SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (33493)5/4/2010 7:11:44 PM
From: aladin  Read Replies (2) of 46821
 
Frank,

With regards to your thoughts:

FAC: I see a common thread emerging here with respect to all three: (1) my previous post concerning dependence on submarine cables;

A good map is at: pccwglobal.com

I have one client with a worldwide network with 10gig and OC-48 backbone circuits. The application they sell operates at 6 9's so the network is designed at 7. To do this we have to spread risk across cable providers and geoseismic risk locations.

Think 4 links across each pond. No more than 2 circuits in any one risk pool (such as the north Pacific route). Of course some issues emerge with latency on some routes.

(2) the oil platforms, about which the article above speaks;

Anything that can happen will - however improbable. Designers should plan accordingly - 5 9's is not nearly enough.

(3) natural disasters of the type we witnessed with Katrina.

Higher population, taller buildings, coastal living - all combine for higher risk.

Katrina was bad - but it was hyped as the apocalypse. Remind me again how many murders and rapes occurred at the Super dome?

How did Humana fair compared to State and City owned Hospitals? Imagine the next one with something like FEMA running all the Hospitals. :-(

John
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext