 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Obviously I no longer have the letter any more, but it basically said "as
> per our contract, we owe you £25, here's your cheque".
Was it insured 3rd party or fully comp?
> I'm not disputing the logic of your claim. I'm just saying it seems rather
> unjust that I have to financially cripple myself
700 pounds a year, financially cripple?
> to pay to fix somebody's property when they can easily afford many times
> over what I can afford - especially given that I haven't actually damaged
> it yet! (And, in fact, I never did in the end...)
Look at it from the Audi driver's perspective:
What is unjust is if I drive my $100k Audi safely and some little teenage
twerp who can't drive smacks straight into it doing 100 on a 60 limit in his
50 quid rust bucket and writes off my car. Why the hell should I have to
pay for that idiot who shouldn't even be allowed to drive?
It's just unlucky that you (and me) were/are young males, we get charged a
shed load for car insurance whether we like it or not, purely because other
young males have lots of accidents. Besides, after 4 or 5 years accident
free your insurance should be down to just a couple of hundred pounds, but
don't tell me you just pay up when the insurance company sends the renewal
notice and don't shop around?
And by the way, nobody is forcing you to run a car, if you moved closer to
work, or found a job closer to home you wouldn't need one. How much would
you save?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I visited the bank a while back (i.e., before the entire financial
>> sector went into meltdown), and the guy there seemed to think that I
>> could maybe afford a £90,000 morgage. Assuming I don't eat or use any
>> heating. (In other words, on paper it would work, but it would be
>> absurdly tight.)
>
> Hmm, banks don't usually allow you to borrow that much that would make
> life that hard. Usually it's capped to about 4x your annual salary to
> avoid exactly that problem.
Which, presumably, is why I left the room without a morgage. The guy did
a few calculations with a pocket calculator and suggested that it
probably wasn't worth the bother of running the numbers through the
computer.
>> ...so 70% of my income then?
>
> Yep, that's what happens if you want to get on the property ladder when
> you're not earning much as a single person. That 300 you have left over
> basically then has to cover your utility bills and food. Running a car?
> Forget it.
My job kind of requires a car, so...
>> Well, currently my bank balance is going down rather than up, because
>> most months I spent a few hundred more than I actually earn. Saving up
>> sounds pretty hard to me.
>
> How the hell do you manage to spend over 1000 pounds per month if you
> are living with your mum?
If I could answer that, I'd be a very rich man.
...or, at least, a slightly richer man, anyway.
> Even if you rented somewhere small by yourself and had to run a car you
> should be able to save some per month. If you *really* want to save up
> for a house you need to sacrifice some stuff.
...or get a job that pays actual money?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously I no longer have the letter any more, but it basically said
>> "as per our contract, we owe you £25, here's your cheque".
>
> Was it insured 3rd party or fully comp?
I don't remember.
>> I'm not disputing the logic of your claim. I'm just saying it seems
>> rather unjust that I have to financially cripple myself
>
> 700 pounds a year, financially cripple?
When you have £0/year income, it's quite a lot of money...
> It's just unlucky that you (and me) were/are young males, we get charged
> a shed load for car insurance whether we like it or not, purely because
> other young males have lots of accidents.
Yeah, that's about it really.
> Besides, after 4 or 5 years
> accident free your insurance should be down to just a couple of hundred
> pounds, but don't tell me you just pay up when the insurance company
> sends the renewal notice and don't shop around?
I think it's something like £500/year now - but I have a lot more money
to pay it with, so it doesn't seem like so much any more.
> And by the way, nobody is forcing you to run a car, if you moved closer
> to work, or found a job closer to home you wouldn't need one. How much
> would you save?
Hey, nobody's forcing me to work. I could go live in jail. Then all the
honest, hard-working people pay to feed and clothe me. And I'm *sure* I
could find somebody in there who fancies me... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yep, that's what happens if you want to get on the property ladder when
>> you're not earning much as a single person. That 300 you have left over
>> basically then has to cover your utility bills and food. Running a car?
>> Forget it.
>
> My job kind of requires a car, so...
You mean commuting to your job requires a car? If your actual job requires
a car then usually the company provides one for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You could keep a local cache of what was successfully sent to the
> server. But I was actually thinking more of having a component running
> at both ends and a custom communications protocol rather than SMB...
You could do that, yes. Not with shell scripting, mind.
If you go that route, I'd suggest you look at the USN functions, so you can
actually iterate through all the changes to the local disk to figure out
what you have to send.
>> net use \\xyz\pdq hispassword /user:xyz\hisusername
> ...that does something?
Sure. For example,
net use \\thatmachine\c$ adminpass /user:thatmachine\administrator
will log you into the administrative share on "thatmachine".
Or do it the "right" way, and have the backup run as a domain user with
permissions to log in to the appropriate shares. That's what domains are for.
>> Tell "at" to run *your* job under a different user ID. Not "at" itself.
> As far as I know, this is impossible.
Then have your job switch user IDs after it gets started, if you need to.
> And then there are other issues, like file access permissions
Put your backup user in the backup operator group. That's what it's for.
> or files being locked.
Make a VSS snapshot. That's what it's for.
How do you think "real" backup programs get around it?
> Heh, yeah, I never did get as far as figuring out how to send alerts
> when it fails...
Or log it into a file you check until you figure it out. Easiest would be to
generate a Windows event for the event log, then have the event log software
notify you.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> net use \\xyz\pdq hispassword /user:xyz\hisusername
>> ...that does something?
>
> Sure. For example,
> net use \\thatmachine\c$ adminpass /user:thatmachine\administrator
> will log you into the administrative share on "thatmachine".
You mean this allows you to access that folder as the specified user
using only UNC pathnames? (Not that all programs support these, mind you...)
> Or do it the "right" way, and have the backup run as a domain user with
> permissions to log in to the appropriate shares. That's what domains are
> for.
Yeah. As I say, the trouble is I don't want my "delete the temp files"
job to have full network access, only the backup job.
>>> Tell "at" to run *your* job under a different user ID. Not "at" itself.
>> As far as I know, this is impossible.
>
> Then have your job switch user IDs after it gets started, if you need to.
As far as I know, this is impossible.
>> And then there are other issues, like file access permissions
>
> Put your backup user in the backup operator group. That's what it's for.
Being in the backup users group only gives you permission to use the
backup API. Standard copy programs don't use this API, they use the
standard file access API.
>> or files being locked.
>
> Make a VSS snapshot. That's what it's for.
You can't do that from a DOS script.
> How do you think "real" backup programs get around it?
By being able to access any Win32 system call they wish?
>> Heh, yeah, I never did get as far as figuring out how to send alerts
>> when it fails...
>
> Or log it into a file you check until you figure it out. Easiest would
> be to generate a Windows event for the event log, then have the event
> log software notify you.
Well, it logs to a text file. But you have to remember to periodically
read that and make sure nothing bad happened. As far as I know, logging
to the event log is impossible.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You mean this allows you to access that folder as the specified user
> using only UNC pathnames? (Not that all programs support these, mind
> you...)
Yes. You could do that anyway, but this logs you into that share with a
different name and password. Anything that takes UNC names will work with it
until it automatically times out all by itself after however long you have
your session idle timeout set. (15 minutes? 30 minutes? Something like that
by default.)
>> Or do it the "right" way, and have the backup run as a domain user
>> with permissions to log in to the appropriate shares. That's what
>> domains are for.
>
> Yeah. As I say, the trouble is I don't want my "delete the temp files"
> job to have full network access, only the backup job.
As I understand it, "backup operators" get read but not write permissions
(other than the archive bit, perhaps). I'm not even 100% sure you can use
the normal file system calls to get to the files rather than the "backup" calls.
So make a user specifically for your backup job, and don't run as that user
normally.
>>>> Tell "at" to run *your* job under a different user ID. Not "at" itself.
>>> As far as I know, this is impossible.
>>
>> Then have your job switch user IDs after it gets started, if you need to.
>
> As far as I know, this is impossible.
Of course it's possible. Why do you keep saying this? How do you get logged
in in the first place?
Why not just say "I don't know how to do this"? Then at least it might occur
to you to say "Gee, maybe google does."
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742511.aspx
Don't you have a "runas" command?
Suggestion: Google up the complete list of Windows command-line programs
that come with your Windows. Or look at all the .exe and .com files in
\windows and \windows\system32.
> Being in the backup users group only gives you permission to use the
> backup API. Standard copy programs don't use this API, they use the
> standard file access API.
Fair enough. Get a domain user with read permissions, then.
>>> or files being locked.
>> Make a VSS snapshot. That's what it's for.
> You can't do that from a DOS script.
Bzzzt. I even offered you my scripts to do it.
>> How do you think "real" backup programs get around it?
> By being able to access any Win32 system call they wish?
Perhaps.
> Well, it logs to a text file. But you have to remember to periodically
> read that and make sure nothing bad happened. As far as I know, logging
> to the event log is impossible.
Yeah, because there's never anything in the event log, either, as it's
impossible to log something to it.
Damn, dude, you can even do it from Tcl.
http://twapi.magicsplat.com/eventlog.html
That took about 3 seconds on google.
How to read events from the command line, and how to run programs
when particular events get logged:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757231(WS.10).aspx
Create them from the command line:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315410
Dude, start googling. Each of these was the #1 hit on the obvious query
parameters to google.
> Or "using Google to find the lyrics to that song I heard one time", as I
> prefer to call it. ;-)
I give up.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Don't you have a "runas" command?
I'm guessing this wasn't available in Windows NT server when I wrote the
scripts. Nice to know this at least has been fixed.
> Suggestion: Google up the complete list of Windows command-line programs
> that come with your Windows.
I've done this, several times. In the process, I discovered several
useful things. (E.g., apparently there's a FOR command which can iterate
over files.) But I also discovered that most things you might want to
script cannot be scripted from DOS.
>>>> or files being locked.
>>> Make a VSS snapshot. That's what it's for.
>> You can't do that from a DOS script.
>
> Bzzzt. I even offered you my scripts to do it.
Let me guess: pixie dust?
>> Well, it logs to a text file. But you have to remember to periodically
>> read that and make sure nothing bad happened. As far as I know,
>> logging to the event log is impossible.
>
> Yeah, because there's never anything in the event log, either, as it's
> impossible to log something to it.
No, just impossible from a mere DOS script. Of course, a compiled C
program can do it. (Let's face it, a compiled C program can do *anything*.)
> Damn, dude, you can even do it from Tcl.
> http://twapi.magicsplat.com/eventlog.html
> That took about 3 seconds on google.
And how much do you want to bet it won't work with the standard Tcl
interpretter?
> Create them from the command line:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315410
"Logevent.exe is included in the Windows 2000 Resource Kit."
In other words, I can't get it.
It's nice to know they've created an external utility that allows you to
do this though. You do occasionally find useful stuff like that. (E.g.,
a while back I discovered an M$ tool that allows you to run stuff as a
service, even though this is normally impossible. System Internals also
do some interesting stuff...)
> Dude, start googling. Each of these was the #1 hit on the obvious query
> parameters to google.
I could spend a few weeks surfing the net, finding all the utilities I
need to make the job work, checking that they're all from reputable
sources, working out their little quirks, getting them all to work
together...
...or I could install the BackupExec Remote Agent for Windows and be
done with it. Whilst I actually kinda enjoy the challenge of trying to
make scripts work, I feel happier that our vital production systems are
using a professional backup solution, rather than some probably-broken
thing I cobbled together myself.
Now, if I was doing this for my home PC, might be different... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>
>> Isn't this the way it is going? According to what I read on
>> strategypage.com recently, F-16s, F-15s and F-18 are wearing out and are
>> not being replaced. Additionally, much funding is being "saved" by
>> decommissioning many (hundreds, apparently) of these aircraft early as
>> well, in order to spend money maintaining the F-22 and F-35?
>
> I'd guess that the number of F-35 to be bought will /not/ be as low as
> for the F-22. And it will not be anywhere as expensive.
Ok, I guess it'll much less expensive then too.
>>> (A) Besides being able to carry BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs, the F-22 is
>>> designed to bear much cheaper AIM-9 Sidewinders into battle.
>>
>> Of which there'll be how many? As far as I know the AIM-9X is not in
>> production anymore, and funding is being cut for buying it - again to be
>> able to afford "enough" AIM-120's and to feed the budgetary monster that
>> the F-22 has become.
> Let's see... Wikipedia speaks of some 3.000 or 3.600 AIM-9X already in
> the arsenals (figures vary between language versions of the article),
> and some total of >10k to be purchased in total by American armed forces.
Ok, that blows my argument out of the water. You'll just have to hope all
those missiles, stored for all those years, will actually work when pulled
from a shelf and fired.
> However, the F-22 currently doesn't even support the AIM-9X yet, and
> instead is supposed to use the AIM-9M, which I guess is available in
> stock at even larger numbers already. Not to speak of the other members
> of the AIM-9 family, which I'd suppose the F-22 could fire as well if
> needs be.
... if the software works. Didn't it have trouble with some ground ordinance
a while ago? E. g. its on board computer(s) couldn't talk with a certain GPS
guided bomb. But then, that wouldn't hamper air-air combat capability.
>> That's damn impressive! No, I didn't know that. That could come in very
>> useful in a low and slow situation. Though I wonder what the price is in
>> fuel consumption? High-alpha maneuvers like that probably need a lot of
>> thrust to be applied to keep from stalling?
