Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 13:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh2hrq$8qk_001(a)s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Ok, can you point me in the direction of such a system please. It doesn't have to be online. >>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. While this is a bit of a cop out, it still doesn't prove the system will have 100% uptime. Can you give me a link to a product or point me in the direction of a manufacturer who produces a system with 100% guaranteed uptime please. I have access to most journals and manufacturer specs so it doesn't have to be an online link. As for the user caring. A system which is used Monday to Friday can go down all weekend and no one will care. Scheduled maintainance is down time. > Banking has learned how to do this. Crude examples are the > mirror images of newsgroups' contents. This still does not give a 100% uptime. I am intrigued which system has this guarantee. If you know which companies manufacture it or the like, I can generate a lot of income for them. The most robust system I have seen installed only came with a 99.9999% and that was considered pretty much the "Gold Standard" at the time as it was a promise the entire system would be operational with less than 31.5 seconds down time per year. Building in back up systems is the main defence against this, but it really is a brave product supplier who will promise a 100% uptime. There is always the, albeit remote, possibility that both (or all systems) will fail at the the same time. I still assert that _no_ system is 100% (anything). >>>> >>>>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. Which is why no systems are 100% >> >>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? Sigh. Safe is a term, which fit in with the line of debate more than anything else. Let me rephrase it for you then. If you know of any system which has a guaranteed 100% uptime please let me know. Or a system which is 100% secure. Or 100% available. Etc. Dont feel the need to be patronising either. <snip> >>> 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). Yes there is. The statement of operational requirements should do that, or they haven't been properly written. If you build a brand new system which has never been made before and will control a midget submarine ensuring it will operate at MACH2 and at 45,000 feet ASL is excesssive. > 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. This doesn't really make sense. >> 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. So you waited until after you had defined the system before you worked out its operational requirements? If you were desiging software which would operate the tail wings on a passenger jet you tested how it would operate in deep space or inside a volcano? > Thus, being able to anticipate everything that can > go wrong is a job requirement. Well while it sounds like an interesting and exciting job your emp
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 13:18 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:i60aj2hre318dnmojrm2pje9jkpck9o7gg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:57:25 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:47 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>>>their >>>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>> >>>>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>>>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>>>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>>>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>>>well.) >>>> >>> >>>And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You >>>seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing >>>among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. >> >> >>John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever. > > Now you have: > > http://www.emilyslist.org/ I don't know anything about this organization except what they say about themselves on their website. However, realize that an organization does not need to have non-profit status to use a .org website. Many do, but if I wanted to pay for a .org domain, I could. I couldn't find anything about non-profit status in the About... page--which is something that non-profits like to trumpet about themselves. Eric Lucas
From: Daniel Mandic on 17 Oct 2006 13:16 T Wake wrote: > Trying to assume things about history is invariably fraught with > error and assumption. USA was on hurry 1945. On the first, it is good they forced a speedup to the War, to circumvent any atomic-bombing actions of Na.. Germany. But. Hiroshime? (Little Boy) Nagasaki? (Fat Boy) Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: John Fields on 17 Oct 2006 13:22 On 16 Oct 2006 11:22:16 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >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). --- And your point would be??? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: mmeron on 17 Oct 2006 13:27
In article <eh2f18$8qk_003(a)s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <FdZYg.9$45.140(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from >almost >>>>200 >>>>>> >> >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare >this >>>>to >>>>>> >> >Vietnam, I suppose. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >It had ZILCH to do with WW2. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Graham >>>>>> >>>>>> How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with >>>>>> WWII? >>>>> >>>>>So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ???????? >>>>> >>>>Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with >>>>WWII went away when people quit fighting? >>> >>>It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and >>>tactics from facism. >>> >>Oh, of course. The point, though, is that war doesn't end when some >>formal documents are signed, it really ends when stability is >>restored. In the case of a great war, where a lot of the existing >>international structure is destroyed, restoring stability can take a very >>long time. And WWI (yes, I mean WWI, WWII was just a continuation >>after a short breather) was such a cataclismic event that its effects >>are still lingering. >> > >Thank you. We aren't taught this in US schools. It took me >a while to accept that Viet Nam was a part of WWII that >wasn't finished in deference to France. I guess there >was such a big mess to clean up in Europe, these kinds of >matters were put at the bottom of things to do when there >is more time and money. Of course. When you read about the situation in Europe in the first few years after the war, you realize that it couldn't have worked otherwise. > >I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of >all these kinds of details when they're having things >we call summit meetings. > Well, we hope they keep track... Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |