INFO-VAX Wed, 23 Apr 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 226 Contents: Re: HSD52 dead reduced raidset Re: HSD52 dead reduced raidset RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:23:38 GMT From: Antonio Carlini Subject: Re: HSD52 dead reduced raidset Message-ID: "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in news:LOednXulcqgIe5DVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com: > Bob Koehler wrote: >> Most likely the electronics failed but the platters still held the >> data. >> > > I suppose it happens that way occasionally. I'm not convinced, > however, that it is a common failure mode. Given a decent environment > to work in, the electronics can be expected to outlast the moving > parts by a substantial margin. I've sold two old (working but no longer required) drives on a "popular internet auction site". In both cases the kinds of questions I was asked made me suspect that they were being used as donors. In both cases I was right and in both cases the buyer sent an email thanking me for saving the data. Someone in the office has also sucessfully performed a board-ectomy and recovered data. So electronics failure certainly does happen. Another spurious data point while I'm here. When RAID fails spectacularly, the failure mode always seems to be: drive failed, swapped in a spare, second drive died before the replacement had had enough copied on to it. I don't know whether RAID 6 will help, since I suspect that as the 2nd replacement drive is coming online a 3rd one will die (drives tend to be installed all together and all from the same batch, so they're roughly the same age and have done roughly the same amount of work, so I'm never surprised that they often decide to peg it synchronously!). Antonio ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:38:42 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: HSD52 dead reduced raidset Message-ID: Antonio Carlini wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in > news:LOednXulcqgIe5DVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com: > >> Bob Koehler wrote: >>> Most likely the electronics failed but the platters still held the >>> data. >>> >> I suppose it happens that way occasionally. I'm not convinced, >> however, that it is a common failure mode. Given a decent environment >> to work in, the electronics can be expected to outlast the moving >> parts by a substantial margin. > > I've sold two old (working but no longer required) drives on a "popular > internet auction site". In both cases the kinds of questions I was asked > made me suspect that they were being used as donors. In both cases I was > right and in both cases the buyer sent an email thanking me for saving the > data. Someone in the office has also sucessfully performed a board-ectomy > and recovered data. > > So electronics failure certainly does happen. > > Another spurious data point while I'm here. When RAID fails spectacularly, > the failure mode always seems to be: drive failed, swapped in a spare, > second drive died before the replacement had had enough copied on to it. > I don't know whether RAID 6 will help, since I suspect that as the 2nd > replacement drive is coming online a 3rd one will die (drives tend to be > installed all together and all from the same batch, so they're roughly the > same age and have done roughly the same amount of work, so I'm never > surprised that they often decide to peg it synchronously!). This suggests, to me, that people are expecting more than the hardware can deliver. Five years of service from a drive is quite a lot. In the case of the very latest 15,000 RPM drives, it's probably two or three lifetimes! Where possible, I would try to retire older drives to non-critical service. Drives are not THAT expensive, especially when compared with the cost of restoring a few hundred gigabytes that may, or may not, have been backed up recently. My personal experience suggests that backups will not be done unless someone is cracking the whip!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:34:17 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Gunshannon [mailto:billg999@cs.uofs.edu] > Sent: April 21, 2008 7:12 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 > > In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, > billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > > > All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has > > ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!) > > Hold on to your hats!! Today I ran into one of my peers who has > actually > seen a DOD VMS system. He used to work at the Hoffman Building in VA > which is the headquarters for all Army personnel systems and he > actually > remembers when they had VMS systems there. He thought they were pretty > good. But they decommissioned it several years ago. Sorry guys. > That's > reality. > > The group I am with now makes up somewhere in the area of 600 man years > of Army IT experience covering more than 30 calendar years of time and > pretty much every theater of operations and out of all of this, one man > has seen VMS in use by DA and that was years ago. If the cream of Army > IT never work with these VMS systems, just who do you think does? > I should be really honest, however. I, too, have seen VMS in use in > DA. > Of course, that was at the Military Academy in the Computing Science > Department which is probably more academia than government and anyway, > that was over 20 years ago and has probably been gone for more than 18 > years. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three > wolves > billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include Bill, give it a rest. You are not plugged in as well as you perhaps think you are. As an example, you mentioned VA hospitals in the above. Well, reference This url that is a bit dated, but check out the numbers ... http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040324a.html HP awarded $784 Million Services Contract by Department of Veteran Affairs Ten year deal to support and maintain VistA Health Information Systems builds on 20 year relationship between HP and the VA PALO ALTO, Calif., March 24, 2004 (10 year contract award) . The VA's VistA solution is implemented at all VA medical centers. VistA provides automation and record keeping for almost every clinical and administrative office and function in the VA through the many custom integrated software modules running from a single integrated database at individual medical or regional computing centers. The VA continues to demand more access, speed, manageability, scalability, and high availability from the systems on which it implements VistA. . HP has been an infrastructure, consulting and services provider to the VA since 1983 through its work on the Decentralized Hospital Computer Program (DHCP) and Enhanced Decentralized Hospital Computer Program (EDHCP) contracts. Over time, HP and the VA have collaborated closely to continuall= y evolve the VA's IT environment and have successfully deployed HP's OpenVMS clusters on AlphaServer systems to build an adaptive environment that has increased performance, utilizes 64-bit architecture and has enhanced reliability and up-time. As part of this latest agreement, HP takes responsibility for maintenance and support for all hardware and software products that comprise the VistA solution." 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: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:15:02 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <480e6391$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Main, Kerry wrote: > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040324a.html > HP awarded $784 Million Services Contract by Department of Veteran Affairs If the bets you can find are 4 year old announcements, then it is a further sign of the decline in VMS business. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:48:22 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: April 22, 2008 6:15 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 > > Main, Kerry wrote: > > > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040324a.html > > HP awarded $784 Million Services Contract by Department of Veteran > Affairs > > > If the bets you can find are 4 year old announcements, then it is a > further sign of the decline in VMS business. Had nothing to do with what you are insinuating. Bill referenced the VA and I simply pointed out a major area of VA (and in most companies, $784M is a pretty big deal) he was obviously not plugged into. 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: 23 Apr 2008 01:30:03 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <677horF2k0pq2U1@mid.individual.net> In article <0A7046B0A95F2B41B3712F0C5FD1CDC303BCD2@ex-tg2-pr.corporate.transgrid.local>, "O'Brien Paddy" writes: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8A452.9BB8AF7E > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tad Winters [mailto:stafford.no.spam.winters2@verizon.net] > Sent: Tue 4/22/2008 3:41 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 > =20 > This all reminds me of Microsoft's end-user license agreement. Here=20 > are a couple paragraphs: > > 22. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited=20 > Warranty that appears above is the only=20 > express warranty made to you and is provided=20 > in lieu of any other express warranties or=20 > similar obligations (if any) created by any=20 > advertising, documentation, packaging, or=20 > other communications. Except for the Limited=20 > Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted=20 > by applicable law, Manufacturer and its=20 > suppliers (including MS, Microsoft=20 > Corporation (including its subsidiaries) and=20 > their respective suppliers) provide the=20 > SOFTWARE and support services (if any) AS IS=20 > AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all=20 > other warranties and conditions, whether=20 > express, implied or statutory, including, but=20 > not limited to, any (if any) implied=20 > warranties, duties or conditions of=20 > merchantability, of fitness for a particular=20 > purpose, of reliability or availability, of=20 > accuracy or completeness of responses, of=20 > results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of=20 > viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with=20 > regard to the SOFTWARE, and the provision of=20 > or failure to provide support or other=20 > services, information, software, and related=20 > content through the SOFTWARE or otherwise=20 > arising out of the use of the SOFTWARE. ALSO,=20 > THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE,=20 > QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,=20 > CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON- > INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE. > =20 > 23. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL=20 > AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM=20 > EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO=20 > EVENT SHALL MANUFACTURER OR ITS SUPPLIERS=20 > (INCLUDING MS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,=20 > (INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR=20 > RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS) BE LIABLE FOR ANY=20 > SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR=20 > CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,=20 > BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF=20 > PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION,=20 > FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL=20 > INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO=20 > MEET ANY DUTY OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE=20 > CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER=20 > PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING=20 > OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR=20 > INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION=20 > OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER=20 > SERVICES, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED=20 > CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE=20 > ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR=20 > OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY=20 > PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF=20 > THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),=20 > MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH=20 > OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF=20 > MANUFACTURER OR ANY SUPPLIER (INCLUDING MS,=20 > MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INCLUDING ITS=20 > SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS), > AND EVEN IF MANUFACTURER OR ANY SUPPLIER=20 > (INCLUDING MS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION=20 > (INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR=20 > RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS) HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE=20 > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. > > > I hope this comes over correctly --- I am forced onto this stupid microshaf= > t stuff. If not, I apologise, and is why I do not now write here much. An= > d I cannot use internal Outlook mail, I only have access from my VMS (genuf= > lection) box to the very frustrating Outlook Web Access. > > In reply to Tad: -- since I never have and never will buy anything from mic= > roshaft, I have never read Herr (a quick goose-step) Ballmer's licence. Th= > anks for the enlightenment. > > With this sort of licence agreement, why are large companies and government= > s agreeing to such restrictions or exceptions? Thankfully I have seen repo= > rts that several governments are dishing this most "crapfull" (not a word, = > I do know) OS. O.K., the home user is probably not too worried as he/she i= > s not usually doing too much other than reading email, playing solitaire an= > d letting themselves become a zombie. But companies and organisations ... = > ?? > > Yes, Bill, I know, but how many of them do tie down their (not "there" -- a= > nd I haven't used "you're", so not "your" -- this is general, not specifica= > lly to you Mr. Gunshannon) systems? I know of several organisations that d= > o not. I guess when you can't really attack the message you just attack the spelling. :-) I have never considered News important enough to spend hours proofreading the text. And we won't get into all that HTML crap that made up more than half of this posting before I trimmed it. > > Regards, Paddy So how is the above disclaimer any sillier or more insidiuous than the one below? This is USENET News, not Email and the message was posted indiscriminately to thousand upon thousand of systems for viewing by potentially millions of people. I doubt many (if any) people ever bother to read either of these disclaimers. As for people "tieing down" their systems, the question has never been do people do it but rather can it be done. Many people here have repeatedly claimed it was not possible. I have, in return, repeatedly pointed out that it was possible and that there are people and organizations doing it and that the information needed to do it is publicly available.o bill > > *********************************************************************** > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged > and confidential information intended only for the use of the=20 > addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of=20 > this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise > the sender. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,=20 > distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited. > > If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid=20 > immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the=20 > individual sender except where the sender expressly and with=20 > authority states them to be the views of TransGrid. TransGrid uses > virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses > contained in any attachment." > > *********************************************************************** > -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2008 01:38:25 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <677i8hF2k0pq2U2@mid.individual.net> In article <480de2f7$0$11639$607ed4bc@cv.net>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > >>Yes, Bill, I know, but how many of them do tie down their (not "there" -- a= >>nd I haven't used "you're", so not "your" -- this is general, not specifica= >>lly to you Mr. Gunshannon) systems? I know of several organisations that d= >>o not. > > I hear the grammar police sirens wailing. :) Wen I have been in Germany I have frequently been known to get my Der/Die/Das wrong, even after living there and taking 4 years of College level German. I have never found a German who would correct me, even if I requested it. I have always found it interesting how English speakers find it so necessary. (Oblig. Anecdote: I was eating breakfast in a Perkins Restaurant in Gettysburg, PA. back in March. Two tables from me a man and two women were eating together and chatting. One of the women was continually interupting the conversation of the others to correct their grammar. Go figure!!) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2008 01:40:16 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <677ic0F2k0pq2U3@mid.individual.net> In article , John Reagan writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > >> A few years ago is right. Fielded in 1991, approved for production in 1996, >> last system delivered in 2005. A total of 8 systems. >> There is much more information about the airframe than anything else and >> no mention of VMS at all. I wonder if it has been ported to Windows yet? >> >> > > A NG employee gave a keynote address at last year's OpenVMS Technical > Bootcamp on JSTARS. The non-disclosure prevents me from giving details > from the talk (which itself was very high level) plus I'd probably > remember incorrectly anyway. Ah yes, the typical VMS in DOD response. I would tell you but then I would have to kill you. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2008 02:01:03 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <677jivF2nqg5tU1@mid.individual.net> In article , "Main, Kerry" writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] >> Sent: April 22, 2008 6:15 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 >> >> Main, Kerry wrote: >> >> > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040324a.html >> > HP awarded $784 Million Services Contract by Department of Veteran >> Affairs >> >> >> If the bets you can find are 4 year old announcements, then it is a >> further sign of the decline in VMS business. > > Had nothing to do with what you are insinuating. > > Bill referenced the VA and I simply pointed out a major area of VA > (and in most companies, $784M is a pretty big deal) he was obviously > not plugged into. Ummmm.... I have never mentioned the VA. And I don't know for sure, but I don't think they come under the DOD which is what I was talking about. I know that the VA still uses VMS, but I also know people who are involved in the IT infrastructure at the VA and they are seeing a strong move toward Windows so, like Cerner, VMS may not have this much longer either. Ignoring for the moment the fact that this is 4 year old news, I am not so sure that $784M over 10 years is that big a deal for an oganization the size of the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Proposed budget for 2009 is $93.7 Billion. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:20:17 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: <480e9d0e$0$7230$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > Ah yes, the typical VMS in DOD response. I would tell you but then I would > have to kill you. If that were true, there would be plenty of pressure by C.O.V. members to get those DOD folks to tell me a lot :-) Heck, even HP might put pressure on DOD to come to vist me, tell me a lot and do whatever they have to do after they have told a lot :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <480de2f7$0$11639$607ed4bc@cv.net>, > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >>> Yes, Bill, I know, but how many of them do tie down their (not "there" -- a= >>> nd I haven't used "you're", so not "your" -- this is general, not specifica= >>> lly to you Mr. Gunshannon) systems? I know of several organisations that d= >>> o not. >> I hear the grammar police sirens wailing. :) > > Wen I have been in Germany I have frequently been known to get my > Der/Die/Das wrong, even after living there and taking 4 years of > College level German. I have never found a German who would correct > me, even if I requested it. I have always found it interesting > how English speakers find it so necessary. (Oblig. Anecdote: I was > eating breakfast in a Perkins Restaurant in Gettysburg, PA. back in > March. Two tables from me a man and two women were eating together > and chatting. One of the women was continually interupting the > conversation of the others to correct their grammar. Go figure!!) > Der, die, und das are merely the definite article in three different "genders": masculine, feminine and neuter. None of these genders really contribute anything useful to the language. English has a few such "hangovers". For example, a ship is always "feminine"; in German "die schiff". ("A little boat can be anything you please but a full rigged ship's a lady!") For the most part, inanimate objects are neuter in English. There is no logic in which German nouns are masculine, feminine, or neuter; it's rote memorization all the way! English, as we now know it, resulted from the efforts of Norman soldiers to make time with Anglo-Saxon girls. Many of the grammatical "niceties", in both languages, were simply abandoned. Anyone who was ever stationed in Japan for any significant amount of time is probably familiar with "GI Japanese" a sort of pidgin constructed from words drawn from both languages. Sometimes the words got a little mangled. English as we now know it, developed in a similar manner. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:30:14 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >> Ah yes, the typical VMS in DOD response. I would tell you but then I would >> have to kill you. > > If that were true, there would be plenty of pressure by C.O.V. members > to get those DOD folks to tell me a lot :-) > > Heck, even HP might put pressure on DOD to come to vist me, tell me a > lot and do whatever they have to do after they have told a lot :-) JF has solved the problem of JF brilliantly! Come on DOD! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:07:02 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:27:21 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert = wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article <480de2f7$0$11639$607ed4bc@cv.net>, >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >>>> Yes, Bill, I know, but how many of them do tie down their (not = >>>> "there" -- a=3D >>>> nd I haven't used "you're", so not "your" -- this is general, not = >>>> specifica=3D >>>> lly to you Mr. Gunshannon) systems? I know of several organisation= s = >>>> that d=3D >>>> o not. >>> I hear the grammar police sirens wailing. :) >> Wen I have been in Germany I have frequently been known to get my >> Der/Die/Das wrong, even after living there and taking 4 years of >> College level German. I have never found a German who would correct >> me, even if I requested it. I have always found it interesting >> how English speakers find it so necessary. (Oblig. Anecdote: I was >> eating breakfast in a Perkins Restaurant in Gettysburg, PA. back in >> March. Two tables from me a man and two women were eating together >> and chatting. One of the women was continually interupting the >> conversation of the others to correct their grammar. Go figure!!) >> > > Der, die, und das are merely the definite article in three different = > "genders": masculine, feminine and neuter. None of these genders real= ly = > contribute anything useful to the language. depends upon your testosterone level, a car is der Wagen, die Maschine = oder das Auto. > > English has a few such "hangovers". For example, a ship is always = > "feminine"; in German "die schiff". ("A little boat can be anything y= ou = > please but a full rigged ship's a lady!") For the most part, inanimate= = > objects are neuter in English. There is no logic in which German noun= s = > are masculine, feminine, or neuter; it's rote memorization all the way= ! > das Schiff, bitte. > English, as we now know it, resulted from the efforts of Norman soldie= rs = > to make time with Anglo-Saxon girls. Many of the grammatical = > "niceties", in both languages, were simply abandoned. > > Anyone who was ever stationed in Japan for any significant amount of = > time is probably familiar with "GI Japanese" a sort of pidgin = > constructed from words drawn from both languages. Sometimes the words= = > got a little mangled. English as we now know it, developed in a = > similar manner. -- = PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:44:49 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh Message-ID: <480e40a1$0$20577$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> AEF wrote: >> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than >> 4 hours at a time. > What's the matter? Are you having trouble SHIFTing into uppercase? No. But I am aware that it is just not polite to remain SHIFTED in public. I can do all the UPPERCASING I want to in private, but when you need to exchange thoughts with others with whom you are not intimate, it just is not very polite to remain in UPPERCASE. > Speaking of which, 4 hours is a problem, but 3 hours is okay? I think that this whole 4 hours thing was a great marketing gimmick. It has become part of contemporary culture, and they probably made it so prominent in their ads to give the impression that those pills risk giving you a case of UPPERCASE lasting that long. > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT! did you know that ToO mUcH uPpErCaSe MaKeS yOuR eYes Go FunNy ????? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:18:37 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh Message-ID: <54976c1a-7621-48da-914e-63f36bdbbf43@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> On Apr 22, 3:44 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > AEF wrote: > >> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than > >> 4 hours at a time. > > What's the matter? Are you having trouble SHIFTing into uppercase? > > No. But I am aware that it is just not polite to remain SHIFTED in > public. I can do all the UPPERCASING I want to in private, but when you > need to exchange thoughts with others with whom you are not intimate, it > just is not very polite to remain in UPPERCASE. > > > Speaking of which, 4 hours is a problem, but 3 hours is okay? > > I think that this whole 4 hours thing was a great marketing gimmick. It > has become part of contemporary culture, and they probably made it so > prominent in their ads to give the impression that those pills risk > giving you a case of UPPERCASE lasting that long. > > > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT! > > did you know that ToO mUcH uPpErCaSe MaKeS yOuR eYes Go FunNy ????? PLONK! AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT! ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.226 ************************