If you subscribe to ITIL or Visible Operations ideal, you probably believe that 80% of all IT related outages are self-inflicted due to change.
So for 80% of all IT outages, it does make sense to have a strategy where it is cheaper to rebuild(revert the change) than to repair.
But for the other 20%, it does make sense to investigate further. A virtualization strategy where you could redeploy the offending server while saving the old one out of service for investigation seems ideal.
I agree with investigation in principal, but the blog post seems quite sensational and misleading.
He's saying it's okay to steal ideas, because God does too.
But seriously, "God's little toys" makes much more sense as a reference to how much fun a reel-to-reel when one is really, really stoned, rather than some infantile belief that you really are making whatever you can imagine.
Get over it. This discussion serves NOAA's purpose to move the discussion from facts about their performance, mission, and expenditure of taxpayer funds, to one that confuses the issues.
Well, that would be a "good" question. I was in/. mode before(equivocating, bating, etc.)
Of course they are not going to assume liability.
But the same does not apply to graphics, or web content, or e-alerts, or any of the other things weather vendors provide. As much expertise as the NWS has in house, it is equally naive to believe that they will make the best, prettiest, and most economically efficient graphics(government agencies are notorious for wasting money). I think it's quite clear that the best products will arise from free market competition.
But let's be clear: anyone in the US can get the same weather data as any weather vendor via the same means. If you put in a T-1 and a router and a computer, you can get on the CRS multicast. Weather vendors are not trying to change that. However, this discussion does serve NOAA's purpose to move the discussion from facts about their performance, mission, and expenditure of taxpayer funds, to one that confuses the issues. Which I think you alluded to in another post. And which I have alluded to in other posts. If their data dissemination is any indication of the NWS technical expertise, I think it would be better for them to not compete with commercial weather vendors in reaching the public, for the simple free market economic reasons. (Yes, because I work there. My job can go away. NWS jobs are here to stay, regardless. But it's good tech work, writing custom software, etc, that can't be outsorced.)
Well, as long as we agree that they don't do the best job at what they're supposed to do. ..
But that's just my point. If the American taxpayer wants quality weather info in a format that they can understand, what chance does the NWS have of providing that? People really want to turn the weather into the DMV? Take a number, you're forecast will be ready by the next model run, assuming the load balancer doesn't take a crap, and bandwidth holds, etc, etc, etc. I think it's clear that the free market will serve the public better in that specific arena, but only if they aren't directly competing with the NWS.
Look, there would have to be some new PROCESS to get the data to this "simple" image plotter. So they would have to further "process" the data before creating the image. But let's not split hairs.
My question involved your understanding of the computer requirements to provide highly available, high quality radar images via the web. You answer is obviously a resounding 'NO'.
Furthermore, the NHC shit has to do with where and how early they issue warnings, because it affects toursim. Or are we talking about different NHC shit?
Lastly, I'm not one to speculate on the intentions of the NWS. I'm happy for them and you that they are developing cool new images, but I wish their ftp servers were snappier, and had less problems with multiple computers behind a NAT. Their load balancer is teh suxor.
The larger issue at hand though is, as some have mentioned, the fact that several companies are making large amounts of money reselling free data already provided by the NWS.
Kinda hard to get people to pay for data if it's not reliable, can we all agree on that? I mean, who cares how free(as in beer) data is if the ftp server is constantly slammed, and the Communications Control Center always replies, "I can log in, the problem must be at your end." These companies must be able to overcome those issues to deliver reliable data to TV, newspaper, and web customers. So, while the data itself maybe free, the cost of providing it is far from zero.
So cool out on that argument. Those companies have people who work hard for their money. They didn't get handed some niche where they take money baths every morning.
You do understand the computer requirements to provide such a thing at all right?
154 radars X 20 some products a scan X 10 scans an hour = a whole shitload of data. About 500,000 files a day.
The gov't isn't doing enough making this data reliably available via NoaaPort satellite feeds and CRS and FTP, but now they should process all that data, plot it over base maps, and make it available to the public? Just so a few dumbasses in atmospheric science don't have to program? Your perception of reality, and the perception of the reality of all this data, and the value of programmers and sys admins time, is severely warped. Enjoy college.
freely available weather data could possibly save lives.
No. A freely available service (aka a Noaa Weather Radio, turned to the 'on' position) could have saved them.
A freely available RSS feed sitting on an NWS server somewhere(proabaly slammed since there is severe weather going on) would have done nothing except return a 503 Server Too busy. But at least it would have given you your FOSS erection for the day.
And exactly why should the gov't be in the business of creating high-quality images of storm relative velocity? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that a free-market would be in a better position to provide? BTW, the NIDS structure is open and available. You can, realtively easily, write your own ftp ingest process and image creation. It should only take about 3-4 man-weeks.
I've never liked Madison Newspapers design anyway. It always seemed a little, I don't know, facist or something with that star and everyone looking the same.
But WTF? I pity the fool who downloads the update or visits in IE.
Slashdot Mirror
It is smart, but I don't think its very sad.
If you subscribe to ITIL or Visible Operations ideal, you probably believe that 80% of all IT related outages are self-inflicted due to change.
So for 80% of all IT outages, it does make sense to have a strategy where it is cheaper to rebuild(revert the change) than to repair.
But for the other 20%, it does make sense to investigate further. A virtualization strategy where you could redeploy the offending server while saving the old one out of service for investigation seems ideal.
I agree with investigation in principal, but the blog post seems quite sensational and misleading.
Indeed. What could be simpler?
Some crappy third party software constantly polling the filesystem for changes? Nice try iTunes haters.
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
I'd get elected on Friday.
Assassinated on Saturday.
Buried on Sunday.
right enough?
Is that supposed to be persuasive?
You bet you could do it right??
Alright. I bet any implementation of a "password manager" will have an attack. I bet some implementations of client sertificates will not.
It's not just buggy. It is LAZY. It encourages LAZINESS. I don't see how anyone can believe that this bullshit feature will succeed without problems.
It's a feature that encourages laziness, and was implemented lazily.
Oh, but it looks good on you though.
Insightful, huh people?
/. password in the same place as my banking password is soooo freaking brilliant. The two places deserve equal security.</sarcasm>
Look, I like firefox. I am using it right now.
But,
>Not really. It just makes the password behave more like client sertificates that automatically identify client to the server.
demonstrates such a lack of understanding, I don't even know where to begin.
No, a password manager doesn't make passwords behave like client sertificates. It makes passwords available to javascript.
Please, show me a client sertification protocol that makes the full credentials available to insecure parts of the application.
A landlord having duplicate keys is NOT the same thing as having someone manage YOUR OWN PERSONAL COPY of the keys.
It is a stupid feature.
M$ passport is also a stupid feature.
Yeah, managing my
I think people really need to have their head examined when it comes to certain features.
Don't want to remember all your passwords? Don't use sites that require passwords.
Do you trust the your real life keys to be managed by a third party, then wonder how someone broke in your house without forced entry?
Having something "remember" your passwords defeats the purpose of having passwords.
There's a computer on my desk. Doesn't that make a metaphorical stack-overflow?
Then sell them pants!!!
This is a hobby for some people?
Off target? I'd say the author is completely clueless if his current Vaio doesn't run XP, and he expects to run Vista on it.
What!?!
He's saying it's okay to steal ideas, because God does too.
But seriously, "God's little toys" makes much more sense as a reference to how much fun a reel-to-reel when one is really, really stoned, rather than some infantile belief that you really are making whatever you can imagine.
That's not true. You can genetically engineer all the people you like, you just can't hold US patents on any of them.
Get over it. This discussion serves NOAA's purpose to move the discussion from facts about their performance, mission, and expenditure of taxpayer funds, to one that confuses the issues.
Well, that would be a "good" question. I was in /. mode before(equivocating, bating, etc.)
Of course they are not going to assume liability.
But the same does not apply to graphics, or web content, or e-alerts, or any of the other things weather vendors provide. As much expertise as the NWS has in house, it is equally naive to believe that they will make the best, prettiest, and most economically efficient graphics(government agencies are notorious for wasting money). I think it's quite clear that the best products will arise from free market competition.
But let's be clear: anyone in the US can get the same weather data as any weather vendor via the same means. If you put in a T-1 and a router and a computer, you can get on the CRS multicast. Weather vendors are not trying to change that. However, this discussion does serve NOAA's purpose to move the discussion from facts about their performance, mission, and expenditure of taxpayer funds, to one that confuses the issues. Which I think you alluded to in another post. And which I have alluded to in other posts. If their data dissemination is any indication of the NWS technical expertise, I think it would be better for them to not compete with commercial weather vendors in reaching the public, for the simple free market economic reasons. (Yes, because I work there. My job can go away. NWS jobs are here to stay, regardless. But it's good tech work, writing custom software, etc, that can't be outsorced.)
Well, as long as we agree that they don't do the best job at what they're supposed to do. . .
But that's just my point. If the American taxpayer wants quality weather info in a format that they can understand, what chance does the NWS have of providing that? People really want to turn the weather into the DMV? Take a number, you're forecast will be ready by the next model run, assuming the load balancer doesn't take a crap, and bandwidth holds, etc, etc, etc. I think it's clear that the free market will serve the public better in that specific arena, but only if they aren't directly competing with the NWS.
Look, there would have to be some new PROCESS to get the data to this "simple" image plotter. So they would have to further "process" the data before creating the image. But let's not split hairs.
My question involved your understanding of the computer requirements to provide highly available, high quality radar images via the web. You answer is obviously a resounding 'NO'.
Furthermore, the NHC shit has to do with where and how early they issue warnings, because it affects toursim. Or are we talking about different NHC shit?
Lastly, I'm not one to speculate on the intentions of the NWS. I'm happy for them and you that they are developing cool new images, but I wish their ftp servers were snappier, and had less problems with multiple computers behind a NAT. Their load balancer is teh suxor.
The larger issue at hand though is, as some have mentioned, the fact that several companies are making large amounts of money reselling free data already provided by the NWS.
Kinda hard to get people to pay for data if it's not reliable, can we all agree on that? I mean, who cares how free(as in beer) data is if the ftp server is constantly slammed, and the Communications Control Center always replies, "I can log in, the problem must be at your end." These companies must be able to overcome those issues to deliver reliable data to TV, newspaper, and web customers. So, while the data itself maybe free, the cost of providing it is far from zero.
So cool out on that argument. Those companies have people who work hard for their money. They didn't get handed some niche where they take money baths every morning.
What are you talking about? This?
You do understand the computer requirements to provide such a thing at all right?
154 radars X 20 some products a scan X 10 scans an hour = a whole shitload of data. About 500,000 files a day.
The gov't isn't doing enough making this data reliably available via NoaaPort satellite feeds and CRS and FTP, but now they should process all that data, plot it over base maps, and make it available to the public? Just so a few dumbasses in atmospheric science don't have to program? Your perception of reality, and the perception of the reality of all this data, and the value of programmers and sys admins time, is severely warped. Enjoy college.
freely available weather data could possibly save lives.
No. A freely available service (aka a Noaa Weather Radio, turned to the 'on' position) could have saved them.
A freely available RSS feed sitting on an NWS server somewhere(proabaly slammed since there is severe weather going on) would have done nothing except return a 503 Server Too busy. But at least it would have given you your FOSS erection for the day.
And exactly why should the gov't be in the business of creating high-quality images of storm relative velocity? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that a free-market would be in a better position to provide? BTW, the NIDS structure is open and available. You can, realtively easily, write your own ftp ingest process and image creation. It should only take about 3-4 man-weeks.
Classifieds are still up, so it seems like just the root index was hijacked.
That's ill. . .
Did YOU do it?
I've never liked Madison Newspapers design anyway. It always seemed a little, I don't know, facist or something with that star and everyone looking the same.
But WTF? I pity the fool who downloads the update or visits in IE.
So your beliefs are either inconsistent or incomplete. Interesting. . .