The current turbine-based APUs use hydrazine. Nasty stuff. I'd feel much safer with an H-O fuel cell handling the APU side of the house. You'd also save a ton of money by not having to transport and store hydrazine.
Boeing is proposing this for the same reason that NASA wants to move to EAPUs (electric APUs based on fuel cell tech). Dealing with hydrazine is *dangerous*, and has caused more than its share of troubles in commercial craft and shuttle missions.
... who makes his opinions available via Postscript instead of HTML. 'Nuff said. Those guys at Lucent need to pull their noses away from their 21" black and white monitors and take a fresh look at what's current...
It's your imagination. The Constitution is not "just a set of laws" (see "Bill of Rights" for further details). It *is* the bible for US Government, and when push comes to shove it is always right. If "something" goes against the Constitution, and you don't like it, you have to pass an amendment to the Constitution (see "Emancipation" and "Prohibition" for further details), which is *damn hard to do* (see "always right" for further details).
US law is a combination of legal precedent and Constitutional law, which tends to trip most folks up (as opposed to UK, which is legal precedent through and through). Legal precedence in the US, when cases bubble up to the Supreme Court especially, involve that Court's interpretation of the Constitution (or, much more commonly, a precedent based on same).
In summary, it doesn't matter how many people get shot. If you want to ban guns "forever", you have to amend the Constitution. Good luck, you'll need it.
Yes... the quotes above display properly under Linux/Netscape.
There's more to the problem than a simple matter of supporting smart quotes in the font sets on UNIX, however - try to view some of the same MS-generated HTML when using TrueType fonts on Windows and MacOS for example; you will have the same problem. Better yet, just follow the link and read the author's reasoning. I tend to agree with him, as you might imagine.
The real problem is that ASCII is ASCII and Unicode is Unicode. You extend either one at the peril of alienating those users who do not use software which supports the "solution". Real, honest-to-God, Open Standards should be adhered to in situations such as these, IMHO.
Please run your Word(tm) mangled HTML through demoroniser before submitting your posts to/. Otherwise, it makes it damn hard for the rest of us to follow your questions.
I haven't worked terribly much with fibre but just how sturdy is it? They're claiming up to 10kft which is a long long way... people are gonna run this under carpet, trip over it, the cat's gonna chew it... I thought that fibre was a pretty resilient technology from an EMI point of view, but what about the Home Factor? Copper wires are usually pretty good about being tripped over and ripped out of sockets. What of fibre? If you kink a fibre cable, what happens to it?
Nobody has any experience with "fibre" - there's no such thing. The spelling was changed to "fibre" to denote media independence for the protocols that were originally designed to run over "fiber". So, I wouldn't worry about carpets and hungry cats and what not... you'll still see copper for "short distance" applications.
As for sturdiness of "fiber", it depends on whether or not you use glass or plastic for the core, the tradeoff being dB drop (glass being much less than that of plastic). I usually run into plastic core for multimode fiber applications, and glass core for single mode (where the distances can be up to 50km and dB drop is a big concern, even though your signal strength in single mode is much higher).
C'mon now - you're experiencing the benefits of higher grade copper and tighter twist, not shielding. STP cabling has different signaling characteristics, for one. For the other, unless the link is shielded end-to-end, it isn't truly shielded. For a third, if you don't have a shielded jack to plug the shielded connector for your shielded CAT 5 into, you are going to run into problems with grounding loops, at which point you would be much better off with UTP.
In the end, CAT 5 UTP has more than enough twist in it to compensate for all but the most noisy environments. After that, you're running STP cabling, which more than likely means you are running your network over Token Ring (see 'signaling characteristics' above). Even nasty cheap-ass CAT 5 is going to be much better than phone cabling, hence your observations. The 'shielding' you think you are seeing is just a protective wrap for the wires, that way when people walk on them and what not the copper doesn't break between the jacks. This is also why you see stranded core used for hooking up desktops to the wall and what not, and solid core run through the walls (stranded core is less prone to breakage than solid when it comes to tight turns, people stepping on it constantly, etc. but it is more expensive - you can save money on your total plant cost by taking advantage of the fact that nobody is going to be stepping on and monkeying around with the cables in the walls that much).
Anyway, I agree, if you are having a house built or rewired, run CAT 5 UTP for both data and phone, or at least CAT 3 for phone. It does make a difference.
It isn't a step in the right direction at all. If anything, it is a half-assed attempt to ride the Open Source shockwave. Developers and end users have absolutely *zero* freedom within the SCSL. Hell, even the non-commercial users are restricted.
The BSD license and the GPL are better than the SCSL would ever dream of being. Watching Bill Joy (the inventor of the BSD license) run around touting the SCSL leaves a very bad taste in my mouth - it's like watching a man commit treason against one of his ideals "for the good of the company". It's sickening and sad.
I thought that was what you were referring to. For some reason, I have "Guardian" on the brain (a marketing term for the things you describe, I know).
No auth mechanism is perfect, of course. If the machines are under my control I do have access to the logs, certainly. Again, not perfect, but better than calling up another admin and negotiating access to *their* logs.
Oh well - we are so off topic it's not even funny. People have their ways of doing things, and they usually aren't the same. Not a big deal.
You're getting a little touchy there, Rick. Don't be surprised if people think the phone contact qualifies as "out of band" - it *does*, end of story. Anyone who lived through the MCI or AT&T frame relay meltdowns will tell you this - you had multiple providers within entire regions affected. I can also say that the last thing I want to have to do in the event of a domain meltdown is deal with a bunch of "your fly is down" e-mails when my network monitoring system has *already* told me what the problem is way before anyone saw it (you do run your own network monitoring, and don't depend on the good graces of others on the 'net, don't you? I believe they call that "proactive management").
Besides, if you're going to wear your arrogance as a badge of honor (especially when it comes to technical issues), expect to be analyzed. Dishing it out without being able to take it is just as unprofessional as not setting up zones the way *you* think they ought to be set up. Keep your mind open to the fact that there are probably several other methods to skinning this cat.
All in all, I've found the entire conversation educational as to how some admins think vs. others, what are some good techniques for administering your zone, etc. Let's not spoil that. I also apologize for failing to mention that, overall, I found the article to be a good one. Keep up the good work;-).
As to the problems of e-mail systems not under one's administrative control, that would indeed be a problem if you failed to set a security option for your InterNIC contact record. But you'd do that anyway, right?
Actually, I wouldn't, as that is the first I have ever heard of such an option. Could you enlighten us further?
OK, you don't look like an arrogant jackass, you are an arrogant jackass. I guess I can respect that somewhat;-). BTW, most providers will force you into just such a configuration by default (they are your secondary DNS, they handle backup MX for you, yadda yadda). You don't have to be an "expert" or "mighty guru" to end up with this; it just *happens*. Why it didn't happen with LinuxOne, who knows...
Different power grid? You live in Kali, right? Land of the Perpetual Earthquake? Tell me, which power grids should we choose? I know, how about one outside of Kali? But then, that takes money... something most fledgling businesses don't have readily on hand.
Also, I have serious issues with the out-of-band contact scenario. In these days of MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, and PGP for handling zone changes, I would just as soon point to systems that are under my direct administrative control. Hey, that's just me, I'm sure you've never had any trouble with an "out-of-band" contact account becoming compromised at a "trusted" site. More power to you;-).
Now, if some guy wants to run an "e-commerce" site out of their basement with xDSL, well fine, let them. I remember when Red Hat's link to the Internet was pretty damn shaky, but I don't recall anyone flaming them to high heaven for it. That damn "money" thing kept getting in their way of running a Mega Professional Site(tm), as I recall (certainly, this isn't a problem now, one would assume). You have to start somewhere.
Say, you never did mention if you physically visited their office. Am wunderink how you knew about redundant power architecture (or lack thereof), yes?
In the end, I agree with you though; if you want to do it, do it right (or as right as possible at the time). I guess in that context your tone doesn't appear nearly as arrogant as at it did at first blush. Straight talk does tend to slap you in the face after you've plowed through a pile of Information Week mags for an hour or so (hey, don't blame me, just trying to keep up with the BossThink before it hits me on Monday:-P).
No shit... talk about coming off looking like an arrogant jackass. I can see his point about utilizing generic accounts for the admin/tech/zone/AP info, but hell, you've got phone and fax numbers in there too... besides, your provider is usually registered as the secondary for any domain you handle, so surely a person could contact them in case something went tango upsilon;-).
BTW, how the hell did he know that they didn't use machines with redundant power supplies that each plug into a socket handled by a different power circuit? I missed the part where he physically visited the site. What's next, you have to have a friggin' UPS for each circuit as well? Diesel generators? Most small operations can't even come close to affording that level of redundancy (hell, most public companies that are fairly established don't go to such lengths... remember, these are the people who specify NT for mission critical efforts;-D).
Which, I guess, is his point. They're small fish which shouldn't even be coming close to going public. End of story. I don't see where it's written that they have to bulk up the NOC like they were an ISP or colocation provider, however (although, it couldn't hurt).
Maybe if the net monkeys at CBT knew what an AS and BGP4 was and, more importantly, how best to use such techniques/technology, they wouldn't have had this problem. Instead, they stick all their eggs in one basket and hope that nothing goes wrong (after all, it's MCI, right?).
If you really care, you don't put your life in someone else's hands. You plan for your primary provider to go tango upsilon. You plan for the day when the grid goes south. You plan for the day when everyone decides to SELL SELL SELL and flood your feeds with orders.
One thing I've learned about finger pointing; when you point a finger at someone, three more point back at you. When you trust a big carrier to run your network because all you want to hire are knuckle dragging idiots, then you have no one to blame but yourself when things go wrong and you can't fix them.
I wouldn't expect any less from the CBT crew - they think rebooting the NT systems every evening to maintain reliability during the day is actually reasonable. Puh-leeze:-P
Slashdot Mirror
"OK you clowns, we're pushing 10 Mbit to the last mile no matter what, and if you don't like it you can kiss our Hugh Barrass!"
Damn, what a kick-ass name. That rocks.
The current turbine-based APUs use hydrazine. Nasty stuff. I'd feel much safer with an H-O fuel cell handling the APU side of the house. You'd also save a ton of money by not having to transport and store hydrazine.
Boeing is proposing this for the same reason that NASA wants to move to EAPUs (electric APUs based on fuel cell tech). Dealing with hydrazine is *dangerous*, and has caused more than its share of troubles in commercial craft and shuttle missions.
... who wanted a Star Wars missile defense system, only to have their heads handed to them by a few guys with box cutters and the will to die.
I smell pork - roasting.
Those are 'bots...
... who makes his opinions available via Postscript instead of HTML. 'Nuff said. Those guys at Lucent need to pull their noses away from their 21" black and white monitors and take a fresh look at what's current...
US law is a combination of legal precedent and Constitutional law, which tends to trip most folks up (as opposed to UK, which is legal precedent through and through). Legal precedence in the US, when cases bubble up to the Supreme Court especially, involve that Court's interpretation of the Constitution (or, much more commonly, a precedent based on same).
In summary, it doesn't matter how many people get shot. If you want to ban guns "forever", you have to amend the Constitution. Good luck, you'll need it.
There's more to the problem than a simple matter of supporting smart quotes in the font sets on UNIX, however - try to view some of the same MS-generated HTML when using TrueType fonts on Windows and MacOS for example; you will have the same problem. Better yet, just follow the link and read the author's reasoning. I tend to agree with him, as you might imagine.
The real problem is that ASCII is ASCII and Unicode is Unicode. You extend either one at the peril of alienating those users who do not use software which supports the "solution". Real, honest-to-God, Open Standards should be adhered to in situations such as these, IMHO.
Please run your Word(tm) mangled HTML through demoroniser before submitting your posts to /. Otherwise, it makes it damn hard for the rest of us to follow your questions.
Thank you.
*duck*
Nobody has any experience with "fibre" - there's no such thing. The spelling was changed to "fibre" to denote media independence for the protocols that were originally designed to run over "fiber". So, I wouldn't worry about carpets and hungry cats and what not... you'll still see copper for "short distance" applications.
As for sturdiness of "fiber", it depends on whether or not you use glass or plastic for the core, the tradeoff being dB drop (glass being much less than that of plastic). I usually run into plastic core for multimode fiber applications, and glass core for single mode (where the distances can be up to 50km and dB drop is a big concern, even though your signal strength in single mode is much higher).
In the end, CAT 5 UTP has more than enough twist in it to compensate for all but the most noisy environments. After that, you're running STP cabling, which more than likely means you are running your network over Token Ring (see 'signaling characteristics' above). Even nasty cheap-ass CAT 5 is going to be much better than phone cabling, hence your observations. The 'shielding' you think you are seeing is just a protective wrap for the wires, that way when people walk on them and what not the copper doesn't break between the jacks. This is also why you see stranded core used for hooking up desktops to the wall and what not, and solid core run through the walls (stranded core is less prone to breakage than solid when it comes to tight turns, people stepping on it constantly, etc. but it is more expensive - you can save money on your total plant cost by taking advantage of the fact that nobody is going to be stepping on and monkeying around with the cables in the walls that much).
