> What good is your backup if it only works in carefully prepared, controlled and documented test scenarios?
When you have decent test scenarios your backup system will work in "real world" scenarios as well. And you still won't risk losing your data, transactions or sales just because of a UPS failing the test.
If you have a critical server with redundant power supplies you can swap out the UPSes and test them individually first to see if they work under the required loads and scenarios. When that and other stuff (e.g. generator tests) passes you can do the "throw the main switch" test. While the redundant power supplies could fail, it's more likely that the UPSes will have problems that you don't detect till the actual test.
If the test just involves "throwing the main switch", then it's a pretty stupid test. Nearly as stupid as checking whether your parachute is OK and packed correctly by just jumping out of a plane and using it.
"throwing the main switch" only tests one load condition - the load during the test. Throwing the main switch multiple times in a day is not a good idea - feel free to disagree with me and do it.
The trouble with most UPS battery tests is they involve putting the stuff on battery...
If you have a server with redundant power supplies- then you can have each power supply attached to a different UPS, then you can test each UPS one by one, hopefully without the server going down due to one UPS failing the battery test.
You don't necessarily want to shutdown immediately. I have my machine shutdown once the software thinks there's only X seconds of battery life left. Set X to something high enough so that there's enough time to shutdown AND cold boot AND shutdown again... Otherwise in event of a shutdown you will have to wait some hours till the UPS is charged enough before it is safe to power up - in case the power company or whoever cuts power on you half way during your boot up:).
I do that on my home server - suspend VMs when there's only X seconds of battery life left.
But if your virtual machines are huge (in mem), suspending all of them may take a fair bit of time. 4GB/50MB/sec = 80 seconds (100MB/sec = 40 secs). Some servers have 32GB of RAM.
FWIW, I use Network UPS Tools and APC Back UPS CS 650. I have tried various cheaper UPSes (less than half the price), but I found during some power failures they don't switch in time (despite what their specs say) - which means my computer still goes off abruptly.
Anyway for most UPSes you have to replace the batteries or the UPS itself every few years. Make sure you have a budget for that.
Ignore the ignorant/bullshit reporting about the CBU 105 being "indiscriminate" - esp since the clips of it in action show nothing of that sort.
The CBU 105 is not one of those huge big bombs that wipe out a whole area. It does wipe out a lot, but it's far more targeted than a dumb cluster bomb.
"While falling, the CBU-105 bombs popped open, each releasing ten submunitions which were slowed by parachutes. Each of these used mini rockets to spin and eject outward four discs the size of ice-hockey pucks.
The 80 free-falling discs from the pair of bombs then scanned the ground with lasers and heat-detecting infra-red sensors to locate armoured vehicles. Those discs that identified a target exploded dozens of metres up. The blast propelled a tangerine-sized slug of copper down into the target, destroying it with the impact and the accompanying shrapnel. The soldiers in the 70 vehicles farther back in the column surrendered immediately."
So it's not that bad. But the OP I was replying to did mention "strategy" and not just "tactical".
I don't see any evidence that the original developers were grossly incompetent. There is no evidence that the rewrites will be easier to understand and maintain.
I have rewritten stuff and made things much better (far more scalable), but just because the program is hard for you to understand at first doesn't mean it needs to be rewritten.
If you see lots of "DailyWTF" candidates in the code, while that means a rewrite MIGHT[1] be a good idea, you usually still need to read the crap to figure out what the code needs to do - because in those cases there's often no nice "requirements doc" and nobody really knows what is needed...
But all he's complaining about is he doesn't understand it and doesn't know where to change stuff. If I were his boss and that's the only reason he gives for a rewrite, I'd tell him to learn the code first till he can tell me what it does right, what it does wrong and should do instead. If he keeps coming in and goes "Wahh it's too hard, we need to rewrite", I'll be tempted to replace him and not the code.
Yes, understanding and fixing the code may feel like work. But that's why people get paid to do stuff they find unpleasant.
[1] Sometimes unfortunately there is no time for a rewrite from scratch, so you rewrite bit by bit of crap code to make it less crap while knowing the design and architecture is still crap. And other times you have to do both - rewrite bits of the old crap, while rewriting the new (crap in different ways) replacement for the old crap from scratch.
> Since once it does work it isn't AI anymore, it's just an algorithm.
Unless it is a slave or "domesticated" AI.
It took us generations to domesticate certain animals, and not all animals are even that easily domesticated.
I personally don't think we should create a "classic AI" just yet, since we already have plenty of nonhuman intelligences in petshops, zoos, slaughterhouses etc that we aren't handling that wonderfully).
But to me "real AIs" would have to be able to dynamically create models of the changing external world. The next step would then be to dynamically and recursively "model self". Then do some predictions. Maybe if you do it in a certain way you end up with the "consciousness phenomenon" - someone can do the quantum parallel computer simulation handwaving stuff here;).
> Saying Microsoft is responsible for ensuring compatability with 3rd party software is ludicrious.
And saying Microsoft is responsible for ensuring compatibility with _malicious_ 3rd party software is even sillier.
If your system is screwed up by a rootkit, there is no way to 100% predict what could happen if you try to continue using it (including trying to install patches).
If the BSODs are only happening to rootkitted XP boxes then it's clearly not Microsoft's fault.
> Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.
It shouldn't be allowed in Iceland even if they go through with the haven thing.
Because if everyone can say anything in Iceland and actually do, most of the world might stop listening, and not just due to censorship, but because of poor signal to noise ratios.
Then the whole thing becomes worth a lot less, or even worthless.
> The US military, as a matter of strategy and of tactical planning, abhors the idea of killing anyone who is not actively engaging in trying to kill us first.
You must have a very loose interpretation of "us", or be living an alternate reality.
There was no way Vietnam could have touched the USA back then. And yet the US still went to war.
Was Saddam actively trying to kill the USA? He used to be an ally of the USA even.
Is Iran actively trying to kill the USA? Sure both of them made lot of noise, but their missiles would never have reached the USA. Not because of countermeasures, but just for the fact that they didn't and don't have enough range.
They may be a significant threat to Israel, but the last I checked, the USA is not Israel.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of US military "interventions" can give more and better examples.
> IMO you shouldn't be held hostage by and pay for those companies who keep using IE6 because they don't want to pay for an upgrade. > It is a bit ridiculous that the world is paying zillions in development costs so these companies can avoid it. They are parasites.
Uh, how are they holding you hostage?
If you are the one who wants their money or for some other reason want them to use your site and they use IE6, it seems strange to call them parasites.
You don't care about them just drop support for IE6.
If your boss cares about them but you don't that's not their problem.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
I'm not even sure if this spy would be guilty of treason. He wasn't conducting a war against the USA. As for "adhering to their enemies" - when was the last time your enemy lent you two trillion US Dollars which you could pay back by printing more funny money (aka US Dollars). And you used some of that money to buy stuff from them (yes a lot of their stuff was crap, but it's not like you gave them real gold for it:) ).
Slashdot Mirror
Here's your classic mode:
http://www.kingsoftresearch.com/KSOScreenIms.aspx :)
Open Office has a long way to go before it's really a big threat.
Could be a config or hardware issue (drive lying about committed writes or battery backed cache not working) too.
:).
Perhaps the database was configured for max performance with the assumption that the server will never go down abruptly.
I wouldn't recommend that but
How about light from stars to the side (and other directions) of the object and not just behind?
> What good is your backup if it only works in carefully prepared, controlled and documented test scenarios?
When you have decent test scenarios your backup system will work in "real world" scenarios as well. And you still won't risk losing your data, transactions or sales just because of a UPS failing the test.
If you have a critical server with redundant power supplies you can swap out the UPSes and test them individually first to see if they work under the required loads and scenarios. When that and other stuff (e.g. generator tests) passes you can do the "throw the main switch" test. While the redundant power supplies could fail, it's more likely that the UPSes will have problems that you don't detect till the actual test.
If the test just involves "throwing the main switch", then it's a pretty stupid test. Nearly as stupid as checking whether your parachute is OK and packed correctly by just jumping out of a plane and using it.
"throwing the main switch" only tests one load condition - the load during the test. Throwing the main switch multiple times in a day is not a good idea - feel free to disagree with me and do it.
The trouble with most UPS battery tests is they involve putting the stuff on battery...
:).
If you have a server with redundant power supplies- then you can have each power supply attached to a different UPS, then you can test each UPS one by one, hopefully without the server going down due to one UPS failing the battery test.
You don't necessarily want to shutdown immediately. I have my machine shutdown once the software thinks there's only X seconds of battery life left. Set X to something high enough so that there's enough time to shutdown AND cold boot AND shutdown again... Otherwise in event of a shutdown you will have to wait some hours till the UPS is charged enough before it is safe to power up - in case the power company or whoever cuts power on you half way during your boot up
I do that on my home server - suspend VMs when there's only X seconds of battery life left.
But if your virtual machines are huge (in mem), suspending all of them may take a fair bit of time. 4GB/50MB/sec = 80 seconds (100MB/sec = 40 secs). Some servers have 32GB of RAM.
FWIW, I use Network UPS Tools and APC Back UPS CS 650. I have tried various cheaper UPSes (less than half the price), but I found during some power failures they don't switch in time (despite what their specs say) - which means my computer still goes off abruptly.
Anyway for most UPSes you have to replace the batteries or the UPS itself every few years. Make sure you have a budget for that.
It wouldn't want to tilt up/down to go up or down slopes either.
Which might not be so alright.
Lots of roads also have banked corners.
If everything under this when it goes off is a military target, then you can get shock and awe without collateral damage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VorUEF4A0so
Ignore the ignorant/bullshit reporting about the CBU 105 being "indiscriminate" - esp since the clips of it in action show nothing of that sort.
The CBU 105 is not one of those huge big bombs that wipe out a whole area. It does wipe out a lot, but it's far more targeted than a dumb cluster bomb.
See this: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15391218
"While falling, the CBU-105 bombs popped open, each releasing ten submunitions which were slowed by parachutes. Each of these used mini rockets to spin and eject outward four discs the size of ice-hockey pucks.
The 80 free-falling discs from the pair of bombs then scanned the ground with lasers and heat-detecting infra-red sensors to locate armoured vehicles. Those discs that identified a target exploded dozens of metres up. The blast propelled a tangerine-sized slug of copper down into the target, destroying it with the impact and the accompanying shrapnel. The soldiers in the 70 vehicles farther back in the column surrendered immediately."
So it's not that bad. But the OP I was replying to did mention "strategy" and not just "tactical".
Did he also cut too many taxes?
Yes money is being misspent, but you don't cut the income till you fix the problems
I don't see any evidence that the original developers were grossly incompetent. There is no evidence that the rewrites will be easier to understand and maintain.
I have rewritten stuff and made things much better (far more scalable), but just because the program is hard for you to understand at first doesn't mean it needs to be rewritten.
If you see lots of "DailyWTF" candidates in the code, while that means a rewrite MIGHT[1] be a good idea, you usually still need to read the crap to figure out what the code needs to do - because in those cases there's often no nice "requirements doc" and nobody really knows what is needed...
But all he's complaining about is he doesn't understand it and doesn't know where to change stuff. If I were his boss and that's the only reason he gives for a rewrite, I'd tell him to learn the code first till he can tell me what it does right, what it does wrong and should do instead. If he keeps coming in and goes "Wahh it's too hard, we need to rewrite", I'll be tempted to replace him and not the code.
Yes, understanding and fixing the code may feel like work. But that's why people get paid to do stuff they find unpleasant.
[1] Sometimes unfortunately there is no time for a rewrite from scratch, so you rewrite bit by bit of crap code to make it less crap while knowing the design and architecture is still crap. And other times you have to do both - rewrite bits of the old crap, while rewriting the new (crap in different ways) replacement for the old crap from scratch.
> Since once it does work it isn't AI anymore, it's just an algorithm.
;).
Unless it is a slave or "domesticated" AI.
It took us generations to domesticate certain animals, and not all animals are even that easily domesticated.
I personally don't think we should create a "classic AI" just yet, since we already have plenty of nonhuman intelligences in petshops, zoos, slaughterhouses etc that we aren't handling that wonderfully).
But to me "real AIs" would have to be able to dynamically create models of the changing external world. The next step would then be to dynamically and recursively "model self". Then do some predictions. Maybe if you do it in a certain way you end up with the "consciousness phenomenon" - someone can do the quantum parallel computer simulation handwaving stuff here
Most people have a lassitude attitude with latitude.
They give sites way too much latitude. Even if it may reveal their turpitude.
Not enough aptitude and too much ineptitude.
> Saying Microsoft is responsible for ensuring compatability with 3rd party software is ludicrious.
And saying Microsoft is responsible for ensuring compatibility with _malicious_ 3rd party software is even sillier.
If your system is screwed up by a rootkit, there is no way to 100% predict what could happen if you try to continue using it (including trying to install patches).
If the BSODs are only happening to rootkitted XP boxes then it's clearly not Microsoft's fault.
> Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.
It shouldn't be allowed in Iceland even if they go through with the haven thing.
Because if everyone can say anything in Iceland and actually do, most of the world might stop listening, and not just due to censorship, but because of poor signal to noise ratios.
Then the whole thing becomes worth a lot less, or even worthless.
If the video recording is "real time", it sure takes a long time to zap stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ_WxTiP--c
So if the laser system + platform is more expensive than a missle + platform, then the best way of countering the laser is to fire more missiles :).
> The US military, as a matter of strategy and of tactical planning, abhors the idea of killing anyone who is not actively engaging in trying to kill us first.
You must have a very loose interpretation of "us", or be living an alternate reality.
There was no way Vietnam could have touched the USA back then. And yet the US still went to war.
Was Saddam actively trying to kill the USA? He used to be an ally of the USA even.
Is Iran actively trying to kill the USA? Sure both of them made lot of noise, but their missiles would never have reached the USA. Not because of countermeasures, but just for the fact that they didn't and don't have enough range.
They may be a significant threat to Israel, but the last I checked, the USA is not Israel.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of US military "interventions" can give more and better examples.
And here's another thing. I've watched very many more Superbowl ads than I've watched Superbowl games.
:).
FWIW, I don't even watch those ads on TV or in the USA
Just because lots of people use Google doesn't mean they can't and won't switch to something.
I'll miss Google if it goes, but really I'm not dependent on it - Yahoo search and Bing search are actually OK.
If your business or life is dependent on Google, then either you accept that, or you take measures to not be so dependent.
Yeah, you also have vendor lock-in with reiserfs.
If you write malware in Java you could keep them in jars too...
> IMO you shouldn't be held hostage by and pay for those companies who keep using IE6 because they don't want to pay for an upgrade.
> It is a bit ridiculous that the world is paying zillions in development costs so these companies can avoid it. They are parasites.
Uh, how are they holding you hostage?
If you are the one who wants their money or for some other reason want them to use your site and they use IE6, it seems strange to call them parasites.
You don't care about them just drop support for IE6.
If your boss cares about them but you don't that's not their problem.
That's so true. Because of such artificial barriers I need your excellent help to transfer 40 million US dollars from Nigeria to Malaysia. :).
The PRC don't execute all American spies they catch.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
They have executed _Chinese_ spies who spy for other countries.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wo_Weihan
So if you're going to spy on China for the USA make sure you're a US citizen first and probably safer if you weren't born in China.
And they are unlikely to be found guilty.
Since:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
See: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
I'm not even sure if this spy would be guilty of treason. He wasn't conducting a war against the USA. As for "adhering to their enemies" - when was the last time your enemy lent you two trillion US Dollars which you could pay back by printing more funny money (aka US Dollars). And you used some of that money to buy stuff from them (yes a lot of their stuff was crap, but it's not like you gave them real gold for it :) ).
FWIW, the Space Shuttle is one of the very few space vehicles that can bring fair sized satellites down intact.
Stuff like the Ariane just send things up.