|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |