INFO-VAX Thu, 13 Mar 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 145 Contents: Re: Apache performance problem Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Re: Encryption on VMS Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Re: 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: Shadow set problem finally solved Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Re: Shadow set problem finally solved ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:14:06 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Apache performance problem Message-ID: <47d82b7e$0$25042$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <47d7e1da$0$25195$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, "Jilly" writes: > >"Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing" >wrote in message news:00A76738.EEA9033D@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU... >> In article <47d6ea50$0$25052$607ed4bc@cv.net>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG >> writes: >>>In article <47D6E7DA.1060107@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" >>> writes: >>>>John Nebel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <47D045E6.7050303@csdco.com>, John Nebel >>>>>> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is on OpenVMS 7.3-2 and Apache 1.3-1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apache is performing an insane number of logical name translations, >>>>>>> this can exceed a rate of 200k/second and averages around 10k/second >>>>>>> in our environment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One thing Apache appears to be doing is looping on a translation of >>>>>>> apache$dcl_sync_xxxxxxxx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6-MAR 11:55:27.182282 03 4DF1DF06 APACHE_HTTPD 000FA418 >>>>>>> APACHE$DCL_SYNC_4DFAA98B >>>>>>> 6-MAR 11:55:27.182266 03 4DF1DF06 APACHE_HTTPD 000FA418 >>>>>>> APACHE$DCL_SYNC_4DFAA98B >>>>>>> 6-MAR 11:55:27.182250 03 4DF1DF06 APACHE_HTTPD 000FA418 >>>>>>> APACHE$DCL_SYNC_4DFAA98B >>>>>>> 6-MAR 11:55:27.182235 03 4DF1DF06 APACHE_HTTPD 000FA418 >>>>>>> APACHE$DCL_SYNC_4DFAA98B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ultimately this appears to have the ability to jam VMS enough to >>>>>>> crash it with a cluexit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is their a workaround, or does Apache 2.1-1 have a more reasonable >>>>>>> behavior? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a CRTL flag that'll make Apache cache those logical-name >>>>>> translation >>>>>> results. >>>>>> $ define/nolog decc$enable_getenv_cache enable >>>>>> >>>>>> in the APACHE$WWW LOGIN.COM >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Alan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alan, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the decc$enable_getenv_cache logical will help in this >>>>> case - the offending code within Apache (proc.c) starts with: >>>>> >>>>> ** Loop here until the child creates the synchronizing logical name or >>>>> until >>>>> ** the child process has exited. >>>>> */ >>>>> while (TRUE) >>>>> { >>>>> /* >>>>> ** Check to see if the child process has created the synchronizing >>>>> logical >>>>> ** name; If it has, then exit the loop. >>>>> */ >>>>> status = SYS$TRNLNM (&SyncLnmAttr, >>>>> &SyncTblDesc, >>>>> &SyncLnmDesc, >>>>> 0, 0); >>>>> if (status & 1) >>>>> break; >>>>> [cut] >>>>> >>>>> The sync logical is defined within apache$dcl.com and the above routine >>>>> just runs in a tight loop until the definition takes place. >>>>> >>>>> At times this can take 30% of a horrendous number of logical name >>>>> translations. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>>Is there some reason why this code can't have a built in wait? Waiting >>>>for two or five seconds between checks would save one hell of a lot of >>>>CPU that could probably be better used elsewhere. >> >> It would certainly save CPU, but at the cost of delaying response to the >> client by 2-5 seconds when a new child needed to be created. >> >>> >>>This is FN ugly! Is there some reason _why_ this has been implemented in >>>this fashion? There are better ways to inform the parent process that a >>>subprocess has been created instead of looping on a semaphore implemented >>>with a logical name. >> >> Create a mailbox for the child, have the child write to it first thing, >> and hang a read attention AST on it, for example. >> >> I presume the idea is to not have to completely restructure the original >> Apache code, though. (But I don't pretend to speak for the CSWS >> developers.) >> >> -- Alan > >Why go to all that overhead. Use a doorbell lock. I was busy here this morn so you beat me to it. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT) From: ythefoe@gmail.com Subject: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: Hello, The operation systen is VMS 8.3 I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/ image/out=xxx". The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the program. This program compiles and links OK. When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works fine. When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be created by the "sh sys..." is not created... The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from the prompt... When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work either... I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, but everything I read states that a subprocess get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? Kind regards, mij ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:11:10 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: ythefoe@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > The operation systen is VMS 8.3 > > I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/ > image/out=xxx". > The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the > program. > This program compiles and links OK. > > When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works > fine. > > When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ > AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" > the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be > created by the "sh sys..." is not created... > The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from > the prompt... > > When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work > either... > > I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, > but everything I read states that a subprocess > get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... > All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... > > Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? > > Kind regards, > mij Try to RUN/DET sys$system:loginout.exe instead with a short COM file as /INPUT that runs the image. Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:09:06 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: <08031214090613_2020CE0A@antinode.org> From: ythefoe@gmail.com > I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, > but everything I read states that a subprocess > get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... > All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... > > Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? What's the user's subprocess quota? alp $ pipe show process /quota | search sys$input Subprocess Paging file quota: 2079808 Subprocess quota: 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:17:43 -0500 From: norm.raphael@metso.com Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0069FE6C8525740A_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" ythefoe@gmail.com wrote on 03/12/2008 02:30:30 PM: > Hello, > > The operation systen is VMS 8.3 > > I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/ > image/out=xxx". > The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the > program. > This program compiles and links OK. > > When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works > fine. > > When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ > AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" RUN Process Creates a subprocess or a detached process to run an image and deletes the process when the image completes execution. A subprocess is created if any of the qualifiers except the /UIC or the /DETACHED qualifier is specified. A detached process is created if the /UIC or the /DETACHED qualifier is specified and you have the IMPERSONATE user privilege. > the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be > created by the "sh sys..." is not created... > The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from > the prompt... > > When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work > either... > > I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, > but everything I read states that a subprocess > get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... > All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... > > Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? > > Kind regards, > mij --=_alternative 0069FE6C8525740A_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"



ythefoe@gmail.com wrote on 03/12/2008 02:30:30 PM:

> Hello,
>
> The operation systen is VMS 8.3
>
> I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/
> image/out=xxx".
> The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the
> program.
> This program compiles and links OK.
>
> When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works
> fine.
>
> When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/
> AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY"

RUN

  Process

       Creates a subprocess or a detached process to run an image
       and deletes the process when the image completes execution. A
       subprocess is created if any of the qualifiers except the /UIC
       or the /DETACHED qualifier is specified. A detached process is
       created if the /UIC or the /DETACHED qualifier is specified and
       you have the IMPERSONATE user privilege.


> the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be
> created by the "sh sys..." is not created...
> The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from
> the prompt...
>
> When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work
> either...
>
> I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process,
> but everything I read states that a subprocess
> get the same rights as the process that spawns the process...
> All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights...
>
> Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ?
>
> Kind regards,
> mij
 --=_alternative 0069FE6C8525740A_=-- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:27:47 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: <47d82eb3$0$25022$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article , ythefoe@gmail.com writes: >Hello, > >The operation systen is VMS 8.3 > >I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/ >image/out=xxx". >The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the >program. >This program compiles and links OK. > >When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works >fine. > >When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ >AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" >the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be >created by the "sh sys..." is not created... >The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from >the prompt... Because the DCL CLI is not mapped. Wrap your program in a but of DCL: (e.g.: SPAWNER.COM) $ RUN SPAWNER.EXE and then invoke it with: $ RUN/DETACHED/INPUT=SPAWNER.COM SYS$SYSTEM:LOGINOUT.EXE >When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work >either... > >I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, >but everything I read states that a subprocess >get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... >All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... > >Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? Lemme guess: $ SUBMIT/QUEUE=SYS$BATCH/LOG SPAWNER.EXE ??? Try, using the same SPAWNER.COM above with: $ SUBMIT/QUEUE=SYS$BATCH/LOG SPAWNER.COM -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:20:17 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: <47d83b88$0$11996$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> ythefoe@gmail.com wrote: > When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ > AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" > the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work. To put what others have said in a simpler context: RUN/DETACHED will load an executable and run it, but outside of a DCL context. That image doesn't doesn't know about DCL, DCL symbols, command procedures etc. It does have access to logical names. RUN/DETACHED SYS$SYSTEM:LOGINOUT.EXE/input=command_procedure.com Will create a DCL process which then reads commands from the "command_procedure.com" and those commands then execute in a full DCL context. (so LIB$SPAWN will work because there is a DCL context from which to create a process that executes DCL commands). Note that RUN/DETACHED/UIC=xxx doesn't quite create a process that fully runs under that UIC. On the other hand: SUBMIT/USER=xxx will create a batch job that run FULLY under the specificed USER, with full DCL and full execution of the LOGIN.COM for that user. One way to get detached processes to truly run under a specified username is to use SUBMIT/USER proc_starter.com where proc_starter.com does the RUN/DETACHED. This way the RUN/DETACHED will fully execute under the context of the desired user. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:19:46 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Cannot submit program that uses LIB$SPAWN Message-ID: <47D848F2.5000802@comcast.net> ythefoe@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > The operation systen is VMS 8.3 > > I have a COBOL-program that uses the LIB$SPAWN to do a "sh sys/cluster/ > image/out=xxx". > The output of this spawn is then used as input in the rest of the > program. > This program compiles and links OK. > > When I run the program from the prompt "RUN YYY", the program works > fine. > > When I want to spawn the program as a process "RUN/UIC=[xx,xx]/ > AUTHORIZE/DETACH/LOG=xxx.log YYY" > the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work.In other words, the output file that mst be > created by the "sh sys..." is not created... > The UIC is the same as the UIC of the user that runs the program from > the prompt... > > When I try submit the program in a queue the LIB$SPAWN doesn't work > either... > > I suspect that it has something to do with privilege of the process, > but everything I read states that a subprocess > get the same rights as the process that spawns the process... > All cases were started with the same user, thus the same rights... > > Anyone idea's were the problem lies, and how to solve it ? > > Kind regards, > mij If you want to execute DCL in a process you spawn, you must have your new subprocess execute SYS$SYSTEM:LOGINOUT.EXE in order to get the DCL interpreter mapped into the P1 space of your subprocess. You feed it your DCL as input. It's been long enough that I've forgotten the exact syntax and I'm too lazy to look it up for you unless somebody pays me! Go thou, and RTFM. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:00:58 -0700 (PDT) From: ewilts@ewilts.org Subject: Re: Encryption on VMS Message-ID: <0c8be71c-0245-44c6-a91a-e6fb3aa14db0@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 11:02 am, Andrew wrote: > On 4 Mar, 04:15, ewi...@ewilts.org wrote: > > > For our environment, we run the NetBackup client on VMS (and it's > > awesome) and pump all the data to fibre-attached LTO-3 drives front- > > ended by Decru encryption appliances. It works like a charm. > > > .../Ed > > If you don't want to use hardware and you are using Netbackup then > Symantec supplies a plug in for the Netbackup Media Server which > encrypts and compresses at the media server itself. You need the > compression option because if you normally backup data that can be > compressed to a drive which supports HW compression then encrypting > the data first will defeat your hardware compression device reducing > the capacity of your backup tapes. I don't know if this is true in LTO-4 or not, but the Decru appliances compress and encrypt on the fly. You do not waste space on tapes by using these devices. .../Ed ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2008 15:58:27 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: In article <47D7F866.6060900@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > Err. . . . What could "casino security" do about it? Ask them to > leave? Seems to me that a casino is a "place of public accomodation" > and they might have a little legal trouble if anybody cared to push the > issue! Casinos can and do ban playing by folks who are known to regularly beat the house, typically by card counting. Of course, many of the most profitable games don't have cards to count. Those which do change the shoe often so as to disrupt all but the best card counters. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <0d2d65c2-c46b-419a-bcd4-cab18ae51c59@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 10:36 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > tadamsmar wrote: > > On Mar 7, 9:53 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > > >>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. > > >>:-) :-) :-) :-) > > > I read a book about some guys who analyzed poker computers. They > > found one that used a deterministic sequence of random numbers AND you > > could determine where it was in the sequence by watching the sequence > > of poker hands. > > > They made money, but casino security eventually caught up with them. > > Err. . . . What could "casino security" do about it? Ask them to > leave? Seems to me that a casino is a "place of public accomodation" > and they might have a little legal trouble if anybody cared to push the > issue! My impression is this is exactly what happens. I've seen people kicked out of restaurants for loitering (well, for ordering nothing but a soda per person on a busy Saturday night). Is a restaurant any less a "public accommodation"? AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:48:41 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47D86BD9.5020004@comcast.net> AEF wrote: > On Mar 12, 10:36 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: > >>tadamsmar wrote: >> >>>On Mar 7, 9:53 pm, JF Mezei wrote: >> >>>>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. >>> >>>>:-) :-) :-) :-) >>> >>>I read a book about some guys who analyzed poker computers. They >>>found one that used a deterministic sequence of random numbers AND you >>>could determine where it was in the sequence by watching the sequence >>>of poker hands. >> >>>They made money, but casino security eventually caught up with them. >> >>Err. . . . What could "casino security" do about it? Ask them to >>leave? Seems to me that a casino is a "place of public accomodation" >>and they might have a little legal trouble if anybody cared to push the >>issue! > > > My impression is this is exactly what happens. I've seen people kicked > out of restaurants for loitering (well, for ordering nothing but a > soda per person on a busy Saturday night). Is a restaurant any less a > "public accommodation"? > > AEF If those people cared to hire a lawyer they might make a great deal of money from such a sequence of events. I don't think such things happen very often however. I have, however, seen a man being given "the bum's rush". He never even sat down. I left the restaurant shortly thereafter and observed the man urinating on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. New York City! There's nothing like it!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:53:33 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47d86d83$0$10320$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > If those people cared to hire a lawyer they might make a great deal of > money from such a sequence of events. I think Casinos have rules on behaviour within their premises. Not too different in concept to "no shoes, no shirt, no service", except that their rules are about using math to defeat the random nature of their games. (whether counting cards or using more sophiticated means to spot not fully random patterns in their games). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:38:15 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: On Mar 9, 9:30 pm, AEF wrote: > 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 Well, Bob. I haven't heard from you. What was that you were saying about "liberals" not willing to answer your points (or something like that)? AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:46:13 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: On Mar 11, 10:39 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 11, 4:32 am, Mark Daniel wrote: > > > > yes, Moses and the Israelites were under the old law ... > they had the ten commandments, and God dwelt among them ... > sin was purged out of the nation ... if you broke a commandment, you > were stoned ... that is because sin is serious to God, and with > them sinning while He was right amongst them where they saw > all the miracles, > > but the old law passed away when Christ died on the cross for > those sins ... remember when Mary Magdelene was brought > before Jesus to be stoned, He said that let him without sin > cast the first stone ... He was changing things ... > > but the Catholic church I believe carries things too far when > they want to do away with the death penalty ... > > remember the thieves on the cross with Jesus ... the one > on the right repented and Christ said today you shall be > with me in paradise, but he did not say alright, get this guy > down from here because he has repented ... notice when > the thief on the left did not repent, the one on the right said > before Christ forgave him that they were getting punished > because of their sins ... > > so Christ did not excuse a thief from the death penalty > physically, but He did excuse him spiritually ... > > so if capital punishment was wrong, why didn't Christ > stop it ... because He left it still as a determent in society > to stop evil ... > > make sense you capital punishment critics? Nope. There was a story on 60 Minutes this week about an innocent person who spent I think 26 years in prison for murder as another prisoner confessed to the crime. He is *still* in prison. With capital punishment we would have executed an innocent man. You like doing that Bob? and it's not just he. Other prisoners have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Had the death penalty been in effect yet more innocent people would have been put to death by the state. Also, capital punishment is too expensive. Life in prison without parole is better. If later a mistake was found, you can at least release the person. If the person was executed, what are you going to do. Oh, I forgot. He's in heaven, right? So if innocent people go to heaven when they die, why is murder a sin? It's because deep down, even people like you know better. And I'm still waiting for your response to my email, so don't whine about others doing the same to you. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:51:00 -0400 From: bradhamilton Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: <47D86C64.7090304@comcast.net> > Well, Bob. I haven't heard from you. What was that you were saying > about "liberals" not willing to answer your points (or something like > that)? He's a troll. He never answers from that (or any other) email address. Please don't feed the trolls (PDFTT!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:04:45 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: Universal healthcare in England failing - boy dies ! Message-ID: On Mar 12, 7:51 pm, bradhamilton wrote: > > Well, Bob. I haven't heard from you. What was that you were saying > > about "liberals" not willing to answer your points (or something like > > that)? > > He's a troll. He never answers from that (or any other) email address. > Please don't feed the trolls (PDFTT!) So if he really doesn't believe what he's writing, what it the motivation? He seems to be an evangelist to me, but maybe you're right. I can't see going through such efforts just to get a long thread like this going, but I'm not him. But discussions like this are useful for me and others to be forced to think about these things and construct arguments about them. Like when Einstein kept pestering Bohr et al. about the uncertainty principle and "spooky action at a distance" and such. Bohr acknowledged that it was useful to progress with QM and respected Einstein greatly and considered him his friend. AEF OK. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:07:24 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <47d838bb$0$25372$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Back to my original post. Last week, I ran my lottery generator for first time on a Mac and won $10. I used that $10 to buy 5 lottery tickets (also generated by the same program). 2 of those tickets generated free tickets. 2 of those tickets generated $10.00 so 4 of 5 tickets were winners this week. When I bragged about the Mac being better than VMS at generating winning numbers, I didn't (seriously) think it would repeat itself... This is almost creepy :-) :-) After doubling the sample size (from 1 draw to 2 draws :-), I still have a 100% success rate at generating a winning ticket each draw :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:16:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <78fe8562-cd5c-453b-b9c5-26082b69e628@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote: > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > > Koehler) wrote: > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > > > > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean > > > > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with > > > > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to > > > > look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian > > > > Mechanics. > > > > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs? > > > I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is > > vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough" > > because in most cases they are. > > QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so > are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom. > > I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread (and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the bottom.) I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have previously dismissed them as garbage. Papers regarding GHZ http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102 http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21 There are of course other papers suggesting how hidden-variables could exist within the GHZ experiment, and I don't know whether the above are the best or not. Following this stuff is much harder than it once was (it isn't like riding a bicycle, I guess) and I really don't have that time to waste. Related reading: Science Daily article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060209184415.htm which references this paper on Canonical Typicality: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/can.pdf and Bohmian Mechanics; first, an intro with some J.S.Bell quotes: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html the