INFO-VAX Tue, 11 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 496 Contents: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: Copy/record to DVD's Re: Copy/record to DVD's Re: DECServer 700 help 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) 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-routing MX bounce mails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:08:10 +0200 From: Albrecht Schlosser Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <516ir4-h1b.ln1@news.hus-software.de> Jeffrey H. Coffield wrote: > Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > >> ... the error message is: >> >> "... error writing ... >> DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V0801-2-1.PCSI;1" >> >> which is the original PCSI file (I checked it on my version, >> same volume label: "I64BINFEB071"). >> >> Same error here. However, my version doesn't show the "error on >> bitmap". >> >> Is this a PCSI bug? >> >> System/VMS version: HP rx1620 ... running OpenVMS V8.2-1 >> >> Albrecht > > You are still trying to write to DQA0: which you previously shown to be > software write locked. Try copying the file to some normal disk. I did that! (Why didn't you read the whole message?) I wrote: "Yes, that should do the trick (_just_tried_it_), ..." The real problem is that PCSI ($ PRODUCT ...) seems to open the .PCSI file on the DVD read/write, or really tries to write to the source .PCSI file! Hence my question: "Is this a PCSI bug?" Albrecht ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 18:54:38 +0200 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <46e6e46e$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article <516ir4-h1b.ln1@news.hus-software.de>, Albrecht Schlosser writes: >The real problem is that PCSI ($ PRODUCT ...) seems to open the >..PCSI file on the DVD read/write, or really tries to write to the >source .PCSI file! Hence my question: "Is this a PCSI bug?" Think again. If PCSI does it this way, then how to do a VMS install? (eg. OpenVMS Alpha from the VMS CD) -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:56:41 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <14a0f$46e6c8cd$cef8887a$21090@TEKSAVVY.COM> Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > The real problem is that PCSI ($ PRODUCT ...) seems to open the > .PCSI file on the DVD read/write, or really tries to write to the > source .PCSI file! Hence my question: "Is this a PCSI bug?" PCSI does a lot of strange things. Don't question it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:47:45 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <225d1$46e6d4d7$cef8887a$24432@TEKSAVVY.COM> Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > Think again. If PCSI does it this way, then how to do a VMS install? > (eg. OpenVMS Alpha from the VMS CD) Does the CD use PRODUCT/PCSI to install VMS ? I would think it would be a DCL script that uses BACKUP to create/populate the system disk with all the quirks needed (aliases, boot block etc). ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 09:39:45 +0200 From: vaxinf@chclu.chemie.uni-konstanz.de (Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann) Subject: Re: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: <46e64641$1@merkur.rz.uni-konstanz.de> In article <+UEyOWJK56We@eisner.encompasserve.org>, frey@encompasserve.org (Sharon) writes: >I'm setting up a comfile that burns historical data to DVD on a customer's >>sparkling new Integrity system. I don't know how much data they'll end >up >putting on each disk, but I'm pretty sure it will never be more than the >4.7Gb >stated on the DVD's I was testing with. I wrote the comfile to size the >container disk at the (current) max DVD size. When I tested it, I think >it ran >out of room. Here is the error I got: > >%CDDVD-I-SKEY, Unit sense key 05 >-CDDVD-I-SKEYILLREQ, illegal request sense key >%CDDVD-I-SKEYASCASCQ, SKey: 05, ASC: 21, ASCQ: 00 >%CDDVD-I-ASC2100, logical block address out of range error detected >%CDDVD-E-WRTERR, disk write or disk full error; unable to complete write >-CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address >Synchronizing with output device cache >Closing the open track >Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion >Closing the open session >Operation permitted 480 seconds for completion >Unable to complete processing >%CDDVD-W-BADADD, bad write address > >First question: is this really saying it ran out of room on the disk? >It's a >little obscured by complaints about "sense key". > >Second question, what is the largest container file I can burn to DVD? I >>obviously miscalculated it. Here is my comfile: > >$ 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!" > The capacity of a DVD depends on the medium. You'll see different numbers of the same type of media. I can write a small program that tells you this number. I will post the source code if there are enough people who are interested. regards Eberhard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:39:28 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Copy/record to DVD's Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:39:45 -0700, Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann wrote: > The capacity of a DVD depends on the medium. > You'll see different numbers of the same type of media. > I can write a small program that tells you this number. > I will post the source code if there are enough people > who are interested. I would be interested. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:00:59 +0200 From: Albrecht Schlosser Subject: Re: DECServer 700 help Message-ID: David J Dachtera wrote: > [...] > Parity: None Signal Control: Disabled > Stop Bits: Dynamic Signal Select: CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR > [...] > > That is, hardware flow control. No, that's hardware flow control DISABLED (Signal Control: Disabled). Signal select ... means that there are different pin layouts (software) selectable, and CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR is the configured one. Albrecht ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:16:29 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM> Ron Johnson wrote: > 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. However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct. Frankly, I really do not understand why any god would want to impose "sacrifices" on people. What today may be called "sacrifices" were simple measures to prevent diseases thousands of years ago. Back then, they were not considered sacrifices, they were considered good