- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Please can we avoid any more OT posts?
by Joseph T. Klein 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

The events over the last week create a multitude of very emotional responses. The contributing factors, the discussions on security vs. liberty, the discussion about America's role as a world oppressor or world savior ... we could spend all of our time and energy on this. This is not the proper forum. -- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489 Senior Network Engineer jtk(a)titania.net Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein(a)adelphiacom.com "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III

1 0

Re: Re[2]: telehouse - 25 broadway
by David Lesher 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Leo Bicknell said: > > > > I think "limited" here is a bit misleading. Most of these engines > are continuous duity rated, which means within the bounds of > maintenance items (oil changes, gasket changes, and other routine > maintenance) they can run non-stop. Most gensets are essentially > the same components that power diesel-electric locomotives that > routinely run for weeks at a time without shutdown. They may be continuous duty rated, but in this application? I.e. - the ones I have worked on (to limited extents; change filters, oil, repair FUBARs in the control systems design [1] had two rating: N kw continuous duty; {say} 1.4N intermittent. Intermittent may well be 24H or less; I bet the 1.4 is a f(run time/week) or such. > Here in ice storm country every few years power is out for 3-4 days > in some areas after bad storms. Generators routinely run for 3-4 > days and cause no concern over their condition, other than to move > up routine maintenance due to the additional run time. > I suspect dust is going to be the largest problem for all generators > in the area. It will reduce radiator effectiveness, wear on external > parts (fans and the like), clog air and oil cleaners. Again, these > devices are made for some fairly harsh environments so 48 hours is > no concern, I would think expecting 2 weeks of reliable power if > they are attended to even in these conditions is reasonable. This is just as much a case of matching equipment to application as is buying a new backbone router. Do you buy based on a "100 year flood" peak; the "Mothers Day calling" peak or the "105% of >1hr" model. Justify your decision the the beancounter. 25 points. I do not know what all the Ma specs [Sean: is this p/o the FCC regs, NEBS, or ??] call for, but I'd guess 2-3 days tops. [1] Engines are big noisy devices. When you use high impedance input logic (from slow crude mechanical sensors such as oil pressure and water temp switches) that responds in a few microseconds, and have no filtering debounce on them; duh, you get lots of false alarms. Slow things down to a 500ms time constant, and they work far better. Filter the power supply {Hello! The generator just started -- yep, the line WILL spike...} well as well, and hey, it does work after all. I hope other folks did better design work than those guys. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Interactive map of WTC area
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

http://www.wired.com/news/reuters/photos/images/nys14_2pm_reuters.swf -Hank

1 0

[OT] What is brewing
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

http://www.debka.com/ Bin Laden's Scattered Legions The news you won't find in CNN. In general, 80% of what they write is true mixed with wishful thinking. You need to know how to read the facts and ignore the analysis. -Hank

1 0

[Fwd: Great article about afghanistan/taliban/bin laden]
by Imran Qureshi 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

One of our colleague posted the following article and it really shows the plight of the real afghans. Regards, Imran > > > Dear Friends, > > > The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim Ansary. Tamim is > >an Afghani-American writer. He is also one of the most brilliant people > >I know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I listen. > >Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we are in. > > > -Gary T. > > > > > > > > > Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread: > > > > > > I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to > >the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this > >would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with > >this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. > >What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing > >whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." > > And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because > >I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've > >never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who > >will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. > >I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no > >doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity > >in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. > >But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even > >the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant > >psychotics > >who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal > >with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin > >Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think > >"the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan > >people had nothing to do with this atrocity. > >They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if > >someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats > >nest of international thugs holed up in their country. > > Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The > >answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. > >A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 > >disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. > > > There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these > >widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the > >farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons > >why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. > > >We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone > >Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. > >Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? > >Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their > >hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from >medicine > >and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. > > > > > New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at > >least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the >Taliban > >eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. > >Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't > >move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul > >and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals > >who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common > >cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been > >raping all this time > > > So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with > >true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there > >with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what > >needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill > >as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about > >killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's > >actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some > >Americans > >would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. > > It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to > >Afghanistan, > >we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they > >let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. > >Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're > >flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. > > And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he >wants. > >That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right > >there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem > >ridiculous, > >but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, > >he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those > >lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even > >better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end > >the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last > >for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the > >belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else? > > > > > Tamim Ansary > > > >

4 3

Re: American Flag Desktop
by Paul Vixie 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

> Does anyone have a good American Flag graphic that can be used for a > desktop? Something 1024x768 or bigger would be great. Thanks. http://www.conservativesiteconstructionkit.com/flags.htm has several that you could stretch.

1 0

Re: telehouse - 25 broadway
by Sean Donelan 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

On Thu, 13 September 2001, Rob Mosher wrote: > > well their generator overheated. no power at the facility > YMMV, this is not professional advice. If this was professional advice, it would be accompanied by an invoice. Speaking with a mechanical engineer, he suggested you may be able to restore some generator operation by continiously running a water/hose over the outside of the radiator. Not so much to clean it, but to act as once-through heat transfer to cool the engine. I hope you can get it going again.

8 7

RE: On Internet and social responsibility
by Roeland Meyer 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

|> From: measl(a)mfn.org [mailto:measl@mfn.org] |> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:57 AM |> |> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> |> > Personally, I have no problems with |> > US State telling me I can't do business with terrorists. Do you? |> |> Absolutely I do. I would have no problem with the USG placing |> people/countries/whatever on lists that I could use as a |> reference to make |> a *volutary* decision as to whether I wanted to do business |> with them, but to proscribe it is wrong. You are arguing morality in a legal context. Don't you know that those two have *nothing* to do with each other? |> First of all, I may not necessarily agree with the USG on |> all of these |> "entries", secondly, the lists are obviously not compiled in a manner |> designed solely to cut of the "bad guys". For example, we |> have China as a |> "most favored nation". Right there the whole idea of an |> impartial list falls apart... Impartiality was never claimed. |> Aside from the impartiality issue, I do not believe that the |> USG has a constitutional right to forbid me from engaging any |> person/place/thing in an otherwise lawful transaction. In that, you are dangerously wrong. Go ahead and sell a Sun e10K, with SSH source, into China. Let me know when they let you out of jail (never). Try to ftp ssh sources into Libya, but before you do, let me know where to send the flowers. Try to do *any* business with Iraq, tell me how large NSA goons come these days. This is not freedom of speech issue, it is a economic embargo issue. The Federal government has the constitutional right to control foreign trade. That's black letter law. That is, trade between US citizens and other countries. Just what do you think NAFTA was all about, piddeling in the Rio Grande? Try importing a shipful of cocaine. Try selling a case of 9mm <any make> hand guns, outside the country. -- IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

1 0

Way way way OT: gallows humor...
by herb＠tomobiki.urusei.net 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Here is a monumental F-You design: http://friscoaggie.homestead.com/files/Jungle/newwtc.jpg /herb

1 0

Re: More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]
by Steven M. Bellovin 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.10109142306300.30955-100000(a)arch.exigengroup.com>, Va dim Antonov writes: > > >If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn >hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American >involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was >Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all >fronts. > >US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from >occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was >already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin). > >>From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant >move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that >time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied >Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected >by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely >ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe >came to be. > >Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make >it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't. Some of us have read a fair amount of history, and carefully check the footnotes to learn the sources of interesting statements. (Anything without footnotes isn't a serious history book.) You're certainly correct that Stalingrad was a major turning point. Your assertion about U.S. motives for invading Europe is rather more doubtful. Stalin was begging Churchill and Roosevelt to move on Western Europe, to take pressure off the Soviet Union. (References available upon request.) He was rather annoyed at how long it took the U.S. and Britain to act. The reasons for the delay are many, including a shortage of landing craft. (Churchill wanted more troops in Italy, to invade from the south of Europe after the collapse of Mussolini's regime; Eisenhower wanted the troops -- and landing craft -- to be ready for Normandy.) > >To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see > > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm > >And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to >prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany >capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were >quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map, >especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way >to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to >force them to capitulate to Americans. That's an interesting statement. Another reading is that Stalin declared war on Japan because he knew that the U.S. was about to drop the atomic bomb. Apart from any espionage, Truman told Stalin just after the Trinity test, in July 1945. I haven't seen any history books that discuss your theory with references to documents from the former Soviet archives -- it would be interesting to look for such. As I recall (and I'd have to dig a bit to find citable sources for this assertion), the U.S. had been pressuring the USSR to participate in the war against Japan, but Stalin had refused. While it's certainly clear that defeating Germany was the priority -- in fact, that was the explicit agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. -- and no one could have expected the Soviet Union to intervene in the East before matters were under control in the West -- the war against Japan went on for 2.5 years after the battle of Stalingrad ended. We can certainly discuss whether or not the U.S. was justified in using the bomb against Japan -- that's been debated endlessly since the war -- but it's rather indisputable that the bomb was used as soon as it was ready. Hiroshima was hit less than a month after the Trinity test. > >The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference >from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US >involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis. Excluding, I assume, U.S. industrial production. > >No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet >Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler. > >Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel >they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of >Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a >second or two. Educated Americans know about the relative casualty figures, I assure you. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb http://www.wilyhacker.com

2 1