A sysadmin doesn't have to use the known remote access routines, but can add his own hidden ones.
Hence the word "all". I very much doubt that you are in a position to fire anybody, but thanks for the insult based upon your failure to even read to the end of the sentence you quoted.
The thing about computer networks is if you control the way in and out you can just drop any packets that are not on a list of what should be allowed. It's time consuming and disruptive but you can block everything and allow remote access on a case by case basis.
Please note the context of where I used the word pointless. On other systems there are different mechanisms which do indeed make it just pointless overhead to run a VM instead of doing separation in other ways. The "real world" has systems other than MS Windows in it.
encrypted snapshot backups
Ah - the "real world" bit should have given me a clue - you are a student aren't you? Encrypting your backups in a vastly stupid idea since when the backups are required in the future it can never be certain that someone with the passphrase or whatever is available. Physical security is the answer with backup tapes but beyond that you want them to be as easy to restore as possible. For example, the AMANDA backup system has instructions in ASCII in the tape header of how to get files out on anything that can read the tape (so long as it has "tar" and "dd" you can eventually get everything without needing to install the AMANDA software). Of course it's much easier to use the actual software, but if you don't it's still not hard. That's how you should be doing backups, making them so a PC hooked up to a tape drive is all you need for a relative newbie to get what is needed quickly enough when nobody else is available.
Which is what was effectively done on the gateway - a new box doing what the old one was supposed to do. It's a long way from impossible. Sometimes it's not even difficult.
The answer is "small" not dumb. If there isn't a lot to do a single server can get the job done. If I was in that situation I'd want to keep the server hardware up to date and have a working older server ready to turn on when something goes wrong, but I don't see that a single server was the problem here.
That's a very 1990 way of looking at things in server space (IBM etc was doing it then). Zones (AKA containers) are a less wasteful way separate things and unlike recent VMs there is some consideration of security. "Everything" is a bad word to use when describing something outside of your own workplace in terms of what applies inside yours.
In the MS world VMs are the bandaid solution to poor resource management by an OS. Outside of the MS world there is less need and very frequently you want a piece of hardware (or a cluster) to be dedicated to a single task - so a VM is pointless in that situation apart from convenience of backups (which once again outside of the MS world is trivially easy).
That sort of canary happens by accident instead of design when systems grow "organically" with all kind of weird interdependancies, especially on very low budgets. I started work at a place like that once and my initial goal was to remove every little quirk that needed feeding every day so that I would be free to spend time at the beach every now and again. I seem to remember some years ago stories of suppose dead man switches and sabotage would come out when the reality was fragile systems carefully looked after by people who never got to train a replacement.
This story is of course different - but ten years? Corporate crime with consequences of shutting down companies completely doesn't get ten years, serious embezzlement doesn't get ten years - why should this sort of corporate crime get ten years?
You can, I've been there and done that during a layoff in a place I'd never been to before. You disable all remote access until you are certain what is at the other end of each remote access method. One time the former sysadmins had VPNs to their home machines (in 2002 so not as common as today), which was totally legit when they had a job but completely undocumented, yet it still wasn't hard to stop until it was clear where everything was going.
Yes. I mentioned elsewhere the example of the space shuttle that was effectively five very similar prototypes instead of a series of improvements. A problem in one meant a fix or workaround in the other four instead of a design change to avoid the problem.
Obviously when it is incredibly limited and you are making a general case it is. Your post way above is clearly full of shit and now you've described how that has come to be.
you might want to consider rethinking your approach.... lest you become another snowflake.
I agree 100% with that because you have just restated my suggestion to you in a different words! Take a look around instead of just inside your echo chamber. You may end up posting stuff that doesn't make you look far more stupid than you could possibly be. Liberals/Progressives have always been "Your ALL in or you're OUT"? Really? What a fucking stupid thing to write. Do you really pay so little attention to the world you are living in?
I believe those experts are telling him that he can't go to Mars.
I don't know where you are getting that from. The most high profile expert (Aldrin) has already told him and anyone else who wants to listen how to get there most effectively.
I'm reading a bit about the Mercury and Gemini missions at the moment. They didn't hit all targets either with every mission but in the long run things happened. Musk may like to lay on the hype thick but despite that maybe like those earlier missions it's worth accepting that they are not going to get everything right the first time (especially since SpaceX is a new contractor about where Grumman etc were in the Gemini era).
Don't blame the kiddies if they don't know about a project that was abandoned and left to deorbit due to budget cuts not long after it was put in orbit. Compared to Mir it's a tiny footnote. Compared to the ISS it's ignorable. True, NASA did good work with it but they were unable to use it as it was planned.
The shuttle was a learning curve. Having to replace windows every second flight due to micrometeorite impacts was not something that was expected for example. It's also a bit of an argument against those people who push for mass production of a bleeding edge technology. Instead of having the dream of a few perfect space vehicles we had a number of space vehicles with exactly the same fault that had to be fixed or worked around at exactly the same time. Space X are not in the situation of making a pile of identical rockets whether they want to or not so it's very likely that there will be a lot of incremental improvement.
Overgeneralise all the time and make up shit - that's just the way it is with those clueless political interns chosen only for their looks? Are you one of those by any chance? BTW, if you had paid attention in high school you wouldn't have made the stupid trickle charge nuke suggestion, you don't have to be an engineer or even have taken a high school physics subject to get a very rough idea of how nuclear power works.
As for overdesign, very heavy aircraft don't fly so that's one incredibly obvious example of it not being "just the way it is".
You originally claimed that this came from the right
I still do. Actions matter when words are lies.
virtue-signal
Ah, the new insult of the week which kind of makes me laugh at anyone who uses it. Taking it at face value and what I think it's supposed to mean you'll find the line "you'll see examples of a "warm caring boss" who makes noise about rights but is really a reactionary control freak prick" covers that. I've seen a few examples of that sort of piece of shit, all of them the sort of American boss that hasn't got the memo that slavery is bad but they make the right Californian hipster noises in front of the press - perhaps they were exported to prevent them from fucking up the parent companies at home? The good side of contracting for a while is you can see some incredibly toxic workplaces without having to be stuck in them or go down with the ship when they fail.
Sometimes - it will be better to run a line, sometimes it will be better to lay a pipe
With the greatest possible respect that choice is not going to be considered if all the gas is going to do is run a generator. A pipeline is a vastly more difficult project than a transmission line. I really do not get why you decided to jump on my post and also decided to make cracks about me needing to invent perfect stuff with zero losses.
From your friends? Echo chamber you say? It looks like those books didn't get cracked open to get the insight from thousands so you are telling us about your tiny little world. Those two poles kind of makes sense in that little echo chamber. Outside of it I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts - complicated place outside of the little echo chamber.
He can see it any way he likes it but ultimately he's pissing all over somebodies rights and acting like he owns an employee after they have gone home. Thus not what he says he is. If you look around a lot you'll see examples of a "warm caring boss" who makes noise about rights but is really a reactionary control freak prick - reading or hearing about failed companies is a good place to find them. The dot-com crash had them by the hundreds. You'll find that the bosses that do not make a show of caring are the ones that do not try to control their employees lives out of work time and who respect their employees rights far more than the ones putting on a show.
The market for nuclear in China dried up years ago with Fukushima. It's not the tech, it's the cost and risk.
This seems to disagree but it may be baised: http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... They just don't seem to be buying much stuff from Westinghouse that may as well be second hand from Fukushima (the AP1000 may as well be a 1970s design). The energy policy of China at the moment appears to be to get a few of everything including nukes. Both cost and risk have lower priorities than in the west.
Moving gas 2000km or 4000km through a series of pipelines is so much easier than using a transmission line? Seriously? Perhaps you should sober up or something - turning this into a strange dick measuring contest instead of just accepting that long enough is long enough is just weird.
Also you are comparing a series of pipelines with a single transmission line - surely you should be comparing that with a series of transmission lines? Maybe just accept my statement that line losses are not so huge as some people think instead of whatever you are trying to do that has nothing at all to do with my statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the word "all".
I very much doubt that you are in a position to fire anybody, but thanks for the insult based upon your failure to even read to the end of the sentence you quoted.
The thing about computer networks is if you control the way in and out you can just drop any packets that are not on a list of what should be allowed. It's time consuming and disruptive but you can block everything and allow remote access on a case by case basis.
The "real world" has systems other than MS Windows in it.
Ah - the "real world" bit should have given me a clue - you are a student aren't you? Encrypting your backups in a vastly stupid idea since when the backups are required in the future it can never be certain that someone with the passphrase or whatever is available. Physical security is the answer with backup tapes but beyond that you want them to be as easy to restore as possible. For example, the AMANDA backup system has instructions in ASCII in the tape header of how to get files out on anything that can read the tape (so long as it has "tar" and "dd" you can eventually get everything without needing to install the AMANDA software). Of course it's much easier to use the actual software, but if you don't it's still not hard. That's how you should be doing backups, making them so a PC hooked up to a tape drive is all you need for a relative newbie to get what is needed quickly enough when nobody else is available.
Better example - probably just a warning and good behavior bond instead of a possible ten years.
Which is what was effectively done on the gateway - a new box doing what the old one was supposed to do. It's a long way from impossible. Sometimes it's not even difficult.
The answer is "small" not dumb. If there isn't a lot to do a single server can get the job done.
If I was in that situation I'd want to keep the server hardware up to date and have a working older server ready to turn on when something goes wrong, but I don't see that a single server was the problem here.
That's a very 1990 way of looking at things in server space (IBM etc was doing it then). Zones (AKA containers) are a less wasteful way separate things and unlike recent VMs there is some consideration of security.
"Everything" is a bad word to use when describing something outside of your own workplace in terms of what applies inside yours.
In the MS world VMs are the bandaid solution to poor resource management by an OS. Outside of the MS world there is less need and very frequently you want a piece of hardware (or a cluster) to be dedicated to a single task - so a VM is pointless in that situation apart from convenience of backups (which once again outside of the MS world is trivially easy).
That sort of canary happens by accident instead of design when systems grow "organically" with all kind of weird interdependancies, especially on very low budgets. I started work at a place like that once and my initial goal was to remove every little quirk that needed feeding every day so that I would be free to spend time at the beach every now and again.
I seem to remember some years ago stories of suppose dead man switches and sabotage would come out when the reality was fragile systems carefully looked after by people who never got to train a replacement.
This story is of course different - but ten years? Corporate crime with consequences of shutting down companies completely doesn't get ten years, serious embezzlement doesn't get ten years - why should this sort of corporate crime get ten years?
You can, I've been there and done that during a layoff in a place I'd never been to before. You disable all remote access until you are certain what is at the other end of each remote access method. One time the former sysadmins had VPNs to their home machines (in 2002 so not as common as today), which was totally legit when they had a job but completely undocumented, yet it still wasn't hard to stop until it was clear where everything was going.
It seems the hype and hysteria over computer issues is still ongoing.
Thanks. I should have described it as you did instead of assuming readers would have heard of it.
Yes. I mentioned elsewhere the example of the space shuttle that was effectively five very similar prototypes instead of a series of improvements. A problem in one meant a fix or workaround in the other four instead of a design change to avoid the problem.
Obviously when it is incredibly limited and you are making a general case it is. Your post way above is clearly full of shit and now you've described how that has come to be.
I agree 100% with that because you have just restated my suggestion to you in a different words! Take a look around instead of just inside your echo chamber. You may end up posting stuff that doesn't make you look far more stupid than you could possibly be.
Liberals/Progressives have always been "Your ALL in or you're OUT"? Really? What a fucking stupid thing to write. Do you really pay so little attention to the world you are living in?
I don't know where you are getting that from. The most high profile expert (Aldrin) has already told him and anyone else who wants to listen how to get there most effectively.
IMHO part of the problem was five almost identical prototypes instead of incremental improvement of the basic design.