links at the bottom lead to here: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/qts.html and here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Sheldon Goldstein seems to be the most staunch supporter and prolific writer on the subject. The last I knew he was still alive. Whether this theory describes how things really work or not, who knows? The point is that there are other possibilities that can agree with experimental results as well as QM, but disagree with some basic assumptions of QM. A point I do agree with you on is that for all practical purposes, QM has so far proven to be "close enough." So, until QM fails, any other work is just science done for the sake of gaining understanding -- and who cares about that;-) Can we please put this to rest here in c.o.v.? I would have sent this to you off-line but I don't know if you ever check your spamsink address or if it's even real. I check my throw-aways (like this one) weekly or so to clean them out; if I do find real messages there, I read and usually respond if I notice them and recognize the subject/ author and it isn't just a flame. <==NO NEW CONTENT HAS BEEN ADDED BELOW THIS LINE===> > > > If you believe that Schrodinger's Cat was really both 1/2 alive and > > 1/2 dead, then you are welcome to that belief. If you believe that the > > cat is either dead or alive and the experiment simply illustrates a > > measurement problem, then you're getting closer to what I believe. > > I, for one, do not believe the cat is half dead or half alive. The cat > is a macroscopic object. But when a particle (be it a photon, > electron, or what have you) passes through a microscopic double slit > when the appartus is set up in a way that produces an interference > pattern, it is as if it passes through both slits at the same time. > Such superpositions of even atoms have been achieved within the last > few years or so (maybe even a decade or more -- time passes so fast as > you age!). > > > > > I suggest reading what John Bell has said about some of the problems > > with QM. If you want to advance further beyond the world of dead- > > scientists, then read some of the work being done by people who are > > still alive and with whom you can actually discuss this. > > OK. Can you suggest specific references? > > > > > You're not too far from Rutger's, are you (or am I thinking of someone > > else)? Look up Sheldon Goldstein or one of his contemporaries and > > discuss it with them if you feel qualified. > > You mean pay him a visit? > > > > > You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's, > > Bohm's (and other "non-conformist") thoughts are being taken more > > seriously these days. You'll just have to look into it yourself. I'm > > not going to get into a battle of dead-scientists. > > Really? I don't see how in light of increasingly better experiments, > in particular, the GHZ experiment. > > AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <6f90222c-7da0-4aeb-9d8d-ca68d87d5c9c@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 9:14 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > > > > It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by > > this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article > > about it and got zero hits. > > I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum > mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic. Yeah, but I don't think this article is that bad. And it agrees with what I've read before in "The Quantum Physicists" by Cropper. The theory doesn't address randomness. It addresses what the particle is doing between observations. In a figure in the book it shows an electron taking a random jagged path through the two-slit apparatus. (pp. 134, 135). My contention is that it is pointless to speculate about such things if you can't observe it or any effects of it. Yeah, some Wikipedia articles are pretty awful, but I don't think this is one of them. AEF AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <42e3bcd3-a7d0-4fd6-badf-bc7623f68348@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 8:11 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article , AEF writes: > > > > >On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > >> In article , > >> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > > >> > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > >> >> You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean > >> >> that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with > >> >> resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to > >> >> look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian > >> >> Mechanics. > > >> > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs? > > >> I'll bet a lot of people do. When science requires faith than religion > >> in order to accept that which can neither be observed nor satisfactorily > >> proven I think more and more people will see the difference. > > >I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..." > > >Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires > >evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind > >faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world. > > >[1] Seehttp://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html(Mostly a good article, > >but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.) > > >As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that > >only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these > >out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been > >done and QM always, always wins. > > This is a strawman since there are non-local hidden variable theories. > > >We're not talking about the > >possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics > >who complained that the early experiments could still allow local > >hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said > >detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been > >greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped > >out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue. > >There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using > >local hidden variables. > > These experiments rule out local realistic theories. > This just leaves two choices > > 1) non-locality > > or > > 2) non-realism But what about Feynman's argument? All these things combined (which includes stuff I don't have time to document here) leads me to believe that there is almost certainly no way out. > > To my mind the latter doesn't actually make much sense. If the wave function What makes sense is not as important as experimental results. See, you know the drill (Beginning of Chapter 6 and parts of Chapter 7). > doesn't actually have a physical existence and a particle doesn't have any > properties until you measure them then how are entangled particles actually > linked. (If the wave function does physically exist then it's collapse