"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:490c81db$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>> There's a Fry's just outseide of Seattle. Planning on going there.
>
> Cool. That's a good place. I looked on their web site's "store locator" 
> and I didn't see anything listed near Seattle, but maybe I'm just blind.
>

The store's actually in Renton. If I recall it's about an hour from Seattle 
by bus, that's if you get the schedules right. Otherwise it's an hour by bus 
and an hour waiting for the bus.
http://shop2.frys.com/isp/renton.html

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:22:24 +0200, Gail wrote:

> The store's actually in Renton. If I recall it's about an hour from
> Seattle by bus, that's if you get the schedules right.

Yeah, I'd say that's about right by bus.  By car, obviously, faster (I've 
a friend who lives in Renton who works for the city of Seattle).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> To summarise: It's Wild Goose time! :-D
> 
> It *must* be friday...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :-D

Alright, CHECK THIS OUT!

Apparently they burned 2 CDs of the project. *One* of them does indeed 
contain the wrong project (some of the digits are in a different order), 
but the *other* CD actually contains the correct project. So we haven't 
actually lost the data at all!

I *told* you it was a wild goose chase! :-D

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Nov-08 11:59, Invisible wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> To summarise: It's Wild Goose time! :-D
>>
>> It *must* be friday...
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :-D
> 
> Alright, CHECK THIS OUT!
> 
> Apparently they burned 2 CDs of the project. *One* of them does indeed 
> contain the wrong project (some of the digits are in a different order), 
> but the *other* CD actually contains the correct project. So we haven't 
> actually lost the data at all!
> 
> I *told* you it was a wild goose chase! :-D
I don't think you did and even if you did it is more a statement that 
belongs in advertising or astrology. I.e. one you can always you to 
prove you were right afterwards.

That doesn't change the fact that you have a serious problem. There was 
indeed a way to loose vital data even if you got lucky this time. You 
have to change the procedures immediately anyway.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> That doesn't change the fact that you have a serious problem. There was 
> indeed a way to loose vital data even if you got lucky this time. You 
> have to change the procedures immediately anyway.

Yeah: Delete the data, and then don't ask for it to be recovered until 3 
months later. This isn't news; it's part of the design specification of 
the current backup rotation. (That is: the rotation is explicitly 
designed to recover data from up to 3 months ago. That is the design goal.)

Anyway, as it happens the procedure document is being rewritten as we 
speak. Unfortunately, it's being rewritten by Americans, so it's vague 
as hell. (The Americans like to make all their procedure documents as 
vague as possible so that they can change what they do without having to 
alter the document. Obviously, needing to alter the document is the 
entire *purpose* of having a document in writing...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:15:27 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> it's being rewritten by Americans

Maybe yours like to be vague, but certainly not all of us are.  If you 
have any doubt, I'll put you in touch with my boss (and my previous boss) 
and my VP who I have provided documentation in too much detail. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Nov-08 22:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:15:27 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> it's being rewritten by Americans
> 
> Maybe yours like to be vague, but certainly not all of us are.  If you 
> have any doubt, I'll put you in touch with my boss (and my previous boss) 
> and my VP who I have provided documentation in too much detail. ;-)
> 
It is indeed probably mostly a sign that they don't understand the 
issues. While in your case OTOH it might be ill advised showing off.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:35:10 +0100, andrel wrote:

> It is indeed probably mostly a sign that they don't understand the
> issues. While in your case OTOH it might be ill advised showing off.

Well, yes, quite.  The last time I did this was about a month ago, maybe 
two months ago, and I actually rewrote it to make it shorter and it ended 
up longer.

It got read - in part -much later than was actually needed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Nov-08 6:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:35:10 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> It is indeed probably mostly a sign that they don't understand the
>> issues. While in your case OTOH it might be ill advised showing off.
> 
> Well, yes, quite.  The last time I did this was about a month ago, maybe 
> two months ago, and I actually rewrote it to make it shorter and it ended 
> up longer.

That happens to me too. Quite often. You all should know by now, as this 
newsgroup is a major victim of it.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:46:59 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 04-Nov-08 6:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:35:10 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> It is indeed probably mostly a sign that they don't understand the
>>> issues. While in your case OTOH it might be ill advised showing off.
>> 
>> Well, yes, quite.  The last time I did this was about a month ago,
>> maybe two months ago, and I actually rewrote it to make it shorter and
>> it ended up longer.
> 
> That happens to me too. Quite often. You all should know by now, as this
> newsgroup is a major victim of it.

It is for me as well, though not so much recently - had too much to do at 
work....

Jim

Post a reply to this message