> Besides, don't they just throw you in jail indefinitely if you have no 
> money? These are banks we're talking about here; they *always* get their 
> money back.

No they don't, that's why they only lend money to people who they think will 
actually be able to pay it back.

Post a reply to this message

> £300,000 divided by 30 years = £10,000 per year. So, a third of the 
> highest income available. And that's neglecting the fact that they 
> presumably charge you 80% APR or so on the loan...

Obviously you don't actually have a mortgage at the moment, otherwise you'd 
know roughly what the interest rate was, and that it's nowhere near 80%.

I thought you said you lived near Milton Keynes?

I searched on rightmove.co.uk for *detached* houses within 20 miles of MK, 
priced between 100 and 150 thousand pounds.  There were 178 results.  I 
assume you could find one you like, let's say for 125K.  DO NOT expect to be 
able to suddenly afford the same house your parents can, they have been 
working for several decades longer than you!  I see lots of young people 
falsely believe they somehow deserve the same value house as their parents!

Next I went to nationwide.co.uk to their "quick quote" page on mortgages. 
It seems they want a 20k deposit, followed by 20 years of paying about 700 a 
month.

Now I don't know about you, but saving up a 20K deposit, especially while 
living with your mum, shouldn't be too hard over a few years (that's what, 
300-400 a month).  I know my parents basically never went out or spent any 
money while living with their respective parents for several years before 
they could afford to get their house.

Post a reply to this message

>> Maybe I'm just bitter. I paid £900 for a moped. When it was stolen, 
>> they gave me £25. Later I paid $1,200 for a car. When it was crashed, 
>> they gave me £75.
> 
> You didn't haggle with them?

Why? It's not like they're going to change their mind.

> They are meant to give 
> you an amount necessary to replace the item that was stolen/written off, 
> it's up to you to prove to them how much you need for that.

How many cars have you seen on sale for £75 recently?

>> I mean, seriously, it was *so* worth paying £700 per year in insurance 
>> premiums for that.
> 
> Your 700 per year is because you are more likely (as a young male) to 
> smash into someones $100k Audi or BMW (or force the driver to need years 
> of medical care), not because your car might get stolen or you crash it.

Heh. Yeah. As if somebody who can afford a $100k Audi needs the money...

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

Post a reply to this message

> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.

Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?

> But one other thing that's fairly common is to buy a house and let the 
> value increase - and then sell it for the increased value and roll that 
> over into another house.  If one is smart about it, one can make a pretty 
> decent amount of money doing that through "trading up" like that.  It's 
> rare at least here for anyone to live in the same house long enough to 
> pay off a 30 year mortgage.

...which brings us back to my point of "if your house burns down, you 
now have an extremely serious financial problem". ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Besides, don't they just throw you in jail indefinitely if you have no 
>> money? These are banks we're talking about here; they *always* get 
>> their money back.
> 
> No they don't, that's why they only lend money to people who they think 
> will actually be able to pay it back.

On that basis, nobody would ever loan me any money, ever. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>>>> The backup scan ran as an AT job.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming you mean it ran at the server to pull files, rather than 
>>> at the client to push files. Might be better to switch that around.
>>
>> Yeah, that would mean that all the directory scanning would be local 
>> rather than remote. Probably a lot faster that way.
> 
> You'd still have to compare against the server, so that part is likely 
> the same either way. Unless you're going to trust the last time it ran.

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...

>> Because that's the only way to specify the logon credentials for the 
>> remote system.
> 
> net use \\xyz\pdq hispassword /user:xyz\hisusername

...that does something?

>>>> mapped under the system account which runs AT jobs, 
>>>
>>> Why? Tell AT to run it as a different user.
>>
>> There are other AT jobs running, of course...
> 
> Tell "at" to run *your* job under a different user ID. Not "at" itself.

As far as I know, this is impossible.

>> Robocopy can't copy a file, it says "I can't copy this file" and exits. 
> 
> Uh, no. Do a "robocopy /?" and look at the retry options section. What 
> would you have it do if the files it's backing up are on a PC that 
> someone turns off?

All you can really do is exit, and log the fact that something went wrong.

And then there are other issues, like file access permissions or files 
being locked. (Real backup software can get around these - although 
whether you want to backup locked files is another matter...)

>> Now the script has to do something about this.
> 
> There isn't a lot it can do except look at the exit status of robocopy 
> and send you a message if it failed.

Heh, yeah, I never did get as far as figuring out how to send alerts 
when it fails...

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

Post a reply to this message

> Obviously you don't actually have a mortgage at the moment

Well, yeah, it would be kind of silly to own a morgage when I don't own 
a house to go with it. ;-)

> I thought you said you lived near Milton Keynes?

I do.

> I searched on rightmove.co.uk for *detached* houses within 20 miles of 
> MK, priced between 100 and 150 thousand pounds.  There were 178 
> results.

Now that's interesting.

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.) Since then I've looked around, and it seems that for 
slightly over £100,000 you can buy stuff, but for £90,000 there is 
basically nothing. You do occasionally see maybe one property at that 
price, but... Well, given that this is already breaking the bank, it's 
probably not a sensible idea.

> Next I went to nationwide.co.uk to their "quick quote" page on 
> mortgages. It seems they want a 20k deposit, followed by 20 years of 
> paying about 700 a month.

...so 70% of my income then?

> Now I don't know about you, but saving up a 20K deposit, especially 
> while living with your mum, shouldn't be too hard over a few years 
> (that's what, 300-400 a month).

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.

But then, maybe I'm just soft? Perhaps if I quit my dance classes, stop 
seeing my therapist, don't use my phone any more, stop driving to work, 
stop buying food and stop paying 20% of my income in rent, I'd have more 
money?

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

Post a reply to this message

>> You didn't haggle with them?
>
> Why? It's not like they're going to change their mind.

Yes they will, it's up for discussion, in fact I think in the letter they 
send it even says how to proceed if you want to dispute the amount.

>> They are meant to give you an amount necessary to replace the item that 
>> was stolen/written off, it's up to you to prove to them how much you need 
>> for that.
>
> How many cars have you seen on sale for £75 recently?

Exactly, so you just accepted it?  They offer stupidly low amounts like this 
because they know that some people will just accept it without arguing - 
they might as well at least try with everyone!  After you've sent them 
examples of similar cars with similar age and mileage and exerts from 
Parkers, they usually pretty much match the going rate to replace the car.

>> Your 700 per year is because you are more likely (as a young male) to 
>> smash into someones $100k Audi or BMW (or force the driver to need years 
>> of medical care), not because your car might get stolen or you crash it.
>
> Heh. Yeah. As if somebody who can afford a $100k Audi needs the money...

He needs it to replace his car that you have just smashed - I'd say *you* 
need that $100k more than he does seeing as you owe him $100k now!

Post a reply to this message

>>> You didn't haggle with them?
>>
>> Why? It's not like they're going to change their mind.
> 
> Yes they will, it's up for discussion, in fact I think in the letter 
> they send it even says how to proceed if you want to dispute the amount.

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".

>> How many cars have you seen on sale for £75 recently?
> 
> Exactly, so you just accepted it?

We're talking about an insurance company. It's not as if they're 
reasonable people. I'm just some nobody teenager who can't afford to do 
anything about it.

> After you've 
> sent them examples of similar cars with similar age and mileage and 
> exerts from Parkers, they usually pretty much match the going rate to 
> replace the car.

Doubt it - but without a time machine, we can't really settle this one.

>> Heh. Yeah. As if somebody who can afford a $100k Audi needs the money...
> 
> He needs it to replace his car that you have just smashed - I'd say 
> *you* need that $100k more than he does seeing as you owe him $100k now!

I'm not disputing the logic of your claim. I'm just saying it seems 
rather unjust that I have to financially cripple myself 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...)

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

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.

> ...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.

> 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?

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.

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'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

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 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.

"""
NT4 users should install and use the SU command from the NT Resource Kit 
instead.
"""

Another 3 seconds of googling.  You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, 
right?

> But I also discovered that most things you might want to 
> script cannot be scripted from DOS.

You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?

>>>>> 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?

You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?

http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2004/12/14/301868.aspx
That took about 8 seconds, because "VSS" means visual source safe, not 
virtual shadow service. I had to spell it out on the second google.

> 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*.)

Well, no, the number of things you can do from the command line without 
invoking an executable is fairly low in pretty much every operating system.

The point is that you don't have to write these programs. You just download 
them from Microsoft as part of the resource kit. You *do* have the resource 
kit for your OS, right?

>> 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?

Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs. Indeed, it's likely to 
work with every version. Plus, TWAPI is well-maintained, which you would 
know were you to follow comp.lang.tcl.

>> 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.

Why can't you get it?

You're on NT4?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en
5 seconds.

What's in there, you say?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751139.aspx
Admittedly, that took almost 20 seconds to find.

> a while back I discovered an M$ tool that allows you to run stuff as a 
> service, even though this is normally impossible. 

Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)

> 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...

You should at least install the package of tools that MS gives away for 
system administrators to use. Or at least know of its existence and what's 
in it.

> ...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.

Sure. But what about the next problem, and the next problem, and the next?

And saying "it's impossible to back things up" and saying "I prefer a 
professional solution so I don't have to spend time building one" are two 
completely different things, you realize.

If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible", I'm 
not surprised you're not earning a living wage.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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 ;)

Heh, well, these days I think probably everybody knows there is no job 
security...

> And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be 
> severely injured if you make a mistake.

True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst job 
ever. Millions of people dead, their screams haunting your dreams. Every 
waking second you walk the surface of the Earth, you know that you could 
have saved them, if only you had tried harder. The look of hatred and 
anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits and charges of incompetence 
and negligence. The violence from enraged kin. It must be hell on Earth.

...or, maybe a fireman. Yeah, because that way, you have all of the 
above, *and* there's a totally real possibility that _you_ will die 
today as well. Or maybe just be horribly injured and maimed for life. If 
you die, your body will probably never even be found. That must be great.

I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate 
customers isn't do bad.

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

Post a reply to this message

> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?

No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be 
done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)

It always makes my heart sink when I find the tool I want, only to 
discover that it's in the resource kit and hence not available to me.

>>> 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?
> 
> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.

What's a Tcl stub?

>>> 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.
> 
> Why can't you get it?
> 
> You're on NT4?
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en

> 
> 5 seconds.

I am staggered. I spent 5 years trying to get my hands on that. How on 
earth did you manage it?!

>> a while back I discovered an M$ tool that allows you to run stuff as a 
>> service, even though this is normally impossible. 
> 
> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)

I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a 
service can be run as a service. :-P

> And saying "it's impossible to back things up" and saying "I prefer a 
> professional solution so I don't have to spend time building one" are 
> two completely different things, you realize.

I believe what I actually said is that it's impossible to build a 
reliable backup system out of DOS scripts. Of course, if you install 
enough 3rd party tools maybe it is - hey, you could invoke BackupExec 
from a DOS script and then claim to have implemented a reliable backup 
solution as a DOS script. Right?

> If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible", 
> I'm not surprised you're not earning a living wage.

I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X". 
Different thing.

(Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
> 
> No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be 
> done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)

I just pointed you at the free download.

>> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.
> What's a Tcl stub?

It's like a DLL export table, only for Tcl. It's so new versions of the 
interpreter still work with old compiled extentions.

>> You're on NT4?
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en

>>
>> 5 seconds.
> 
> I am staggered. I spent 5 years trying to get my hands on that. How on 
> earth did you manage it?!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nt4+resource+kit+download


>> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)

> I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a 
> service can be run as a service. :-P

Usually, yes. But all you really need is the service event loop.

There's even an extention that lets you run any Tcl code as a windows service.

>> If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible", 
>> I'm not surprised you're not earning a living wage.
> 
> I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X". 
> Different thing.

You must admit, you often use the word "impossible" more broadly than is 
applicable. :-)

> (Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)

Those can be requests.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Well, the replacement enclosure arrived a few hours ago and I am 
currently running a chkdisk on the drive to make sure it's fully 
operational.  The bit on the old enclosure I suspected was burned out 
was a nearly-clear bit of stuff on the new one vs. chocolate-looking, 
and the new enclosure works just fine.  As far as I can tell.

So that's good.

Definitely can't wait to get desktop so can back this stuff up.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

>>> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
>>
>> No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be 
>> done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)
> 
> I just pointed you at the free download.

And I'm just astonished that after years of searching, you managed to 
find this in 10 seconds.

>>> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.
>> What's a Tcl stub?
> 
> It's like a DLL export table, only for Tcl. It's so new versions of the 
> interpreter still work with old compiled extentions.

Right. Last time I looked at Tcl extensions, I couldn't make any use of 
them because you have to recompile the interpretter to run them. Are you 
saying that's no longer the case?

>>> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)
> 
>> I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a 
>> service can be run as a service. :-P
> 
> Usually, yes. But all you really need is the service event loop.

Mmm. The fun thing about srvany.exe is that stopping the service 
forcibly kills the wrapped program. But hey, what else can you do? ;-)

>> I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X". 
>> Different thing.
> 
> You must admit, you often use the word "impossible" more broadly than is 
> applicable. :-)

Sure, whatever.

>> (Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)
> 
> Those can be requests.

But usually they aren't.

"Hey Andrew, I've disabled roaming profiles. We don't need them."

That's not a request. That's not even "I think we _should_ do this". 
That's "I just _did_ this".

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

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 ;)
> 
> Heh, well, these days I think probably everybody knows there is no job 
> security...
> 

Then you don’t owe any loyalty to your employer.


>> And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be 
>> severely injured if you make a mistake.
> 
> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst job 
> ever. 

But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and 
made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)

>Millions of people dead, their screams haunting your dreams. Every 
> waking second you walk the surface of the Earth, you know that you could 
> have saved them, if only you had tried harder. 

That’s why doctors and nurses develop “graveside humour”. It distances 
you from the human suffering. Sometimes it goes too far, though.

>The look of hatred and 
> anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits and charges of incompetence 
> and negligence. The violence from enraged kin. It must be hell on Earth.
>

I think that you overstate it ;)

> ....or, maybe a fireman. Yeah, because that way, you have all of the 
> above, *and* there's a totally real possibility that _you_ will die 
> today as well. Or maybe just be horribly injured and maimed for life. If 
> you die, your body will probably never even be found. That must be great.
> 

Well my father was a fireman and I grew up in a fire station, from the 
age of 3 to 22. The job can be dangerous but they are trained for it so 
it is not as dangerous as you would think. I did a few fire fighting 
courses when I worked offshore; putting out hydrocarbon fires in burning 
buildings, rescuing people (dummies) in the smoke and heat while wearing 
breathing apparatus. Once you know what you are doing it’s not so 
dangerous. As for your body not being found, that seldom happens. My 
father told me that one of the worse things was the smell of burning 
meat. But if it is not you then it is not that bad :P

> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate 
> customers isn't do bad.
> 

That has its own stresses. I believe the average burnout rate in 
customer service factories is about two years. Although I have worked 
for companies (Coca Cola UK in MK for one) where people worked for years.
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst 
>> job ever. 
> 
> But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and 
> made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)

I don't know, man. One failure is like a billion too many...

> That’s why doctors and nurses develop “graveside humour”. It distances 
> you from the human suffering. Sometimes it goes too far, though.

http://www.xkcd.com/431/

>> The look of hatred and anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits 
>> and charges of incompetence and negligence. The violence from enraged 
>> kin. It must be hell on Earth.
> 
> I think that you overstate it ;)

Like I say, if I knew that somebody had *died* because I didn't do 
everything I could - nah, if I vaguely *suspected* I didn't do 
everything I could - I don't think I could go on living in this world.

And the distraught relatives who will blame you whether it's your fault 
or not surely don't help either...

> Well my father was a fireman and I grew up in a fire station, from the 
> age of 3 to 22. The job can be dangerous but they are trained for it so 
> it is not as dangerous as you would think.

Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode at any 
second. So by "training" do you mean "if it might implode, they just 
don't go in there"?

>> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate 
>> customers isn't do bad.
> 
> That has its own stresses. I believe the average burnout rate in 
> customer service factories is about two years. Although I have worked 
> for companies (Coca Cola UK in MK for one) where people worked for years.

I was thinking more of managemant consoltant or computer concultant or 
something, but sure...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Right. Last time I looked at Tcl extensions, I couldn't make any use of 
> them because you have to recompile the interpretter to run them. Are you 
> saying that's no longer the case?

That hasn't been the case since 8.0 or 8.1 or some such. Years, anyway.

> Mmm. The fun thing about srvany.exe is that stopping the service 
> forcibly kills the wrapped program. But hey, what else can you do? ;-)

Basically, yes.

>>> (Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)
>> Those can be requests.
> But usually they aren't.
> "Hey Andrew, I've disabled roaming profiles. We don't need them."

Oh, I see what you mean. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> 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?

Japan apparently went into WW2 with a similar mindset, only to find 
themselves running out of planes and pilots in the long run.

If an encounter between 40 MiGs and 4 F-22s should end up with the F-22s 
running like rabbits and both parties getting away unharmed, while an 
encounter between 40 MiGs and 16 F-22s should end up with the F-22s 
running like rabbits unharmed /after/ having downed two or three MiGs, 
then those are odds the fleet of MiGs will not be able to sustain 
forever. Even if they can replace the planes fast enough, they'll 
ultimately suffer a shortage of skilled pilots (which was exactly what 
happened to Japan in WW2, up to the point where they devised a tactic 
that would allow them to teach their new pilots only how to survive long 
enough to reach their target).

> 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,

You keep talking about China, and what you say is probably true for 
them. But do you /really/ think there will /ever/ be an 
all-conventional-forces-out conflict between the USA and China that 
wouldn't end up going nuclear?

And I'm pretty sure neither China nor the USA have any desire to risk that.

Besides, I guess China is also profiting too much from export, and the 
USA too much from cheap Chinese labor, for any side to be too much 
interested in an outright war.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode

Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.  I would 
imagine firefighters are quite skilled at knowing what to look for to decide 
if a building is likely to collapse or not.  Even as a non-firefighter I am 
quite sure that if my cooker has been on fire for 5 minutes my house is not 
going to fall down, but if I see a wooden barn has been alight for half an 
hour I'm not going anywhere near it!

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst 
>>> job ever. 
>>
>> But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and 
>> made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)
> 
> I don't know, man. One failure is like a billion too many...
> 

So what part of Utopia do you come from?


> 
>>> The look of hatred and anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits 
>>> and charges of incompetence and negligence. The violence from enraged 
>>> kin. It must be hell on Earth.
>>
>> I think that you overstate it ;)
> 
> Like I say, if I knew that somebody had *died* because I didn't do 
> everything I could - nah, if I vaguely *suspected* I didn't do 
> everything I could - I don't think I could go on living in this world.
> 

I would be upset too, I must admit.

> And the distraught relatives who will blame you whether it's your fault 
> or not surely don't help either...
> 

These are the things that you shouldn’t worry about because they will 
only make making mistakes more likely.

>> Well my father was a fireman and I grew up in a fire station, from the 
>> age of 3 to 22. The job can be dangerous but they are trained for it 
>> so it is not as dangerous as you would think.
> 
> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode at any 
> second. So by "training" do you mean "if it might implode, they just 
> don't go in there"?
> 

What Scott said. :)

>>> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate 
>>> customers isn't do bad.
>>
>> That has its own stresses. I believe the average burnout rate in 
>> customer service factories is about two years. Although I have worked 
>> for companies (Coca Cola UK in MK for one) where people worked for years.
> 
> I was thinking more of managemant consoltant or computer concultant or 
> something, but sure...
> 
Oh! You misspelt consultant twice in different ways in the same sentence ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I was thinking more of managemant consoltant or computer concultant or 
>> something, but sure...
>>
> Oh! You misspelt consultant twice in different ways in the same sentence ;)

Stop judging me! STOP JUDGING ME!!

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1282

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

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> 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.

You get used to that. At the beginning it might bother you a bit, but 
especially after you've made a few correct calls, and saved lives as a 
result, it starts getting easier. 

It also makes it easier to prepare psychologically for the occasional 
mistakes you WILL make, being just another working joe not unlike somebody 
who does accounting, for example. Except your mistakes can cost lives.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> ...or, maybe a fireman. Yeah, because that way, you have all of the
> above, *and* there's a totally real possibility that _you_ will die
> today as well. Or maybe just be horribly injured and maimed for life. If
> you die, your body will probably never even be found. That must be great.

Dude its REALLY not that bad!

The -best- feeling I have -ever- felt in my life was when I helped save 
someone else's - it givens -meaning-. Real firemen don't sit around all day 
torturing themselves with these kinds of thoughts. Sure, it CAN happen, but 
man, offset it with a little child whose life -YOU- saved, who would be dead 
if you weren't there and willing to risk your life...

ONE life saved makes all the times yours was risked, completely worthwhile.
 
> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate
> customers isn't do bad.

Probably not. But with ultimate failure (risking your own death to save 
others) you also  have the ultimate reward - saving someone's life.

I would not have traded the times I was in danger for anything in the world, 
for I managed to do something universally right in every culture, religion 
and society on Earth - I have helped save innocent life. 

ANY risk and ANY possible loss is worth that.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode
> 
> Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.  I
> would imagine firefighters are quite skilled at knowing what to look for
> to decide
> if a building is likely to collapse or not.  Even as a non-firefighter I
> am quite sure that if my cooker has been on fire for 5 minutes my house is
> not going to fall down, but if I see a wooden barn has been alight for
> half an hour I'm not going anywhere near it!

Yep - the thing is that you learn to risk. I. e. your training includes 
looking for certain signs, and comparing them with what the dispatcher told 
you, along with simple common sense. The whole idea of surviving AND doing 
the job on the fire ground is to risk from a position of knowledge. You need 
to know how far you are LIKELY to be able to go and still survive and do 
your job.

Remember also it is usually very military in the fire service - you act 
pretty much like a soldier, doing what your lieutenant or battalion chief 
tells you to do. And the same reaction is expected as well - instant 
obedience to orders.

That's the thing - most firefighter fatalities are when some unknown factor 
was present (like a homeowner storing propane in his garage, or an 
unanticipated collapse of a trench wall, for example.)

I have seen thought, that in the fire service (at least here, in the past) 
the military paradigm is largely adhered to, but a smart officer will always 
listen (at least a bit) versus military officers who more commonly have the 
"shut and do what I tell you" mentality.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst
>>>> job ever.
>>>
>>> But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and
>>> made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)
>> 
>> I don't know, man. One failure is like a billion too many...
>> 
> 
> So what part of Utopia do you come from?

Exactly. Utopia = nowhere. I, and many people in the fire and rescue 
services have, and do, make mistakes. You don't become some kind of robot 
when you pull on bunker gear! You're still the same person with the same 
faults and fears as any other person.

You WILL fail. Sooner or later. Somebody WILL die (they have on my watch) 
and you will just have to deal with it. The trick is doing your best, 
always, even at risk of your life, or loss of it. At least if you HAVE to 
loose a patient or your own life, loose it after putting up the a hell of 
fight and doing the best you could have done. 

I had to face this when I lost some friends operationally in the fire 
service. For months afterward I castigated myself, should I have done this, 
said this, done that, warned them... eventually I realized the simple fact 
was I had done my very, very best, and NOTHING I could have done more would 
have saved them.

You just need to live with it, and accept it.

>>>> The look of hatred and anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits
>>>> and charges of incompetence and negligence. The violence from enraged
>>>> kin. It must be hell on Earth.
>>>
>>> I think that you overstate it ;)

Yes, you do. I've NEVER seen hatered on an "accessory" face (a loved one or 
family member of someone who has just passed away in a fire or an accident) 
- but I have seen pathetic gratitude, thanks, and respect. The insane with 
grief husband or wife who assaults you to try and blame somebody, anybody 
for their loss is mostly a device of fiction. In reality (at least during my 
career) it never happened.

I once got the most wonderful letter from a mother after I handled the call 
where we managed to rescue her 3 year old from certain death after he fell 
into their pool and partially drowned. It means more than any money I can 
ever earn, or any man's thanks for gratitude. THAT makes it worth it.
 
>> Like I say, if I knew that somebody had *died* because I didn't do
>> everything I could - nah, if I vaguely *suspected* I didn't do
>> everything I could - I don't think I could go on living in this world.
>> 
> 
> I would be upset too, I must admit.

You just need to get over it. I know the feeling, I've experienced it. Your 
comrades, good training and discipline (doing what MUST be done, no matter 
how hard, dangerous, or painful) and knowing that you did your absolute best 
helps to assuage it.
 
>> And the distraught relatives who will blame you whether it's your fault
>> or not surely don't help either...
>> 
> 
> These are the things that you shouldn’t worry about because they will
> only make making mistakes more likely.

Precisely. 

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> 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

> Japan apparently went into WW2 with a similar mindset, only to find
> themselves running out of planes and pilots in the long run.

Ouch. Again you've torpedoed my whole rationale!
 
> If an encounter between 40 MiGs and 4 F-22s should end up with the F-22s
> running like rabbits and both parties getting away unharmed, while an
> encounter between 40 MiGs and 16 F-22s should end up with the F-22s
.
.
.
> ultimately suffer a shortage of skilled pilots (which was exactly what
> happened to Japan in WW2, up to the point where they devised a tactic
> that would allow them to teach their new pilots only how to survive long
> enough to reach their target).

Ok, I admit defeat here - you're right. I've forgotten that bit of 
history...
 
>> 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,
> 
> You keep talking about China, and what you say is probably true for
> them. But do you /really/ think there will /ever/ be an
> all-conventional-forces-out conflict between the USA and China that
> wouldn't end up going nuclear?

No, I admit I cannot see any conflict with either China or Russia, NOT going 
nuclear. No US president who does not want to be impeached, and no Chinese 
politburo head will say "ok, they've beaten us fair and square". I agree 
they WILL reach for the red button, and it will be the first side that loses 
in a large conventional clash.
 
> And I'm pretty sure neither China nor the USA have any desire to risk
> that.
> 
> Besides, I guess China is also profiting too much from export, and the
> USA too much from cheap Chinese labor, for any side to be too much
> interested in an outright war.

Good point.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode
>> Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.
> 
> Yep - the thing is that you learn to risk. I. e. your training includes 
> looking for certain signs, and comparing them with what the dispatcher told 
> you, along with simple common sense. The whole idea of surviving AND doing 
> the job on the fire ground is to risk from a position of knowledge. You need 
> to know how far you are LIKELY to be able to go and still survive and do 
> your job.
> 
> Remember also it is usually very military in the fire service - you act 
> pretty much like a soldier, doing what your lieutenant or battalion chief 
> tells you to do. And the same reaction is expected as well - instant 
> obedience to orders.
> 
> That's the thing - most firefighter fatalities are when some unknown factor 
> was present (like a homeowner storing propane in his garage, or an 
> unanticipated collapse of a trench wall, for example.)
> 
> I have seen thought, that in the fire service (at least here, in the past) 
> the military paradigm is largely adhered to, but a smart officer will always 
> listen (at least a bit) versus military officers who more commonly have the 
> "shut and do what I tell you" mentality.

...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode, 
they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]

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

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> You WILL fail. Sooner or later. Somebody WILL die (they have on my watch) 
> and you will just have to deal with it. The trick is doing your best, 
> always, even at risk of your life, or loss of it. At least if you HAVE to 
> loose a patient or your own life, loose it after putting up the a hell of 
> fight and doing the best you could have done. 
> 
> I had to face this when I lost some friends operationally in the fire 
> service. For months afterward I castigated myself, should I have done this, 
> said this, done that, warned them... eventually I realized the simple fact 
> was I had done my very, very best, and NOTHING I could have done more would 
> have saved them.

Doesn't work.

No matter how hard you tried, there's always something you could have 
tried harder, something you could have done different, if only you had 
done X instead of Y, maybe they'd still be alive... No matter how much 
you know, rationally, that there's nothing more you could have done, the 
knowledge of "if I did X, they would still be alive" will taument you 
for the rest of eternity...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> ...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]

Yes, to a very great degree. However, risk has to be balanced. E. g. your 
training and experience may say "no" but you have to balance that against a 
report that a person (or persons) are still in there.

Also, there are many firefighters who will go in anyway (sometimes against 
training and doctrine) if they -know- that civilian lives could be lost if 
they do NOT at least -TRY-. I'm convinced this is part of what happened to 
the 300+ firefighters who died on 9/11, for example.

Sometimes you just have to do what is needed, no matter the risk, or the 
odds, or what the personal cost to you might be - pretty much like a soldier 
who knows he is going to certainly die but keeps on firing as fast as he 
can.

You cannot do this type of work with an "is it safe?" mentality limiting -
EVERY- action. You always try to do it with a kind of "how can I do this the 
SAFEST way?" mentality. Unfortunately, missing the smallest detail can have 
fatal consequences. That's were training, experience, discipline, and having 
a good officer around comes in.

The type of personalities I worked with in the fire service are the kind 
that WILL charge a burning building, in order to save a life, and are then 
content to die trying, if that is what is required.

Sure that sounds macho and crude maybe, but in the heart of any person who 
does this for a living, year after year, it is a simple fact that is 
accepted, and then moved beyond. It actually is kind of liberating once you 
realize that. Of course, if there is -ANY- way at all, you'll save yourself, 
but what then follows is what separates soldiers and civilians, firefighters 
and mere men - they are willing to lay down their lives at a moment's notice 
for someone else.

Somebody who stops fighting (and trying) removes even the -possibility- of 
success. Survival and victory is always a possibility, as long as you don't 
give up. 

"We don't expect kittens to fight tigers and win, we merely expect the 
kittens to try."
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> 
>> You WILL fail. Sooner or later. Somebody WILL die (they have on my watch)
>> and you will just have to deal with it. The trick is doing your best,
>> always, even at risk of your life, or loss of it. At least if you HAVE to
>> loose a patient or your own life, loose it after putting up the a hell of
>> fight and doing the best you could have done.
>> 
>> I had to face this when I lost some friends operationally in the fire
>> service. For months afterward I castigated myself, should I have done
>> this, said this, done that, warned them... eventually I realized the
>> simple fact was I had done my very, very best, and NOTHING I could have
>> done more would have saved them.
> 
> Doesn't work.
> 
> No matter how hard you tried, there's always something you could have
> tried harder, something you could have done different, if only you had
> done X instead of Y, maybe they'd still be alive... No matter how much
> you know, rationally, that there's nothing more you could have done, the
> knowledge of "if I did X, they would still be alive" will taument you
> for the rest of eternity...

Maybe for you, I guess it depends on your personality. 

Which I guess is why you are psychologically evaluated before being accepted 
as a recruit into the fire service (at least in the days when I was involved 
with emergency services in South Africa).

Note I was a -dispatcher- - i. e. strictly speaking my job was NOT to charge 
into burning buildings - most of the time. We did cross train though (always 
a good idea to know as much about this stuff as possible) and I did have to 
go into some exciting situations in the field - when we were short-staffed 
or there was a huge incident. In that way we differed from American 911 
operators for example - I was physically in the fire station, and cross-
trained in at least the basic firefighting and paramedical disciplines. Just 
in case you had to help out. Real 911 operators often never even see the 
people they dispatch. 

But the mental stuff remains very much the same, and I simply did not 
experience the level of torment you seem to think is involved when your 
shift or unit (or "watch" in British terms) inevitably take casualties.

Note that this is NOT a criticism! Its perfectly okay to feel the way you 
do, and it is perfectly okay not to want to be associated with or get into 
those kinds of situations.

But I'm convinced if you do not, you are missing out on at least one (or 
two) of the most basic, wonderful things about being a human - facing danger 
with together good, brave comrades, being part of something extreme special 
and unique, and doing real and  good things for the good of your community 
and society. Thing that matter and make a difference.

If you do anything besides this, you can often ask yourself "do I make a 
difference? Is what I am and do worth it?"

If you have served in the fire and emergency services, this doubt and 
question is forever removed from your life.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:00:25 +0000, 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?

The successful consultants generally have job security because their 
reputation precedes them.  As for the stress of the work - it pays enough 
that the hours are largely consultant-selectable; I know several who have 
no stress at all and make very good money just being "on retainer" for 
critical system issues and remote administration for small businesses.

>> But one other thing that's fairly common is to buy a house and let the
>> value increase - and then sell it for the increased value and roll that
>> over into another house.  If one is smart about it, one can make a
>> pretty decent amount of money doing that through "trading up" like
>> that.  It's rare at least here for anyone to live in the same house
>> long enough to pay off a 30 year mortgage.
> 
> ...which brings us back to my point of "if your house burns down, you
> now have an extremely serious financial problem". ;-)

And that brings me back to "that's what homeowner's insurance is for". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:09:34 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> ...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]

Clearly not always the case - I hesitate to cite 9/11; a lot of good 
people died that day, and not all of them were running *out* of the 
buildings.

It seems to me that it's about being able to do an accurate risk 
assessment and weigh the options very very quickly and make a decision - 
as well as being willing to change the decision when other factors become 
apparent that were not part of the initial risk assessment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

 
>>> But one other thing that's fairly common is to buy a house and let the
>>> value increase - and then sell it for the increased value and roll that
>>> over into another house.  If one is smart about it, one can make a
>>> pretty decent amount of money doing that through "trading up" like
>>> that.  It's rare at least here for anyone to live in the same house
>>> long enough to pay off a 30 year mortgage.
>> 
>> ...which brings us back to my point of "if your house burns down, you
>> now have an extremely serious financial problem". ;-)
> 
> And that brings me back to "that's what homeowner's insurance is for". ;-)

My brother's father in law made an insane amount of money this way. But you 
have to be quite careful (at least "this side of the pond") - quite a few 
folks have gone bankrupt trying to do this here, and then find out when the 
economy takes a dip they can't keep all those mortgages covered, and they 
can't squeeze enough out of their renters.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:16:20 +0200, Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> My brother's father in law made an insane amount of money this way. But
> you have to be quite careful (at least "this side of the pond") - quite
> a few folks have gone bankrupt trying to do this here, and then find out
> when the economy takes a dip they can't keep all those mortgages
> covered, and they can't squeeze enough out of their renters.

Yep, you really have to know what you're doing if you don't sell the old 
property but instead decide to rent it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode
>>> Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.
>>

> ....so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode, 
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
> 
Yes, but you are using emotive language and make it too dramatic. It 
takes time for buildings to be destroyed and in that time a rescue can 
be effected. One of the aspects of fire fighting training is to expose 
you to the conditions in a fire so that you don’t panic and can evaluate 
the situation. No fire officer would expose his men or women to 
unnecessary risk. So if a building was in imminent danger of exploding 
or collapsing s/he would remove them to safety and fight the fire from a 
distance. But with experience and the officers are experienced, they 
would evaluate the situation before sending anyone into a blaze.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> ....so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to 
>> explode, they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
>>
> Yes, but you are using emotive language and make it too dramatic. It 
> takes time for buildings to be destroyed and in that time a rescue can 
> be effected. One of the aspects of fire fighting training is to expose 
> you to the conditions in a fire so that you don’t panic and can evaluate 
> the situation. No fire officer would expose his men or women to 
> unnecessary risk. So if a building was in imminent danger of exploding 
> or collapsing s/he would remove them to safety and fight the fire from a 
> distance. But with experience and the officers are experienced, they 
> would evaluate the situation before sending anyone into a blaze.

My point being, having "training and experience" doesn't stop a building 
from collapsing. It just stops you from being inside the building when 
this happens. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> 
>> And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be
>> severely injured if you make a mistake.
> 
> You get used to that. At the beginning it might bother you a bit, but 
> especially after you've made a few correct calls, and saved lives as a 
> result, it starts getting easier. 
> 
> It also makes it easier to prepare psychologically for the occasional 
> mistakes you WILL make, being just another working joe not unlike somebody 
> who does accounting, for example. Except your mistakes can cost lives.

Exactly, that is one of the things I say to myself and others when 
things get stressful at my present job. No one is going to die or be 
injured if we are late or make a mistake.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ....so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to 
>>> explode, they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
>>>
>> Yes, but you are using emotive language and make it too dramatic. It 
>> takes time for buildings to be destroyed and in that time a rescue can 
>> be effected. One of the aspects of fire fighting training is to expose 
>> you to the conditions in a fire so that you don’t panic and can 
>> evaluate the situation. No fire officer would expose his men or women 
>> to unnecessary risk. So if a building was in imminent danger of 
>> exploding or collapsing s/he would remove them to safety and fight the 
>> fire from a distance. But with experience and the officers are 
>> experienced, they would evaluate the situation before sending anyone 
>> into a blaze.
> 
> My point being, having "training and experience" doesn't stop a building 
> from collapsing. It just stops you from being inside the building when 
> this happens. ;-)
> 
Yes, that is what it is supposed to do. It doesn’t always work out that 
way but that is the idea.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message