ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: Fire causes downtime

Fire causes downtime
Posted by Magnus on 12 November 2001, 21:06 GMT

A fire in the electrical switch station in the basement of the building where ticalc.org is hosted caused a major power failure for several hours today. Our UPSes can hold out some, but not 4-5 hours. Therefore, ticalc.org went offline for three hours and 15 minutes, breaking our 300+ days uptime.

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: Fire causes downtime
terthon  Account Info

well, a little down time isn't that bad. Good that the fire was put out. Keep up the good work!

     12 November 2001, 21:15 GMT

Re: Fire causes downtime
Barrett Anderson  Account Info
(Web Page)

wow... that could have been bad... how many backups of the archives are there?

     12 November 2001, 21:16 GMT


Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Magnus Hagander  Account Info
(Web Page)

Several. And at different physical locations, in fireproof safes.

     12 November 2001, 21:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Robert Mohr  Account Info

And in case they all fail, google.com caches most of the web, and certainly has ticalc.org cached.

     13 November 2001, 02:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Kevin Kofler
(Web Page)

Google does not cache ZIP files.

     13 November 2001, 02:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
lord_nightrose Account Info
(Web Page)

which would be... bad.

     13 November 2001, 05:19 GMT

Re: Fire causes downtime
Marcus McG  Account Info

300+ days of uptime? So I guess you aren't counting the complete shut-down of the file archives? If you ask me, your site has been down for weeks. Please keep up all the good work to get the archives running again.

     12 November 2001, 21:54 GMT


Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
David Phillips  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm sure he's talking about uptime of the server, as reported by the uptime command:

electrum@gcs:~$ uptime
13:52:00 up 81 days, 21:55, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

     12 November 2001, 22:06 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Michael Vincent  Account Info
(Web Page)

2:17pm up 64 days, 13:42, 2 users, load average: 0.32, 0.28, 0.26

     12 November 2001, 22:17 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
David Phillips  Account Info
(Web Page)

Sorry, I was in no means trying to brag about uptimes, as obviously 81 days is pitiful. I just pasted the output of uptime from a random box to demonstrate what Magnus was talking about.

     12 November 2001, 23:47 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Michael Vincent  Account Info
(Web Page)

oh oops. Sorry

     13 November 2001, 03:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Jmstuckman  Account Info

Please, oh please do not start an uptime-output thread...

     13 November 2001, 00:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
no_one_2000_  Account Info

I don't even know how to check! :-} (embarrassed smile)

     14 November 2001, 00:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
lord_nightrose Account Info
(Web Page)

I dunno about my actualt *server*, but my computer has been on for almost a month. God bless Windows XP. It hardly ever crashes.

     14 November 2001, 07:01 GMT

Re: Fire causes downtime
Michael Vincent  Account Info
(Web Page)

"Therefor" is spelled with an e on the end you know. Anyway, it's nice to see the site back up.

     12 November 2001, 22:16 GMT


Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Konstantin Beliakov  Account Info
(Web Page)

Come on people, everyone makes typos!

     13 November 2001, 01:20 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
no_one_2000_  Account Info

I mak typeos to and noone cares tht muuch.

     13 November 2001, 01:46 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Robert Mohr  Account Info

Then there's always this:

H3y! Sam3anq switchqd th3 k3ys an my k3ybaerd!

     13 November 2001, 02:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
bdesham  Account Info
(Web Page)

d0 u talk l1k3 a 31337 4ax0r t00?

     13 November 2001, 12:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
no_one_2000_  Account Info

I t9lk l1k3 9n 31337 h9xx0r t00. (but I do it slightly different)

     14 November 2001, 00:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
lord_nightrose Account Info
(Web Page)

d00d! |20xx0|2! J00 |<n0vv vv|-|0z j00|2 c|4c|c|y?

=

dood! roxxor! joo know whoz joor daddy?

     14 November 2001, 07:02 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Stijn Arnauts  Account Info

shut up SHUT UP *S H U T U P* !!!!
AAAAAAAAARGH ! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF THINKING !

hmmm...
sorry kinda got dragged away :-/

     14 November 2001, 18:43 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
tge82  Account Info

What about using spell-check?

     13 November 2001, 21:15 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
no_one_2000_  Account Info

I use Notepad (for windows 3.1/95/98/2000/ME/xp) to create and edit all of my HTML/Javascript/Perl (though I can't use PERL)/C/Java/TI-82 Assembly ect. and it doesn't have a spell check.

     14 November 2001, 00:27 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
S. G. Account Info
(Web Page)

As is apparent when you write something like "ect." instead of "etc."

     15 November 2001, 03:25 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
S. G. Account Info
(Web Page)

"Therefor" instead of "therefore" is not a typo (probably). It is a misspelling. Usually, people don't not type a silent 'e' because their finger slipped, rather because they didn't know a word was spelled with a silent 'e.'

     15 November 2001, 03:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
Samir Ribic  Account Info
(Web Page)

Aj vud lajk if Ingliš vos fonetik lengvið, lajk sam adr Juropijan lengviðis. Of kors, dis vil bi slajtli strenð for netiv Inglišmen, bat d speling problm vil disapir. Lrning Ingliš speling wil rikvajr onli uan jr, instid siks jrs lajk nau.
Es en edišnl posibiliti, dis rifom in Ingliš vil mejk it izier to lrn, bikoz Ingliš pritends to bi globl lengvið. Vid fonetik rifom, ju vil bi ejbl to rajt sam nejms viè ju ken not korektli rajt in karnt Ingliš, lajk Ivan, viè iz ordinri red lajk Ajvn.
Anfortuntntly, der a sam semisaunds viè rikvajr sam dišnl kerktrs, bat also sam vords vid difrnt rajting, bat sejm riding.

     17 November 2001, 10:08 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
tge82  Account Info

I agree! Let's fix English's screwed-up spelling problems!

But maybe in a different format than that...? The special accented characters might cause problems for some people.

     18 November 2001, 18:48 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire causes downtime
S. G. Account Info
(Web Page)

The problem runs more deeply than that. If we were to adapt to a pure phonetic spelling, some confusion would be caused. Homophones would become homographs. Sometimes context could help you figure it out, but in short, simple phrases, saying "raise a building" and "raze a building," with phonetic spelling, could cause some problems, as well as "reckless/wreckless driving." Although we wouldn't have any problem with the annoying "its/it's" confusion that I see so often on the internet, too much would be changed. "natural" and "nature" would begin with very different characters (through the above system, "nej" and "na" respectively), and the etymological similarity would be lost. Also, pluralizing would be made more complicated. "Cats" and "dogs" end with the same letter right now, but they would end with "s" and "z" respectively, same with possessive nouns, which would have to become "Mat's" and "Ted'z." We'd have to make a totally new set of rules based on what sound ended the word. Also, you'd lose the flair that the English language has in borrowing from other tongues. "Randejvu" and "dejnuman" don't have the same verve and "rendezvous" and "denouement" do. So much of what makes this language so great is what would be lost in a uniform spelling.
<stupid>Besides, if we spelled words the way they sounded, "cat" would actually be spelled "meow."</stupid>

I have to admit, most of the ideas I've said in here come from intrepid linguist Richard Lederer, but this was all from memory, my own words, because I agree with what he's said.

     5 December 2001, 09:00 GMT

1  2  3  4  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer