Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Oct 2006 06:21 In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egt6gf$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <YMGdneF6_b_XZa3YnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:egqd8f$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> If checking for any possible error condition, then assuming >>>> that an unreported error can occur and coding to handle all >>>> of the above plus whatever is left over is not excessive >>>> precautions, then I don't what excess is. >>> >>>If you took excessive precautions then I question the business sense in >>>your >>>actions. >> >> You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay >> up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It >> was a requirement to have certain uptimes. > >If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system needs >99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that. If it >only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different. > >Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted money. Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane. Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan. Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get some money. > >I may be using a different definition of excessive than you. No. You just don't know the biz. An excessive act to prevent system crashes would be to never plug it in. Being able to anticipate, thus write defensive code, for everything that can go wrong, is prudent, practical, and sells a lot of hard/software. > >>>Taking the correct level of precaution is the only plan with long >>>term viability. >> >> And what is the correct level of precaution if the system >> is the one keeping your airplane up in the air wihout tailspins. > >What ever is required to keep it in the air. Taking precautions against the >system being immersed in water at 100m depth is excessive. > >Can you see the difference? Yes I can see the difference. I know my biz. > >As an example from an Industry I know better than airframes. If you are >protecting assets worth ?1,000,000 then spending ?1,200,000 on security _is_ >excessive yet I know companies which do this (the main one which springs to >mind is US company but it is not soley Americans who do this). > >Everything has an inherent risk which has to be tolerated. Excessive >precautions are wasted time and money. > >I am not arguing against taking the appropriate measures, just that the >claims of "100% paranoia" are jingoistic and dont really hold up to >scrutiny. You did not understand the reference. I'm beginning to form the hypothsis that this was done on purpose. If I am right in one thing, I might be right about a second thing, or a third thing, or the topic in this thread. > >>>Personally, depending on the criticality of the system you are talking >>>about >>>I would say what you suggest may, or may not be, excessive. >> >> It was not. AAMOF, our precautions wouldn't be enough in today's >> biz. Today's computing business takes 7x24 uptime for granted. > >Well, most web servers use a "rule of nines" for uptime with 99.999% being >about the gold standard but I see what you mean. > >That said, the precautions taken must reflect the business, for example do >the webservers meeting 99.999% uptime get tested for operation (to go back >to a previous example) underwater at 100m depths? It is never, ever, going >to be possible to anticipate every situation. But we did anticipate every situation w.r.t. system software. It was our job to do that. Like I said, we were paid very well to be paranoid by expecting everything to go wrong and try the best we could to not let such an event do no harm. > A business model which works >defines the normal working practices and determines what precautions have to >be taken for that. From there, depending on cost and time constraints other >precautions can be built in. > >As a real world example, I was in Washington last year and I went to an ATM >to get some cash out. The screen of the ATM had an MS Windows VBScript >runtime error popup and nothing was working. You would think this was a 24/7 >system, yet it had failed. Micshit is finding out that their usual business model is not going to work. > >>> >>>Also, on a terminology issue, checking for "any possible error condition" >>>is >>>rarely achievable. >> >> You don't know what I'm talking about. > >Obviously not, as the terminology you used was either inaccurate or you are >claiming the impossible. > >Please, feel free to elaborate. I tried. You misread it. > >>> >>>> I supposed >>>> keeping the system from being powered up to prevent crashes >>>> is excessive but not very useful. >>> >>>I would describe it as excessive. It is why being 100% paranoid rarely >>>makes >>>sense in a business environment. >> >> We were in the business of manufacturing computer systems for customers >> and not the feel-good consumer marketing business. > >Which makes it less likely that 100% paranoid would make sense. When >business write a statement of requirements they are often very specific >about the security aspects. If you go wildly beyond this then you are, >effectively, doing unpaid work and should have negotiated a better contract. >No organisation is 100% protected which is why security risk management >exists. I'm not talking about paper pushing. I am talking about basic mechanics and electronics. Note that it is a feature that physical laws do not change out from underneath one. I'll be one of /erg's pennies that he's not going to get this one either. /BAH
From: Daniel Mandic on 16 Oct 2006 07:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he > is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW > having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the > world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We > are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I > think. > > > > he may > > consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both > > starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. > > Even Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost > > a million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many. > > Western civilization puts value on human life; this is one > of the things that people, known as our enemies, want to change. > > /BAH Whom would you believe more, when talking/discussing about marriage-relationships? A three time divorcee, or a man who never had a wedlock, just with some standard relation(partner in lifes)-ships (just so much that he knows what a women is... but with no wedlock experience). Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Ben Newsam on 16 Oct 2006 07:15 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:40:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do >not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of >Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and >hate and oppression." > >-------------- > >How things change. Not really. Remember what they did to Kennedy.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 16 Oct 2006 09:10 Daniel Mandic wrote: > > By the way, Noahs Arch landed surely in Africa. Just look to the > colorful Animals there. Yeah, right next to the McDonald's Arch. Plenty of animals there, too. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 09:37
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:22:09 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:vh45j2tlovkq8ttgl53r2v9ei9kvq16cj3(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:46:46 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >When does Bush get impeached ? >>>> >>>> Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >>>> >>>> >When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >>>> >>>> Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >>>> >>>> But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>>> We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. >>> >>>Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be >>>concerned about it. >> >> --- >> But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up >> the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't, >> knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life >> accordingly. > >While, in the main, I agree. For some people there is the moral imperative >to do what is "right" despite the futility and the personal cost. > >In a democracy people are supposed to be able to affect things. I mean, it >is the effect on the west of a small group of Islamic extremists that has >got everyone's knickers in a twist here. --- I agree. The tricky part is being able to tell the difference between what you can change and what you can't, and learning to adapt (change yourself) if what you can't change endangers you and you consider your survival to be the ultimate morality. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |