the time you opened it that actually ends up stored BTW. None of this matters to the backup method I suggested. >So we have 3 cases: >- If it doesn't change the last-accessed time, then the "last- >accessed time" is in fact a falsity; >- If it changes the last-accessed time and stores the new access, >then the restored file will not be what it was a backup of; >- If it changes the last-accessed time but doesn't store the new >time, then the file in the backup is not identical to the >filesystem that it is a backup of. >All three of these are unsatisfactory. Therefore I contend that >this field is indeed not a useful field when it comes to considering >the behaviour of backups. No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover in the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the drive. This would store the times as they were at the time archive was made and not change anything about any of them The only times that matter for backup are the time of creation and the last modification. It doesn't matter when the last access happened. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Mar 2007 21:33 In article <5685e$45e760f9$4fe7431$8325(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Phil Carmody wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> >>>>ls -lu >>> >>>I assume you had a point. > >snip blather > >> So his point wasn't worth getting. > >Every time you touch a file it is written to. > >Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error. The backup method I have been suggeting has no such problem. Making an image of a drive does not risk changing its contents. BTW: Since the time is not stored within the body of the file, the sectors that contain the body of the file are not written. It is only the directory information that is updated. You can have an error in that sector. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Mar 2007 22:04
In article <es6mqn$8qk_001(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <es0bs3$joa$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>Where in the anual report? I can't find any such statement in there. > >Intel is divided into divisions. Compare each division. The one >that has the controller product line does more business than the >one that has the PC product line. I still can't find it. I searched the PDF version of the report for word "division" and nothing like that came up. Do you have a page number? [....] >>Lots of copies of Windows got installed too. Your code only needs to be >>no worse than the other's to get used. > >People who used our products are still in mourning because we no >longer actively develop them. Now, for that to happen, we >must have done something very right in all our product lines. No, you just need to be better than the others. There is a major difference. [....] >If you restore the file that caused the problem, you have restored >the problem and have to start all over again. Now we can perhaps start to talk about repairing a system. Problems are often like cancers. A problem with a file can cause a database to get worse over time. If you back up to the one where the damage is limited, you can then repair the file at fault and start working forwards. You also have the option of going back to an even earlier version and starting there. [....] >>They may both need to be done but they are two different subjects. You >>need to be able to get from the broken system to the situation as it >>should be. > >Now, consider the case that no backups have the system saved in the >state that it should be. This is not an unusual situation. My guess >is that this is the normal situation with any Micshit software under >a EULA and update agreement. For a Microsoft system, the only option that works is a bit by bit image of the hard drive made by some non-Microsoft code. The OS refuses to let you back up some of the important stuff. Since it is Windows and not Linux, we know that the system was not in the state it should be for the get go. The best you can do is put the mess back the way it was. On a Windows system, you always want to keep your data on a different drive than the OS. This make backing up the good stuff much easier. When a Microsoft system goes very bad the first thing to try is restoring to the previous image. This doesn't mean that you have really fixed the problem but it does let you see if the previous version would work at all. You may have one of those rare cases where the hardware has failed. Very often you are forced to reinstall a bunch of software and then copy the data back in from the backup. [....] >> You may be able to do this without doing a restore if >>redundent information exists. If you can't do that, the first step >>is usually to step back in time to where the problem hadn't happened yet. > >What if you can't pinpoint when the problem started? Do you mean when the data's logical structure was first damaged? If you have old backups, you can always step back to a very early version. This is rarely needed because you can loopback and mount different versions to compare them. > What if it >is a problem that you can't control? What do mean by that? Assuming you mean some bit of software that simply takes it in its head to mess things up from time to time, there are still things that you can do. All such things are very ugly. > >>You can then step forwards repeating the transactions. > >And what if the transactions carefully save on backup tapes are >incorrect? Consider monetary exchange rates and changes. This is why you make more than one copy of things. [...] >>How exactly did it become more complex? All the issues that exist today >>existed in the past. > >No it didn't. We did not have the technology to do millions of >transactions/minute. This doesn't increase complexity. It only increases speed. > Most of the time we could hit the >panic button and physically shut down a runaway system. That was always a near useless option. You need to make sure this is never used. The odds of trouble being made by humans is greater than that it is made by the computer. When you put a "panic button" on something you are admitting defeat. >> There may be a lot more data to deal with but the >>same situations still come up. > >It is the rate; they come up faster and can happen a hundred >million times in the same second that could only complete one. You said "complex". That word means something. Go look it up. [....] >>You are simply wrong in this. You must have another source of information >>to make the correction. If you don't have a source of information to make >>the corrections with, it is completely imposible to make the corrections. >>There are no if ands or buts about it. > >You are not thinking about scheduling airplanes with the subset >of scheduling passengers. What the heck are you talking about now! You either have information or you don't. If you have the needed information you can make the corrections if you don't have that information you can't. >>>There are lots of problems and you aren't even aware of most of them. >> >>Name 2! > >oh, jezusfuckinghchrist. Go back and read the posts. Like I thought. You don't have 2. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |