Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 09:18 |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK > government whitewash that followed its collapse. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm That was truly outrageous with the government attempting to suppress evidence ! Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Oct 2006 08:21 In article <ytOdnWLb3pxhMa7YRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egvmeh$8qk_001(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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... >>>> 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. > >Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99% is >also a failure. > >I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible? Yes. >What system can survive no matter what errors occur? Planes crash, software >crashes, plants malfunction. If there is a 100% system, let me know and I >can pretty much guarantee a large customer base for it. First you need to look at a system from the person who is receiving the computing services. In a lot of cases, the user doesn't care where the data resides physcially as long as it is available immediately to him no matter when and/or where he is. Banking has learned how to do this. Crude examples are the mirror images of newsgroups' contents. > >>> >>>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. > >Which brings us full circle. You claim your 100% paranoia meant you took >excessive precautions. As I said, excessive precautions are by their >definition _excessive_. > >Every system has weaknesses. Identifying and managing them is a step. But I >have never come across anyone who has a system which has 100% of potential >risks anticipated. Certainly not anything written down which makes this >claim. That's because of Murphy's Law. No matter how many holes get plugged, people are ingenius in creating new ones. > >If you do know of systems which are 100% safe (even planes which are 100% >safe) then please let me know. Sigh! When did I say, or imply, safe? <snip> >>>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. > >I did understand the reference. Please re-read my posts and show where I >have said anything other than this, if I did it was unintentional. I am >fairly sure at no point did I advocate taking less than the required >measures. When you are making something that has never been made before, there is no way to specify what is excessive (as you define it). The items and actions that become "excessive" are those we haven't figured out how to fix or prevent. About the only ones that fall in that category is physical properties of nature. In a sense, this is also the Achilles' heel of the computiing biz because code can appear to make all things possible. That's why virtual reality makes money today. > I also doubt I advocated taking anything _more_ than the required >measures. But required measures had never been defined in our work. We made new stuff. Defining the required measures was part of each project. Thus, being able to anticipate everything that can go wrong is a job requirement. > >> 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. > >Well, you may be right but I have no idea what your hypothesis is, or the >second or third thing. > >You introduced the "100% paranoia" to justify your ideas about Islamic >extremists aiming for world domination. Sigh! Not ideas; I'm trying to figure out how to prevent the mess. > I pointed out 100% paranoia was >madness and should be avoided. You (with JoeBloe trying to butt in >occasionally) then came up with examples about how important excessive >precautions were and I said that wasn't the case. > >Please, at any point you want to stop appearing vague and mysterious, let me >know what you are thinking (first, second and/or third) and I will be able >to easily confirm. Generally speaking I have not yet felt the need to have a >hidden agenda in this debate. I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization. > >>>>>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
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Oct 2006 08:33 In article <4533B576.5375DC4E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >> >a crime. >> >> You are lying. > >I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. > >American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their >Muslim counterparts. Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning what works. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Oct 2006 08:40 In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>> >a crime. >>> >>> You are lying. >> >>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. >> >>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their >>Muslim counterparts. >> > >Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried. Have you not noticed what's been happening lately? And it's not just Southern Baptist. /BAH
From: unsettled on 17 Oct 2006 09:48
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated > knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying > most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of > destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization. Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following: A) Insanity B) Desire for power, control, and wealth |