living practices. You'll note that Islam also has kosher-like dietary restrictions. If I believe in god "X", then I don't need to prove to anybody else that I truly believe in that god. It is a faith that is between me and that god. When you look at christianity and judaism, they share the 10 commandments. Those are common sense rules that should guide our lives. They are not specific rituals, sacrifices that one must make to prove his faith in one god or the other. The rest of the religion,s rituals are not from god, they are from the religion itself who instituted those either for health reasons, or to provide "publicity" for that religion. Consider the free publicity Calvin Klein gets from teenagers who always wear their pants below the waist. This is really not very different from Jews who wear the round hat, or catholics who wear a crucifix, or muslims who wear whatever attire their particular sect calls for. The church, being human runned and human based, is the one who decided that people had to prove they belonged to that church by wearing certain things and adhering to the rituals. If god had intended we lead healthy lives, he would not mind if we ate pork now that meat can be produced in a hygienic fashion and refrigirated and cooked properly and no longer a threath to our health. And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:18:54 +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 <009c01c7f411$040b2890$0c2179b0$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" writes: > > >> -----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. I've never been active in the field just an interested amateur reading a lot of popular science expositions and owning more mathematical treatments which one decade I'll actually get around to fully reading and somewhat understanding. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:40 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > > >Ron Johnson wrote: >> 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. > > >However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing >for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and >thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a >no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. A show I once watched on one of the history/information channels said that the abstinence from meat was because it was a rich man's delicacy in those times and fish was the common man's food. Today, however, seafood is the delicacy and meat -- well, that is what the commecials all claim is in between the buns of fast food hamburgers -- is not. >When you look at christianity and judaism, they share the 10 >commandments. Those are common sense rules that should guide our lives. 3 dealing with man's relationship with god; 7 dealing with man's relation- ship to his fellow man. However, the followers of these 'religions' have applied perturbations to these so called laws such that they believe that they only apply to dealings with their views of god and their particular microcosm of religious followers. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is meant only if the accused is of the same faith; otherwise, lying with im- pugnity is perfectly in line with being faithful to this god's commands. >And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs >and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute >our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to >some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing >lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated >hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking). Well, I don't! Especially, cigarettes which have been proven scientif- ically to cause health issues such as lung cancer, emphysema, coronary and artery diseases, and death. There are religious sects which do not permit drugs. The mormons (LDS) have phobias about alcohol and even the caffiene in coffee. I do not know their stance on cigarette (tobacco) smoking. -- 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:20:07 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/11/07 03:16, JF Mezei wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> 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. > > > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. > > Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to > prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct. > > > Frankly, I really do not understand why any god would want to impose > "sacrifices" on people. > [snip] > > If god had intended we lead healthy lives, he would not mind if we ate > pork now that meat can be produced in a hygienic fashion and > refrigirated and cooked properly and no longer a threath to our health. > > And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs > and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute > our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to > some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing > lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated > hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking). That's why many fundamentalist used to (and 7th Day Adventists and LDS still) proscribe smoking/drinking/etc. I Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. -- 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: 11 Sep 2007 11:53:59 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <5kndunF4jhocU1@mid.individual.net> In article , Ron Johnson writes: > > > 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. Don't know if you are Roman Catholic or not (I suspect not) but it hardly matters today as Catholic education is just asz far in the crapper as secular education, but this whole Friday no meat thing has got to be one of the most mis-understood concepts ever taken from Catholic practice. > > Of course, the fact that those are all (except oysters) is > conveniently legalized around. Don't understand the "legalized around" pretty much everyone I know, Catholic or not, differentiates between "meat" (red flesh) and seafood. > > 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". And that is where the misunderstanding come is. The same rules would apply to a vegetarian. What is (was) required on Fridays was some act of sacrifice, the norm being the giving up of meat. This dated back to a time when, at least for the more common folk, meat was usually an expensivre luxury so not having it was considered giving up something. Of course, substituting seafod is a much more modern idea as I doubt the people in the middle ages had much access to seafood beyond a few simple freshwater fish. And, in the classic example of when you could, and in fact should, eat meat in Friday. (Realizing this is as it was taught to grade school level children.) You are over at a friends house. The friend is not Catholic. The friend's mother invites you to stay and have dinner with them. They serve meat and it is Friday. You do not refuse the food saying, "We don't eat meat on Friday." " And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." 1 Corinthians 13. Charity towards your host would over-rule the "no meat on Friday" rule. But it was expected that you would make some other act of piety instead, perhaps by spending a little more time in prayer before going to bed that night. Catholics were never as legalistic as the Pharisees of Jesus time and today, they are anything but legalistic. Heck. when St. Patricl's day falls on a Friday here the Bishop always grants a dispensation so everybody can eat corned beef and cabbage after the St. Paddy's Day parade. :-) 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: 11 Sep 2007 11:56:08 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <5kne2oF4jhocU2@mid.individual.net> In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei writes: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> 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. > > > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. That is pure bull-crap. > > Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to > prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct. > So, you hate America and you hate Catholics. Who else do you hate? 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: 11 Sep 2007 08:39:27 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <+XyW6Pvs8mWv@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <46e5b266$0$21929$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes: > > I read once that one person gets "shot" this way every New Year in LA. I > forget where, sorry. Maybe an urban legend, but 120mph bit of lead to the > head would probably be fatal. Mythbusters did an episode where they showed such projectiles fall at a non-lethal velocity. Who came up with 120 mph as the terminal velocity, and which projectile did they use? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:45:22 -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 , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > > 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. Interesting because pork was known to Jews (and everyone else in the region) at the time the writings were collected, but tobacco was only known in then "undiscovered" the Americas. You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday, wouldn't you? What other dangers would He have known about that coincidentally were not Given to the people of the mideast? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:49:57 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <+zsIQVRFkLOZ@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <1189473666.128372.232900@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > Well, do we really know that yet? > May depend on whether you follow the theories similar to Hawking's early work or later work. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:53:23 -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 <1189473887.879431.82460@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > Particles are accelerated by electric fields. They are focused by > magnetic fields. Yes, you can certinaly design an ion engine to work that way. Quite similar to a cathode ray tube someone else mentioned. > The Lorentz force due to the magnetic field is > perpendicular to the path of the particle and hence can only change > its direction. A change of direction is acceleration. It's what you do with the different accelerations that allows you to engineer an engine. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:59:34 -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 <1189474247.030028.297850@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > 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? Sorry, but experiements demonstrrated otherwise more than a decade ago. Hints of this were popping up in theories back when I was in grad school. > > 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. You can't even build a spaceship using only these forces, let alone a passenger. So for current day engineering they're not much use. > > There are some "things" that can go faster than light. Consider a wave > approaching the shore at a very shallow angle. There are a lot of things one can concoct where something "goes" faster than the speed of light. Mass is not one of them. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2007 09:02:12 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <7idZ6PA5Y$+x@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. > Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:02:17 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/11/07 06:53, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > Ron Johnson writes: >> >> 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. > > Don't know if you are Roman Catholic or not (I suspect not) but it No, but I know *MANY* and am married to one. > hardly matters today as Catholic education is just asz far in the > crapper as secular education, It can't be as bad as public education. If it is, I'm wasting lots and lots of money... > but this whole Friday no meat thing > has got to be one of the most mis-understood concepts ever taken > from Catholic practice. Then, from my first-hand experience, most lay Catholics (in this area, at least) also misunderstand it. >> Of course, the fact that those are all (except oysters) is >> conveniently legalized around. > > Don't understand the "legalized around" pretty much everyone I know, > Catholic or not, differentiates between "meat" (red flesh) and seafood. Thus is fowl muscle not considered "meat"? Meat (in this context) is muscle, flesh, carnis. I *REALLY* don't understand how anyone can say that fish muscle is any less "meat" than cow muscle. >> 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". > > And that is where the misunderstanding come is. The same rules would > apply to a vegetarian. What is (was) required on Fridays was some > act of sacrifice, the norm being the giving up of meat. This dated > back to a time when, at least for the more common folk, meat was > usually an expensivre luxury so not having it was considered giving > up something. Of course, substituting seafod is a much more modern > idea as I doubt the people in the middle ages had much access to > seafood beyond a few simple freshwater fish. We agree. > And, in the classic example of when you could, and in fact > should, eat meat in Friday. (Realizing this is as it was > taught to grade school level children.) You are over at a > friends house. The friend is not Catholic. The friend's > mother invites you to stay and have dinner with them. They > serve meat and it is Friday. You do not refuse the food > saying, "We don't eat meat on Friday." " And now abideth > faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these > is charity." 