Anyway, I agree, if you are having a house built or rewired, run CAT 5 UTP for both data and phone, or at least CAT 3 for phone. It does make a difference.
The BSD license and the GPL are better than the SCSL would ever dream of being. Watching Bill Joy (the inventor of the BSD license) run around touting the SCSL leaves a very bad taste in my mouth - it's like watching a man commit treason against one of his ideals "for the good of the company". It's sickening and sad.
No auth mechanism is perfect, of course. If the machines are under my control I do have access to the logs, certainly. Again, not perfect, but better than calling up another admin and negotiating access to *their* logs.
Oh well - we are so off topic it's not even funny. People have their ways of doing things, and they usually aren't the same. Not a big deal.
Besides, if you're going to wear your arrogance as a badge of honor (especially when it comes to technical issues), expect to be analyzed. Dishing it out without being able to take it is just as unprofessional as not setting up zones the way *you* think they ought to be set up. Keep your mind open to the fact that there are probably several other methods to skinning this cat.
All in all, I've found the entire conversation educational as to how some admins think vs. others, what are some good techniques for administering your zone, etc. Let's not spoil that. I also apologize for failing to mention that, overall, I found the article to be a good one. Keep up the good work ;-).
Actually, I wouldn't, as that is the first I have ever heard of such an option. Could you enlighten us further?
Different power grid? You live in Kali, right? Land of the Perpetual Earthquake? Tell me, which power grids should we choose? I know, how about one outside of Kali? But then, that takes money... something most fledgling businesses don't have readily on hand.
Also, I have serious issues with the out-of-band contact scenario. In these days of MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, and PGP for handling zone changes, I would just as soon point to systems that are under my direct administrative control. Hey, that's just me, I'm sure you've never had any trouble with an "out-of-band" contact account becoming compromised at a "trusted" site. More power to you ;-).
Now, if some guy wants to run an "e-commerce" site out of their basement with xDSL, well fine, let them. I remember when Red Hat's link to the Internet was pretty damn shaky, but I don't recall anyone flaming them to high heaven for it. That damn "money" thing kept getting in their way of running a Mega Professional Site(tm), as I recall (certainly, this isn't a problem now, one would assume). You have to start somewhere.
Say, you never did mention if you physically visited their office. Am wunderink how you knew about redundant power architecture (or lack thereof), yes?
In the end, I agree with you though; if you want to do it, do it right (or as right as possible at the time). I guess in that context your tone doesn't appear nearly as arrogant as at it did at first blush. Straight talk does tend to slap you in the face after you've plowed through a pile of Information Week mags for an hour or so (hey, don't blame me, just trying to keep up with the BossThink before it hits me on Monday :-P).
No shit... talk about coming off looking like an arrogant jackass. I can see his point about utilizing generic accounts for the admin/tech/zone/AP info, but hell, you've got phone and fax numbers in there too... besides, your provider is usually registered as the secondary for any domain you handle, so surely a person could contact them in case something went tango upsilon ;-).
BTW, how the hell did he know that they didn't use machines with redundant power supplies that each plug into a socket handled by a different power circuit? I missed the part where he physically visited the site. What's next, you have to have a friggin' UPS for each circuit as well? Diesel generators? Most small operations can't even come close to affording that level of redundancy (hell, most public companies that are fairly established don't go to such lengths... remember, these are the people who specify NT for mission critical efforts ;-D).
Which, I guess, is his point. They're small fish which shouldn't even be coming close to going public. End of story. I don't see where it's written that they have to bulk up the NOC like they were an ISP or colocation provider, however (although, it couldn't hurt).
Why would you be crazy enough to lock yourself into calling fucking COM crap? What's the matter, got a mad on against portable code? Sheesh!
If I were king of the world, I'd be running AOL Server with Oracle as the back end. Tcl scripting; yummy ;-).
I'm surprised that people aren't sprinting to get out from underneath before the M$ ponzi scheme crumbles to the ground.
If you really care, you don't put your life in someone else's hands. You plan for your primary provider to go tango upsilon. You plan for the day when the grid goes south. You plan for the day when everyone decides to SELL SELL SELL and flood your feeds with orders.
One thing I've learned about finger pointing; when you point a finger at someone, three more point back at you. When you trust a big carrier to run your network because all you want to hire are knuckle dragging idiots, then you have no one to blame but yourself when things go wrong and you can't fix them.
I wouldn't expect any less from the CBT crew - they think rebooting the NT systems every evening to maintain reliability during the day is actually reasonable. Puh-leeze :-P