I'm not sure what planet you're on, but I wish the rest of us were there with you.
Backup media should be and must be transported offsite every freakin day. You'd do that with a hard disk? Or more correctly, you'd do that with a STACK of hard disks? Or is your building fire, flood (including broken sprinkler pipes), gas leak, and drunken-truck-driver proof.
> Arm chair engineers! Sheesh...except that I'm not an air chair engineer. I am a real life engineer, and I work on a real fire engine.
Sadly for your argument, I have never tried to cut 2" rebar. Instead, I've actually done it. We didn't use a cutting torch, either. We used a good old fashioned K12. It worked fine, and we didn't need any of our specialized shearing equipment. We certainly did not need a plasma cutter. Your assertion that construction using thicker / higher grade steel cannot fail is nothing short of hubris.
I also don't need to be told about "concrete they build bridges out of". I've dealt with that as well in my career. Your statement that you cannot "burn through it" is bunk. I've seen how it handles heat load, and how it spawls. I've dealt with it collapsing. You, clearly, have not. That, or I need you to contact my state comptroller, so that he can sue the piss out of every contractor in the state for substituting "junk you get from the hardware store".
But enough about me. Here's some real life that you failed to account for. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL&o=0 Don't just gloss over the images. Study where the heat was, what failed, and how it failed. Also study what didn't fail, and what shape it's in as far as structural contribution. Also notice being "Big Steel" didn't really seem to matter. It failed anyway.
Concrete makes an awesome heat sink if thick enough, and can buy a small amount of time. However, the steel in the towers was not encased in such a concrete sink. If it was, there wouldn't be any talk of "fire resistive coatings". There'd be talk of "more inches of concrete". End of story.
So, I'm sorry, Tux, but I have to call bullshit. Some day when you throw on the 60+ pounds of PPE and actually fight fires, you'll probably have a better understanding of the immense void between "ivory tower theorists" and reality. I'm certain what you say looks good on paper - but it isn't correct, not even close. Your agument is nothing short of an appeal to the "held together by mass" perception... "it has TWO INCH STEEL! CONCRETE! NOT JUNK FROM HARDWARE STORE! MASSIVE!" Yep, and I stare at it in complete and total awe.
But in truth, the towers were based on math. Remove an element... and it's done.
If you're into this topic (and I hope you are), there's a great book you MUST read by a guy named Francis Brannigan. He's one of the funner people I've hung out with, and had tons of great stories to boot. And as far as structural behavior under fire loads... he was The Man. Get the book, give it a read. You won't be disappointed. http://books.google.com/books?id=FVFZlqDdM4sC
> The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Err... steel fails in fire all the time. It's a very common event... to the point that fire fighters have hated steel constructions for the better part of a decade.
Ooo, there's even a wp thingy on a recently famous example of a department that didn't comprehend that steel can and will fail.
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that these newer structures are held together by math... not mass.
The history of steel as a "massive" construction element makes people think that a steel truss construction will rival the failure mode and resilience of the old, truely massive, heavy timber constructions... or at least inherit some of the legacy of something "massive". It's freakin STEEL, man!
But it isn't true - trusses work because of math, not mass. The failure progressions are totally different than the evolutions of old (most notably, there often is no progression; one element fails, the entire assembly fails simultaneously.)
Yes and no. Yes, they'll do what we want them to (in a sense). No, because they'll be running MS Windows 2112 with "RIAA & MPAA & Disney compliance enforcement kits". So, between the daily reboots, the slowing to a crawl as you try to cross a busy street, and having your body force you to turn yourself in to the IP Police every time you mention a trademarked or copyrighted word without a license... yes, there should still be a few seconds remaining each day for the bots to do what you want (assuming you have a proper subscription for the thing you wish them to do).
Really! New OSes are so much faster, I recently brought an old 386-16 back into service by putting Vista on it, and it easily outperforms the latest quad-cores running XP and 2K3.
You know, you and I must be one of the few people who remember what a metered service is. Your examples about "stealing bandwidth" are nearly exactly the same ones I use to describe spam... except that your examples are outbound.
Since everyone in power agrees that spam isn't theft of bandwidth, then hopping on an open AP isn't, either. Especially if you use it to send spam.
I'm waiting for an access point to recruit my laptop... so I can sue the balls off of its owner for "illegally accessing" MY local network (127.0.0.1).
Pretty much agreed. The TFA's inquiry about "the fire at xxx", along with his remark that "I'd have been corrected by the chief if there was no fire"... Not correct.
For us, in the context of history, a "fire" and a "call" are the same thing. "How was that fire last night?" "Oh, it was just a buggy detector." Within that parlance, "fire" is synonymous with "call" - so TFA's assertion that the chief "not correcting him" is crap.
The chief's report of an actual fire will generally depend on criteria that varies per state (and possibly county). But as a matter of course, we don't pull sheetrock without cause - and the responding crew clearly felt the need to do so, and I take that as a good indicator. The only question is what they found in the void space - did some cobwebs cook off and go out, did some insulation smolder and go out of its own accord, or did they actually have to flow some water. Note that the chief will tend to report any sign of charring as a fire, even if it's cold when we get there. "Did something burn?" "Yes, clearly." "Did it sustain?" "No. It was electrical, and it went out when the breaker tripped." While the event may have been a simple "arc and spark", it still constitutes an electrical fire in every NFPA and IFSTA book ever written. Quite the dilemma.
Slightly OT, but you'll enjoy this - "It takes a few minutes for the fire truck to arrive. If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that..." There's an old saying. If you can't find the house, just wait. Sooner or later, it'll vent:)
What was the phrase? Oh yes... "it's about the data, stupid."
This "2.0" crap generally has nothing to do with data; it's generally related to bullsh*t, and that's why most of us don't "get it" as having a point. And in that context - page hits are an excellent metric for data; time-sink is an excellent metric for "feel-good" crud. I think a lot of us see TFA as pointless because of that difference. The non-data crap has no point, so a metric that measures something pointless is... pointless.
Ya have to remember - "1.0" success is based on the merit of the data. "2.0" success is effectively based on users, and the data (if any) typically has no actual merit - so page hits have no meaning. It's all about "look at the monkey! look at the silly monkey!" - an area in which Nielsen has great expertise (Wackiness ensues).
The stupidity of "2.0" aside, Nielson is probably correct in their assertion about measuring it (not the stupidity... that's too big to be measured. But the time-sink aspect seems correct.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Mine, which is specced to run Duke Nukem Forever, runs your game at that resolution just fine.
Someone should start a blog about failures like that!
Oh....
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but I wish the rest of us were there with you.
Backup media should be and must be transported offsite every freakin day. You'd do that with a hard disk? Or more correctly, you'd do that with a STACK of hard disks? Or is your building fire, flood (including broken sprinkler pipes), gas leak, and drunken-truck-driver proof.
>>that also introduces the sticky issue of translations
What are you saying? That Jesus didn't speak English?
heh
That long in space, we'll need assguard technology, too.
Can we start a fund to help them buy lots of kool-aid, and sneakers?
> Arm chair engineers! Sheesh ...except that I'm not an air chair engineer. I am a real life engineer, and I work on a real fire engine.
Sadly for your argument, I have never tried to cut 2" rebar. Instead, I've actually done it. We didn't use a cutting torch, either. We used a good old fashioned K12. It worked fine, and we didn't need any of our specialized shearing equipment. We certainly did not need a plasma cutter. Your assertion that construction using thicker / higher grade steel cannot fail is nothing short of hubris.
I also don't need to be told about "concrete they build bridges out of". I've dealt with that as well in my career. Your statement that you cannot "burn through it" is bunk. I've seen how it handles heat load, and how it spawls. I've dealt with it collapsing. You, clearly, have not. That, or I need you to contact my state comptroller, so that he can sue the piss out of every contractor in the state for substituting "junk you get from the hardware store".
But enough about me. Here's some real life that you failed to account for.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL&o=0
Don't just gloss over the images. Study where the heat was, what failed, and how it failed. Also study what didn't fail, and what shape it's in as far as structural contribution. Also notice being "Big Steel" didn't really seem to matter. It failed anyway.
Concrete makes an awesome heat sink if thick enough, and can buy a small amount of time. However, the steel in the towers was not encased in such a concrete sink. If it was, there wouldn't be any talk of "fire resistive coatings". There'd be talk of "more inches of concrete". End of story.
So, I'm sorry, Tux, but I have to call bullshit. Some day when you throw on the 60+ pounds of PPE and actually fight fires, you'll probably have a better understanding of the immense void between "ivory tower theorists" and reality. I'm certain what you say looks good on paper - but it isn't correct, not even close. Your agument is nothing short of an appeal to the "held together by mass" perception... "it has TWO INCH STEEL! CONCRETE! NOT JUNK FROM HARDWARE STORE! MASSIVE!" Yep, and I stare at it in complete and total awe.
But in truth, the towers were based on math. Remove an element... and it's done.
If you're into this topic (and I hope you are), there's a great book you MUST read by a guy named Francis Brannigan. He's one of the funner people I've hung out with, and had tons of great stories to boot. And as far as structural behavior under fire loads... he was The Man. Get the book, give it a read. You won't be disappointed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FVFZlqDdM4sC
> The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Err... steel fails in fire all the time. It's a very common event... to the point that fire fighters have hated steel constructions for the better part of a decade.
Ooo, there's even a wp thingy on a recently famous example of a department that didn't comprehend that steel can and will fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that these newer structures are held together by math... not mass.
The history of steel as a "massive" construction element makes people think that a steel truss construction will rival the failure mode and resilience of the old, truely massive, heavy timber constructions... or at least inherit some of the legacy of something "massive". It's freakin STEEL, man!
But it isn't true - trusses work because of math, not mass. The failure progressions are totally different than the evolutions of old (most notably, there often is no progression; one element fails, the entire assembly fails simultaneously.)
The fusion reactor in MY house is built from SOLID UNOBTANIUM.
Don't even waste time with hardware; In 25 years, the only thing you can count on being true is that all hardware will invent a new way to fail.
Just do a 2D barcode of the data on good paper that won't rot. And use a laser printer, not an ink based printer.
Done.
Actually, the "carbon credit" is soon to be renamed to an "indulgence".
You forget the other incremental steps that were needed - the green screen and chromakey technologies that made the "on-moon" movies possible.
Err... you've obviously missed the entire smartphone / pocketpc-phone base.
under one's direct control...
Yes and no. Yes, they'll do what we want them to (in a sense). No, because they'll be running MS Windows 2112 with "RIAA & MPAA & Disney compliance enforcement kits". So, between the daily reboots, the slowing to a crawl as you try to cross a busy street, and having your body force you to turn yourself in to the IP Police every time you mention a trademarked or copyrighted word without a license... yes, there should still be a few seconds remaining each day for the bots to do what you want (assuming you have a proper subscription for the thing you wish them to do).
Doesn't matter. No one connected with the RIAA mob has any accountability. Ever.
Nah, it's the natural extension of Microsoft's 1000 monkey ".net" coding paradigm.
Because! The new OS is faster!
Really! New OSes are so much faster, I recently brought an old 386-16 back into service by putting Vista on it, and it easily outperforms the latest quad-cores running XP and 2K3.
> regardless of the AP being configured to broadcast that it's open
The phrase you're looking for is "Regardless of the AP being configured to actively recruit network membership."
Call it what it is, and it'll shut a lot of people up.
You know, you and I must be one of the few people who remember what a metered service is. Your examples about "stealing bandwidth" are nearly exactly the same ones I use to describe spam... except that your examples are outbound.
Since everyone in power agrees that spam isn't theft of bandwidth, then hopping on an open AP isn't, either. Especially if you use it to send spam.
I'm waiting for an access point to recruit my laptop... so I can sue the balls off of its owner for "illegally accessing" MY local network (127.0.0.1).
Pretty much agreed. The TFA's inquiry about "the fire at xxx", along with his remark that "I'd have been corrected by the chief if there was no fire"... Not correct.
:)
For us, in the context of history, a "fire" and a "call" are the same thing. "How was that fire last night?" "Oh, it was just a buggy detector." Within that parlance, "fire" is synonymous with "call" - so TFA's assertion that the chief "not correcting him" is crap.
The chief's report of an actual fire will generally depend on criteria that varies per state (and possibly county). But as a matter of course, we don't pull sheetrock without cause - and the responding crew clearly felt the need to do so, and I take that as a good indicator. The only question is what they found in the void space - did some cobwebs cook off and go out, did some insulation smolder and go out of its own accord, or did they actually have to flow some water. Note that the chief will tend to report any sign of charring as a fire, even if it's cold when we get there. "Did something burn?" "Yes, clearly." "Did it sustain?" "No. It was electrical, and it went out when the breaker tripped." While the event may have been a simple "arc and spark", it still constitutes an electrical fire in every NFPA and IFSTA book ever written. Quite the dilemma.
Slightly OT, but you'll enjoy this - "It takes a few minutes for the fire truck to arrive. If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that..."
There's an old saying. If you can't find the house, just wait. Sooner or later, it'll vent
I knew it! The 4077 MASH unit was actually a secret J&J research facility!
75% of all pie charts resemble Pac-Man.
I think his point is that non-free men will be shot if they speak their conclusions.
End result... the same, the rest of us will never hear what they have to say.
What was the phrase? Oh yes... "it's about the data, stupid."
This "2.0" crap generally has nothing to do with data; it's generally related to bullsh*t, and that's why most of us don't "get it" as having a point. And in that context - page hits are an excellent metric for data; time-sink is an excellent metric for "feel-good" crud. I think a lot of us see TFA as pointless because of that difference. The non-data crap has no point, so a metric that measures something pointless is... pointless.
Ya have to remember - "1.0" success is based on the merit of the data. "2.0" success is effectively based on users, and the data (if any) typically has no actual merit - so page hits have no meaning. It's all about "look at the monkey! look at the silly monkey!" - an area in which Nielsen has great expertise (Wackiness ensues).
The stupidity of "2.0" aside, Nielson is probably correct in their assertion about measuring it (not the stupidity... that's too big to be measured. But the time-sink aspect seems correct.)