| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/4/12-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:42737 Activity:low |
4/12 Not soda-related: Can anyone name services used by the general public
which have 'five nines' uptime? That is, unavailable for less than
5 minutes in any year. One of our potential clients is requesting this
level of reliability and it seems extreme to me. I was wondering who
actually hits this level.
\- helo, "the phone system" is the standard place to talk about
5 9s. i think in many cases it boils down to "how much $ to
invest in backup power" and maybe being able to cut a service
over quickly [automatically] in the event of failure or downtime
for patching etc. i think you are probably right the person you
are talking to is a dumbass. i dunno if you are in the position
to do this but you might ask "how many minutes of downtime per
year is acceptable" ... ask this question in real time [face to
face or over the phone]. most stupid people dont know. assuming
the pass that test and realize the difference between 4 and 5 9s
is 50min, you might ask what 50min of total or partial failure
is worth [keep in mind if a WEEB site says they do $100k of
transactions per hour, you really have to measure how much of
that is gone for good and wont just be executed later or cant
be buffered somehow in the case of a partial failure]. but you
are right that at this point you have to start spending serious
money on things like 24x7 engineering staff who can replace
failed blades in cisco routers at 3am and such, or can diagnose
weirg BGP problems on easter sunday ... let alone deliberate
attacks on the system. i'm not sure what the reliability tagets
for 911 and ATC are but you might do some research on those. oktnx.
\_ I thought credit card processors and financial exchanges were
the standard. When you refer to the phone system, do you mean
POTS, or do you include the cellular network? If it's both,
then it definitely doesn't have five nines. What about when I
call a land line from a land line, and the system cannot
complete it because of too much traffic? Does that count as
down time? -dans
\_ I nominate lesser-bloviator: tom@soda, greater-bloviator: dans
\_ You're a moron. -dans
\_ Right, and name calling in retaliation for random
anonymous trolls is the earmark of an intellectual
giant. Isn't it past due for you to pointlessly insult
tom or something?
\_ I'm sorry, since I lack your intellectual stature
and slick post-modern tools for deconstruction I
fail to see how the sentence, ``You're a moron,''
states or implies that I am a genius. Perhaps you
could clarify for lesser intellects like mine. -dans
\_ Oh the irony! You're fun to play with, dans.
\_ Oh, touch my monkey! Touch it!
http://csua.org/u/fke -dans
P.S. You don't seem to understand the meaning
of the word irony. Please consult a
dictionary, or Dave Eggers' handy guide in ``A
Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.''
\_ Actually I understand it quite well, thanks.
\- the std reference on irony is ARISTOTLE
not EGGERS
\_ Your usage suggests otherwise. How does
your use of the term irony actually
match the definition? -dans
\_ Actually, my usage is bang on.
\_ No. Really, it's not. You might
describe my language as sarcasm,
but not irony. Irony is when the
opposite of what is expected
happens. Nothing more. There is
absolutely no way you can
correctly describe my comment as
ironic. -dans
\_ You're wrong.
\_ Eh. Are you enjoying
trolling? -dans
\_ Since it's so easy...not
really. I find this whole
conversation absurd since
I know what relationship
I'm referring to and you
clearly have no clue.
It if makes you feel smart
then by all means, keep
trying...but you'll still
very wrong.
be very wrong.
\- are you enjoying being
a fool?
if you look at a roman
source like quintillian
if you look at roman
sources, e.g. quintillian,
they will commonly
emphasize the idea of
opposite meaning but in
the older greek conception
[as exemplified by
socrates "know nothing"
attitude, or as discussed
formally in aristotle
with examples mostly
from homer and attic drama]
it often better character-
ized as "understatement"
or dissembled meaning
rather than opposite.
often defeinition talk
about a "contrary" meaning
to what is stated, but
contary has a different
sense than opposite.
1. some what ironically
\_ Do you mean
somewhat? -dans
\_ OOhh!! Face!
Face!! You
got him!!!1!one
UCB DEAD PROFESSOR and
MACARTHUR GENIUS was
one of the main modern
scholars on IRONY.
see: http://csua.org/u/fko
2. the wikipedia entry
on irony is pretty decent
and more importantly a lot
more readable than some
formal discussions.
