INFO-VAX Tue, 11 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 495 Contents: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Copy/record to DVD's Re: Copy/record to DVD's Re: Copy/record to DVD's Re: Copy/record to DVD's Re: DECServer 700 help Re: DECServer 700 help Re: DFU on the freeware disks Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Jobs near Pittsburg PA Re: Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Re: Stuck at a console Re: Stuck at a console Re: VMS License Plates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:12:31 GMT From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > ... the error message is: > > "... error writing ... > DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V0801-2-1.PCSI;1" > > which is the original PCSI file (I checked it on my version, > same volume label: "I64BINFEB071"). > > Same error here. However, my version doesn't show the "error on > bitmap". > > Is this a PCSI bug? > > System/VMS version: HP rx1620 ... running OpenVMS V8.2-1 > > Albrecht You are still trying to write to DQA0: which you previously shown to be software write locked. Try copying the file to some normal disk. Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 15:05:29 -0500 From: frey@encompasserve.org (Sharon) Subject: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: <+UEyOWJK56We@eisner.encompasserve.org> I'm setting up a comfile that burns historical data to DVD on a customer's sparkling new Integrity system. I don't know how much data they'll end up putting on each disk, but I'm pretty sure it will never be more than the 4.7Gb stated on the DVD's I was testing with. I wrote the comfile to size the container disk at the (current) max DVD size. When I tested it, I think it ran out of room. Here is the error I got: %CDDVD-I-SKEY, Unit sense key 05 -CDDVD-I-SKEYILLREQ, illegal request sense key %CDDVD-I-SKEYASCASCQ, SKey: 05, ASC: 21, ASCQ: 00 %CDDVD-I-ASC2100, logical block address out of range error detected %CDDVD-E-WRTERR, disk write or disk full error; unable to complete write -CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address Synchronizing with output device cache Closing the open track Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion Closing the open session Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion Unable to complete processing %CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address First question: is this really saying it ran out of room on the disk? It's a little obscured by complaints about "sense key". Second question, what is the largest container file I can burn to DVD? I obviously miscalculated it. Here is my comfile: $ SET NOON $ SAY :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT $ SAY "Beginning HDMP DVD Burn." $! $LOADNEWCD: $ ON CONTROL_Y THEN GOTO EXIT $ SAY "" $ SAY "Please load a NEW blank DVD in the drive on ''f$getsyi("nodename")'..." $ INQUIRE DUMMY "Press Enter to continue. Control/Y to exit" $! $REUSE_DVD_CONTAINER: $ IF F$GETDVI("$3$LDA1:","EXISTS") $ THEN $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: $ LD DISCONNECT $3$LDA1: $ ENDIF $ SAY "Preparing files to copy." $ LD CREATE/SIZE=10049000 $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK $ LD CONNECT $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK LDA1 $ INITIALIZE $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD $ MOUNT $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD $! $COPY_FILES_TO_HDMP_CONTAINER: $ SAY "" $ SAY "Copying files from source directory to DVD container..." (copying files into container file)... $! $BURN_FILES_TO_DVD: $ SAY "" $ SAY "Starting to burn DVD..." $ MOUNT/OVER=ID $3$DNA0: $ COPY/RECORDABLE/FORMAT/VERIFY $3$LDA1: $3$DNA0: $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: $ LD DISCONNECT LDA1 $! $ EXIT - Sharon "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:32:29 -0700 From: Ryan Moore Subject: Re: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: I don't want to take the time to dig through them now, but I thought I remember a table in one of the recent OpenVMS Release Notes/New Features manuals containing a table of container sizes for various types of media. On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Sharon wrote: > Second question, what is the largest container file I can burn to DVD? I > obviously miscalculated it. Here is my comfile: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:19:14 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: <46E5FB22.18443479@spam.comcast.net> Sharon wrote: > > I'm setting up a comfile that burns historical data to DVD on a customer's > sparkling new Integrity system. I don't know how much data they'll end up > putting on each disk, but I'm pretty sure it will never be more than the 4.7Gb > stated on the DVD's I was testing with. I wrote the comfile to size the > container disk at the (current) max DVD size. When I tested it, I think it ran > out of room. Here is the error I got: > > %CDDVD-I-SKEY, Unit sense key 05 > -CDDVD-I-SKEYILLREQ, illegal request sense key > %CDDVD-I-SKEYASCASCQ, SKey: 05, ASC: 21, ASCQ: 00 > %CDDVD-I-ASC2100, logical block address out of range error detected > %CDDVD-E-WRTERR, disk write or disk full error; unable to complete write > -CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address > Synchronizing with output device cache > Closing the open track > Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion > Closing the open session > Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion > Unable to complete processing > %CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address > > First question: is this really saying it ran out of room on the disk? It's a > little obscured by complaints about "sense key". > > Second question, what is the largest container file I can burn to DVD? I > obviously miscalculated it. Here is my comfile: > > $ SET NOON > $ SAY :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT > $ SAY "Beginning HDMP DVD Burn." > $! > $LOADNEWCD: > $ ON CONTROL_Y THEN GOTO EXIT > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Please load a NEW blank DVD in the drive on ''f$getsyi("nodename")'..." > $ INQUIRE DUMMY "Press Enter to continue. Control/Y to exit" > $! > $REUSE_DVD_CONTAINER: > $ IF F$GETDVI("$3$LDA1:","EXISTS") > $ THEN > $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: > $ LD DISCONNECT $3$LDA1: > $ ENDIF > $ SAY "Preparing