I'm reading a bit about the Mercury and Gemini missions at the moment. They didn't hit all targets either with every mission but in the long run things happened. Musk may like to lay on the hype thick but despite that maybe like those earlier missions it's worth accepting that they are not going to get everything right the first time (especially since SpaceX is a new contractor about where Grumman etc were in the Gemini era).
Don't blame the kiddies if they don't know about a project that was abandoned and left to deorbit due to budget cuts not long after it was put in orbit. Compared to Mir it's a tiny footnote. Compared to the ISS it's ignorable. True, NASA did good work with it but they were unable to use it as it was planned.
The shuttle was a learning curve. Having to replace windows every second flight due to micrometeorite impacts was not something that was expected for example.
It's also a bit of an argument against those people who push for mass production of a bleeding edge technology. Instead of having the dream of a few perfect space vehicles we had a number of space vehicles with exactly the same fault that had to be fixed or worked around at exactly the same time.
Space X are not in the situation of making a pile of identical rockets whether they want to or not so it's very likely that there will be a lot of incremental improvement.
Overgeneralise all the time and make up shit - that's just the way it is with those clueless political interns chosen only for their looks? Are you one of those by any chance?
BTW, if you had paid attention in high school you wouldn't have made the stupid trickle charge nuke suggestion, you don't have to be an engineer or even have taken a high school physics subject to get a very rough idea of how nuclear power works.
As for overdesign, very heavy aircraft don't fly so that's one incredibly obvious example of it not being "just the way it is".
The thing about multi-national companies is that they can do stuff in other places even if no nukes are getting built in the US.
I still do. Actions matter when words are lies.
Ah, the new insult of the week which kind of makes me laugh at anyone who uses it. Taking it at face value and what I think it's supposed to mean you'll find the line "you'll see examples of a "warm caring boss" who makes noise about rights but is really a reactionary control freak prick" covers that. I've seen a few examples of that sort of piece of shit, all of them the sort of American boss that hasn't got the memo that slavery is bad but they make the right Californian hipster noises in front of the press - perhaps they were exported to prevent them from fucking up the parent companies at home?
The good side of contracting for a while is you can see some incredibly toxic workplaces without having to be stuck in them or go down with the ship when they fail.
With the greatest possible respect that choice is not going to be considered if all the gas is going to do is run a generator. A pipeline is a vastly more difficult project than a transmission line.
I really do not get why you decided to jump on my post and also decided to make cracks about me needing to invent perfect stuff with zero losses.
From your friends? Echo chamber you say?
It looks like those books didn't get cracked open to get the insight from thousands so you are telling us about your tiny little world. Those two poles kind of makes sense in that little echo chamber. Outside of it I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts - complicated place outside of the little echo chamber.
He can see it any way he likes it but ultimately he's pissing all over somebodies rights and acting like he owns an employee after they have gone home. Thus not what he says he is.
If you look around a lot you'll see examples of a "warm caring boss" who makes noise about rights but is really a reactionary control freak prick - reading or hearing about failed companies is a good place to find them. The dot-com crash had them by the hundreds. You'll find that the bosses that do not make a show of caring are the ones that do not try to control their employees lives out of work time and who respect their employees rights far more than the ones putting on a show.
The market for nuclear in China dried up years ago with Fukushima. It's not the tech, it's the cost and risk.
This seems to disagree but it may be baised:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
They just don't seem to be buying much stuff from Westinghouse that may as well be second hand from Fukushima (the AP1000 may as well be a 1970s design).
The energy policy of China at the moment appears to be to get a few of everything including nukes. Both cost and risk have lower priorities than in the west.
Moving gas 2000km or 4000km through a series of pipelines is so much easier than using a transmission line? Seriously?
Perhaps you should sober up or something - turning this into a strange dick measuring contest instead of just accepting that long enough is long enough is just weird.
Also you are comparing a series of pipelines with a single transmission line - surely you should be comparing that with a series of transmission lines? Maybe just accept my statement that line losses are not so huge as some people think instead of whatever you are trying to do that has nothing at all to do with my statement.