\_ That's nice. I always
quote the wikipedia as
a reliable source on
scholarly literary
topics. -dans
\- you referenced "a
dict" and dave
eggers.
i cited:
1. quintillian
2. aristotle
3. vlastos
4. wikipedia
wikip is probably
the only one
accessible to you.
i assume you didnt
see the Nature
study comparing
the EB and Wikip.
it did pretty well.
a key to using
the wikip is to
know enough about
the subject to
be able to tell
if it is trustworthy
on factual points.
keep digging buddy.
--------------------------------------------------/
\ \_ You're right. -tom ... Now that
\ would be ironic, no? -!tom
\_ So, in other words, since you clearly have no idea what the hell
you're talking, you are incapable of judging whether or not the
wikipedia entry on irony is accurate, and you were just pulling a
source out of your ass! Awesome! Please tell me oh great and
mighty master of irony, were my previous two sentences ironic; is
this one? -dans
\_ So, rather than admit you can't read my mind and are therefore
probably wrong, you flip out and resort to ad hominem red
herrings. I'm beginning to see a pattern in your behavior
here... You can have this thread, btw -- I won my bet. =)
\_ Little Dan, this is your Mother. Please stop embarassing us.
\_ Fuck you. If you had any knowledge of my mother's
condition, you'd realize that's in remarkably poor taste.
-dans
\_ Now that's ironic. Little Dan, did you cry?
\_ No. Properly speaking, if you wanted to mock me by
insinuating that I am a baby, you would call me
Danny, but it doesn't really work unless you knew me
when I was called that. -dans
\_ Why would he?
\_ Now that's ironic.
\_ I think dans is the self appointed expert irony mind
reader guy around here -- let's see what he says,
first.
\_ she's on the cover of Crack Ho Magazine?
\_ yermom
\_ the motd: delivering idiotic banter with 5 9s reliability |
| 5/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/fke -> www.csua.berkeley.edu/~dans/igmonkey/ At its core, iGMonkey provides a flexible retrieval and rendering pipeline that manipulates a document by passing it through chains of pluggable filter' functions. unix shell is something you find on the beach, iGMonkey is easy to learn so it won't take you long to get up to speed. iGMonkey includes a number of useful filter functions you may use. Better yet, you can write your own filters to process the documents that are important to you. Best of all, iGMonkey filters facilitate reuse and remixing. iGMonkey features helpful utility functions that simplify your code, and make your applications more robust. Solid cross-browser support is a key goal of iGMonkey so stay tuned. If you have a success or horror story using iGMonkey on any browser, please let me know. Ideally, Greasemonkey scripts will work seamlessly with iGMonkey filters and vice versa without any modifications required on the part of developers. Long term * Grow iGMonkey into a meta-platform that makes it easy to target many different platforms. I soon realized that I could generalize the module's plumbing to create an easy to use web mashup platform that encourages developers to remix and reuse one anothers' work. |
| csua.org/u/fko -> www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801497876/sr=8-1/qid=1145605515/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8071776-7421741?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Books Editorial Reviews From Library Journal Vlastos is the greatest living writer on Greek philosophy, and his book on the historical Socrates--many years in the making--has been eagerly awaited. Although the main arguments have appeared in previous articles, their synthesis produces a remarkably cohesive and original philosophical portrait. Vlastos illuminates Socrates' irony, elenchus (means of refutation), disavowal of knowledge, religion, moral radicalism, and eudaimonism (the theory that right actions produce happiness). The book displays the verve, lucidity, rigor, erudition, and imagination that have made Vlastos's work a model for several generations of scholars. Indispensable for both academic and larger general collections. Book Description This long-awaited study of the most enigmatic figure of Greek philosophy reclaims Socrates' ground-breaking originality. Written by a leading historian of Greek thought, it argues for a Socrates who, though long overshadowed by his successors Plato and Aristotle, marked the true turning point in Greek philosophy, religion and ethics. The quest for the historical figure focuses on the Socrates of Plato's earlier dialogues, setting him in sharp contrast to that other Socrates of later dialogues, where he is used as a mouthpiece for Plato's often anti-Socratic doctrine. At the heart of the book is the paradoxical nature of Socratic thought. The magnetic quality of Socrates' personality is allowed to emerge throughout the book. Clearly and forcefully written, philosophically sophisticated but entirely accessible to non-specialists, this book will be of major importance and interest to all those studying ancient philosophy and the history of Western thought. Product Details * Paperback: 334 pages * Publisher: Cornell University Press (June 1991) * Language: English * ISBN: 0801497876 * Product Dimensions: 89 x 60 x 09 inches * Shipping Weight: 11 pounds. See all my reviews As a beginning student of philosophy, I had to take my time with this book and read it carefully. Vlastos writes very clearly and makes his arguments step by step so that there is no mistaking his point, which you are then able to judge for yourself. He is persuasive, not dogmatic, but you have to be able to follow his train of reasoning. Vlastos of "special pleading", that is, presenting only evidence that supports his own arguments. Vlastos spent his life studying Socrates, and no doubt developed strong feelings for the object of his study, but it seems to me that he goes to great lengths to acknowledge evidence contradicting his own conclusions. But Vlastos makes his points very thoroughly, so if you want to quibble with him you have to have your own ducks in a row. Vlastos concludes that Socrates, believing what he believed, died a happy man. Anyone interested in philosophy will benefit from spending a few hours with Professor Gregory Vlastos and his friend, Socrates. See all my reviews Gregory Vlastos was the most celebrated scholar of classical Greek philosophy in the last third of the twentieth century, if not the most important of the past hundred years. Virtually every major project in Platonic studies since 1960 has been in some way informed by him. For the reason of the maginitude of his scholarship alone, one really cannot go wrong with this book, in my opinion, one of his best. What made Vlastos such a seminal figure is demonstrated abundantly in this study: 1) his ability to identify, elucidate, and interpret, in the light of the relevant contexts, the defining issues; The book is really a collection of papers and lectures extending from the late 1950's through the 1980's which illumine Vlastos' position that Socrates was "... the first to establish the eudaemonist foundation of ethical theory which becomes common ground for all the schools that sprung up around him, and more; he is the founder of the non-instrumentalist form of eudaemonism held in common by the Platonists, Aristotelians, Cynics, and Stoics, ie of all Greek moral pholosophers except the Epicureans." As noted, Vlastos gives detailed insights into the elements of Socrates' moral theory and method of argument. The famous paper, "Socratic Irony", which opens the book (23 pages) is by far the most informative I have read on the subject, and, as Vlastos shows us, indispensible for understanding both Socratic moral theory and method of argument. A perfect source for undergraduate papers on these subjects, as well. Chapter 7, "Socrates' Rejection of Retaliation" is very likely the most important work on this crucial subject at the heart of Socratic moral theory and sine qua non for any deeper understanding of Socrates and his "mission" (he articulated the "Golden Rule" 400 + years before Christ). In it (page 198), Vlastos claims: "In saying that it is never good to do a wrong, and making this the foundational reason for breaking with the accepted morality, Socrates must be using the word in its most inclusive sense. The same is felt universally by those professionally involved in such work: here is seminal, accessible scholarship on a subject which nearly 2,500 years since its original articulation still imperatively commands our attention. vlastos rides again, January 19, 2002 Reviewer: A reader This is a superb book on the philosophy of Socrates. but if you disagree, you will have to work out your objections very carefully. One minor quibble: Vlastos seems to determined to defend whatever Socrates does and however he argues. This sometimes leads to (what looks very much like) special pleading. But the book is a masterpiece of readable, analytic philosophy. See all my reviews A deeply profound scholarly work that is both well-written and a pleasure to read is hard to find, but Vlastos achieves this in this wonderful book. Although i do not agree with some of Vlastos' points concerning Plato, i must acknowledge the fact that most, if not all, of my ideas on Plato were either improved or disproved by either agreeing or disagreeing with Vlastos' interpretation of Plato. This book is one of the best ways for any reader of the Plato to be initiated into the various interpretations of his thought. The various theses raised by most scholarly works on Plato today can be traced to have developed either in agreement or in disagreement to this book. Some ideas that you will find in this work are: -a theory on how to chronologically arrange the Platonic corpus -an influential approach to understanding the reasons behind and the limits of the Socratic method -a theory on how to separate Plato's thought from Socrates' thought Was this review helpful to you? |