>
> Probably so, yes. But when was the last time the U.S. of A. bothered
> about fuel consumption in their armed forces?
Since it got a bit expensive - strategypage.com had an article about
increased use of simulators a while ago. Apparently they -are- trying to
save. And they're having problems (because the -22 is so expensive) with
training their pilots properly, in real aircraft while gaining real flight
experience - all because JP4 is so expensive.
>> True, but that is a mark against the F-22 in my book. I was thinking when
>> I said that of the situation where US ground forces are under attack from
>> the air, and need to be protected against MiG strikes. So, the USAF sends
>> the F-22. It -has- to go low and slow to get at the MiGs, assuming it is
>> out of missiles. Sure, it can outclimb and outrun the MIGs, but it has no
>> choice now - it has to tangle with them on their terms, low and slow, to
>> protect US ground forces. Wouldn't that obviate its enormous speed and
>> rate of climb? (Though the slow maneuver you pointed me to above would
>> obviously help I readily agree.)
>>
>> Also, that is if they have decommissioned all those F-16s and F-15s by
>> that time, of course - which seems to be the way they are going.
>
> ... and purchase F-35 instead, which by the way seems to be a totally
> different beast, and shouldn't be mistaken for a smaller copy of the
> F-22 concept.
I'd think I'd buy that if they can say that the F-35 is at least as good as
four F-15s (e. g. it can shoot down the same number of aircraft as four
"older" air-superiority fighters can) - since I'm guessing that roughly they
will be able to afford that much less units, due to higher price-per-unit.
> The F-22 is designed mainly as an air superiority fighter, the concept
> being to suppress any enemy air activity way before they can be a PITA
> to ground forces. Recent conflicts have shown that the US will not even
> think about sending in troops before this air superiority has in fact
> been achieved.
Good point. I guess the USA is the only country in the world that currently
can do that - establish air-superiority. Nobody else on Earth can certainly
challenge them on that currently. I still wonder though, how good it really
will be low and slow in a turning dog-fight. I guess time will tell - it
seems as soon as the US has invented a new weapon, they organize some action
or mission where it can be tested, either at first hand or by an ally.
(Widespread use of US combat aircraft by the Israeli Air Force comes to
mind - wouldn't be surprised if they are the first export customer for the
F-35.)
> Also, a MiG may be an adversary to reckon with in a dogfight (I have no
> idea whether that is anywhere close to true), but with F-22s out of
> reach of their guns but close enough to make a run any moment, a MiG
> pilot probably couldn't really afford to attack grund targets. I guess
> he'd be eating 20mm Vulcan rounds any moment.
That's the thing... what you might do is swamp a single F-22 with eight
bogies, or even twelve? Sure it could splash four, or even six, but two
might get through. The thing is, the Chinese for example, can -afford- this
loss rate, and its still a bonus to them if even one 1950's era MIG-19 or
-21 can get one napalm canister onto US troops. The Chinese were famous for
this type of tactics in Korea for example, as concerns ground-fighting - an
unstoppable human wave, with complete disregard for the lives of their
soldiers. If you have thousands of aircraft (and an apparently constantly
improving corps of pilots), why not try this from the air as well?
As regards how good an old crate of a MiG is, I'm not sure either. But they
sure made F-4's (which didn't even HAVE guns originally) eat nails when the
F-4 went up against them with missiles only. Admittedly older crap like the
AIM-120 Sparrow which apparently never was worth much.
> Plus, it's also a question of what you consider the primary threat: The
> world hasn't seen any all-out war between superpowers for >60 years, and
.
.
.
> survivability of only 90%. Not only for the sake of material costs, but
> even more so for the sake of morale at home.
Ok, I partially agree. But a factor in US thinking is always "morale at
home". I don't think the Chinese have this same respect for human life, or
will give a hoot about Chinese public opinion - look at their track record
of how they treat their own citizens, or anybody who opens his mouth or
protest the rule of the Chinese Communist party. E. g. a nation most often
fights true to national doctrine, and I think Chinese doctrine wouldn't mind
sacrificing many pilots to kill a few US personnel - of which each one will
contribute to blunting US war appetite. (Pretty much what the "war on
terror" has happening at the moment - support for any war the US is involved
in plummets as casualties rise. The Chinese will apparently keep going until
the Communist party decides IT has had enough, screw the citizens, public
opinion and dead soldiers.)
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.
>
> Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?
>
But at least we *know* that we don’t have job security ;)
And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be
severely injured if you make a mistake.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
