INFO-VAX Thu, 22 Mar 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 162 Contents: Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Re: AMD's well may be running dry Ancinet History Re: Climatological models was: More proof that global warming is Re: For Sale - Infotower w/ 7 CD drives Re: FTPS Server for OpenVMS (Also posted to the ITRC) Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Itanium exception handling performance Migrate Hardware Strategy Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" RE: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Problems zipping RBF file Re: RMS indexed file structure questions Re: Suggestion for the VMS X-windows server Re: Suggestion for the VMS X-windows server Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Mar 2007 04:51:26 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.com Subject: Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Message-ID: <1174564286.773120.26280@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 21, 7:41 am, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" wrote: > 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) > > http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17563/ > > Although I agree with this article, it is not limitted to Americans. > And recent discussions in COV (with everything from "global warming" > to the "bible") make be believe it applies to computer people as well. > > ### > > I especially like the comments left by the second blogger: > > I had this sad realization a long time ago, that most lay people, > especially those without college education, view science as just > another religion. > > They don't understand what is going on, and therefore even if they > choose to believe in science, they do it through the same mental > process as one believes in religion. They do it through a leap of > faith. > > Their rationalization may go something like this: "...well, all these > scientists and engineers and other smart*ss people 'believe' in > science, therefore they might be onto something. I don't really grasp > what is going on, but I'll just believe them, because they are smart" > > So, people who think like this, suspend their critical thinking, bend > to social pressure, and bow to authority. If they say that evolution > is true, but they arrived at this belief through a religious-like > process, then we are not really making much progress, are we? > > It is also said that most European laymen believe in evolution, unlike > most American laymen. But if you scratch the surface, and start to ask > those Europeans some questions, you'll notice that they don't > understand evolution. They just believe in it. > > And then of course, religion provides definite, and comforting > answers: "don't worry, God will take care of you". Science on the > opposite - it leaves you hanging, and it tells you how insignificant > and pathetic you are. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which > religion people are going to choose. People are babies. They long for > warmth and comfort, even at the expense of rational thinking. > > ### > > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, > Ontario, Canada.http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ that is right ... your liberal educational system is putting out idiots by the droves ... instead of learning math and science, public school kids are learning to put condoms on bananas and getting indoctrinated by the gay lobby ... that is why anyone who CARES about his children will send them to a private school and not a public one ... Catholic or Christian schools are the best, but even our liberal politicians send their kids to private school, because while they are enacting policies to dum your kids down, they are educating their kids to think for you ... ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:38:55 -0700 From: "Andrew" Subject: Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Message-ID: <1174574335.119041.40860@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On 21 Mar, 11:59, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: > On Mar 21, 7:41 am, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" > wrote: > > > 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) > > > And then of course, religion provides definite, and comforting > > answers: "don't worry, God will take care of you". Science on the > > opposite - it leaves you hanging, and it tells you how insignificant > > and pathetic you are. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which > > religion people are going to choose. People are babies. They long for > > warmth and comfort, even at the expense of rational thinking. > > science is telling you more and more every day that God > is real ... creation started it all ... we all came from the > same mother and father ... that everything is unique and > there is an order to the whole universe ... > > We are still waiting for science to explain the resurrection > of Jesus Christ, and the miracles he did, raising men from > the dead, curing blindness, leprosy, crippleds, blood diseases, > all witnessed by thousands of individuals who when given > a simple choice to renounce everything, they allowed > themselves to be mauled by lions or worse ... > > science cannot even explain the shroud of turin yet > and how the reverse negative like image of a man > believed to be Christ got on that cloth ... The US recently acquired its 300 millionth citizen (an event that produced profound depression in some environmental circles given the average US citizens environmental footprint). Your post shows that you can definitely strike 1 from the the count of Scientifically literate citizens. Regards Andrew Harrison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:39:03 +0100 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Message-ID: <4602b125$0$7606$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> Andrew wrote: > On 21 Mar, 11:59, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: >> On Mar 21, 7:41 am, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" >> wrote: >> >>> 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) >> >>> And then of course, religion provides definite, and comforting >>> answers: "don't worry, God will take care of you". Science on the >>> opposite - it leaves you hanging, and it tells you how insignificant >>> and pathetic you are. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which >>> religion people are going to choose. People are babies. They long >>> for warmth and comfort, even at the expense of rational thinking. >> >> science is telling you more and more every day that God >> is real ... creation started it all ... we all came from the >> same mother and father ... that everything is unique and >> there is an order to the whole universe ... >> >> We are still waiting for science to explain the resurrection >> of Jesus Christ, and the miracles he did, raising men from >> the dead, curing blindness, leprosy, crippleds, blood diseases, >> all witnessed by thousands of individuals who when given >> a simple choice to renounce everything, they allowed >> themselves to be mauled by lions or worse ... >> >> science cannot even explain the shroud of turin yet >> and how the reverse negative like image of a man >> believed to be Christ got on that cloth ... > > The US recently acquired its 300 millionth citizen (an event that > produced profound depression in some environmental circles given the > average US citizens environmental footprint). Your post shows that you > can definitely strike 1 from the the count of Scientifically literate > citizens. > > Regards > Andrew Harrison The footprint may be big in total, but relative to the economic output per capita, it is not the largest. The figures were quoted some other thread. Is it true that humans contribute 2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing? Perhaps we can ban breathing too, and save this massive greenhouse gas output? The methane figures, are probably lower, but it is a more potent greenhouse gas, so that will have to be banned too. Dweeb ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 09:49:59 -0700 From: "Andrew" Subject: Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) Message-ID: <1174582199.496306.159640@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On 22 Mar, 16:39, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > On 21 Mar, 11:59, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: > >> On Mar 21, 7:41 am, "n.ri...@sympatico.ca" > >> wrote: > > >>> 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part II) > > >>> And then of course, religion provides definite, and comforting > >>> answers: "don't worry, God will take care of you". Science on the > >>> opposite - it leaves you hanging, and it tells you how insignificant > >>> and pathetic you are. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which > >>> religion people are going to choose. People are babies. They long > >>> for warmth and comfort, even at the expense of rational thinking. > > >> science is telling you more and more every day that God > >> is real ... creation started it all ... we all came from the > >> same mother and father ... that everything is unique and > >> there is an order to the whole universe ... > > >> We are still waiting for science to explain the resurrection > >> of Jesus Christ, and the miracles he did, raising men from > >> the dead, curing blindness, leprosy, crippleds, blood diseases, > >> all witnessed by thousands of individuals who when given > >> a simple choice to renounce everything, they allowed > >> themselves to be mauled by lions or worse ... > > >> science cannot even explain the shroud of turin yet > >> and how the reverse negative like image of a man > >> believed to be Christ got on that cloth ... > > > The US recently acquired its 300 millionth citizen (an event that > > produced profound depression in some environmental circles given the > > average US citizens environmental footprint). Your post shows that you > > can definitely strike 1 from the the count of Scientifically literate > > citizens. > > > Regards > > Andrew Harrison > > The footprint may be big in total, but relative to the economic output per > capita, it is not the largest. The figures were quoted some other thread. > I am sure that this will be reassuring to the citizens of the Maldives and Bangladesh as their countries sink beneath the waves. I hate to say it Dr Dweeb (is that a real doctorate or an honorary one BTW) but your CO2/economic output/capita measure sounds bogus which is becoming rather a familiar story. Regards Andrew Harrison ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 05:16:52 -0700 From: "Andrew" Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <1174565812.338887.88310@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On 21 Mar, 18:08, Maverick wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > On 20 Mar, 16:11, Maverick wrote: > > >>Andrew wrote: > > >>>On 19 Mar, 17:11, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > > >>>>Andrew wrote: > > >>>>>On 19 Mar, 14:49, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > > >>>>>>Andrew wrote: > > >>>>>>>On 18 Mar, 19:49, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > > >>>>>>>>Bill Todd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>Dr. Dweeb wrote: > > >>>>>>>2. The program makers have admitted "cleaning up" some of the > >>>>>>>statistical data they presented to support their argument. They also > >>>>>>>failed to include more up to date data samples easily available from > >>>>>>>NASA which would have further damaged their case. > > >>>>>The film argued that most global warming happend between 1900 and 1940 > >>>>>and that cooled between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom > >>>>>was under way. This apparently showed, that global warming had little > >>>>>to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. > > >>>>>In the film this data was apparently sourced from NASA, one of the > >>>>>newspapers in the UK asked the production company where this data had > >>>>>come from. They admitted that it hadn't come from NASA but from a > >>>>>1998 paper in a publication called the Medical Sentinel. The authors > >>>>>of the paper are climate sceptics partly funded by the George C > >>>>>Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank. > > >>>>>Further investigation has revealed that the graph did not in fact come > > >>>>>from this paper but from an earlier publication by the same authors. > > >>>>>The paper used Nasa data from the 1980's but crucially in the film the > >>>>>axis of the graph was modified to make it appear that the data came up > >>>>>to the present day. > > >>>>>The film makers have admitted that they altered the graphics to make > >>>>>it look as if the sample data ended in 2000 and not in the early > >>>>>1980's. > > >>>>>Had that accessed the additional data available from 1980-2006 which > >>>>>is available from the NASA web site then they would have found that > >>>>>after a small dip temperatures continued upwards, it would also have > >>>>>shown that temperatures have risen more since 1974 than they did > >>>>>between 1900 and 1940, in doing so of course they would have destroyed > >>>>>one of the most apparently telling points the film tried to make that > >>>>>there was no statistical relationship between temperature rise and > >>>>>industrial activity. > > >>>>Actually, I did not experience that as the most telling point, but I am > >>>>willing to accept that you and/or others did. I will review the film again > >>>>and take special note. > > >>>>>>Specifics would be nice - a link to the NASA data or summary please. > > >>>>>>>Possibly their most telling but also most obvious argument was the > >>>>>>>one that the IPCC consists of scientists and non scientists (wow) > >>>>>>>and that they don't all agree that climate change is being caused > >>>>>>>by man. Wow again. > > >>>>>>>There was a clear implication that the non scientists were likely to > >>>>>>>get it wrong. > > >>>>>>Indeed. Political appointees being what they are you do not think > >>>>>>this specifically more likely? I guess you are entitled to that > >>>>>>opinion. My personal experience of the political process suggests > >>>>>>otherwise. > > >>>>>Of course, but there are a large number of governments including the > >>>>>US who would prefer GW to pop back into its hole. Can you guarantee > >>>>>that there was a majority of pro GW appointees to the IPCC. > > >>>>>You could make a strong counter argument to suggest that in all > >>>>>probability lack of a high 90's% probability assessment that mankind > >>>>>is making global warming worse in the IPCC report could be due to the > >>>>>political appointees to the IPCC. > > >>>>My claim was that they are more likely to get it wrong per se. independent > >>>>of their political motivations, since these motivations (+/-) are > >>>>independent (and in their specific case) more likely at odds with science. > > >>>Does it matter, unless you and the channel 4 program can show that the > >>>non scientists all voted for global warming being caused by mans > >>>activities then the point you and the program are making is > >>>irrelevant. > > >>Are you kidding!?! Have YOU seen the report and exactly who is on the > >>list? I doubt that you have. You'll also note that one scientist > >>threatened the UN if they don't take him off their list. Another > >>question has to do with the credentials of said scientists. Some aren't > >>even scientists, but bureaucrats. All I see is a political agenda. > > > Yes I have seen the report and yes the committee does include non > > scientists. Does that matter, no because there is no evidence that the > > inclusion of non scientists biased the report one way or another. > > It matters when the UN makes a claim that *many scientists* are in > agreement here on their list... when in fact it is misleading. > The UN is a political body not a scientific one. > The majority of the members of the IPCC panel were scientists and while it its true that the UN is a political body there is absolutely no evidence that the inclusion of non scientists on the panel produced a report which was more favorable to the global warming argument. In fact there are a number of eminent scientists who have complained that the IPCC report far from being to pro-GW did in fact pull its punches. Lonnie Thompson one of the worlds leading experts on Glaciers, Michael MacCracken the Chief Scientist of the Climate Change Institute and previously senior climate change office at U.S. Global Change Research Program, Dr. James Hansen Head of NASA's Institute for Space Studies and Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences department at Columbia University, Stefan Rahmstorf Professor of Physics of the Oceans Potsdam University, Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment all conclude that the IPCC panel report was conservative and pulled it punches. All of these scientists are leaders in their field of research and all criticize the IPCC report for being to soft. I would hate to get into a my list of scientists is better than yours but since almost all the "scientists" produced to support the global warming is a myth argument have either turned out to be A. Not scientists, B not scientists in a field that is very relevant to GW, C in the employ of an energy company or most frequently D. quoted out of context and actually in the other camp I rest my case. > > I would take your point if there was clear evidence that the non > > scientists changed the conclusions of the report to the detriment of > > the anti-global warming lobby. > > And from what I can gleen that is about what did occur. > This is the part that can easily make a prudent person back away from > their claims to further study what is really going on. > So far, I see money and politics. > Sort of right but again not for the reasons that you think. The IPCC has a history of producing reports that err on the side of caution mainly because it is a concensus based organisation. Or put it another way there is a large and very eminent group of scientists who think that IPCC reports paint a rosier view of the situation than it should based on the available evidence. They easily counterbalance the rather unconvincing group produced by the Channel 4 program and the additional names dragged up by posters to this group. The fact that there is a smaller group of scientists who think that the report over reacts suggests that the IPCC did err on the side of caution. > > And the scientist who wanted to withdraw his name from the report was > > none other than Richard Lindzen who appeared in Channel 4's the Great > > Global Warming Swindle. Hardly surprising since the report does not > > reflect his minority view. > > Minority view should be changed to "a different view". > The majority may very well be wrong on all accounts and is a bit scary. > As I have just pointed out the IPCC actually settled for a middle ground, there is a equally large if not larger group of climate scientists who think that the report is too conservative. > > > > > > Incidentally Professor Wunsch one of the scientists who apparently > > supported the thesis put forward in the program has this to say about > > it. > > > Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely > > misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which > > they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I > > was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about > > how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told > > me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to > > be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." > > > When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what > > happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable > > conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the > > climate will warm". > > Of course how much was never ascertained. A good scientist will say "we > just don't know yet and more research is needed". LOL, given that Professor Wunsch's views were completely distorted it is hardly likely that the program would have included any statement from him on how much impact would be made by man made CO2. Regards Andrew Harrison ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:51:40 -0700 From: "Dave Gullen" Subject: Ancinet History Message-ID: <1174578700.546450.39700@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> Does anyone have an electronic copy of the HSD10 Array Controller User's Guide (EK-HSD10-UG)? I had a look in deathrow, but nothing there. Thanks in advance, Dave Gullen ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 13:02:33 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Climatological models was: More proof that global warming is Message-ID: <56fd39F2838npU2@mid.individual.net> In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article , Maverick writes: >> >> Well, Gates wants there to be only one. > > Anybody who thinks tere should be only one should go back and > re-read Cuckoo's Egg. > > And then the idea of it being Windows will make you afraid, very > afraid. Just thinking there are people who took the ramblings of Clifford Stoll seriously is more than enough to make me very afraid. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 02:36:22 -0700 From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: For Sale - Infotower w/ 7 CD drives Message-ID: <1174556182.642716.46480@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> As someone who can't access ebay from work, where's it located? Steve Jilly wrote: > I am selling an Infotower w/ 7 CD drives in it plus a hub. > See > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180097978588&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=008 > for the item. > > > Jilly ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:03:35 -0500 From: "Island Computers, D B Turner" Subject: Re: FTPS Server for OpenVMS (Also posted to the ITRC) Message-ID: <13056l0381o5d11@news.supernews.com> http://www.proatria.com/ -- Island Computers US Corp 2700 Gregory St Savannah GA 31404 Tel: 912 447 6622 x201 Mail: dturner-atnospam-islandco-com (You know what to do with the dashes) "roger" wrote in message news:1174512162.910090.163590@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Yes, we are still in need of an FTPS Server for OpenVMS that runs > under HP's TCPIP stack and uses HP openSSL library. We need a server > not a client. For the client side I have found: KERMIT and CURL. My > company may be willing to let me port one of the open source FTPs > servers to OpenVMS; we have considered one of the following: vsftpd - > used on red hat linux, PureFtp, or ProFTPd. Before we do this I have > several questions: > > 1. Is OpenVMS engineering working on an FTPs server? I don't want to > take on a possibly many month project if someone is already working on > it. > > 2. Is there anyone out there needing an FTPS server who might want to > share development effort. I would do the majority of the work, but it > might be nice to have some help. > ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 05:45:53 -0700 From: "David B Sneddon" Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <1174567553.571078.122340@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 22, 9:00 pm, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54822 > > here is an excerpt of one UK citizen who has some common sense ... > > One United Kingdom consumer, however, said there will be > difficulties: > > "If we all start using eco bulbs then I suggest we all start using > night vision goggles, because the eco bulbs are useless," wrote Peter > H., from London. "The box told me that it gave out the same level of > light. The box was WRONG. I tried them. The bulbs were terrible, I > could barely see to the other side of the room. > > "It could save you money on your bills but you would spend the rest > off (sic) your life in and out of hospital because you don't have > fluorescent walls and furniture," he continued. "Save yourself a trip > to the hospital, use normal bulbs. > > Among the plans being developed, too, there is no mention of how to > handle the mercury from old fluorescent bulbs. Mercury, a highly > persistent and toxic chemical, can build up to dangerous > concentrations in fish, wildlife, and human beings. Boobie, Boobie, Boobie -- you're a fu...wit (what's the point?) Dave ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:00:54 -0700 From: "Andrew" Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <1174575654.346472.147420@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On 22 Mar, 12:00, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54822 > > here is an excerpt of one UK citizen who has some common sense ... > > One United Kingdom consumer, however, said there will be > difficulties: > > "If we all start using eco bulbs then I suggest we all start using > night vision goggles, because the eco bulbs are useless," wrote Peter > H., from London. "The box told me that it gave out the same level of > light. The box was WRONG. I tried them. The bulbs were terrible, I > could barely see to the other side of the room. > > "It could save you money on your bills but you would spend the rest > off (sic) your life in and out of hospital because you don't have > fluorescent walls and furniture," he continued. "Save yourself a trip > to the hospital, use normal bulbs. > > Among the plans being developed, too, there is no mention of how to > handle the mercury from old fluorescent bulbs. Mercury, a highly > persistent and toxic chemical, can build up to dangerous > concentrations in fish, wildlife, and human beings. Bob. A tiny bit of science here. Burning fossil fuels produces mercury as a toxic by product. Incandescent light bulbs use 5-7x the fuel to produce the same light output as a CFL (which does contain mercury). Because of this a number of reports have concluded that replacing Incandescent light bulbs with CFL's will REDUCE the amount of mercury released into the environment even if every CFL is smashed in a landfill rather than recycled. It is also currently possible to recycle CFL's so that they do not release any mercury into the environment, the same is not true of fossil fuel based power generation. So in other words this is just uninformed FUD where the status quo being advocated is much worse than the apparently terrible CFL. Let me repeat this for you in case you have misunderstood. Reducing mercury emissions is actually a CFL strong point and it is not a reason to buy Incandescent light bulbs. The post you refer to is idiotic. I only use CFL's (actually I have 2 incandescent bulbs because I cannot get a CFL to fit the light) yes they take 10 seconds to produce their full output and yes some of the older units used to take longer but that is the only drawback to CFL's. Brightness is not an issue though you cannot fit them to a dimmer switch. Frankly for you the last issue is hardly going to be a problem. Regards Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:17:11 -0400 From: Paul Anderson Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: In article <4602a90a$1@flight>, "Malcolm Dunnett" wrote: > While disagreeing with the preceeding tripe about flourescent bulbs > not being bright enough I do suspect the energy savings to be > realized by switching from incandescents is overstated. Yes, some of the brightest bulbs in our house are the florescent ones. Using them has made a noticeable difference in our electric bill. > Here in the northern climes it's also cold most of the time that it's > dark, so we're heating our houses anyway. If less heat is released > from the light bulbs then more heat will have to be put into the > house through the primary heating system - thus reducing the net > energy savings. Except your heating system is more efficient at heating the air than incandescent light bulbs. Paul -- Paul Anderson OpenVMS Engineering Hewlett-Packard Company ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:35:24 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <07032211352426_2020028F@antinode.org> From: Paul Anderson > In article <4602a90a$1@flight>, > "Malcolm Dunnett" wrote: > > > While disagreeing with the preceeding tripe about flourescent bulbs So, is a "flourescent" lamp the kind used in a Kenner Easy-Bake Oven? > Yes, some of the brightest bulbs in our house are the florescent ones. What about "floorescent", which are best for for reducing accidental falls caused by hard-to-see clutter? (I hope that I haven't started a never-ending 'How Many Ways Can We Misspell "Fluorescent"?' contest. Well. here, that is. There's obviously one in progress in the real world.) > Except your heating system is more efficient at heating the air than > incandescent light bulbs. An incandescent lamp is almost 100% efficient at turning electricity into heat. In closing, I'll just note (again) that we'd all be better off if people would stop exciting/inciting the Boob with this sort of material. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 09:18:51 -0700 From: "Andrew" Subject: Re: Itanium exception handling performance Message-ID: <1174580331.696875.318540@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On 21 Mar, 05:08, Dan Foster wrote: > Folks, > > Thank you very much for the clear and concise technical > explanations. I found it fascinating, and found it made perfect sense. I > only wish I could reciprocate in some way. > > MIPS, eh? That's interesting. I'm guessing Intel's PC-based (as > in program counter) approach may have been historical; it's hard to stop > a historical juggernaut once it's got enough steam. > > I also appreciated the words of someone from a well-known > engineering laboratory whom had additional insight into the subject, > just as we happened to be discussing it here. :-) > > http://64.223.189.234/node/160 > > Incidentally, this reminds me of how Sun chose to implement > their Niagara processors differently (from an architectural > perspective). > > They can save all registers (for all threads) and related > context switch information with a single call since they sized it to be > big enough to do it all in one gulp. This is one of the reasons why > thread-switching (up to 8 hardware threads per core) is a cheap > operation on Niagara. It's roughly along the lines of changing a pointer > to another area of what I informally call 'thread information block'. > Each of the T1 has 4 hardware threads, the core switches from thread to thread in a single cycle executing threads in a round robin order (assuming there is something to run) if a thread stalls the core ignores it and continues to round robin through the 3 remaining threads until the stalled thread returns. This speeds up the execution of the remaining threads while the stall happens. So for example if you have 4 threads running, each thread sees roughly a 300 Mhz processor assuming the T1 runs at 1.2 GHz. If one thread stalls then the remaining 3 threads see a 400Mhz processor and so on. The key to Niagara is this thread switching efficiency which allows it to ignore stalls boosting processor efficiency. Regards Andrew Harrison > No criticism of other architectures; just merely mentioning a > different approach. Of course, Sun's first Niagara implementation also > had an absymal FP engine (corrected in second generation). It also had > the benefit of hindsight as it is newer than most architectures today. > > I will be sure to keep I64 issues in mind when writing code. > Thanks! I also found it interesting to read about how architectural > design choices affects real world apps, even indirectly. From my > reading, it does indeed sound like quite a challenge for the HP folks to > try and improve performance in some way, to the extent possible. > > -Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:30:47 GMT From: "Jerry Alan Braga" Subject: Migrate Hardware Strategy Message-ID: We are in the process of upgrading our Alpha back-end hardware. Currently: ---------- Alpha OpenVMS 8.2 SCSI Cluster on HSZ70 sharing common system disk Alpha DS25 Production Server 8GB memory (Node: REN) Alpha 1200 Backup/Test Server 2GB memory (Node: STIMPY) Network connected to ProCurve 5800xl switch Target: ------- Alpha OpenVMS 8.3 Cluster on MSA1500cs sharing common system disk New Alpha DS25 Production Server 12GB memory Current Alpha DS25 to replace Alpha 1200 Network connected to ProCurve 5800xl switch My Strategy: ------------- 1. Set new Alpha DS25 boot flags to replace current Alpha DS25 (REN) 2. Set current DS25 boot flags to replace current Alpha 1200 (STIMPY) 3. Migrate cluster to OpenVMS 8.3 with latest patches for MSA1500cs active/active requirement 4. Ensure MSA1500 is at latest firmware required for OpenVMS 8.3 5. Connect MSA1500cs along side the HSZ70 (I have the interface cards required) 6. Configure MSA1500 7. Image Backup data from HSZ70 to MSA1500 8. Change OpenVMS logicals and startup to point to MSA1500 9. Change OpenVMS system Quorum disk to point to MSA1500 9. Change OpenVMS SRM console to boot from MSA1500 9. Remove HSZ70 interface cards from Alpha and retire HSZ Questions: ---------- 1. Does this sound reasonable ? 2. In (2) above how do I handle the IP addressing and nic card changes - since the hardware is now identical can I just copy the tcpip$config.dat file from 1 node to the other, not bring up the tcpip stack on new STIMPY and reconfigure to change host name and IP address. Or should I just not bring up the IP stack and reconfigure everything. - I also use decnet on the second 10/100 nic card for cluster isolated traffic and internode connect. How is this affected. 3. In (7) above how does the MSA1500 present itself to OpenVMS as far as drive names. Since this is a cluster I am using port allocation classes via modparams.dat and the sys$sysdevices.dat has the name of the controllers of the HSZ70 listed so that VMS always sees them as $3$DKA. How is this done with the MSA Thanks in advance ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:33:50 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: In article <9tpbN3lkdcbw@cuebid.zko.hp.com>, brooks@cuebid.zko.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) writes: > "Ian Miller" writes: >> For the last few years at previous events (bootcamps, TUD) etc it was >> always stated there was no customer demand for another version of VMS >> for VAX. >> >> If anyone knows of demand for a new version then do let HP know, > > If anyone plans to "let HP know", you'd be best served by making > a coherent argument why you *need* it, as opposed to why you'd *like* > to have it. > > Leave out the bleating and vituperative dogma; that won't help your case. > Did customers "demand" VAX-11/VMS 1.x and the 11/780, or was it DEC's decision that bringing out a 32-bit replacement for the PDP-11 was good for business? If you don't build it, they won't come. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:40:13 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: In article , JF Mezei writes: > Ian Miller wrote: > > This could very well be just propaganda from HP which is self fulfilling. > > Also, remember that the vast majority of VAX customers have no contact with HP > and just sign a contract renewall form once a year. Some do not even know that > VAX was replaced with Alpha. Why sign a maintenace contract for something that isn't changing? There are a hell of a lot of VAXen and simulators running and HP has to decide whether they want to sell into that market. Not offering any products means not making any sales. So on occaision somebody might want to buy a C compiler for a VAX that only has Fortran. Not a big profit on such rare sales. No if there was a new version of VMS with some real features, somebody might buy it. If there were promises kept about creating such software customers might see the value in having software contracts. I think HP and its predecessors are listening to a few big customers and missing out on a larger market of small customers. They might as well listen to Gartner. It was a big customer that convinced DEC to do the VAX 9000, a money looser. It was a few big customers and a lot of small customers that made the VAX 4000 series profitable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:49 -0400 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]=20 > Sent: March 21, 2007 5:49 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x=20 > "under investigation" >=20 > Rob Brooks wrote: > > If anyone plans to "let HP know", you'd be best served by making > > a coherent argument why you *need* it, as opposed to why=20 > you'd *like* > > to have it. >=20 >=20 > For microsoft: If you built it they will come. >=20 > For VMS: don't let them tell you they desire it. This way=20 > you can justify not=20 > building it. >=20 >=20 > Tell me again which OS has greater market share ? >=20 Please .. If a Customer went to Microsoft and stated that we have a mix of Windows NT3.51 and Windows NT4.0 SP3 applications running on a mix of 386-486 based servers with 16MB-32MB of memory each, and we would like Microsoft to release a new version of Windows 2003 to run on this existing platform, what do you think Microsofts answer would be? Hint - "fix up and tweak your applications so that they will run in .Net with new servers" is likely what you will hear. And the chances of these Windows NT4 applications (e.g. VB6) running in a .Net environment without extensive changes and modifications and testing are very slim. >=20 > There is a HUGE untapped potential in reactivating all those=20 > dormant VAX=20 > accounts hat just blinding renew the contract every year for=20 > that one or two=20 > remaining apps while everything else is being developped on=20 > competitor's=20 > platforms. But if VMS is to run on industry standard machines=20 > in a couple of=20 > years, then best wait until this is announced before=20 > contacting these dormant=20 > customers to convince them to upgrade their VMS boxes to more=20 > modern hardware=20 > and sofware. >=20 As I mentioned in another thread, while there is certainly some revenue from exisitng VAX Customers, the majority of VAX Customers have reasonably stable environments and hence typically decide against having any support agreements. Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:45:55 GMT From: Rob Brown Subject: Re: Problems zipping RBF file Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, DeanW wrote: > They're being FTPd to a Windows box. If we don't encapsulate them, > they come back with the attributes FUBAR. If you can give up the hope for compression, check out COPY/FTP/FDL. -- Rob Brown b r o w n a t g m c l d o t c o m G. Michaels Consulting Ltd. (780)438-9343 (voice) Edmonton (780)437-3367 (FAX) http://gmcl.com/ ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 10:31:58 -0700 From: "Hein RMS van den Heuvel" Subject: Re: RMS indexed file structure questions Message-ID: <1174584718.634624.118560@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Talking to myself again... But I only just realized that with OpenVMS 8.2+ we got PATCH/ABSOLUTE back from VAXland That makes my old (1991) standby automatic bulk patcher a little bit viable again. http://h71000.www7.hp.com/freeware/freeware60/rms_tools/bonus/indexed_file_patch.bas I needed to update the source a little for new XAB/XABKEY defs in BASIC: bruteforced that with the following changes: 38 %INCLUDE "$XABKEYDEF" %FROM %LIBRARY "SYS$LIBRARY:BASIC $STARLET.TLB" 53 MAP (XABKEY) XABDEF XAB 54 MAP (XABKEY) XABKEYDEF XABKEY 70 FIRST_VBN = XABKEY::XAB$L_DVB UNLESS FIRST_VBN !Use first data VBN? 201 DBS = XABKEY::XAB$B_DBS !Pick up Data Bucket size. For trial: $ copy sys$library:vms$password_dictionary.data pass.tmp $ mcr sys$login:block_copy null.tmp pass.tmp 50 100 $ mcr sys$login:block_copy null.tmp pass.tmp 50 200 $ run indexed_file_patch File name? pass.tmp Start VBN? Number of buckets between status lines? 10 10 Buckets, 2 Reads. Current VBN = 111 *** VBN: 111 Address sample 0 ! Last valid VBN 99 20 Buckets, 3 Reads. Current VBN = 121 30 Buckets, 3 Reads. Current VBN = 131 40 Buckets, 3 Reads. Current VBN = 141 50 Buckets, 3 Reads. Current VBN = 151 Valid bucket 159 after 48 tries. 60 Buckets, 4 Reads. Current VBN = 183 *** VBN: 207 Address sample 0 ! Last valid VBN 195 70 Buckets, 4 Reads. Current VBN = 215 80 Buckets, 5 Reads. Current VBN = 225 90 Buckets, 5 Reads. Current VBN = 235 100 Buckets, 5 Reads. Current VBN = 245 110 Buckets, 5 Reads. Current VBN = 255 Valid bucket 255 after 48 tries. 120 Buckets, 7 Reads. Current VBN = 375 130 Buckets, 9 Reads. Current VBN = 495 140 Buckets, 11 Reads. Current VBN = 615 150 Buckets, 13 Reads. Current VBN = 735 160 Buckets, 15 Reads. Current VBN = 855 170 Buckets, 17 Reads. Current VBN = 975 180 Buckets, 19 Reads. Current VBN = 1095 190 Buckets, 21 Reads. Current VBN = 1215 200 Buckets, 23 Reads. Current VBN = 1335 *** There were 206 Data buckets in the file. 24 Reads done. Last bucket VBNs are: 1395 1407 *** Template patch command file PATCH.COM generated. $ type patch.com $PATCH/NONEW/ABSOLUTE pass.tmp DEPOSIT ^D99 - 1 * 200 + 8 = ^D159 ! Last valid -> Next valid VBN DEPOSIT ^D195 - 1 * 200 + 8 = ^D255 ! Last valid -> Next valid VBN UPDATE $ @patch : Now this did not work perfectly, notably as the bad data I put in there was all zeroes, and tus the check byte for bucket 99 matched, but the data was hosed. Also, it just finds the next adjacent bucket, which after bucket splits (and reclaims) may get you into a loop. Still, it's a start if you need something desperately! Hein. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:05:30 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Suggestion for the VMS X-windows server Message-ID: <0kEQ185+tpUt@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , - writes: > Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: >> In article , - writes: >> >>> Michael Kraemer wrote: >>>> - schrieb: >>>> >>>>> Using VMS as an X server doesn't make a lot of sense these days. >> >> Why not? >> > > Because the scarce/expensive resources are better off invested in useful > work. The GUI stuff (X server) should be moved to a machine designed for > GUI. My VMS workstations were designed for a GUI. And none of my other systems work all that well with TPU or DEBUG. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:16:53 -0700 From: - Subject: Re: Suggestion for the VMS X-windows server Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > In article , - writes: >> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: >>> In article , - writes: >>> >>>> Michael Kraemer wrote: >>>>> - schrieb: >>>>> >>>>>> Using VMS as an X server doesn't make a lot of sense these days. >>> Why not? >>> >> Because the scarce/expensive resources are better off invested in useful >> work. The GUI stuff (X server) should be moved to a machine designed for >> GUI. > > My VMS workstations were designed for a GUI. And none of my other > systems work all that well with TPU or DEBUG. > I'm sure there's a rebuttal to my argument somewhere in there. If you use the VMS machine as a workstation, then fine: GUI till you're blue. It's not clear from the OP that's the use case for that environment. My point is that a machine that supports significant production load and significant X server load is a mis-allocation of resources. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:53:33 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <0mbOLXVCe9W3@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <1-ydnYJEv5Ml75zbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@bresnan.com>, Maverick writes: > > But by accident? > I can't as a user go into a root directory in UNIX and start deleting > files. It won't let you. > And I know you can't delete system files in vms as a regular user. > Of course the article didn't give much information on how exactly he did > it either. I can't get jack done on UNIX without su to root first. Then I can do anything, including nasty accidents. I have the same problem on Windows. Can't use the thing without having admin rights. Of course on VMS I normally operate with only some less dangerous, although powerfull enough, privileges turned on. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:58:36 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: In article <4601874D.7050009@comcast.net>, "Richard B. gilbert" writes: > > DSC?? Talk about ancient history!! > > Well I hope we have all learned something in the last twenty years. My > operators never did a backup on their own! I wrote and scheduled the > batch jobs that did backups; the operators just mounted the tapes. You can't do standalone DSC from batch. Nor standalone BACKUP. But I did try to keep beating the operators over the head to throw the write lock switch on the source RP06 just in case. Nowdays I can get away with the issues of doing /image backups while booted. So everything runs from batch and I get my PC "admin" to change tapes (he's in the building). And there is no write lock switch on my RZ28 that he can get to. I don't recall, was it even possible to do an online DSC of the system disk? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:58:52 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <56fcscF2838npU1@mid.individual.net> In article <0mbOLXVCe9W3@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article <1-ydnYJEv5Ml75zbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@bresnan.com>, Maverick writes: >> >> But by accident? >> I can't as a user go into a root directory in UNIX and start deleting >> files. It won't let you. >> And I know you can't delete system files in vms as a regular user. >> Of course the article didn't give much information on how exactly he did >> it either. > > I can't get jack done on UNIX without su to root first. Then I can > do anything, including nasty accidents. Huh? What application can't you run without being root? I have several hundred users, none with root priviledges and 14 Unix servers. They sure seem to be getting their work done. > > I have the same problem on Windows. Can't use the thing without > having admin rights. Same thing here. No student has admin rights. They use Office, Studio, Visio, JGrasp, Cygwin, Eclipse, and a bunch of other stuff, including programs to talk to odd-ball hardware (DSP Boards, Robotics stuff). > > Of course on VMS I normally operate with only some less dangerous, > although powerfull enough, privileges turned on. The idea that any OS other than VMS "requires" users have elevated priviledges is just plain absurd. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:08:07 -0400 From: "Richard B. gilbert" Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <46028DC7.1060205@comcast.net> Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <4601874D.7050009@comcast.net>, "Richard B. gilbert" writes: > >>DSC?? Talk about ancient history!! >> >>Well I hope we have all learned something in the last twenty years. My >>operators never did a backup on their own! I wrote and scheduled the >>batch jobs that did backups; the operators just mounted the tapes. > > > You can't do standalone DSC from batch. Nor standalone BACKUP. > But I did try to keep beating the operators over the head to throw > the write lock switch on the source RP06 just in case. > > Nowdays I can get away with the issues of doing /image backups > while booted. So everything runs from batch and I get my PC "admin" > to change tapes (he's in the building). And there is no write > lock switch on my RZ28 that he can get to. > > I don't recall, was it even possible to do an online DSC of the system > disk? > I came on board at VMS V3.6. DSC was history at that point. It may still have been available but I never used it for anything. I was taught to use BACKUP in System Management Class. Backups were a bit of an ordeal! I was using a 1600bpi tape to back up an RA81. Ultimately it took something like 14 tapes, and something like eight hours to back up the disk. I spend a lot of Saturdays changing tapes! ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:38:31 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <56fin7F28os4aU1@mid.individual.net> In article <46028FC4.3060405@comcast.net>, "Richard B. gilbert" writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article <0mbOLXVCe9W3@eisner.encompasserve.org>, >> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >> >>>In article <1-ydnYJEv5Ml75zbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@bresnan.com>, Maverick writes: >>> >>>>But by accident? >>>>I can't as a user go into a root directory in UNIX and start deleting >>>>files. It won't let you. >>>>And I know you can't delete system files in vms as a regular user. >>>>Of course the article didn't give much information on how exactly he did >>>>it either. >>> >>> I can't get jack done on UNIX without su to root first. Then I can >>> do anything, including nasty accidents. >> >> >> Huh? What application can't you run without being root? I have several >> hundred users, none with root priviledges and 14 Unix servers. They >> sure seem to be getting their work done. >> >> >>> >>> I have the same problem on Windows. Can't use the thing without >>> having admin rights. >> >> >> Same thing here. No student has admin rights. They use Office, Studio, >> Visio, JGrasp, Cygwin, Eclipse, and a bunch of other stuff, including >> programs to talk to odd-ball hardware (DSP Boards, Robotics stuff). >> >> >>> Of course on VMS I normally operate with only some less dangerous, >>> although powerfull enough, privileges turned on. >> >> >> The idea that any OS other than VMS "requires" users have elevated >> priviledges is just plain absurd. >> >> bill >> > > Damned few of my users ever got more than TMPMBX, and NETMBX. > > Very few operating systems require elevated privileges to run most > applications. VMS generally does not require that the USER have > elevated privileges to run an application; if privileges are needed, the > application can be installed with those privileges. Upon re-reading it what I said may have been ambiguous. I certainly didn't mean that VMS required elevated privs. I was addressing the idea that everything else but VMS would. > > As for Unix, root is only required for administrative type things. If > running an application requires root, I'd question the competence of the > System Administrator. I agree. And, contrary to what people here would like to believe, the same is true of Windows. I just spent a month working at an Army site in Germany and the machines there are locked down even tighter than the ones in my lab and that did not prevent users from running applications or getting their work done. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:46:20 -0600 From: Maverick Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: Paul Repacholi wrote: > Maverick writes: > ... > > For the system file issue, the article states it was a user data disk. > Well, two in fact... > Hmmm... the only thing I can think of is that the system was large enough to confuse the operator in not knowing which was which. Even on an old VAX system we used to have we labeled our hard drives and VAXes with pertinent names. (One was called Bert and the other Ernie) > >>Well, we don't have enough details to go on, but I've never seen this >>happen on other systems. Somebody may have, and a good story about >>one is appreciated. > > > Adding the wrong drive to an active shadow set is the best `instant death' > I know of... don't ask how I know... :( :D Ok, I won't ask. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.162 ************************