INFO-VAX Mon, 17 Mar 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 154 Contents: Re: Another WSIT triumph? RE: Another WSIT triumph? Re: Can a MicroVAX 3100 run on 208V? Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Re: Converting Real numbers with IEEE format to G_Float format Re: Converting Real numbers with IEEE format to G_Float format Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Re: Microvax II + 9-Track oracle Re: Peak cpu values in T4 different from ECP 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: Q: Maximum volume size for NFS disk (MN 4.4A)? Re: So you think God and the devil are not real? VMS calling standard, was: Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Re: VMS Mail translates incoming tilde character into a dollar sign. Re: VMS Mail translates incoming tilde character into a dollar sign. Re: Weekly Boot Camp Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:01:55 +0800 From: "Richard Maher" Subject: Re: Another WSIT triumph? Message-ID: Hi Again, Apparently that job posting has expired, but a new one has been posted; here are the details: - Cold Fusion Developer Permanent ColdFusion Web Developer. Location's: Arlington, VA (Pentagon) Performance Profile: Responsibilities include & requirements definition, application maintenance, and user support in a production environment. Responsibilities also include support necessary to migrate the DON Industrial Budget Information System (DONIBIS) from an OpenVMS Legacy platform (COBOL, DCL, Rdb, Datatrieve) onto a Windows 2003 system running Cold Fusion and accessing Oracle 9i databases. This task will require coordination with onsite functional sponsor/users, the government project manager, the onsite technical team and offsite users and customers to gather requirements and incorporate that information into functional design and application modifications. Daily duties include but are not& limited to the following: 1 - Perform requirements investigation and definition in support of - Budget Application Enhancements and Modifications - Migration of the DONIBIS application from OpenVMS to a Windows/ColdFusion environment 2 - Perform Application Maintenance - Support and develop Cold Fusion applications to interface with existing data sources - Create Microsoft Word and Excel documents via ColdFusion - Develop system documentation 3 - Perform user support Provide user training and production assistance to end users of the budget applications supported Position specific Requirements: Required Skills: - 5+ years Web application development experience - Bachelor's Degree - Web development experience with ColdFusion applications - 1-2 + years experience with the project life cycle including documentation, user support, requirements gathering, and testing a must. - 1-2 + years experience with writing SQL scripts to the Oracle Back End. Position Desired Skills: - Experience with migrating data from an OpenVMS Legacy platform (COBOL, DCL, Rdb, Datatrieve) onto a Windows 2003 platform - Experience with managing applications that access Oracle 9i databases - Knowledge of frameworks and methodologies. - Knowledge of JavaScript - Knowledge of Navy Budget processes Location Arlington, VA Country United States of America Start Date ASAP Cheers Richard Maher PS. Maybe it's just that they haven't seen the OpenView Smart Plug-in for Rdb? These customers are just so out of step with those that know better in VMS Middle Management. You're better off without them! In fact, I'd stick to your guns and come out with A HP OpenView Smart Plug-in for RMS, and then maybe VMS MAIL. Full steam ahead! Still that looks like it was fresh HP money and not drawing out of any VMS-specific budget so let's not look a gift-horse in the mouth. It's not quite up there with bailing out a bunch of rich-bastards in Bear Sterns with depositor's and tax-payer's money, but a pretty useful slush-fund nonetheless. Go crazy! "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:frij2o$d1c$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au... > Hi, > > Interesting VMS job description: - > http://www.jobserve.com.au/W2AF542B55F0D6F15.job > > These guys just don't get it do they? Don't they know that the Waste of > Substantial Investment in Technology (nee BridgeWorks) has been over 10 > years in the making, has had a Cecil B DeMille cast of thousands, and a > budget that'd make Hollywood blush? > > Who is this Mickey Mouse outfit anyway? Clearly some sort of lose-cannon, > maverick organization that just hasn't been reading the same Gartner reports > that HP's IMM team can recite ad infinitum. Anyway, I'm sure HP don't want > their filthy money. Full steam ahead - you're all doing very well :-( > > Regards Richard Maher > > PS. Now just imagine if HP could jump in there and show them their existing > tried and tested COBOL/Rdb code being accessed from the very RIA interface > that they crave, yet with all the original's intrinsic performance and > security characteristics preserved, and all this while the rewrite suffers > from the usual cost overruns and missed deadlines. Nah, you're right - "Who > cares?" you'll all be outta here in five years anyway. > > PPS. Maybe it was a broken $MAIL tilde or blinkin' LED on a VT100 that > pushed them over the edge? > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:58:44 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Another WSIT triumph? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Maher [mailto:maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com] > Sent: March 17, 2008 7:02 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Another WSIT triumph? > > Hi Again, > > Apparently that job posting has expired, but a new one has been posted; > here > are the details: - > > Cold Fusion Developer Permanent > > ColdFusion Web Developer. > Location's: Arlington, VA (Pentagon) > Performance Profile: > Responsibilities include & requirements definition, application > maintenance, > and user support in a production environment. Responsibilities also > include > support necessary to migrate the DON Industrial Budget Information > System > (DONIBIS) from an OpenVMS Legacy platform (COBOL, DCL, Rdb, Datatrieve) > onto > a Windows 2003 system running Cold Fusion and accessing Oracle 9i > databases. > This task will require coordination with onsite functional > sponsor/users, > the government project manager, the onsite technical team and offsite > users > and customers to gather requirements and incorporate that information > into > functional design and application modifications. > > Daily duties include but are not& limited to the following: > 1 - Perform requirements investigation and definition in support of > - Budget Application Enhancements and Modifications > - Migration of the DONIBIS application from OpenVMS to a > Windows/ColdFusion environment > 2 - Perform Application Maintenance > - Support and develop Cold Fusion applications to interface with > existing > data sources > - Create Microsoft Word and Excel documents via ColdFusion > - Develop system documentation > 3 - Perform user support > [snip...] Yeah, gotta love these IT Mgrs who read PC Week way to much... Lets see now .. take a couple of years of lowball estimates of what it will really take to do the migration, leave out the Operations impact, add a yea= r or two more while they change the name of the project to cover up that they are 2+ years late and many millions of $'s over budget + 1 to 2 years recov= ery time when the sponsor decides it is time to run for cover and CYA... Yep, sounds like a great story in the making .. :-) [I know of one environment here in Canada that is approx $100M over budget, three years late, gone through a couple of sponsors and only now is the new sponsor asking basic questions like "after all this, what was it we wer= e trying to accomplish?"] Very similar to this article someone recently posted here: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Jurassic-Programmers-.aspx :-) Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-254-8911 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:29:54 -0800 From: glen herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: Can a MicroVAX 3100 run on 208V? Message-ID: Dan Allen wrote: (snip) > FWIW it's common practice in my area to use a "reduced neutral" - smaller than > the phase conductors - on the assumption that on average the 120V loads are > roughly balanced across the 240V conductors resulting in minimal current flow on > the neutral. Neutral conductor size is only one of several reasons it is > desirable to balance the phase loads in a 3 phase panel. I haven't looked at the rules so recently, but some of the more recent changes are to make sure that circuit breakers trip appropriately. Consider a reduced neutral and a phase wire shorting to neutral. Until the breaker trips a very large current goes through that wire, even if no current goes through it in ordinary operating conditions. -- glen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:29:30 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Message-ID: In article , Jeff writes: > > If you are going to walk the call stack on Alpha, let > LIB$GET_INVO_CONTEXT and LIB$GET_PREV_INVO_CONTEXT do all the heavy > lifting for you. We knew that walking the stack would be something that > we (and a few of our customers) would want to do, but it's way more > difficult than on VAX. So we wrote the code to do it so you wouldn't > have to. :-) > > There are similar routines on OpenVMS I64, where walking the call stack > is even harder. > > All the stack walking routines are described in detail in the calling > standard document. Thanks. I didn't see the LIB$ stack walking routines in my old version of the calling standard, but I'll probably use them. Is the updated calling standard on the VMS doc site somewhere? I couldn't find any calling standard documents there. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:48:00 -0400 From: John Reagan Subject: Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > Is the updated calling standard on the VMS doc site somewhere? I > couldn't find any calling standard documents there. > It is there http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/82final/5973/aa-qsbbe-te.pdf Last revised for OpenVMS V8.2. -- John Reagan OpenVMS Pascal/Macro-32/COBOL Project Leader Hewlett-Packard Company ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:32:41 -0800 From: glen herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: Converting Real numbers with IEEE format to G_Float format Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: (snip) >>Is it possible to convert IEEE format numbers to G_Float format >>numbers easily? > There are routines in LIB$ to do these sorts of conversions. Fortran > I/O can do them on the fly, you just have to specify what format a > file's data is in in the OPEN statement. I believe the conversion itself is fairly simple, though I haven't looked recently. -- glen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:39:44 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Converting Real numbers with IEEE format to G_Float format Message-ID: In article , glen herrmannsfeldt writes: > Bob Koehler wrote: > (snip) > >>>Is it possible to convert IEEE format numbers to G_Float format >>>numbers easily? > >> There are routines in LIB$ to do these sorts of conversions. Fortran >> I/O can do them on the fly, you just have to specify what format a >> file's data is in in the OPEN statement. > > I believe the conversion itself is fairly simple, though I haven't > looked recently. Actually, I was thinking of the CVT$ routines that somebody else cited, but they were (are?) for a long time documented as the last chapter of the LIB$ reference. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:37:21 -0800 From: glen herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Message-ID: Chuck Forsberg wrote: > Free to a good home. You Haul. Portland Oregon > Satisfaction guaranteed or full purchase refunded > (S&H not included). I was in Gresham yesterday, though not with my own transportation. Also, my wife would rather I not have another computer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:47:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com Subject: Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Message-ID: <473b6219-d285-492d-bac4-9dd581c8bef8@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Mar 17, 12:37 am, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > Chuck Forsberg wrote: > > Free to a good home. You Haul. Portland Oregon > > Satisfaction guaranteed or full purchase refunded > > (S&H not included). > > I was in Gresham yesterday, though not with my own > transportation. Also, my wife would rather I not > have another computer. Glen, you're in Portland too? That makes Tad, Chuck Glen, and little ol' me (in Beaverton) all in town. I wonder who else is up here? Small world... :-) -Ken P.S. And I already have my Island Co. PWS 600au in the living room, and there's *no* space for *anything* else! -- Ken & Ann Fairfield What: Ken dot And dot Ann Where: Gmail dot Com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:46:39 GMT From: Tad Winters Subject: Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Message-ID: Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com wrote in news:473b6219-d285-492d-bac4- 9dd581c8bef8@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > On Mar 17, 12:37 am, glen herrmannsfeldt > wrote: >> Chuck Forsberg wrote: >> > Free to a good home. You Haul. Portland Oregon >> > Satisfaction guaranteed or full purchase refunded >> > (S&H not included). >> >> I was in Gresham yesterday, though not with my own >> transportation. Also, my wife would rather I not >> have another computer. > > Glen, you're in Portland too? That makes Tad, Chuck > Glen, and little ol' me (in Beaverton) all in town. > I wonder who else is up here? Small world... :-) > > -Ken > > P.S. And I already have my Island Co. PWS 600au > in the living room, and there's *no* space for > *anything* else! > -- > Ken & Ann Fairfield > What: Ken dot And dot Ann > Where: Gmail dot Com > Gee, maybe we better start a LUG. For the longest time, I thought I was the only one in the Portland area that frequented c.o.v. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com Subject: Re: Microvax II + 9-Track Message-ID: On Mar 17, 9:46 am, Tad Winters wrote: > Ken.Fairfi...@gmail.com wrote in news:473b6219-d285-492d-bac4- > 9dd581c8b...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:37 am, glen herrmannsfeldt > > wrote: > >> Chuck Forsberg wrote: > >> > Free to a good home. You Haul. Portland Oregon > >> > Satisfaction guaranteed or full purchase refunded > >> > (S&H not included). > > >> I was in Gresham yesterday, though not with my own > >> transportation. Also, my wife would rather I not > >> have another computer. > > > Glen, you're in Portland too? That makes Tad, Chuck > > Glen, and little ol' me (in Beaverton) all in town. > > I wonder who else is up here? Small world... :-) > > > -Ken > > > P.S. And I already have my Island Co. PWS 600au > > in the living room, and there's *no* space for > > *anything* else! > > -- > > Ken & Ann Fairfield > > What: Ken dot And dot Ann > > Where: Gmail dot Com > > Gee, maybe we better start a LUG. For the longest time, I thought I was > the only one in the Portland area that frequented c.o.v. There may be a few others. I seem to recall Zane Healey posting here infrequently, and there may be one or two other "lurkers". :-) -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:37:26 -0700 (PDT) From: swetha123 Subject: oracle Message-ID: Oracle9i Application Server http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle9i-application-server.html Summary of Oracle Features http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/summary-of-oracle-features.html The Oracle Family http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-family.html How Oracle Grew http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-oracle-grew.html oracle Relational Basics http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-relational-basics.html oracle The Evolution of the Relational Database http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-evolution-of-relational-database.html Introducing Oracle http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/introducing-oracle.html Learning the Basics of PL/SQL http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/learning-basics-of-plsql.html oracle Destroy the database http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-destroy-database.html oracle Stopping the database http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-stopping-database.html oracle Destroying Schema Objects http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-destroying-schema-objects.html oracle Creating and Querying a View http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-creating-and-querying-view.html oracle Query the table http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-query-table.html oracle create a index http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/oracle-create-index.html basics of oracle http://freedownloadablebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/basics-of-oracle.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:07:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Volker Halle Subject: Re: Peak cpu values in T4 different from ECP Message-ID: <79bf6de6-ee41-423f-91b5-8b480c2dda3b@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Hi, have a look at the raw T4 data with TLviz or an editor. I've seen a problem with T4 V4.0, where it seems to store the absolute value of a metric instead of the difference to the previouns interval, e.g. 10.08.2007 05:00 5.83 10.08.2007 05:01 0.00 << 10.08.2007 05:02 65692.48 << 10.08.2007 05:03 5.83 .. 10.08.2007 05:06 0.00 << 10.08.2007 05:17 65779.00 << The T4 monitor process seems to be running at prio 15 already. Volker. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:54:06 -0800 From: glen herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: (snip of Michelson interferometer diagram) > Considering the wavelength of light, I doubt very much that you can > setup a rig with mirrors where the A-B-D path is *exactly* the same > length as the A-C-D path, down to a point where you may need to consider > coriolis effect due to rotation of the earth. Getting the paths equal isn't hard. If you use a light source with a short coherence length (ordinary light bulb) you only get interference when they are very close. Also, look into optical gyroscopes which measure the change in interference as the system rotates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope -- glen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:37:17 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: <6N0Dp+76DtE3@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <47dd958d$0$3931$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > Considering the wavelength of light, I doubt very much that you can > setup a rig with mirrors where the A-B-D path is *exactly* the same > length as the A-C-D path, down to a point where you may need to consider > coriolis effect due to rotation of the earth. There are professionals who do this and account for much smaller errors than material streching due to stresses from coriolis affects. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:45:47 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS Message-ID: In article <4e7e482c-d37b-4084-8cec-1ce8dcc42976@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: >Hello, > >Comments interspersed below. Sorry for the delay, but it took me a >long time to write this. I have tried to be as clear as possible while >still not spending too much time on it. The better thing to read is >Feynman's The Character of Physical Law and his Lectures on Physics >book. > >Abstract: I'm showing how I'm basing my convictions on not just QM, >but on the wave-particle duality, the de Broglie relation, the results >of a vast array of experiments, one of which is described here in >detail. Nevertheless, QM is so amazingly successful for such a huge >range of phenomena, that there must be something very right about it. >All this leads me to conclude that Nature, at the level of atoms and >below, is intrinsically probabilistic, even if QM is eventually >superseded by a better theory. > >It's a little long. Please be patient as it takes a little while to >explain it properly. > >Enjoy. > >AEF > >On Mar 13, 11:01 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> In article <42e3bcd3-a7d0-4fd6-badf-bc7623f68...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: >> >> >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(Mostlya 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. >> >> The problem I have is that such an interpretation is just >> >> "thats the way it is" >> >> which to me isn't a scientific statement. With non-local interpretations there >> is at least some possibility that in the future it might be possible to explain >> the non-locality. If you just take it thats "thats the way it is" then you are >> in effect giving up on trying to find an explanation. > >As to what's "scientific", please read Chapter 6 of The Character of >Physical Law and get back to me. (Parts of Chapters 1 and 7 are also >relevant.) You will find the answer to that in this book. Obviously >I'm not going to quote entire chapters of the book. But I'll say this >here: How does gravity work? Think about it. Any two masses, no matter >how far apart, attract each other. Isn't that kind of amazing? You say >there is a field that permeates all of space. Just what is this field >made of and how is it generated by mass? How can it be like that? But >we grow up with gravity from day 1 and it becomes so familiar we think >of it as being totally normal. So what mechanism could be behind this? >At the classical level, physics has indeed given up. I wasn't going to respond to this but felt I had to respond to the above. If by the classical level you mean excluding relativity then you are correct in the sense that noone is looking for a mechanism - but that is because Newtonian theory has been superseded. If however by classical level you just mean excluding QM then that is rubbish. The mechanism for Gravity is well understood - the curvature of space-time. How mass/energy causes space-time to curve is well described by GR. Why mass/energy has that effect on space-time isn't explained but undoubtedly requires a better understanding of the structure of space-time. >In QM, it is >thought that it is the exchange of virtual gravitons that causes the >attraction, just like it is the exchange of virtual photons that >carries the electromagnetic force. Quantum Gravity theorems are still extremely speculative eg Loop quantum gravity, String theory. The existence/non-existence of the graviton and it's properties would help either support these speculations or refute them. The graviton does not fit into the QM standard model. >But these virtual photons -- or >gravitons -- materialize out of nowhere, travel between particles to >carry the force, and then disappear (thanks to a variation of the >uncertainty principle, a violation of conservation of energy is >allowed if it occurs over a short enough interval of time, and this >allows virtual particles to have their fleeting existences). And >you're still stuck with trying to find a mechanism for the virtual >particles. Good luck. We don't grow up experiencing QM at all, so it >seems really strange. But we are not to tell Nature how She's got to >be. [Until we detect actual gravitons, the existence of virtual >gravitons remains speculation. However, most physicists, AFAIK, >believe they must exist.] > >So you're always going to reach a point at which you say, "But what is >that? What is the mechanism behind that?" I think with QM we've hit >rock bottom. > Here we disagree. Since QM is undoubtedly incomplete it is much much too early to say we have reached rock-bottom. If you give up looking for mechanisms and just accept that "that is the way it is" then you might as well join Boob and put it all down to God's mysterious actions. >> Note. All the interpretations agree on what you will observe so in that sense >> it doesn't matter. However interpretations can give insight into how to produce >> a more complete theory and as I have pointed out QM is not the final theory of >> everything. > >[I'm not basing my claims solely on QM. I still think a more accurate >theory will still not be able to get rid of the intrinsic >probabilistic nature of things. See below.] > >And how will you test it? As for QM being "final", I think certain >aspects will survive. Note that Ehrenfest's theorem shows how quantum >mechanics goes over into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level. Any future theory of everything will have to incorporate all the results of QM experiments at least as approximate results just as GR incorporates Newtonian theory. That doesn't mean that the mechanisms of the theory will necessarily be identical. We can see this by looking at the case of Gravity. In Newtonian theory gravity is a mysterious force acting at a distance. In GR it is the result of matter/energy curving spacetime. Respond to this if you want but I won't be responding any further. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >This theorem gives an equation (derived from the QM equations) that >looks strikingly like F=ma. When the uncertainty in x is small, you >basically recover F=ma. In fact, this is related to "the >correspondence principle which in essence states that classical >physics results should be contained as limiting cases of quantum >mechanical results"[1] (e.g., when quantum numbers are large). In >fact, the correspondence principle was used in the early days of QM >development as a guide to guess the correct QM equations. So classical >mechanics not only survives, it is an essential part of QM in this >respect. Similarly, I believe the probabilities and the particle-wave >duality of nature will survive any future, better theory, as will the >reality of atoms. > >Furthermore, many facets of classical mechanics still hold in QM -- >conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and >conservation of energy, e.g. And this is not an approximation: these >quantities are conserved in QM just as they are in CM (well, aside >from temporary violations as in the creation and destruction of >virtual particles -- and you cannot directly observe these violations, >which is why the virtual particles are...well...virtual). > >[1] Quantum Physics by Gasiorowitz > >And I'm not basing my claims strictly on QM; I'm also basing them on >all the wild and wacky experiments, all of which show that particles >exhibit wave-like behavior and waves exhibit particle-like behavior. >That's very unlikely to change even if QM is superseded by a better >theory. (The fact that ordinary matter is made of atoms isn't likely >to change either!) Note that you can have one particle at a time go >through your apparatus and when you wait for enough statistics to >accumulate you still get an interference pattern, a sure sign of >waves, and strong evidence in favor of there being intrinsic >probability in nature. As Merzbacher says, "The conclusion is almost >inevitable that psi [the wave function] describes the behavior of >single particles, but that it has an intrinsic _probabilistic_ >meaning." [His emphasis.] > >Also, I've been there, done that. I wrestled with this problem myself >on and off over many years. I used to think it can't be "random" or >probabilistic. I even tried to come up with a hidden variables theory >to explain the spooky correlations seen in polarization experiments! >(I failed, of course.) And I have come to the conclusion that the >randomness (or as I prefer to put it, the probability) is almost >certainly an intrinsic apsect of nature. I know you're saying, "But >how can it be like that?" But as Feynman says, "No one knows how it >can be like that". (Not only is Feynman a great teacher, he is >strikingly honest, even about the shortcomings of physics.) I really >can't imagine that anyone will ever find a way out. > >Look at the situation. You have wave phenomena such as interference >and diffraction of light. These things are strictly wave phenomena. >Then you find that these light waves are actually "quantized" into >little bundles of energy called photons. And the energy in each photon >follows a very simple relation: E = h*f where h is Planck's constant >and f is the frequency of the light (which is how many crests (or >wavelengths) pass you per second). So if you have monochromatic light, >all the photons have the same energy. There are no half-photons. They >come in fixed-size "lumps". Experiment has shown over and over again >that even when you reduce the intensity of the light so that only one >photon is traversing the apparatus at any given time, you STILL get >interference patterns. Consider reflection. Approx. 4% of the light is >reflected from clear glass. So if you have 100 photons striking the >glass, you know that on average 4 photons will be reflected. But which >photons? The same applies in the case of polarized light traveling >through a polarizer oriented so that only some of the light gets >through. A photon can either be absorbed or pass through. But which >particular photons will get through? There is no way to tell. What any >individual photon does in such situations (and more generally, what >any individual particle of any kind does) is unpredictable, but the >probabilities of the various possible outcomes are calculable via QM. >I don't see any way out of this other than intrinsic probability. > >(See part 1 of the Feynman video at www.feynman.com (it's free!) for >an excellent explanation of this in more detail. I'm just more or less >summarizing here.) > >Here's an excellent example to drive the point home. I saw a talk >about this in graduate school in the late 1980's. Consider the >following experimental set up: > > F A B > > [-LASER-]-----|-------\-----------------\ > | | > | | > | - LCD > | | > | | > \-----------------\ > > C D > >The laser beam is split by beam splitter A. It is reflected towards D >by mirrors B and C. The beams are combined by the re-combiner D. When >you put detectors around D you find that interference patterns are >produced. > >Next, put an LCD "switch" in the BD segment. If it is ON (opaque) you >get some of the beam striking the LCD and the rest traversing ACD and >giving no interference patterns. If it is OFF (transparent), you >recover the interference because then the light then traverses two >different paths and exhibits interference when the two beams recombine >at D. OK. Everything seems okay so far. (Remember that interference >results from two light beams overlapping.) > >Now, the laser beam intensity can be reduced by filter F so low that >only one photon traverses the apparatus at a time. If the LCD is ON, >then the photon either travels along ACD and is detected at D or it >strikes the LCD and is absorbed or reflected. The LCD then serves as a >detector that tells us which way the photon went after it goes through >A. If the LCD is OFF (transparent) you *still* get an interference >pattern after allowing many photons to individually traverse the >apparatus. So it looks like each photon travels over both paths. How >else can you get interference? But with the LCD on it travels only >over one path or the other. How are you going to explain this without >probability and the wave function of the photon being in a >superposition of it traveling in one path with it traveling in the >other? You cannot get interference without having two things >"interfere", yet you never see a single photon in both paths. With the >LCD on you always see it in one or the other, never both. > >It gets better. The LCD can be switched ON or OFF rapidly enough so >that it can be switched AFTER the photon passes through A but BEFORE >the photon (if it's in the ABD path) reaches it (the LCD). You can >guess what happens. If you switch the LCD from OFF to ON while the >photon is in mid-flight, you lose the interference pattern. Some of >the photons traverse path ACD, thereby striking the LCD, and some >traverse the path ACD. No interference is observed. If you switch it >from ON to OFF with the photon in mid-flight, you regain the >interference patterns at D. So tell me how the photon, after being >"split" by beam splitter A and is therefore "committed" to one path or >the other or both, knows whether the experimenter is going to have the >LCD ON or OFF by the time it reaches it? How does the photon when it >is at A "know" whether it should randomly choose one path or the other >vs. "splitting up" (which we know photons never do!) so it can produce >the interference pattern? (Keen readers will notice that this is very >similar to the two-slit experiment, except that here it is made >painfully obvious that slit-1 photons and slit-2 photons are really in >totally different paths because here the distance between them is so >much greater, and we get the extra fun of the rapidly switching LCD >detector which makes it clear that when you detect the photon in the >two-slit experiment, you are doing so AFTER it has already gone >through the beam splitter, or the two slits, and is therefore >"committed" yet can't know in advance whether it will be detected >before it hits the screen or not. Also, there is no significant >overlap of the wave function between the two paths, unlike the two- >slit experiment.) > >The bottom line in all interference experiments is this: If it is >possible, even in principle, to somehow determine which of the two >interfering paths the photon takes, you lose the interference. If you >see the interference, you cannot even in principle determine which >path the photon took. And you can delay your observation until after >the photon passes through the beam splitter A and therefore has to be >"committed" to one path or the other or both, and somehow the result >is the same. (How else could things be self-consistent?) It's still >"spooky". > >Now the question becomes: can you predict which path the photon will >take after passing through the beam splitter A with the LCD ON? Hidden >variable theory says you could do this by observing something at or >upstream of A. But if you could do that, then it makes no difference >whether the LCD is ON or OFF. Anything you observe with the LCD ON you >can observe with it OFF, and at the time of this observation, the >state of the LCD when the photon gets to it is still unknown. And if >you can successfully predict which path the photon will take, you >can't ever get the interference pattern with the LCD OFF, because an >interference pattern cannot be produced by photons traveling along a >single path, and an interference pattern is completely different from >what you would see if photons only traversed one path or the other. >And there can't be any "secret communication" between the LCD and the >source or beam splitter at A because you can change the state of the >LCD AFTER the photon has passed through beam splitter A. Therefore, >even with the LCD ON, there is no way to predict ahead of time which >path the photon will take if the apparatus is set up in such a way >that it can produce interference patterns with the LCD off. Please see >Feynman's Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law (from which this >explanation is borrowed) for the full story (well it's the full story >at the layman's level -- if you know about how the wavelength of light >affects resolution, and are comfortable with the de Broglie relation, >you can go a little deeper, but the essential points are covered by >the layman's version -- for the deeper version, see Feynman's Lectures >on Physics. Also, Feynman's explanation is most likely clearer than >mine!). > >[Some progress has been made: It used to be thought that this comes >about because any detector gives an unavoidably large enough impulse >to the particle due to the uncertainty principle [for an explanation >of this, see, e.g., Feynman's Lectures on Physics], but it has since >be found that this is not always the case. Still, you cannot follow >the path of a particle that has contributed to an interference >pattern, and still, what any individual particle does is still >unpredictable.] > >Add to all this other "delayed-choice" experiments, variations of the >Aspect experiment, the GHZ experiment, the recent results with quantum >erasers, all of which always give the same results I have just >described. So you end up banging your head against the wall until you >start hemorraging. At that point, you might say to yourself that maybe >nature really is intrinsically probabilistic and can then begin the >healing process. But keep in mind that the probabilities have well- >determined values that can be calculated using the formalism of QM. > >It seems to me that this is the inevitable consequence of particles >that come in fixed energies for any given wavelength (or frequency) >acting statistically as waves do. It is that, and experiments like the >ones I have described, more than QM itself, that leads me to my >convictions. IOW, even if QM isn't "exactly right", you will still >have everything being particles and waves with the energy given by E = >h*f for light and the very similar de Broglie relation for the >momentum of a particle of matter (which actually yields E = h*f for >light) because this has been established by experiment aside from QM. >Even so, QM has been so spectacularly successful in describing such a >humongous range of phenomena that there must be something very right >about it. > >What you have here, if you wish to keep with "realism", is that the >photon splits up into two parts at A (even though you will never >directly detect the photon in both paths: any attempt to do so will >find it in either one path or the other) and interferes with itself at >D if the LCD is OFF at the time the photon reaches it; or, if the LCD >is ON when the photon reaches it, one "photon-half" somehow jumps >across space to join its other half. I don't see how your going save >the day with "realism", or save "realism" itself, in light of this. > >There are many other experiments like this. There are the quantum >eraser experiments, the GHZ experiments, and so on. They all produce >the same results as I have already described. > >And you're going to explain this with "realism"? Good luck. > >I suppose with the Bohmian theory you can have the particle in one >path with the "pilot wave" in both, but when the pilot wave strikes >the LCD you have the pilot wave itself "collapsing", so what is >gained? Nothing as I see it. And how is the pilot wave going to work >when split up into two spatially distinct parts, only one of which has >the photon? And how will it work at the re-combiner? It doesn't seem >reasonable to me, though I can't explain why here. And what about the >Aharonov-Bohm effect in which the interference patterns of electrons >traveling around a fully contained magnetic field are shifted by >varying the strength of the magnetic field, even though the electrons >never travel THROUGH the field! How does Bohm's theory work with that? >(Maybe it does, I just don't have the time to keep going, and this >post is already long enough, no?!) > >The Bohm theory seems (to me) to say that the particle is where it >would be if you could observe it without disturbing it in any way, >which to me doesn't say much. But I think it also gets into trouble >with the GHZ experiment. You still must have collapse of the wave >function, or, as Merzbacher puts it in his "Quantum Mechanics" >textbook: "reduction of the state (or wave packet)". > >> >> >As for the "collapse of the wave function" I think of it more as >> >"altered". The experimenter becomes part of the system. >> >> But where is the boundary. If the experimenter becomes part of the system >> without the wave function collapsing then why not the whole Universe. >> I think you've just moved from the Copenhagen interpretation to the Many >> Worlds interpretation. > >The wave function still collapses. You're talking about the wave >function that includes both the system and the experimenter? I'm not >prepared to comment on that at this time. I've already spent a lot of >time on this post and I must stop and post it already. > >I am NOT an adherent of the many-worlds interpretation. It seems to me >that having entire universes created for every "collapse of a wave >function" is vastly more unreasonable than Copenhagen. I like the >phrase "shut up and calculate", but that's a bit overkill. Work is >still being done on this question. Then there is the issue of locality >and seperability for which there is landmark paper. But I'll save that >for another post if needed. > >> Anyway we have discussed this in the past ad-nauseum and as Doug Phillips >> said this is off topic for comp.os.vms. > >But you posted again, so I responded. I mean really -- you're saying >that you can have the last word because it's off-topic anyway. Sorry. >And I did add some new stuff. > >AEF > >> >> David Webb >> Security team leader >> CCSS >> Middlesex University >> >[...] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com Subject: Re: Q: Maximum volume size for NFS disk (MN 4.4A)? Message-ID: <4d1845ee-d692-4341-a676-cbee68c0c637@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 14, 3:42 am, JF Mezei wrote: > Joseph Huber wrote: > > The fact that SHOW DEV and f$getdvi can handle a total of 2922891920 > > blocks (0xae37ca90) indicates to me 0xFFFFFFFF is the limit, not 7FFFFFFF. > > One would need to know what the limits are in the NFS software for > Multinet, it may be the one that truncates a lot of bits and tells VMS > the disk is much smaller than it really is. > > HAs the OP ruled ou the NFS software at the server end providing > incorrect volume size ? If so, one could blame the Multinet NFS client side. Yes, the OP opened a support call with Process. They acknowledged the problem (in the MN 4.4A version of the NFS Client) and said it had been corrected in MN 5.1, but that there is no patch to correct the problem in MN 4.4A. I also asked what the maximum volume size was that MN 4.4A would handle correctly, but Process support couldn't find the answer. I'm hoping that by staying (well) under 1 TB, we'll be OK. New "experiments" are "on deck" and I should have the answer in a few days. -Ken -- Ken & Ann Fairfield What: Ken dot And dot Ann Where: Gmail dot Com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:27:43 -0400 From: "David Turner, Island Computers" Subject: Re: So you think God and the devil are not real? Message-ID: It's true It was in the National Inquirer last week too ! :0) "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:583c2$47dc9958$cef8887a$32441@TEKSAVVY.COM... > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> ultradwc@gmail.com wrote: >>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835 >> >> Yeah! Right! It's "The Exorcist" all over again! >> > > But there is a more modern solution for this. And it as MARKETING that > made that solution very popular starting in the 1980s. > > One of their original ads (audio only): > > http://www.vaxination.ca/ghostbusters.mp3 > > This company succesfully dealt with a case of Sigourney Weaver's New > York appartment being posessed to a point where she slept 4 feet above > her covers, and ended up falling in love with Rick Moranis before both > of them became slaves to ZUL. It was also one of the more spectacular > appearances of Puff the marshmallow guy on the streets of New York City. > > > > > (this was recorded on a old MacPlus with a special sound unit plugged > into a appletalk port, and files survived in macbinary format on a VAX > disk drive and then moved via FTP to OS-X (if you name the resulting > file .bin , you can then double click on it and OS-X will recreate the > original file, and the file was then converted to MP3 format with itunes). ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:43:26 -0600 From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) Subject: VMS calling standard, was: Re: CAUTION: post is ON TOPIC Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > > Is the updated calling standard on the VMS doc site somewhere? I > couldn't find any calling standard documents there. > The calling standard is included in the online documentation at: http://ftp.openvms.compaq.com/doc/os83_index.html Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:03:55 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: VMS Mail translates incoming tilde character into a dollar sign. Message-ID: In article , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: > > Doesn't LOGINOUT.EXE run SYLOGIN.COM ? > I thought we agreed on that LOGINOUT.EXE was the > correct way to run/detached. Not in my experience. And running LOGINOUT is only needed if you are starting a process that needs DCL context. Many don't. In fact running MAIL in a detached process that doesn't have a DCL context would be one way to block the user from using SPAWN within mail. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:23:38 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: VMS Mail translates incoming tilde character into a dollar sign. Message-ID: In article <7954bccd-1e62-4d99-bb8c-e91c908a1b66@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > How about all the anti-virus, anti-spamware, etc. people have to add > on to Windows? Talk about adding complexity and upkeep! > > I guess then we should convert everything to Linux, since that's the > only OS I'm aware of that in common use for both back-end and front- > end (desktop). Although I do believe its in a better state than Windows, I'd not lead a rush to Linux for the purpose of avoiding security issues. In fact, I think other free UNIX-ish OS, like NetBSD, may have a better record and I wouldn't rush to them, either. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:05:06 -0400 From: John Reagan Subject: Re: Weekly Boot Camp Update Message-ID: Richard Maher wrote: > Hi Sue, > > Is COV still the/a venue for the "weekly" bootcamp updates? > > I've been checking the bootcamp web-page but nothing much seems to change? > And as far as an agenda goes, all I can find is: - "The agenda will be > available in early March 2008". I believe Sue spent most of the weekend sorting though all the abstracts submitted. Sadly, I don't think she found room for my "How to print tildes in COBOL using a 3-phase MicroVAX" session. -- John Reagan OpenVMS Pascal/Macro-32/COBOL Project Leader Hewlett-Packard Company ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.154 ************************