INFO-VAX Mon, 10 Mar 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 139 Contents: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: Updated GNV kits available Re: Updated GNV kits available RE: VMS Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <849706b7-a3de-477e-9421-b1bcafd4987b@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 2:04 pm, AEF wrote: > On Mar 9, 10:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > > > > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>, > > Arne Vajh=F8j writes: > > > > AEF wrote: > > >> or > > >> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on > > >> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, > > > > You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't > > > know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds > > > very likely. > > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness. > > > bill > > > -- > > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolv= es > > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > > University of Scranton | > > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include > > Well, a non-rigged ball machine is random enough for the purpose. > > As for true physical randomness, processes on the atomic scale and > smaller are truly random according to the laws of quantum mechanics. > The probability distribution of various outcomes of a given event are > determined by the wave function which has to satisfy the Schroedinger > equation (well, for non-relativistic QM, anyway), but for a reaction > that can produces multiple outcomes, the particular outcome is purely > random in the strongest sense of the word, but with the probability of > each particular possible outcome given exactly by the wave function > according to QM. This almost-Haiku thing I wrote some time ago is all I'll post this time. Some will "get it" and some won't: ################################ Searching for Random -Observability- A forest of trees A seed grows beneath an elm We cannot see it (But yet it is there) -Probability- Buds on tree branches From where leaves will one day grow Should nature allow (It is Probable) -Causality- A leaf on a branch Autumn comes with frosty breath So soon the leaf falls (Event follows cause) -Predictability- The leaves on a tree Which will be the next to drop We cannot yet know (Unpredictable) -Certainty- A leaf on the ground From which twig the leaf once grew We cannot be sure (It is Uncertain) -Randomness- Still it hides #################################### (D. L. Phillips) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:20:14 -0700 (PDT) From: ultradwc@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: > > On Mar 7, 1:15 pm, AEF wrote: > > How do you know there even is "God"? look at all the evidence! start with the the accounts of the apostles in the bible ... they all died for Him ... look at all the Christians buried in the catacombs in Rome ... these people all experienced something they were willing to die for ... they were not all nuts ... next, Mount Sinai has been found and proves that Moses really lived and all the miracles that God did are there also ... they even found chariot wheels dated to that period at the crossing site ... just go to youtube and search on Mount Siani Saudi Arabia ... all the videos are there ... watch them prove the bible is not stories but history ... ever read the jewish historian Josephus, he confirms much of it ... ever read Revelation or Daniel or other prophecies in the bible? they are coming true every day ... how about the shroud of turin? God has given you His Son, the prophets, historical artifacts and finds, and even science is confirming intelligent design ... they have reversed the gene pool and found we all came from the same mother and father ... Adam and Eve ring a bell? > > How do you know? because He said so! > > > YOU decide where > > > you will spend eternity ... > > It's called the grave. I don't believe there is an afterlife. Consider > an infant, or fetus, or embryo. What are they like in the afterlife? > Is an embryo still an embryo? If not, how does it work? How does an > embryo repent, for example? There's more, but I'll start with this. every person has a soul, adult child baby or embryo ... the age of accountability is 12 ... you are not held accountable for your sins until that time ... that is what bar mitzvahs celebrate ... it is important as parents to bring up your children teaching them about God or they end up like you lost ... you are responsible for your children and if you bring them up wrong you are condeming your own children to hell and you are held accountable ... everyone that dies will be raised again and given a new body ... what you look like is unknown, but it will live forever ... the only question is where ... young babies that die prematurely either naturally or by abortion will be given a body ... weither it is a childs one or adult one is unknown, but they will have one and since they died before the age of accoutability they will not be sent to the lake of fire ... but they also will be tempted by the devil just like everyone else was, because soon Christ will come back and reign for 1000 years, then the devil will be released one final time amongst man for one final chance to lure man to the lake of fire with him for eternity ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 16:00:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Neil Rieck Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: On Mar 9, 6:20=A0pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Mar 7, 1:15 pm, AEF wrote: > > > How do you know there even is "God"? > > look at all the evidence! =A0start with the the accounts of the > apostles in the bible ... they all died for Him ... look at all > the Christians buried in the catacombs in Rome ... these > people all experienced something they were willing to die > for ... they were not all nuts ... > fact: most of the new testament was written by Paul and he never mentions miracles or the ascension. If you take all the writtings of the New Testament then put them in chronological order, you'll discover that miracles "creep into" the accounts as time passes by. This means only one thing to most people: the order of these books (which was set after 300 AD by a Roman emperor) was selected to dupe the masses. So I think it is safe to say that the Bible is a religious document but not an historical one. Maybe the muslims are correct on this one: Jesus was just another one of God's prophets. p.s. OTOH, if Jesus was the son of God, he was sent here to teach us how to live and pray. How could he be a model for us if he is divine and we are not. It makes more sense that he became a model for us by not performing miracles. NSR ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT) From: ultradwc@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: On Mar 9, 8:48=A0pm, JF Mezei wrote: > ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> How do you know there even is "God"? > > > look at all the evidence! > > There is no evidence. That is why it is called "FAITH". > > > next, Mount Sinai has been found and proves that Moses > > really lived and all the miracles that God did are there also ... > > Interesting you mention that. this past week, some scientists in israel > have come up with the theory that Moses didn't witness miracles, he was > simply high on some hallucinogenic drugs and and just imagined those > miracles. > > Say they invent time travel next year. Nothing would then prevent Tom > Green or Jim Carey to travel back to year 00 along with a few hollywood > special efects experts and then just act out what is described in the > bible (thus causing the bible to be written by people who would have > witnessed Tom Green's antics). sorry, but if you watch the documentary it is all there ... altar of the golden calf boundary markers Moses altar with 12 stone marble pillars Elijahs cave burned peak mountain with a cleft rock on one top split rock at Horeb and much more ... watch the doc first JF before you just read and believe another NY times false article ... thiese are actual pictures and film shot by a group of brave men and a brave family ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: <2774a82a-1873-4b32-aa70-2009b4b23b18@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 5:20 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Mar 7, 1:15 pm, AEF wrote: > > > How do you know there even is "God"? > > look at all the evidence! start with the the accounts of the > apostles in the bible ... they all died for Him ... look at all > the Christians buried in the catacombs in Rome ... these > people all experienced something they were willing to die > for ... they were not all nuts ... > > next, Mount Sinai has been found and proves that Moses > really lived and all the miracles that God did are there also ... > they even found chariot wheels dated to that period at the > crossing site ... just go to youtube and search on Mount > Siani Saudi Arabia ... all the videos are there ... watch them > prove the bible is not stories but history ... ever read the > jewish historian Josephus, he confirms much of it ... > > ever read Revelation or Daniel or other prophecies in the bible? > they are coming true every day ... > > how about the shroud of turin? > > God has given you His Son, the prophets, historical artifacts > and finds, and even science is confirming intelligent design ... > they have reversed the gene pool and found we all came from > the same mother and father ... Adam and Eve ring a bell? > > > > > How do you know? > > because He said so! > > > > > > YOU decide where > > > > you will spend eternity ... > > > It's called the grave. I don't believe there is an afterlife. Consider > > an infant, or fetus, or embryo. What are they like in the afterlife? > > Is an embryo still an embryo? If not, how does it work? How does an > > embryo repent, for example? There's more, but I'll start with this. > > every person has a soul, adult child baby or embryo ... > > the age of accountability is 12 ... you are not held accountable > for your sins until that time ... that is what bar mitzvahs > celebrate ... > it is important as parents to bring up your children teaching them > about God or they end up like you lost ... you are responsible > for your children and if you bring them up wrong you are condeming > your own children to hell and you are held accountable ... > everyone that dies will be raised again and given a new body ... > what you look like is unknown, but it will live forever ... the only > question is where ... young babies that die prematurely either > naturally or by abortion will be given a body ... weither it is a > childs one or adult one is unknown, but they will have one and since > they died before the age of accoutability they will not be sent to the > lake of fire ... but they also will be tempted by the devil just like > everyone else was, because soon Christ will come back and reign > for 1000 years, then the devil will be released one final time amongst > man for one final chance to lure man to the lake of fire with him for > eternity ... Bob, I'm taking this off-line. I just fired off an email to you from my spamsink2001 address. AEF ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 2008 18:23:09 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <63io8dF27fc47U1@mid.individual.net> In article <47D41734.90607@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article <75c06824-6e08-4180-b139-7541398f868f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> AEF writes: >> >>>On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>>John Vottero wrote: >>>> >>>>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message >>>>>news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >>>>> >>>>>>Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates >>>>>>lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right >>>>>>locations on the forms). >>>>> >>>>>>Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS' >>>>>>because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a >>>>>>whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%>> >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely >>>>>>generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=( >>>>> >>>>>>So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS. >>>>> >>>>>Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the >>>>>winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right! >>>> >>>>The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing >>>>machine. >>>> >>>>I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS. >>>> >>>>Arne >>> >>>Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if >>>the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom >>>number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really >>>fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or >>>perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on >>>radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think >>>most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why. >> >> >> I prefer the German style ball machine (spinning with a rail to pickup >> a ball) as opposed to the air powered bouncing ball machines common in >> the US. I guess people have already forgotten that these machines are >> easily rigged. But then, I don't play the lottery (frequently called >> a tax on the stupid) so it really doesn't much matter. > > Don't knock the lotteries!!! Would you rather they took it out of YOUR > pocket?????? They do. None of the lottery money goes to support the stuff they pick my pocket for. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <537df725-8147-47ff-ad16-c9cfec878c0e@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 1:23 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <47D41734.90...@comcast.net>, > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > > > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >> In article <75c06824-6e08-4180-b139-7541398f8...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroup= s.com>, > >> AEF writes: > > >>>On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > > >>>>John Vottero wrote: > > >>>>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message > >>>>>news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > > >>>>>>Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generate= s > >>>>>>lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the r= ight > >>>>>>locations on the forms). > > >>>>>>Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than = VMS' > >>>>>>because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a > >>>>>>whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 1= 00%>> >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely > >>>>>>generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=3D( > > >>>>>>So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.= > > >>>>>Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the > >>>>>winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right! > > >>>>The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing > >>>>machine. > > >>>>I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS. > > >>>>Arne > > >>>Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if > >>>the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom > >>>number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really > >>>fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or > >>>perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on > >>>radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think > >>>most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why. > > >> I prefer the German style ball machine (spinning with a rail to pickup > >> a ball) as opposed to the air powered bouncing ball machines common in > >> the US. I guess people have already forgotten that these machines are > >> easily rigged. But then, I don't play the lottery (frequently called > >> a tax on the stupid) so it really doesn't much matter. > > > Don't knock the lotteries!!! Would you rather they took it out of YOUR= > > pocket?????? > > They do. None of the lottery money goes to support the stuff they pick > my pocket for. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves= > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include Maybe so, but without the lottery they'd probably pick your pocket to pay for stuff the lottery pays for. Even if it's not one for one, you still benefit. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:04:40 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <4f4aef74-ffa3-4b87-bab1-df107f8d1aeb@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 10:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>, > Arne Vajh=F8j writes: > > > AEF wrote: > >> or > >> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on > >> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, > > > You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't > > know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds > > very likely. > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to > pick them and that method precludes true randomness. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves= > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include Well, a non-rigged ball machine is random enough for the purpose. As for true physical randomness, processes on the atomic scale and smaller are truly random according to the laws of quantum mechanics. The probability distribution of various outcomes of a given event are determined by the wave function which has to satisfy the Schroedinger equation (well, for non-relativistic QM, anyway), but for a reaction that can produces multiple outcomes, the particular outcome is purely random in the strongest sense of the word, but with the probability of each particular possible outcome given exactly by the wave function according to QM. For example, the time of an actual decay of a radioactive nucleus is purely random. The average decay time is given by the laws of QM, but the moment any given decay cannot be predicted, even in principle. When looking for "hidden variables" that somehow can produce this randomness you get into things like satisfying the Bell inequality and the GHZ paradox. Experiments have been done and there is almost no doubt about the validity of QM and that there can be no hidden variables that explain the experimental results. Einstein always felt uneasy about this and thought that somehow a more complete theory would return us to deterministic physics, but with recent advances in experiments, even he would probably be convinced now. He wouldn't like it, but the evidence is very, very compelling. Lots of people, including many of the brightest, have tried to outwit QM in this respect. They try to find a way to explain the data in terms of "hidden variables", but QM always wins. Feynman has an excellent argument against the possibility of hidden variables in his wonderful book "The Character of Physical Law", Chapter 6. Also, the GHZ experiment has shown explicitly that even in a single reaction, hidden variables cannot explain the results. (Other experiments require a statistical analysis of many events and doubters claim that perhaps the events that were missed would allow hidden variables, but even in these experiments, the room for error has gotten too small for reasonable doubt. Here's a reasonable explanation of the GHZ experiment given by Tez: http://www.physicsnerd.com/misc002.htm Oops, I've meandered on from true randomness to hidden variables, but hidden variables would be needed to allow for a deterministic formulation to replace current QM. And it is also useful in showing just how weird and almost magical QM is. Remember, much of our modern technology -- esp. electronics technology and lasers (lasers in particular are a very QM thing) -- wouldn't work if QM were somehow wrong. Well, QM is right enough for modern technology to work. Regardless, assuming there is no cheating going on, the ball machine, properly done, is random enough: there is no practical way to predict the outcome and the winning numbers are uniformly distributed over all possible numbers (not exactly, but damn near closely enough). Not being truly, exactly random is not the same as cheating. But I think using pseudorandom number sequences in a computer is (1) not something the public can really watch, and (2) in need of very strict controls ala electronic slot machines as the winning numbers can be easily generated for future drawings, esp. by someone who knows the function (or algorithm, if you prefer) used to generate the psuedorandom numbers, etc. (Yes, someone from the gov't supposedly actually checks that electronic slot machines are fair (so I've read) -- probably from the same dept. that ensures that items at the grocery store have correct net weights, gasoline pumps measure correctly, etc.) AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:34:31 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47D43BC7.5080006@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <47D41734.90607@comcast.net>, > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>>In article <75c06824-6e08-4180-b139-7541398f868f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >>> AEF writes: >>> >>> >>>>On Mar 8, 6:39 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>John Vottero wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message >>>>>>news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates >>>>>>>lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right >>>>>>>locations on the forms). >>>>>> >>>>>>>Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS' >>>>>>>because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a >>>>>>>whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%>> >> succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely >>>>>>>generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=( >>>>>> >>>>>>>So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS. >>>>>> >>>>>>Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the >>>>>>winning numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right! >>>>> >>>>>The winning numbers usually (always ??) comes from a drawing >>>>>machine. >>>>> >>>>>I am no aware of any drawing machine running VMS. >>>>> >>>>>Arne >>>> >>>>Probably always. I'd think you'd have serious credibility issues if >>>>the computer picked it. Since computers actually use pseudorandom >>>>number sequences, the credibility issue only gets worse. To be really >>>>fair, you need the usual machine with the balls bounding around or >>>>perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on >>>>radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, but I think >>>>most people would trust the ball machine more, and I understand why. >>> >>> >>>I prefer the German style ball machine (spinning with a rail to pickup >>>a ball) as opposed to the air powered bouncing ball machines common in >>>the US. I guess people have already forgotten that these machines are >>>easily rigged. But then, I don't play the lottery (frequently called >>>a tax on the stupid) so it really doesn't much matter. >> >>Don't knock the lotteries!!! Would you rather they took it out of YOUR >>pocket?????? > > > They do. None of the lottery money goes to support the stuff they pick > my pocket for. > > bill > > WHERE would they get it if there was no lottery? Your pocket?? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:56:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <881b7a1d-13df-44aa-b580-420fac27e34d@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> On Mar 8, 6:02 pm, "John Vottero" wrote: > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > > news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right > > locations on the forms). > > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS' > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100% > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=( > > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS. > > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning > numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right! The lottery "random number" generators have nothing to do with selecting the winners; they generate "quick-pick" numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:15:26 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47d47e18$0$10256$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can > "generate" numbers that are truly random. In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds to be a specific value. But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much randomness in any seed you would use. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:46:26 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <3ab13bd0-284f-4264-91c5-9861ceec3bc3@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>, > > Arne Vajh=F8j writes: > >> AEF wrote: > >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on > >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process, > >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't > >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds > >> very likely. > > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness. > > Not true. > > Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including > radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered > deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those > guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible > to understand). > > Arne Well, Einstein *was* a key player in bringing about the quantum theory, including taking photons (quanta of light) seriously (as Planck was highly reluctant to do: he considered only a useful thing to get the right black body radiation formula), and being the person who first suggested the mechanism that makes lasers work. Yet he could no believe that the uncertainty principle was truly unbeatable and that causality gave way to true randomness (though the probabilities of various outcomes are strictly determined by the wave function). He tried very hard to prove that QM was either incorrect or incomplete, but as I said in my other post, the case for hidden variables has all but evaporated in light of new ideas and experiments. And still no one has found a way around the uncertainty principle. It's pretty damn solid. Impossible to understand? QM is quite well understood. The problem is that most of us will say to ourselves upon learning about the intrinsic probability built into Nature and the unbelievable phenomenon of particles interfering with themselves as if they were waves, "'But how can it be like that?' which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar." (Quoted from -- you guessed it -- Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law by Feynman.) The problem is accepting that causality is lost. No one liked that. But experiment shows otherwise. As Bohr once told Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do". (I believe he used the term "God" metaphorically. Einstein saw "God" not as a personal God as espoused by religions, but revealing Himself through the harmony of Physical Law, or perhaps one could think of it as "Nature". I don't know for sure about Bohr's view.) See Chapter 6 of -- you already know it -- for a quite nice explanation of the fundamental mystery in QM. The rest of the book is excellent, too. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:48:58 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <40938898-89fe-4dd0-acf0-f8c4e1493319@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 5:56 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > On Mar 8, 6:02 pm, "John Vottero" wrote: > > > > > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > > >news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > > > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates > > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right > > > locations on the forms). > > > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS' > > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a > > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100% > > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely > > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=( > > > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS. > > > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning > > numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right! > > The lottery "random number" generators have nothing to do with > selecting the winners; they generate "quick-pick" numbers. And for that they serve the purpose quite well. In fact, for lotteries with shared jackpots (are there any other kinds?), this is a good way to lower your chances of having to share your jackpot winnings with other winners, assuming you win, of course. AEF AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:04:18 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <9e8ae198-931d-4702-bcfc-bcd435058de9@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 7:15 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. > > In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to > initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it > would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way > less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in > the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for > a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds > to be a specific value. > > But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at > 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much > randomness in any seed you would use. You have to be careful that there aren't some hidden biases in doing stuff like this, as you yourself point out with one variation. I don't see how you can beat the ball machine. Like electronic voting, using a computer to generate winning numbers is problematic. I wonder how the gov't verifies that electronic slot machines are fair? IIRC, they somehow check what the chip is doing. I'll have to look into it. Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in the computer. I'm sure the ball machine is better for lotteries than computer-generated random numbers. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:55:33 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47d4b1c4$0$1474$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> AEF wrote: > Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more > dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be > sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in > the computer. I think perhaps the biggest advantage is that it is far easier for auditors to certify that the draw is truly random with no bias for any number etc etc. If the draw is done by computers, it means that auditors have to scan thorugh not only the code, but also the code management to ensure no covert code is put into production without anyone knowing. Drawing by computer also allows speculation that the lottery scans the list of sold tickets to determine winning numbers. (aka: draw numbers that will generate one big winner, but not too many lesser prize winners or vice versa). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 2008 20:43:04 +0100 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: Updated GNV kits available Message-ID: <47d44bd8$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article <47D2CF01.6000801@comcast.net>, bradhamilton writes: >IanMiller wrote: >> Updated GNV kits are available which include changes which I think >> will be popular with some readers in this place. >> >> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=08/03/06/8239351 > >Does anyone know where I might report installation problems with the new >kit? Did you mean this: $ @sys$startup:gnv$startup %DCL-E-OPENIN, error opening SYS$SYSROOT:[SYS$STARTUP]GNV_DESTINATIONALPHA.COM; as input -RMS-E-FNF, file not found GNV$STARTUP problem: %RMS-E-FNF, file not found %DCL-W-VALREQ, missing qualifier or keyword value - supply all required values $ d sys$startup:gnv* Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYS$STARTUP] GNV$STARTUP.COM;1 11 8-FEB-2008 15:56:46.30 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWED,RE ,RE) GNV_DESTINATION.COM;1 1 9-MAR-2008 20:27:17.56 [SYSTEM] (RWD,RWD,R,E) Total of 2 files, 12 blocks. or did you mean a message during GNV installation (I noticed none)? -- 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: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:16:36 -0400 From: bradhamilton Subject: Re: Updated GNV kits available Message-ID: <47D46FD4.2020401@comcast.net> Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > In article <47D2CF01.6000801@comcast.net>, bradhamilton writes: >> IanMiller wrote: >>> Updated GNV kits are available which include changes which I think >>> will be popular with some readers in this place. >>> >>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=08/03/06/8239351 >> Does anyone know where I might report installation problems with the new >> kit? > > Did you mean this: > > $ @sys$startup:gnv$startup > %DCL-E-OPENIN, error opening SYS$SYSROOT:[SYS$STARTUP]GNV_DESTINATIONALPHA.COM; > as input > -RMS-E-FNF, file not found > > GNV$STARTUP problem: %RMS-E-FNF, file not found > > %DCL-W-VALREQ, missing qualifier or keyword value - supply all required values > > $ d sys$startup:gnv* > > Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYS$STARTUP] > > GNV$STARTUP.COM;1 > 11 8-FEB-2008 15:56:46.30 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWED,RE > ,RE) > GNV_DESTINATION.COM;1 > 1 9-MAR-2008 20:27:17.56 [SYSTEM] (RWD,RWD,R,E) > > Total of 2 files, 12 blocks. > > or did you mean a message during GNV installation (I noticed none)? My apologies for the inadvertent private post to Peter, instead of the group... I had a few hours this afternoon to fool around with the installation; I got a successful installation only after making sure that GNV and PSX$ROOT pointed to different disks. The PCSI instructions provided during the install were less than clear on this particular point. I did notice the problem posted above by Peter; a one-line addition/comment to GNV$STARTUP.COM fixed that problem, as well as renaming sys$startup:psx$configAlpha.dat to sys$startup:psx$config.dat. Folks, this software is not ready for any kind of serious production environment (not yet, anyway). IMHO. It's running; (after a fashion) now I'm going to look into mounting disks in this environment (shudder!). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:08:03 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: VMS Update Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: alderson+news@panix5.panix.com > [mailto:alderson+news@panix5.panix.com] On Behalf Of Rich Alderson > Sent: March 6, 2008 2:32 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: VMS Update > > Sue writes: > > > 2.3 - For everyone that sent me the URL with the Seattle school > > system VAX - yes I did see it and yes I did send it to sales ;') > > Since I'm in Seattle, I got in touch with the folks at Seattle Public > Schools' > IT department. Although the newpaper story would have you believe that > it's > the aged VAXen that are the problem, I'm told that it's the > *application* that > is old, crufty, and fragile, and needs to be rewritten. > > -- > Rich Alderson "You get what anybody gets. You get a > lifetime." > news@alderson.users.panix.com --Death, of the > Endless Re-written or web enabled with some features added in specific areas? Typically a huge difference in terms of overall time and cost. If they are like most schools today, they likely do not have a lot of funding to re-write from scratch or off the shelf (with all of the typical local customizations) Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-254-8911 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.139 ************************