will be > a non-local effect so such versions of the Copenhagen interpretation are > non-local). I think the realism quandary is a red herring. QM tells you what you will observe and that is what you observe. As for the "collapse of the wave function" I think of it more as "altered". The experimenter becomes part of the system. AEF > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University > > >If you would learn about this, you would probably slowly begin to > >realize that there is no way out. It is getting to the point where > >insisting there must be determinism somehow being hidden behind the > >veil of probability is akin to denying the existence of atoms. Do you > >deny the existence of atoms? If so, why; and if not, why not? > > >I used to be on the deterministic side. I even tried to concoct an > >explanation for polarization experiments to show how determinism could > >still prevail, but I quickly found my analysis to be flawed. > > >The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly > >the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people > >hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and > >wrote about it. That's hardly the same. > > >AEF > > >> 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:06:34 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: On Mar 12, 9:32 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article , > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > > > In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > >> It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by > >> this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article > >> about it and got zero hits. > > > I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum > > mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic. > > What do you mean? If it's on the INTERNET it has to be true. I referred to an article, not the Internet. Yes, even Wikipedia has some awful articles, but this is not one of them. I also know of the Bohm interpretation from "The Quantum Physicists" by William H. Cropper. But you could also say "If it's published in a book, it has to be true". And there's certainly lots of garbage in many books. Set the bar high enough and you can't say anything, including what you just said. AEF > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:12 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <88a389f1-7231-4f3d-b3f9-7c996b10d0b0@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 4:16 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote: > > > > > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > > > Koehler) wrote: > > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > > > > > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean > > > > > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with > > > > > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to > > > > > look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian > > > > > Mechanics. > > > > > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs? > > > > I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is > > > vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough" > > > because in most cases they are. > > > QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so > > are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom. > > I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to > address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread > (and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the > bottom.) > > I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the > ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated > elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might > already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems > you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have > previously dismissed them as garbage. > > Papers regarding GHZ > > http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102 > > http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21 > > There are of course other papers suggesting how hidden-variables could > exist within the GHZ experiment, and I don't know whether the above > are the best or not. Following this stuff is much harder than it once > was (it isn't like riding a bicycle, I guess) and I really don't have > that time to waste. Frankly, I find it hard to believe. I personally checked out the relevant equations in another paper and there is no way to assign values to the spins to avoid the randomness. I look at these perhaps this weekend when I have more time. > > Related reading: > > Science Daily article > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060209184415.htm > > which references this paper on Canonical Typicality: > > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/can.pdf > > and Bohmian Mechanics; > > first, an intro with some J.S.Bell quotes: > > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html > > the links at the bottom lead to here: > > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/qts.html > > and here > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Well, it's going to take a while for me to get to all these refs! > > Sheldon Goldstein seems to be the most staunch supporter and prolific > writer on the subject. The last I knew he was still alive. Whether > this theory describes how things really work or not, who knows? The > point is that there are other possibilities that can agree with > experimental results as well as QM, but disagree with some basic > assumptions of QM. Probably by speculating on what happens between observations, which you can't check, and is therefore not relevant. > > A point I do agree with you on is that for all practical purposes, QM > has so far proven to be "close enough." So, until QM fails, any other > work is just science done for the sake of gaining understanding -- and > who cares about that;-) Even if it fails to be exact, certain aspects will survive. NASA still uses Newtonian gravity to calculate orbits. There is no need to use GR for that. Classical Mechanics is still used to build bridges and other macroscopic stuff. Only when you get to lasers and electronics and some other stuff do you need QM. Electromagnetic theory is fine at the macroscopic level, except for lasers, which work at an atomic scale. > > Can we please put this to rest here in c.o.v.? I would have sent this > to you off-line but I don't know if you ever check your spamsink > address or if it's even real. I check my throw-aways (like this one) It's real and I do check it. I try to check it at least once a week. > weekly or so to clean them out; if I do find real messages there, I > read and usually respond if I notice them and recognize the subject/ > author and it isn't just a flame. > > <==NO NEW CONTENT HAS BEEN ADDED BELOW THIS LINE===> AEF [...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:23:31 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <8e299545-3771-4153-82cc-0a013a80bf50@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 11:16 am, "Fred Zwarts" wrote: > "AEF" wrote in messagenews:d605f298-85d8-491f-aeb7-3ba58aa7ac8c@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > > > Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires > > evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind > > faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world. > > > [1] Seehttp://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html(Mostly a good article, > > but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.) > > It seems you suggest that scientists and religious people are different. > However, there are many religious scientists. I find that many people somehow compartmentalize their brains to accommodate both. If religion is pounded into your head from birth, many find it hard to escape, or find it comforting and can't stand to let go. > > Of course our own faith is not blind faith, only the faith of others is. You obviously missed my point. Did you read my randi.org reference? I find it interesting that many religious people try to convince the non-religious through evidence, but their evidence is not convincing. This evidence is good enough for them. So who has faith in evidence now? Studies have been done to see if praying for the sick works. I heard it was found that those prayed for actually fared a little worse! It was probably within the margin of error, and so was not statistically significant. Few people were prayed for more than Princess Di, and look what happened to her. Please read the randi.org reference and other fine stuff on his Web site. Take his million dollar challenge if you think you can prove that some god exists. No religious person or "psychic" or others who claim they can do paranormal things have accepted the challenge. Those few who have accepted have been found to be frauds. > > > ... > > > The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly > > the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people > > hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and > > wrote about it. That's hardly the same. > > You just ignore all other evidence for religious faith. > That makes it easier to call it blind faith. Nonsense. What evidence are you talking about? The Bible? That's evidence? > > Of course the evidence we use counts, the evidence that other people use doesn't. > You ignore that even today many people interact with God. No they don't. > If you can't see God, who is blind? I have a retort to this, but I'll bite my tongue. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <1efe0aa5-0aed-4649-a521-451e0a81d993@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 12, 5:16 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote: > > > > > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > > > Koehler) wrote: > > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > > > > > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean > > > > > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with > > > > > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to > > > > > look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian > > > > > Mechanics. > > > > > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs? > > > > I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is > > > vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough" > > > because in most cases they are. > > > QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so > > are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom. > > I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to > address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread > (and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the > bottom.) > > I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the > ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated > elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might > already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems > you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have > previously dismissed them as garbage. > > Papers regarding GHZ > > http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102 Hmm, they want $31.50 for this one. I'll pass. > > http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21 I think I read a paper by this dude once. I discussed it with my graduate advisor and he agreed it's bogus. But this may .. OK, I just checked it. This one is free. Yeah, I think it's the same author and it's probably bogus. The other paper I read by him (probably around 2000) deduced that the wave function IS deterministic, but everyone knows that. My adviser said all he did was re-derive the Bell stuff in an strange way. If this were really showing what it claims, I think he would have won a Nobel prize by now. It's probably bogus. AEF [...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:14:36 -0600 From: Jeff Campbell Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <1205370365_775@isp.n> JF Mezei wrote: > Back to my original post. > > Last week, I ran my lottery generator for first time on a Mac and won $10. > > I used that $10 to buy 5 lottery tickets (also generated by the same > program). > > 2 of those tickets generated free tickets. > 2 of those tickets generated $10.00 > > so 4 of 5 tickets were winners this week. > > When I bragged about the Mac being better than VMS at generating winning > numbers, I didn't (seriously) think it would repeat itself... This is > almost creepy :-) :-) > > > After doubling the sample size (from 1 draw to 2 draws :-), I still have > a 100% success rate at generating a winning ticket each draw :-) :-) Only in your universe!!! 8-) 8-) ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, AEF wrote: > On Mar 12, 5:16 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > > > > Koehler) wrote: > > > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > Papers regarding GHZ > > > http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102 > > Hmm, they want $31.50 for this one. I'll pass. > Huh? It's free to me... click the PDF button there on the right, or use this link: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007102v7.pdf I'll continue off-line and give you my actual e-mail address, so maybe if you check your spamsink on Monday (I'll include COV in the subject) we can bash each others opinions in private....? Or, if there's someplace else you hang out where this subject is less OT then post it and maybe others would like to join in. I love this subject, but it isn't really appropriate for c.o.v. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:08:56 -0600 From: BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Message-ID: <8cyDTduSfM0m@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <10b5d716-18aa-4705-bec3-dc169725ada0@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, tadamsmar writes: > On Mar 8, 5:22pm, George Cornelius wrote: >> This thing really seems to be going nowhere. It sure seems to me that >> this is a standard, pure-vanilla problem of a shadow set having a forced >> error that VMS replicates on every shadow copy, something that's been >> around since Phase I shadowing and RA series drives. >> >> If that is the case, the solution is to overwrite the block in question. >> >> You should, just to be thorough, examine [000000]BADBLK.SYS and if it >> has any allocation, check its LBN's with $ DUMP/HEADER/BLOCK=C:0 . >> [...] you can also do this: >> >> $ create/fdl=sys$input JUNK.TMP001 >> area 0;allocation 1;contig yes;exact_positioning yes;position logical - >> 16578125 >> [...] > How do I look at BADBLK.SYS for a shadow set? I supplied a $ DUMP command. But, never mind. I only mentioned it for thoroughness. We already know in your case that the block is not allocated anywhere. > How about doing this: > > 1. Break out a member. > 2. Do an back/image on the member > 3. init/eras the member > 4. restore the image on the member > 5. boot on the member, making it the only member of the shadowset. > 6. merge the other disk into the shadowset Yes, and if not a boot disk the following [after being certain nothing will be writing to DSAn] would be more direct: $ dismount member2 $ initialize/erase/system member2: dummy ! No special init command needed $ mount/foreign/noassist/override=shadow_membership member2 $ backup/image/noalias DSAn: member2: ! Default init params are from source vol $ dismount DSAn: $ dismount member2: $ mount/sys DSAn:/shadow=member2:/conf label ! /conf just in case .-2 failed $ ! Even if it is a boot disk you may be able to do the above steps by booting from CDROM. My temp file technique solves the problem outright. There are no mounts and dismounts; nor are there shadow copies. Since it uses VMS to allocate the LBN into a temp file, it does not allocate the LBN unless it is free. This means you do not have to worry that it can destroy data in some random file. > Would that get rid of all these parity errors? Both approaches do this. One is surgical; the other brute force. > It seems a little safer and easier (for me) than trying to write > blocks to specific LBAs. Go for it. You seem to be a bit over your head here, and a procedure you understand is much better than one that confuses you further. -- George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org cornelius A T mayo D O T edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:23:41 -0600 From: BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Message-ID: In article <10b5d716-18aa-4705-bec3-dc169725ada0@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, tadamsmar writes: > How about doing this: [...] > 4. restore the image on the member > 5. boot on the member, making it the only member of the shadowset. > 6. merge the other disk into the shadowset What you will be doing, via an appropriate /SHADOW qualifier in a mount command, is _not_ a merge; it is a copy. A merge is something the O/S does all by itself to maintain a certain kind of internal shadow consistency. For the most part you should ignore merge operations [if you can - they slow your system down and should be avoided when possible]. Read The Fine Manual. -- George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org cornelius A T mayo D O T edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 2008 23:25:48 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Message-ID: <47d8667c$0$5641$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <8cyDTduSfM0m@eisner.encompasserve.org>, BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) writes: >In article <10b5d716-18aa-4705-bec3-dc169725ada0@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, tadamsmar writes: >> On Mar 8, 5:22pm, George Cornelius wrote: >>> This thing really seems to be going nowhere. It sure seems to me that >>> this is a standard, pure-vanilla problem of a shadow set having a forced >>> error that VMS replicates on every shadow copy, something that's been >>> around since Phase I shadowing and RA series drives. >>> >>> If that is the case, the solution is to overwrite the block in question. >>> >>> You should, just to be thorough, examine [000000]BADBLK.SYS and if it >>> has any allocation, check its LBN's with $ DUMP/HEADER/BLOCK=C:0 . > > >>> [...] you can also do this: >>> >>> $ create/fdl=sys$input JUNK.TMP001 >>> area 0;allocation 1;contig yes;exact_positioning yes;position logical - >>> 16578125 >>> > >[...] > >> How do I look at BADBLK.SYS for a shadow set? > >I supplied a $ DUMP command. But, never mind. I only mentioned it for >thoroughness. We already know in your case that the block is not allocated >anywhere. You *can* set blocks aside in BADBLK.SYS but I'm pretty certain that no modern disk drives use BADBLK.SYS. -- 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: 12 Mar 2008 19:56:54 -0600 From: BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Shadow set problem finally solved Message-ID: In article <47d8667c$0$5641$607ed4bc@cv.net>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <8cyDTduSfM0m@eisner.encompasserve.org>, BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) writes: > You *can* set blocks aside in BADBLK.SYS but I'm pretty certain that no > modern disk drives use BADBLK.SYS. Well I said I was just being thorough! I was once told that all of that infrastructure was obsolete, that DSA (sp?) drives' revectoring made it so there were no bad blocks. Then SCSI arrived on the scene, and, at least from my point of view, it appeared that the whole bad-block issue reappeared. Along with some kind of odd "SCSI block scrubber" that would scrub the blocks of a file at deletion time if the O/S had marked that file as having unrecovered bad blocks (or revectored bad blocks with the forced error flag set). Of course, modern SCSI drives revector and presumably never have to have anything in BADBLK.SYS . As a sidelight: I basically developed this 'allocate the bad blocks' technique for exactly the situation you describe - putting blocks with known problems into BADBLK.SYS . In my case, the known problem was something different: naively assuming I could transport drives from HSD05/HSD10 controllers to HSJ40/HSJ50 series and not have to worry about reinitializing and restoring from backup. Apparently the more advanced controllers needed larger metadata areas and some of my files turned out to have allocations beyond the end of the disk. Luckily these were static files that could be recovered from a backup, but I had to allocate a thousand or so LBN's into BADBLK.SYS to avoid VMS using them somewhere else. -- George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org cornelius A T mayo D O T edu ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.145 ************************