1 Corinthians 13. Charity towards your host > would over-rule the "no meat on Friday" rule. But it was > expected that you would make some other act of piety instead, > perhaps by spending a little more time in prayer before going > to bed that night. All well and reasonable. > Catholics were never as legalistic as the > Pharisees of Jesus time and today, they are anything but > legalistic. Heck. when St. Patricl's day falls on a Friday > here the Bishop always grants a dispensation so everybody > can eat corned beef and cabbage after the St. Paddy's Day > parade. :-) Every concentration of Catholics has different traditions and levels of strictness. And Vatican II relaxed a lot of those rules. -- 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:39:05 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <46E6A889.7070806@comcast.net> Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <46e5b266$0$21929$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes: > >>I read once that one person gets "shot" this way every New Year in LA. I >>forget where, sorry. Maybe an urban legend, but 120mph bit of lead to the >>head would probably be fatal. > > > Mythbusters did an episode where they showed such projectiles fall > at a non-lethal velocity. Who came up with 120 mph as the terminal > velocity, and which projectile did they use? > I believe it was something I read in "The American Rifleman" but this was many long years ago and I can't swear to it. ISTR a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about an incident in which someone was hit by such a bullet and injured or killed. Whether or not someone has actually been killed this way, firing your rifle into the air is NOT a very good idea. The bullet WILL come down somewhere and hit something unless it lodged in a passing aircraft on the way up. The place where that bullet will strike is not easily predictable. ISTR that the 30-06 military round fired from a Garrand M1 has a maximum range of something like three miles when fired at a 45 degree elevation although the effective range (at which you can expect to hit and damage your target) is far less than that. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:53:10 +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 , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >> >> 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. > > Interesting because pork was known to Jews (and everyone else in the > region) at the time the writings were collected, but tobacco was only > known in then "undiscovered" the Americas. > > You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and > included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday, > wouldn't you? > Well he might have had a bit of trouble getting the message across. Look there's this plant which doesn't grow around here and which you've never seen but whatever you do don't set light to it and breathe in the smoke when you do see it in a millenium or two. But there are other drugs the ancient Jews would have recognised. Is there any mention of hemp in the Bible ? (It is apparently listed as medicinal plant in the Zend-Avesta a sacred text of the persian prophet Zoraster in 550 BC). Are there any warnings about the Opium Poppy (which was cultivated in lower Mesopotania as long ago as 3400 BC) ? David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > What other dangers would He have known about that coincidentally were > not Given to the people of the mideast? > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:55:40 +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 <1189474247.030028.297850@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: >> >> 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? > > Sorry, but experiements demonstrrated otherwise more than a decade > ago. Hints of this were popping up in theories back when I was > in grad school. > Some references would be useful. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> >> 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. > > You can't even build a spaceship using only these forces, let alone > a passenger. So for current day engineering they're not much use. >> >> There are some "things" that can go faster than light. Consider a wave >> approaching the shore at a very shallow angle. > > There are a lot of things one can concoct where something "goes" > faster than the speed of light. Mass is not one of them. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:04:04 +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 <7idZ6PA5Y$+x@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: >> However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing >> for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and >> thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a >> no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. >> > > Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In > the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new > parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent. > Reminds me of the Lord's prayer Wonderloaf joke see http://www.santasearch.org/print_text.asp?RID=624 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:44:06 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/11/07 09:02, Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: >> However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing >> for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and >> thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a >> no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. >> > > Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In > the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new > parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent. Cincinnati, if A&E Biography of Ray Kroc is to be believed (and my memory is accurate). -- 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:46:08 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <5LyFi.300104$5y.101394@newsfe18.lga> On 09/11/07 08:45, Bob Koehler wrote: [snip] > > You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and > included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday, > wouldn't you? He (allegedly) did when He (allegedly, thru Paul) said that the body was a holy temple and that it should be kept pure. -- 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:49:59 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/11/07 08:39, Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <46e5b266$0$21929$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes: >> I read once that one person gets "shot" this way every New Year in LA. I >> forget where, sorry. Maybe an urban legend, but 120mph bit of lead to the >> head would probably be fatal. > > Mythbusters did an episode where they showed such projectiles fall > at a non-lethal velocity. I also remember that episode. IIRC, only when the round was fired exactly vertically was the velocity non-lethal.. Any angle would cause a ballistic trajectory and lethal velocity. > Who came up with 120 mph as the terminal > velocity, and which projectile did they use? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:54:54 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/11/07 08:53, Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <1189473887.879431.82460@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: >> Particles are accelerated by electric fields. They are focused by >> magnetic fields. > > Yes, you can certinaly design an ion engine to work that way. Quite > similar to a cathode ray tube someone else mentioned. > >> The Lorentz force due to the magnetic field is >> perpendicular to the path of the particle and hence can only change >> its direction. > > A change of direction is acceleration. Because it's a derivative of the velocity vector? > It's what you do with the different accelerations that allows you > to engineer an engine. > -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:01 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <46E6C289.2050100@comcast.net> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article <7idZ6PA5Y$+x@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > >>In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: >> >>>However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing >>>for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and >>>thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a >>>no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish. >>> >> >> Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In >> the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new >> parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent. >> > > Reminds me of the Lord's prayer Wonderloaf joke > > see > > http://www.santasearch.org/print_text.asp?RID=624 > > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University > > I have seen a cartoon, in which the president of the Daly Bread Company says to a priest "Father, you'll never know how much the Lord's Prayer means to me." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:34:41 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1b4ef$46e6d1c7$cef8887a$24090@TEKSAVVY.COM> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > Look there's this plant which doesn't grow around here and which you've never > seen but whatever you do don't set light to it and breathe in the smoke when you > do see it in a millenium or two. It just goes to show that those specific "hygiene/good health" stuff in the bible is way past its due date. There were meant to apply to that timeframe for the simple people of that period who had obviously not travelled. If Paul was able to change the rules/regulations after Jesus had left, how come some later leader of christianity couldn't also write his chapter in the bible to update the rules and regulations ? The old testament wasn't flawed. It was done so that the people of that time would understand and live healthy lifestyles. (as healthy as was possible back then). What is flawed is the fact that some people today still insist on following the bible to the letter. I think religious organisations need to learn to differentiate between the faith issues in the bible and the simple health/hygiene rules in the bible. The later weren't meant to be an uncheangeable tradition and they are not related to faith. There are traditions worth preserving because they are at the core of the religion, and there are traditions that are not part of the faith. The catholic church still refuses to allow women to become priests or allow priests to marry. But why is this so difficult to change in light of the fact that such restrictions were not put in by god but artificially added many moons ago by religious leaders ? A church can maintain many traditions, but it must also learn to change with the times in order to remain relevant. Islam is worse since it has no one leader. There are different sects who interpret the Koran any which way they want. There is no one leader who can guide the islamic world to more modern adaptation of the religion. Some sects have moved forwards, while others insist on living like people did when Islam was founded 1000 years ago. And some have instituted rituals which aren't even in the Koran but say the Koran requires it. (female excision in some islamic sects for instance). And there is no leader to correct this. Yet, those more radical sects end up staining all of Islam. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:38:25 +0200 From: Martin Vorlaender Subject: Re-routing MX bounce mails Message-ID: <5kmresF4jsf1U1@mid.individual.net> Hi! As the MX mailing list (and web site) seems to be defunct, I'll post my question here: We operate an MX 5.4 system for multiple domains. For some we do rewriting, for some we're acting as a secondary mail server (and receive and hold the mails while the primary mail site is down, to forward them when it's up again). With that constellation, we cannot decide whether to refuse mails based on invalid users because we don't have lists of valid users for the domains. This leads to *tons* of bounce messages when the primary sites refuse to accept mails (mostly SPAM). I'd like to change MX' behavior ln the way http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html suggests, forwarding these messages for manual inspection (and eventually throw them away) instead of generating bounces straight away. Is that possible with MX? cu, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.496 ************************