Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 2 Mar 2007 09:29 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Are you familiar with the concept of reading filesystems s/reading/mounting/ -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Ken Smith on 2 Mar 2007 09:39 In article <es94vp$8qk_001(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <es6qts$kgg$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <es6ggr$8qk_003(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <es45pa$fiu$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[.....] >>>>>If it's a rumor, then the experts believe it, too. >>>> >>>>That happens all the time. Lots of people get fooled by good sounding >>>>stuff that they have never really experimented on. >>>> >>>This radio station has experts who know the subject. For example, >>>and IRS person is on for shows about income taxes. A lawyer for >>>estate planning. A doctor for medical subjects. Computer geeks >>>for computer usages. And the people are local which means the >>>people know each other. This station does a lot of shows >>>with the retire auld farts in mind. There still is a Santa >>>Claus in some areas of the US. >> >>If you had google, I'd suggest you google on "N rays" > >Why are you rejecting the fact that a radio station has experts >on their shows to give the local audience the services they need? I am questioning the *claim* because I have listened to the radio and heard "experts". Said "experts" can be wrong. > >> >>*** begin insert *** >>René Prosper Blondlot (1849-1930) was a French physicist who claimed to >>have discovered a new type of radiation, shortly after Roentgen had >>discovered X-rays. He called it the N-ray, after Nancy, the name of the >>town and the university where he lived and worked. Blondlot was trying to >>polarize X-rays when he claimed to have discovered his new form of >>radiation. Dozens of other scientists confirmed the existence of N-rays in >>their own laboratories. However, N-rays don't exist. How could so many >>scientists be wrong? They deceived themselves into thinking they were >>seeing something when in fact they were not. They saw what they wanted to >>see with their instruments, not what was actually there (or, in this case, >>what was not there >>********** >> >>This sort of thing goes on all the time. Even experts have biases and >>fool themselves all the time. > >So you are claiming that the tax lawyers on that show, whose >expertise is almost exclusively for the aged, does not know >anything about social security and the latest changes? No, I'm saying he may have fallen victim to a rumor on one subject. It happens. Its just like the guys above with their N rays. These were good scientists they knew a lot about science but got it dead wrong. It happens. > Are >you claiming, with no evidence since you haven't listened to >any of those shows, that the computer geeks who answer questions >don't know anything about computer systems? I never made the claims you are suggesting so I can say "no". Go back a read what I actually wrote. Your claim of my not having listened to "those shows" may be true or false depending on what you mean by "those shows". I have listened to some show like the ones you decribe but it is unlikely I've listened to the ones you did. ><snip attempt to smoke and mirror the thread> > >This is a perfect example of your attitude in reading what I >write. You start out with the premise that anything I write >is 100% wrong and continue from there. You are wrong about this. I do not assume that you are 100% wrong. If you continue as you have, however, I will assume an ever increasing fraction of what you say is wrong. >The example that started this thread drift was the local >problem of crooks "stealing" signatures off checks. I still >don't understand exactly how this is done nor how the >new kind of pen prevents it. The police are involved and >the radio station has given people >ways to prevent this from happening. This is what the station >does. And everybody listens to them; it's good radio business >to cater to your customers. I still say that the special pens were just a rumor. You just have to sign with a standard blue ball point. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Mar 2007 09:45 In article <e569b$45e79d2a$49ecf5e$12334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> 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. > > >So directory all errors are of no concern to you then. No, I didn't say this. Remember that my suggested method of doing a backup is to image the entire drive. The error that is the hardest to spot is a file that now has different contents than before but not the correct contents. Changes to the directory information that matter are easily detected and aren't cancerous like errors in databases can be. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Mar 2007 09:38 In article <es848a$2hl$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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? You have to read the whole report and then compare the different product areas. >>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. Not for data bases such as SABRE. Airline reservation systems don't care about data that is already in the past. It's too complicated to go into detail. Now consider that a virus is in the midst of your files you are going to restore. > > >[....] >>>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. Again, if you do a bit by bit type of backup, you also save the bad spots of the disk. >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. And what if the source of the problem is 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. How do you separate the data from the OS when windows has the annoying habit of merging both? > >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. How are you going to choose which files to copy from the backup if it's bit-by-bit save of the disk? You can't. > >[....] >>> 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? It can be many things. The OS has a bug; the network has a bug; your apps created an environment that causes the glitch in cooperation with timing, the phase of the moon, and other events. > 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. Some days, problems can happen with the position of a certain pattern of bits in a particular location of memory. >>>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. I give up. I'm trying to deal with the obvious case that the problem has been backed up. It doesn't matter how many copies you have nor how many times you restore it, the mess maker will still be there and it will continue make the mess which will cause you to restore it again....ad nauseum. > >[...] >>>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. How quickly can you stop a semi truck going at the speed of light in a vacuum? Start your timing just notice a problem. > >> 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 are telling me that this was useless? I still pull the plug when I see somebody sniffing my bits over the net. > 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. You don't have a clue about anything having to do with the computer system biz. <snip snot> >>>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! I am talking about the application I referred to in another post. It was called SABRE. It was probably the first computer aided transaction processing system. > 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. We had thousands. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 2 Mar 2007 09:50
In article <es928h$8ss_001(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <es829g$2hl$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>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. > >That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk. >I'm assuming that you do want an image of the disk and not drive. Preseving the bad spots is a feature not a problem. It is a record of exactly how things were warts and all that you want to keep. >>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. > >You are in error. Last access is an important datum. Please explain exactly how you thing the last access is important. What do you do with this information? In this context, the only use of that information will be a mistake. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |