Re:But who gets to teach history? And about genera
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
Yes, the generals were that bad. Kevin Costner's part is dramatized a bit (you need to have someone to tell the story, otherwise people will criticize the movie for jumping around and making no sense), but I don't think people realize that most of the dialogue in this movie is based on transcripts that the Whitehouse kept during this crisis. So most of the comments, attitudes, opinions were on the dot, with the exception of Costner as I pointed out earlier.
I agree with the person who said the movie was 30 minutes too long. I thought it was a really good movie, but, it is hard to hold the audience in suspense for over 2 hours.
I too think it would be interesting to hear about this story from the Soviet Union's perspective, but the chances of that happening anytime soon are nil. This movie was clearly one sided, and they didn't claim that it wasn't.
We have a number of servers colocated with Level 3 in Los Angeles, and AboveNet in their original San Jose colocation facility. We push _A LOT_ of bandwidth, and have seen some of the good and bad of both providers as an exponentially growing Internet company.
Level 3 has good connectivity. They have a NOC that is relatively helpful, nothing spectacular but nothing horrible. The connectivity isn't "excellent" but it works almost all of the time (I don't have % uptime availability, but this is the Internet. That statistic doesn't work because you might be able to get to some places and not others). But, trying to get circuits cross connected and new power drops takes forever. And it takes a lot of pestering to get people to move on these non-critical but important issues (You're service might not be down now, but you have to be able to expand!)
AboveNet has had their fair share of problems. We have been immune to their routing issues because we plug directly into 2 of their routers and do BGP with them and not through a swtich. They will only do this for high bandwidth customers, however. This is why AOL wasn't affected when AboveNet had their switch issues. We weren't either. But everyone in their shared colocation was down for effectively a day. The AboveNet service is EXCELLENT. They will do cross connects in a matter of minutes after you submit the formal request, and the same goes for power and other things. They have decent remote hands service, they are willing to work with you. I don't understand why they have so many routing issues, the network looks great on paper and the people they have working for them are very capable. Maybe they are just trying to be too proactive with problems that they are creating new ones.
Each colocation facility varies. Take a tour of the three or four that you are interested in, and pay close attention to the facility, to the engineers who will be there to help you when you are a customer, and do some research on the Internet. Check out the connectivity with some looking glasses, see if they have honest Network Status pages up on the Internet (this is generally the sign of a very good engineering team that has power to get things done, because they got over the Marketeting fear of exposing outages).
If I was going to launch a new website that I thought the public might be interested in, I would start by colocating the box. I would not start by ordering a dedicated circuit specifically for the website, because I simply do not know how much bandwidth the website is going to need.
If the site never took off, you will be out the thousands it cost to get the loop installed, the DSU, the router, and ISP costs.
If the site REALLY takes off, your initial circuit might not be able to handle the load causing users to become frustrated and give up on going to your site.
Only if I was delivering static content would I consider web hosting. For anything dynamic I like full control of my environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the generals were that bad. Kevin Costner's part is dramatized a bit (you need to have someone to tell the story, otherwise people will criticize the movie for jumping around and making no sense), but I don't think people realize that most of the dialogue in this movie is based on transcripts that the Whitehouse kept during this crisis. So most of the comments, attitudes, opinions were on the dot, with the exception of Costner as I pointed out earlier.
I agree with the person who said the movie was 30 minutes too long. I thought it was a really good movie, but, it is hard to hold the audience in suspense for over 2 hours.
I too think it would be interesting to hear about this story from the Soviet Union's perspective, but the chances of that happening anytime soon are nil. This movie was clearly one sided, and they didn't claim that it wasn't.
We have a number of servers colocated with Level 3 in Los Angeles, and AboveNet in their original San Jose colocation facility. We push _A LOT_ of bandwidth, and have seen some of the good and bad of both providers as an exponentially growing Internet company.
Level 3 has good connectivity. They have a NOC that is relatively helpful, nothing spectacular but nothing horrible. The connectivity isn't "excellent" but it works almost all of the time (I don't have % uptime availability, but this is the Internet. That statistic doesn't work because you might be able to get to some places and not others). But, trying to get circuits cross connected and new power drops takes forever. And it takes a lot of pestering to get people to move on these non-critical but important issues (You're service might not be down now, but you have to be able to expand!)
AboveNet has had their fair share of problems. We have been immune to their routing issues because we plug directly into 2 of their routers and do BGP with them and not through a swtich. They will only do this for high bandwidth customers, however. This is why AOL wasn't affected when AboveNet had their switch issues. We weren't either. But everyone in their shared colocation was down for effectively a day. The AboveNet service is EXCELLENT. They will do cross connects in a matter of minutes after you submit the formal request, and the same goes for power and other things. They have decent remote hands service, they are willing to work with you. I don't understand why they have so many routing issues, the network looks great on paper and the people they have working for them are very capable. Maybe they are just trying to be too proactive with problems that they are creating new ones.
Each colocation facility varies. Take a tour of the three or four that you are interested in, and pay close attention to the facility, to the engineers who will be there to help you when you are a customer, and do some research on the Internet. Check out the connectivity with some looking glasses, see if they have honest Network Status pages up on the Internet (this is generally the sign of a very good engineering team that has power to get things done, because they got over the Marketeting fear of exposing outages).
If I was going to launch a new website that I thought the public might be interested in, I would start by colocating the box. I would not start by ordering a dedicated circuit specifically for the website, because I simply do not know how much bandwidth the website is going to need.
If the site never took off, you will be out the thousands it cost to get the loop installed, the DSU, the router, and ISP costs.
If the site REALLY takes off, your initial circuit might not be able to handle the load causing users to become frustrated and give up on going to your site.
Only if I was delivering static content would I consider web hosting. For anything dynamic I like full control of my environment.