files to copy." > $ LD CREATE/SIZE=10049000 $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK > $ LD CONNECT $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK LDA1 > $ INITIALIZE $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD > $ MOUNT $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD > $! > $COPY_FILES_TO_HDMP_CONTAINER: > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Copying files from source directory to DVD container..." > (copying files into container file)... > $! > $BURN_FILES_TO_DVD: > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Starting to burn DVD..." > $ MOUNT/OVER=ID $3$DNA0: > $ COPY/RECORDABLE/FORMAT/VERIFY $3$LDA1: $3$DNA0: > $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: > $ LD DISCONNECT LDA1 > $! > $ EXIT Well, I make 10049000 blocks as 4.79GBF. Nero only lets me try to burn 4.5GBF on a DVD+R. Try 9437184 blocks, minus about 10 percent, rounded up to the nearest multiple of the target volume's clustersize. FWIW... -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:48:14 -0700 From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: <1189478894.854328.272950@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 4:05 pm, f...@encompasserve.org (Sharon) wrote: > I'm setting up a comfile that burns historical data to DVD on a customer's > sparkling new Integrity system. I don't know how much data they'll end up > putting on each disk, but I'm pretty sure it will never be more than the 4.7Gb > stated on the DVD's I was testing with. I wrote the comfile to size the > container disk at the (current) max DVD size. When I tested it, I think it ran > out of room. Here is the error I got: > > %CDDVD-I-SKEY, Unit sense key 05 > -CDDVD-I-SKEYILLREQ, illegal request sense key > %CDDVD-I-SKEYASCASCQ, SKey: 05, ASC: 21, ASCQ: 00 > %CDDVD-I-ASC2100, logical block address out of range error detected > %CDDVD-E-WRTERR, disk write or disk full error; unable to complete write > -CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address > Synchronizing with output device cache > Closing the open track > Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion > Closing the open session > Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion > Unable to complete processing > %CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address > > First question: is this really saying it ran out of room on the disk? It's a > little obscured by complaints about "sense key". > > Second question, what is the largest container file I can burn to DVD? I > obviously miscalculated it. Here is my comfile: > > $ SET NOON > $ SAY :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT > $ SAY "Beginning HDMP DVD Burn." > $! > $LOADNEWCD: > $ ON CONTROL_Y THEN GOTO EXIT > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Please load a NEW blank DVD in the drive on ''f$getsyi("nodename")'..." > $ INQUIRE DUMMY "Press Enter to continue. Control/Y to exit" > $! > $REUSE_DVD_CONTAINER: > $ IF F$GETDVI("$3$LDA1:","EXISTS") > $ THEN > $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: > $ LD DISCONNECT $3$LDA1: > $ ENDIF > $ SAY "Preparing files to copy." > $ LD CREATE/SIZE=10049000 $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK > $ LD CONNECT $1$DGA5:[HDMP]HDMP_CONTAINER.DSK LDA1 > $ INITIALIZE $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD > $ MOUNT $3$LDA1: HDMPDVD > $! > $COPY_FILES_TO_HDMP_CONTAINER: > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Copying files from source directory to DVD container..." > (copying files into container file)... > $! > $BURN_FILES_TO_DVD: > $ SAY "" > $ SAY "Starting to burn DVD..." > $ MOUNT/OVER=ID $3$DNA0: > $ COPY/RECORDABLE/FORMAT/VERIFY $3$LDA1: $3$DNA0: > $ DISMOUNT $3$LDA1: > $ LD DISCONNECT LDA1 > $! > $ EXIT > > - Sharon > "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!" A recent update to a note on Hoff's site ( http://64.223.189.234/node/28 ) indicated that you want to use a size of 9,180,416 blocks for DVD+RW and a size of up to 9,180,416 blocks for DVD+R. The DVD+RW is apparently fixed due to the RW nature. John H. Reinhardt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:04:49 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: DECServer 700 help Message-ID: <46E5F7C1.CA8943E0@spam.comcast.net> bakermo wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:48:53 -0500, David J Dachtera > wrote: > > >bakermo wrote: > >> > >> OK - it's been a while since I worked with a DECServer 700 so I wonder > >> if anyone can please give me some advice and/or help? > >> > >> I am trying to configure a reverse LAT port from an Alpha GS140 to a > >> DECServer 700. I have a 4800 baud clock signal that will go into the > >> DECServer on port 7 and have VMS get the signal on LTA7. > > > >When you say "4800 baud clock signal", do you mean that the dat being sent to > >the serial port appears at a buad rate of 4800, or are you saying that the clock > >is a SYNCHRONOUS serial interface (which the DECserver-700 does not support, > >AFAIK)? > > 4800 BAUD rate > > > > >> The clock is ansi characters in the format: > >> > >> 203:00:00:02B > >> > >> I have looked at this signal on a VT320 on a crash cart and it is OK. > >> (4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity). The cable is connected via a > >> null modem into port 7 of the DS700. > >> > >> Here's how the server port is configured: > >> > >> Port 7: (Remote) Server: RAQ1TS > >> > >> Character Size: 8 Input Speed: 4800 > >> Flow Control: XON Output Speed: 4800 > >> Parity: None Signal Control: Disabled > >> Stop Bits: Dynamic Signal Select: CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR > >> > >> Access: Remote Local Switch: None > >> Backwards Switch: None Name: PORT_7 > >> Break: Local Session Limit: 4 > >> Forwards Switch: None Type: Ansi > >> Default Protocol: LAT Default Menu: None > >> Autolink Timer One:10 Two:10 Dialer Script: None > >> > >> Preferred Service: None > >> Authorized Groups: 0-255 > >> (Current) Groups: 0-255 > >> > >> Enabled Characteristics: > > > >As John M. pointed out, you'll want "Stop bits" to be 1, in all likelihood. > >Also, you indicated above "4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity". So, "Stop > >bits" should indeed be 1. > > > >However, note you indication of "XON". Does this not conflict with the port > >setting (hardware flow control)? > > How so? O.k. Let's try that again... You said "(4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity)". That is, XON/XOF flow control. You indicated that the DECserver port is set up for: [...] Parity: None Signal Control: Disabled Stop Bits: Dynamic Signal Select: CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR [...] That is, hardware flow control. What's wrong with this picture? (Hint: XON/XOF != Hardware flow control.) See HELP SET PORT or HELP DEF PORT or HELP CHANGE PORT while at the DECserver's console prompt with privilege enabled. -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:34:04 -0500 From: bakermo Subject: Re: DECServer 700 help Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:11:26 -0500, bakermo wrote: > >OK - it's been a while since I worked with a DECServer 700 so I wonder >if anyone can please give me some advice and/or help? > Thanks to all who replied and offered suggestions and/or advice. It was, after all, the null-MODEM cables. They were not wired correctly. Luckily I found my old DECServer700 hardware manual and was able to verify the RJ45 pin-outs. I made no changes to any of the settings I originally posted. Only the null-MODEM cables were changed and everything works. So it seems my memory is not that bad after all! ;-) Thanks again for the support! bakermo bakermo@swbell.net.yourpants email replies remove .yourpants ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:13:58 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: DFU on the freeware disks Message-ID: <46E5F9E6.9FBC19CC@spam.comcast.net> Jur van der Burg wrote: > > It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware > to be maintained anymore. Maybe Hoff has a suitable relationship with his former employer that if he gave them a freeware collection master set, they'd be inclined to dup it and send it out with the Alpha kits. Of course, I64 is another matter. Maybe someone with enough storage and bandwidth could host it on the web. 'Know what? Let me talk to my Bro.-in-law about that... -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:36:51 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189449411.172949.295530@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 1:31 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > bri...@encompasserve.org wrote: > > Newton's third law applies in either case. The force of the glass pane > > against the rock is equal and opposite to the force of the rock on the > > glass pane. The force of the tennis ball on the glass pane is equal and > > opposite to the force of the glass pane on the tennis ball. > > What we need to do is convince Hurd, Livermore and Stallard that the > force to kill VMS will be met with an equal force against killing VMS. > hence, they should stop attempting to kill it and let it flourish. I think we'd need to find some "excess force" to provide a proper rebound:-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:07:28 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189451248.240628.48710@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 11:44 am, "Joe H. Gallagher" wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: > > davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > > >> Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. > > > I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed > > limits :-) > > > Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be > > able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The > > propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which > > remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy > > that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able > > to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will > > require an infinite amount of energy. > > > HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the > > speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing > > throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ? > > YES! According to Einstein's Theory, the effective mass of the ship > will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly > increase the speed (velocity) up to or greater than the speed of light. > > m[effective mass] = m[mass at rest]/sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2) > > where v is the apparent velocity, c is the speed of light, sqrt is the > square root, and "**2" means squared. The main result of trying to go > faster is that it gets "heavier". The effective mass goes infinite for > all objects with non-zero rest mass as they approach the speed of light. > [Photons have zero rest mass; they can 'travel' at the speed of light.] > The formula has a self-imposed barrier where c is the maximum v obtainable by m[r] accelerating from v So far, there have been no non-quantum (i.e. macroscopic world - things > the size of space ships as opposed to sub-atomic particles) > contradictions to this part of Einstein's theory. But there's another factor: The medium in which the mass (or quanta) exists. Our ability to observe the universe is limited by our own nature - we only observe and define events in terms of the electromagnetic-gravitational medium we know (although QM tries to expand the medium.) We have computed c to be the EMG speed limit, but other forces and medium might well exist that someday will be discovered and used. It's seems pretty clear that any EMG mass-based vehicle propelled by any EMG based method would be limited to the speed of light within that frame of reference, or medium. Mathematically, if you solve v for a mass less than zero, or if the value of c is allowed to vary due to other factors, velocity can exceed the EMG speed-of-light constant - it's just that we haven't actually found such a thing (and maybe we never will) except in science-fiction - as in Gene Roddenberry's science-theory based antimatter warp drive. Mass is defined in terms of inertia and gravity, and photons (as well as energy waves and other "mass less" quanta) are affected by gravity as predicted by Einstein and demonstrated by our observation of cosmic lenses. So, the equations still hold a few mysteries. There are still debates regarding the nature of gravity; the most easily observable phenomenon of nature seems to be one of the most difficult to understand. Is it any wonder we do not understand phenomenon that we cannot observe? (I know I've said nothing that wouldn't be old discourse to many here, but I thought I'd toss it in anyway;-) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 19:13:18 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <5kljaeF4b83fU1@mid.individual.net> In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article <5kl7r6F42t3iU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >> The lowest biddeer comment was Neil Armstrong. Chuck Yeager was quoted >> as saying "I refuse to be shot out of a cannon." when he turned down the >> offer. He was, of course, refering to the fact that the occupants in the >> original space flights had no control over the craft and just went along >> for the ride. > > A common misconception. The Mercury spacecraft were _supposed_ to > operate completely automatically unless someone wanted to interfere, > and did for the test flights prior to the first manned launch. That's > what Chuck was talking about when astronaut selelction was in > progress. > > But due to planned testing or systems failure every manned Mercury > mission was at some point under the astronaut's control. Many of > them would have been lost were it not for the skill of the man > inside. Don't take it up with me, take it up with Chuck. :-) As for me, I think as an airframe the shuttle has to be the worst design I have ever witnessed. But I would still love to make the trip. 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: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:09:38 GMT From: Alfred Falk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote in news:s%jEi.75724$lZ7.60615@newsfe20.lga: > On 09/07/07 16:48, Doug Phillips wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2:58 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote: >>> >>>> In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes: >>> Which still is /argument by authority/. Many in the AGW >>> (anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical >>> fallacy. >> >> >> Anthropomorphic Global Warming: The earth has an infection which is >> causing a fever. > > ??? > > Anthro- man > morph - change (Nit) Actually: morph - shape I leave it as an exercise in language development to understand why "morphing" might be taken to mean "changing". ;-) > I was still wrong, though. It is Anthropogenic. > >> Anthropogenic Global Warming: Mankind is the infection. ;-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- A L B E R T A Alfred Falk falk@arc.ab.ca R E S E A R C H Information Systems Dept (780)450-5185 C O U N C I L 250 Karl Clark Road Edmonton, Alberta, Canada http://www.arc.ab.ca/ T6N 1E4 http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/falk/ ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 15:54:19 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. QM assumes that the knowlegde of changes to the state of a system propogate thoughout all space instantaneously. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:42:30 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189460550.920212.168580@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 4:11 pm, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 09/10/07 04:12, Rudolf Wingert wrote: > > >>> Hello, > > >>> JF Mezei wrotes: > > >>> However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, > >>> although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and > >>> doesn't cause illness to people ? > >>> <<< > > >>> JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. > >>> But is > > >> There are *lots* of very old traditions which are very very very bad. > > > e.g. celebrating by firing guns into the air. It doesn't seem to > > occur to the celebrants that the bullets come down somewhere and that > > terminal velocity is something like 120 MPH! > > > Every once in a while, this practice makes the news when some > > unfortunate soul happens to be standing where the bullet came down. > > I read once that one person gets "shot" this way every New Year in LA. And that one person is getting *real* tired of that happening;-))) > I > forget where, sorry. Maybe an urban legend, but 120mph bit of lead to the > head would probably be fatal. > The aforementioned TV show /Mythbusters/ (also one of my favorites, Ron) took on the "falling bullet" myth and concluded that the bullet can probably exceed 120mph downward if it's trajectory is such that it doesn't "flutter" on descent, but if fired close to straight-up it will flutter back down. Even 120mph put some pretty impressive holes in the ground. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > >> I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. > > QM assumes that the knowlegde of changes to the state of a system > propogate thoughout all space instantaneously. > Only in non-relativistic quantum mechanics which is formulated using the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation (or equivalent matrix mechanics formulation). Quantum field theories such as QED and the Standard Model are relativistic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics " Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. QED was developed by a number of physicists, beginning in the late 1920s.[1] QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons. It has been called "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen. " and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model "The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory which describes three of the four known fundamental interactions between the elementary particles that make up all matter. It is a quantum field theory developed between 1970 and 1973 which is consistent with both quantum mechanics and special relativity. " David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:00:37 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <008f01c7f406$c8e9b8d0$5abd2a70$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Koehler [mailto:koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:54 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) > > In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk > writes: > > > I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. > > QM assumes that the knowlegde of changes to the state of a system > propogate thoughout all space instantaneously. Is that the old zero-point field stuff? Let me see if I can remember this correctly, an electromagnetic object (i.e. any old mass) being accelerated through the electromagnetic vacuum (zero point field) will be opposed by radiation given off by the zero point field, which is essentially was causes the force we call inertia. (Okay, that is way simplified, I guess I could look up the references, but I don't have access to all the online journals anymore. :) I believe they came up with this in the early 90's and ticked off the "pure" QM people beause they did not formulate the math in a pure QM form. Of course, String Theory was making its entrance right around then, and a lot of the QM people were getting nervous anyway. ;) It seems to me that they redid the equations and found that it tied back to gravity as well. I think it was a guy named Haisch (or something similar to that) and Dr. Rueda out at Long Beach. Could be wrong though. -Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:16:01 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189469761.200663.63290@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 2:58 am, "Rudolf Wingert" wrote: > Hello, > > David did write: > > > > How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which > you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you > know > better, and a Law ? > > I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are > perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed. > <<< According to the Torah it is law. I don't see how you can interpret it otherwise. And the health aspect of it may be part of the motivation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#Attempts_to_explain_the_laws_of_kashrut > > In my German Bibel the heading is instructions, not law. May be this is a > wrong translation from Greek or Latin to German. But why should God change "Instructions"? From "God"? How could that not be "law"? > his mind from: you can eat what you want, if it is without any blood to you > can eat only koscher animals? Please. > God did give the mankind only ten laws, the > rest where all instruction to survive. Sorry, but, no. > Jesus did expand (or compress how you > would like to see) it with the law: You should love God and your next and > yourself. > Look to the apostle Paul. He did write, that he can eat idol meat without > any problem. No comment. > I think that it is not important, what you believe. Important is, to have a > living relationship to Jesus Christ and his Father. To answer to the love of > God. The Bibel is the scale, where I can measure me live in this love. No comment. > > Best regards Rudolf Wingert AEF ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:32:53 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <1189469761.200663.63290@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > >On Sep 10, 2:58 am, "Rudolf Wingert" wrote: >> Hello, >> >> David did write: >> >> >> >> How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which >> you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you >> know >> better, and a Law ? >> >> I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are >> perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed. >> <<< > >According to the Torah it is law. I don't see how you can interpret it >otherwise. And the health aspect of it may be part of the motivation. >See > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#Attempts_to_explain_the_laws_of_kashrut Any god that would keep me from my "eternal reward" because I had a ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is no god in my book. FYI; Today, I stopped for gas at a station on the border of Lakewood, a hasidic Jewish community. I watched two Hasidim standing outside of the associated convenience store inhaling the shit combustibles exuded from an ignited cigarette and thought to myself that the regulations in Leviticus prohibit the injesting of a ham sandie but putting that carcinogenic shit into one's system was OK. Sure seems hypocritical to me. Religion? Nah... -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:33:32 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189470812.682595.284920@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 9:05 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: > >On 09/09/07 07:32, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >> In article <4obEi.295402$5y.136...@newsfe18.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: > >>> On 09/07/07 07:09, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote: > >>>> In article , Ron Johnson writes: > >>>>> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote: > >>>>>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not > >>>>>>> predetermined before the sim is run. > > >>>>>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our > >>>>>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The > >>>>> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external > >>>>> variables. > >>>> A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity. The result is > >>>> still preset. > >>> Who uses seeded PRNGs anymore? > > >>> I don't know how VMS does it, but /dev/random on Linux returns true > >>> randomness based on randomness in the motherboard. > > >> Which itself is not truly random. The devil is in the details. The motherboard is certainly doing non- random things. If these affect the random numbers from the noise, then some randomness is "lost". > > >Actually, it *is* random, because it uses "noise" from the mobo > >instead of an algorithm. > > Assuming that you have carefully removed all physical sources of correlation > or correlations related to sampling intervals then thermal noise, shot noise > etc depend upon "unpredictable" quantum events. > (Though for noise sources proving that you have removed all such correlations > and are just relying on quantum events may be difficult if not impossible to > achieve). It may well be random enough. > > These quantum events may appear to be random since we do not understand the > mechanism of the collapse of the wavefunction. However as I pointed out in > another post adding special relativity to Quantum theory confirms that any > such theory which describes a single consistent Universe must be predetermined. It depends what you mean by predetermined! What QM says is that there is no way to predict the outcome of many events even if we know everything about the situation before the event. It's predetermined in the sense that there will be only one outcome, but that's not saying much. The wave function follows a definite evolution according to the Schroedinger equation (or whatever relativistic variant you're using). > > Note how by relying on an external source for randomness we have gone right > back to the question of whether the whole Universe is predetermined rather than > just your computer sim. Right. > > David Webb [...] AEF ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:50:20 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <008f01c7f406$c8e9b8d0$5abd2a70$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Koehler [mailto:koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org] >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:54 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) >> >> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk >> writes: >> >> > I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. >> >> QM assumes that the knowlegde of changes to the state of a system >> propogate thoughout all space instantaneously. > >Is that the old zero-point field stuff? No I don't think he is referring to that. He is just responding to my statement about there being no conflicts between special relativity and quantum theory. I have responded to the above in another post. >Let me see if I can remember this >correctly, an electromagnetic object (i.e. any old mass) being accelerated >through the electromagnetic vacuum (zero point field) will be opposed by >radiation given off by the zero point field, which is essentially was causes >the force we call inertia. (Okay, that is way simplified, I guess I could >look up the references, but I don't have access to all the online journals >anymore. :) > Are you perhaps thinking of the Unruh effect where an accelerated observer would observe black body radiation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect and the connection with inertia suggested by Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda and Hal Puthoff see http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/science.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics This suggestion appears to be fairly controversial with Bill Unruh saying that Haisch and Rueda's calculations are wrong. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >I believe they came up with this in the early 90's and ticked off the "pure" >QM people beause they did not formulate the math in a pure QM form. Of >course, String Theory was making its entrance right around then, and a lot >of the QM people were getting nervous anyway. ;) > >It seems to me that they redid the equations and found that it tied back to >gravity as well. > >I think it was a guy named Haisch (or something similar to that) and Dr. >Rueda out at Long Beach. >Could be wrong though. > >-Paul > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:13:55 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189473235.941717.301590@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 5:42 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > On Sep 10, 4:11 pm, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > > > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >> On 09/10/07 04:12, Rudolf Wingert wrote: > > > >>> Hello, > > > >>> JF Mezei wrotes: > > > >>> However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, > > >>> although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and > > >>> doesn't cause illness to people ? > > >>> <<< > > > >>> JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. > > >>> But is > > > >> There are *lots* of very old traditions which are very very very bad. > > > > e.g. celebrating by firing guns into the air. It doesn't seem to > > > occur to the celebrants that the bullets come down somewhere and that > > > terminal velocity is something like 120 MPH! > > > > Every once in a while, this practice makes the news when some > > > unfortunate soul happens to be standing where the bullet came down. > > > I read once that one person gets "shot" this way every New Year in LA. > > And that one person is getting *real* tired of that happening;-))) Chuckling OL! > > I > > forget where, sorry. Maybe an urban legend, but 120mph bit of lead to the > > head would probably be fatal. > > The aforementioned TV show /Mythbusters/ (also one of my favorites, > Ron) took on the "falling bullet" myth and concluded that the bullet > can probably exceed 120mph downward if it's trajectory is such that it > doesn't "flutter" on descent, but if fired close to straight-up it > will flutter back down. Even 120mph put some pretty impressive holes > in the ground. Imagine being hit in the head by a tennis ball served by Roger Federer. Now change that to a bullet. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:13:51 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <009c01c7f411$040b2890$0c2179b0$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk [mailto:david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:50 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) > > In article <008f01c7f406$c8e9b8d0$5abd2a70$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" > writes: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bob Koehler [mailto:koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org] > >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:54 PM > >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > >> Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) > >> > >> In article , > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk > >> writes: > >> > >> > I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. > >> > >> QM assumes that the knowlegde of changes to the state of a system > >> propogate thoughout all space instantaneously. > > > >Is that the old zero-point field stuff? > > No I don't think he is referring to that. He is just responding to my > statement > about there being no conflicts between special relativity and quantum > theory. > I have responded to the above in another post. > > > >Let me see if I can remember this > >correctly, an electromagnetic object (i.e. any old mass) being > accelerated > >through the electromagnetic vacuum (zero point field) will be opposed > by > >radiation given off by the zero point field, which is essentially was > causes > >the force we call inertia. (Okay, that is way simplified, I guess I > could > >look up the references, but I don't have access to all the online > journals > >anymore. :) > > > Are you perhaps thinking of the Unruh effect where an accelerated > observer > would observe black body radiation see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect > > and the connection with inertia suggested by Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso > Rueda > and Hal Puthoff > > see > > http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/science.html > > and > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics > > > This suggestion appears to be fairly controversial with Bill Unruh > saying that > Haisch and Rueda's calculations are wrong. > That's the one I was thinking of. I've not been active or even very much peripherally associated with the field for a while now, and was unable to follow all the happenings. If their calculations are correct, I can see why it would upset a lot of the QM people. The calcs are too simple to upset the String/Brane/etc people. -Paul > > > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University > > > > >I believe they came up with this in the early 90's and ticked off the > "pure" > >QM people beause they did not formulate the math in a pure QM form. Of > >course, String Theory was making its entrance right around then, and a > lot > >of the QM people were getting nervous anyway. ;) > > > >It seems to me that they redid the equations and found that it tied > back to > >gravity as well. > > > >I think it was a guy named Haisch (or something similar to that) and > Dr. > >Rueda out at Long Beach. > >Could be wrong though. > > > >-Paul > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:18:05 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189473485.169783.58660@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 12:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > > I'm not sufficiently up on string theory and loop quantum gravity etc > > However I'm fairly confident that any future theory of everything would > > incorporate enough of special relativity to guarantee the predetermination of > > the future of the Universe (assuming that there is just one single consistent > > future rather than multiple futures as held by the many-worlds interpretation > > of quantum theory). > > I'm not up on al lthe latest advances, but in every case I know of > when differences between relativity and quantum mechanics have been > close as a finding of that one of them was wrong, it was relativiy > that lost out. Can you please give an example or two? > > It's quite clear that both are sufficiently accurate descriptions of > the universe that a final theory explaining concepts of both (if we > ever work it out) will not be able to dismiss major features of > either. Well, I'd say it will be very interesting to see how the conflict between QM and GR will be resolved. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:06 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189473666.128372.232900@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 12:55 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: > > > I don't know if he ever changed his mind, but there was a time when > > he firmly disbelieved QP/QM. Bad way to put it. He thought that QM had to be incomplete due to its lack of causality. > > He had difficulty with some of the founding concepts of QM, and > is often quoted "God does not place dice with the Universe". > > But being a zen master does not mean never making a mistake. > To bad he died before his "the biggest mistake I ever made" was > found to be closer to the truth than was though for a few > generations. Well, do we really know that yet? In the recent Isaacson book Einstein is quoted as saying, upon being shown his new office at Princeton and being asked what he would need, he said something like "Well, a desk, and a chair, and some paper and pencils. Oh, yes, and a large wastebasket to throw out all my mistakes!" AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:24:47 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189473887.879431.82460@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 9:50 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > > > > > Magnets? Or other charged areas to accelerate the ion? An ion, being > > a charged particle would loop in a magnetic field (Maxwell's Equations > > applied here: Curl B = 1/c dE/dt (derivative is partial)). > > That depends on the shape and direction of the magnetic field. > That is B and E are vectors and you can control the direction of E > by choosing the direction of B. Particles are accelerated by electric fields. They are focused by magnetic fields. The Lorentz force due to the magnetic field is perpendicular to the path of the particle and hence can only change its direction. Though solar wind particles get trapped in the Earth's magnetic field, bouncing from N to S and back, but locally not accelerating. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:26:28 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189473988.799831.186990@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 9:58 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > Where's the catch ? As reported this sounds like a mechanism for extracting > > useful energy from the vacuum ie zero-point energy. > > Our only future energy problems would be to do with storage and transmission. > > Generating energy using the force described in the article would > face exactly the same difficulty as generating energy using > electrical or magnetic forces, which have been used to cause small > objects to levitate for many generations now. > > The point of the article seems to be to find out how many people can > be confused and amazed by the word "levitation". I'm not sure at this point but this smells to me like trying to get energy from capillary action, which lifts water up narrow tubes. It doesn't work. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:30:47 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189474247.030028.297850@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 10:02 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article <46E4AEA1.7090...@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > > > > There seems to be more than a bit of experimental evidence to suggest > > that Einstein was right! AFAIK there is NO experimental evidence that > > anything material has ever traveled faster than light or ever will. > > There are quantum mechnical affects that have been demonstrated to > involve travel faster than the speed of light. Say what? No signal can do that, and hence no material thing either. Whenever we hear of these things there is always a catch, no? > I see no reason that the strong or weak nuclear forces should be > constrained by Einstein's theory. He didn't examine them when he > formed his theory. I don't see why they aren't. Besides, these forces are extremely short range so it is extremely unlikely to be useful to propel space ships. There are some "things" that can go faster than light. Consider a wave approaching the shore at a very shallow angle. If you make the angle small enough, the point at which the wave is in contact with the shore can be made to go arbitrarily fast. Of course, nothing material is moving that fast and this can't be used to send a signal. Also, imagine waving a super-sharp laser pointer across the face of the moon. You can make the spot move faster than light, but again, this can't be used to send a signal or move a particle or some material item faster than light. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:19:18 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: [snip] > ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is > no god in my book. Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole. The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God), though, is perfectly reasonable. > FYI; Today, I stopped for gas at a station on the border of Lakewood, > a hasidic Jewish community. I watched two Hasidim standing outside of > the associated convenience store inhaling the shit combustibles exuded > from an ignited cigarette and thought to myself that the regulations > in Leviticus prohibit the injesting of a ham sandie but putting that > carcinogenic shit into one's system was OK. Sure seems hypocritical > to me. Legalistic in the extreme. It's what Jesus (allegedly) railed about and got him into so much trouble with the temple authorities. Roman Catholics are (or maybe "were", since many rules have been relaxed) just as bad, though. Can't have *meat* on Friday? Ok, have fish, shrimp, oysters, etc, etc, etc. Of course, the fact that those are all (except oysters) is conveniently legalized around. And down here in Louisiana, it's a total farce to say "sacrifice and eat 5 lb of crawfish and, BTW, drink a 6-pack of beer". > Religion? Nah... Full ACK. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:10:45 -0700 From: Sue Subject: Jobs near Pittsburg PA Message-ID: <1189480245.574459.321840@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> Dear Newsgroup, One of our VMS Customers has contacted me, they are looking for a couple of people. This is what they have sent me. If you are interested please send me your resume and I am happy to forward it along. Warm Regards, Sue ------------------- We actually have two VMS systems engineering positions We have a very large, leading edge VMS environment here and are doing extremely interesting and challenging work. In a nutshell, our Production VMS environment environment is a 4 node GS1280 cluster running VMS 8.3 and Cache 5.0.21. We use EVA8000s as backend storage. We're now in the process of a major upgrade project, amongst many other things. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:48:19 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Message-ID: <1189460899.187024.47900@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 5:04 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 9, 8:02 am, ja wrote: > > > The topic of Report Writers for OpenVMS comes up from time to time. I > > happened to come across this Web pagehttp://www.synergyde.com/products/development_tools/core_tools.aspx > > and was wondering if anyone had experience with the software? > > > Cheers, john > > very good product ... resembles crystal reports ... I haven't looked at it in a while, Bob, but does is still require any other pieces of Synergy (like Repository or such) or can it use straight RMS files? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:06:09 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Stuck at a console Message-ID: <46E5F811.8263EFA0@spam.comcast.net> Rich Jordan wrote: > > On Sep 9, 1:50 pm, David J Dachtera > wrote: > > kiwi-red wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > Will typing a boot command for an AXP 4100, > > > I accidentally hit a wrong key > > > > > Now my machine I think is waiting for me to type something extra but I > > > don't know > > > what it is. Any suggestions? > > > > > I could get the ops guys to turn the power off I guess > > > > > P00>>>halt > > > CPU 0 is halted > > > P00>>>b -fl 3,`1 > > > _> > > > _> > > > _> > > > > 4100's do have a RESET button. Should do the trick for you. > > A CTRL-C might work to get you back to the normal prompt. CTRL+P might do it, also. Dunno - don't have a 4100 to play with. ...and it's not called a "RESET" button, it's called a HALT button on a 4100. My bad. -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:21:53 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Stuck at a console Message-ID: <46E5FBC1.3030709@comcast.net> David J Dachtera wrote: > Rich Jordan wrote: > >>On Sep 9, 1:50 pm, David J Dachtera >>wrote: >> >>>kiwi-red wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi >>> >>>>Will typing a boot command for an AXP 4100, >>>>I accidentally hit a wrong key >>> >>>>Now my machine I think is waiting for me to type something extra but I >>>>don't know >>>>what it is. Any suggestions? >>> >>>>I could get the ops guys to turn the power off I guess >>> >>>>P00>>>halt >>>>CPU 0 is halted >>>>P00>>>b -fl 3,`1 >>>>_> >>>>_> >>>>_> >>> >>>4100's do have a RESET button. Should do the trick for you. >> >>A CTRL-C might work to get you back to the normal prompt. > > > CTRL+P might do it, also. Dunno - don't have a 4100 to play with. > > ...and it's not called a "RESET" button, it's called a HALT button on a 4100. My > bad. > I don't have a 4100 I can look at but ISTR the ones I used to have had three buttons on the front, power, halt, and reset. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:24:40 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46E5D238.5020306@comcast.net> JF Mezei wrote: >>> How about "Two years of uptime is not unusual." >> > > > My uptime is bigger than yours. Mine is longer! ;-) ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.495 ************************