INFO-VAX Sun, 22 Apr 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 219 Contents: RE: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Re: DCL Magic? Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: looking for up-to-date LaTex etc for VMS [TCPIP V5.6/OpenVMS V8.2] SSL required for BIND ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:49:00 -0400 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael D. Ober [mailto:"obermd."@.alum.mit.edu.nospam] > Sent: April 21, 2007 11:20 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? >=20 >=20 > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:b763c$46251937$cef8887a$8658@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >>> I have to ask: Why does a programming language (other than an > >>> interpretive environment) need a "garbage collector"??!! > > > > > > Not to get into a religious debate, but don't languages that do lots > of > > stuff behind the scenes "for you" tend to result in sloppy > programming > > because programmers lose some discipline ? > > > > To me, it seems essential that any routine that allocates memory for > a > > structure should have an accompanying one to deallocate that > structure > > (and any substructures attached to it). > > > > >=20 > Actually, no. Many times you allocate memory but don't really know > when the > last reference to it is released. This happens when a routine > allocates > memory and then returns that memory as part of it's result. In these > cases, > a GC is the only way to go since it determines when the memory is no > longer > acessible by the program. A GC can also defragment your heap so that > your > program may actually uses less memory than an equivalent without a GC. >=20 > Mike Ober. >=20 Ok, willing to be corrected here, but back to basics. In any virtual memory system, by design, is it not the role of the OS to manage memory transparently to the applications? Is this not a case where an application environment (like a JVM) is trying to duplicate the work of the OS? Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:14:43 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Message-ID: <619a0$462ac552$cef8887a$11331@TEKSAVVY.COM> Main, Kerry wrote: > In any virtual memory system, by design, is it not the role of the OS to > manage memory transparently to the applications? Not necessarily. Consider code from a language that allocates a huge chunk of memory at image startup and then manages how that heap is allocated to variables etc. To the OS, the whole chunk of memory remains allocated as one chunk, and in use. But to the application, that chunk is broken up into many many smaller and bigger parts. So the OS has no way to know how do defragment that memory, only the run time environment for that language knows. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:24:09 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Message-ID: <462ad528$0$90273$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Tom Linden wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:50:21 -0700, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> But what does it do when object A point to object B and object B >> points to object A, but nothing else point to A and B ? > > Then it is a bug because it is a disconnected graph. I think we may be > talking > about different things, and that may be my fault, I was referring to > the first > use of reference counts as a means of freeing intermediate values > generated by a > compiler. GC solves it nicely for all types of scenarios. As I have posted earlier hybrid model exist where reference counting is used to get rid of most objects and the GC takes care of all the special cases. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:46:08 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Message-ID: <462ada50$0$90276$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Main, Kerry wrote: > And there are numerous J2EE app's designed for mission critical > applications that in the end, do not scale anywhere near as high as > they were designed for and in the end they start throwing HW at the > final solution. They should scale great. Performance is not always as good as it could be. And HW is usually not a problem in th app tier. What does a HP box with two quad Xeon and RHEL cost ? > Some might say it was the nature of OO which makes it more difficult > to design truly scalable, system specific optimized code, OO versus procedural is mostly relevant for source code. The impact on performance should be minimal. Often OO takes a bit of more memory, but generally no problem. > some might > say it was all the various tiers and associated network latencies It actually improves scalability. But it too many tiers can make it very hard to get acceptable latencies. > (SAP now recommends tier consolidation putting App tier on same > server as DB tier) "tier consolidation" is a new term to me, but what it describes is a standard technique nowadays. I do not understand the point in the app tier db tier consolidation, because app servers are usually load sharing while database are usually failover. I which case it is impossible to consolidate those tiers. > or perhaps it is at least partly do to with > "stuff" running in the background doing things that a well designed > app environment would not need to do. I have not seen many GC related performance problems. The typical business critical app involves database. GC is much faster than databases. > Both .Net and J2EE are OO based strategies and there is a lot of > market momentum to adopt one or both of these, but I am not convinced > that OO strategies are the best ones to adopt for very scalable, very > mission critical systems. I can not imagine anyone not using OO today. J2EE scales very nicely. J2EE or a .NET solution are rather obvious for a typical business applications. Where they do not fit quite as well is in real time and embedded. > Sun and Microsoft and all of the supporting casts on both sides want > Cust's to pick one (.Net or J2EE) and ditch their current 3GL > environments (with all of the 10-20 year investments), but I just do > not believe it is the right way to go for the future. Picking either > approach is an App only driven strategy whereby I believe the future > for mission critical stuff will be much more solution driven i.e. > 3GL's or equiv prod's integrated with OS specific features. Both Java and C# are 3GL's. .NET has a very tight integration with one particular OS. >> It is very good system design to consider the possibility that >> programmers make mistakes. > > Kind of like giving everyone a parachute when they board a plane > because "mechanics do make mistakes..." > > :-) Not parachutes when boarding just life jackets under the seats. > Reminds me of the well known airline exec speech to IBM field types > about the difference in focus on quality between the airline industry > vs. the computer industry. That speech was delivered in the middle > 1960's and the same speech today would not have to be changed much at > all. At a conference about quality in software engineering the speaker started by asking the audience "How many of you would get off a plan if you just before takeoff realized that your companies software was flying the plane?". All except one raised their hands. The speaker looked at the one guy not raising his hand and asked "So you create high quality software?". He answered "Not at all, but it is so bad that the plane will never get off the ground, so I am not worried!". Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:53:03 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: C++ Garbage Collector on VMS? Message-ID: <462adbef$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Main, Kerry wrote: > In any virtual memory system, by design, is it not the role of the OS to > manage memory transparently to the applications? > > Is this not a case where an application environment (like a JVM) is > trying to duplicate the work of the OS? The OS is not doing more or less with GC. GC is moving the responsibility of deallocating memory from the programmer to the GC framework. The OS is providing X MB of virtual memory to the app and it does not care about what the app does within it. Traditionally the programmer has done both new to allocate and delete to deallocate memory. With GC he just allocate with new and the framework deallocate via GC. But both allocation and deallocation is within the heap allocated to the application. The allocation/deallocation of the heap from the OS is handled relative traditionally. Arne ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2007 14:22:27 -0700 From: Ian Miller Subject: Re: DCL Magic? Message-ID: <1177190546.954766.303050@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> http://www.tmesis.com/xpdnt/ (eXpedient Process Default Navigation Tool) Welcome to the TMESIS XPDNT beta test registration page. XPDNT (eXpedient Process Default Navigation Tool) is currently available for beta[1] testing. XPDNT (pronounced: expedient) is a notification and navigation tool for movement of the process default. The notification feature of XPDNT displays the current process default in real-time whenever the default is altered. With other tools of this type, the default is typically placed in the command prompt. Unfortunately, the OpenVMS command prompt will limit the display of the default to 32 characters which is not very useful when the current default may be a directory or at a directory depth which requires more then 32 characters. In addition to the limited display available in the command prompt, displaying the default in the command prompt detracts from usable space on the command line. XPDNT will permit the display of the current default to be place in the command prompt or in more useful screen locations. If the user's terminal support the 25th host-writeable status line, XPDNT can be made to display the current default in that status line. If the user's terminal is a DECterm, XPDNT can display the current default in the DECterm title bar. This latter feature is quite useful when multiple DECterm sessions are open on a single display. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:59:19 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <462a6d57$0$7604$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55273 Dr . Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify - why can't I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted fan, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:05:52 -0700 From: Michael Helmeste Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <2007042115055216807-elf@glassfishnet> On 2007-04-20 16:59:52 -0700, sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) said: > From: genius@marblecliff.com > >> from Proverbs King James Version >> [...] >> IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, YOU WILL CORRECT >> THEM THE WAY GOD SAYS TO! > > As you seem to be an expert on such things, perhaps you should > consider how your God would suggest (command?) that an adult should > correct an apparent child who continues to post inappropriate religious > drool to a VMS news group. Sorry to contribute to the off-topicness, but perhaps this might be appropriate: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:13:28 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: Dr. Dweeb wrote: > When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a > pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They > claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? Many thanks for this very informative post, even though it is very OT. I couldn't believe the bible would have such acts. I have absolutely no idea if the "bible" available on the net really is true/authoritative, but based on http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=1&version=64 Sorry, but this sounds like instructions on how to make a succesful bar-B-queue feast. I suspect that these passages could easily be transformed into USA FDA (food drug adminitration) web pages on how to ensure nobody gets sick during a bar-b-q. I have never really read the old testament except the major stories like god giving Moses the 10 commandments. But this leviticus stuff is really out there. >>him, as God commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his >>son Isaac was born to him. Cool. This means Viagra was really invented thousands of years ago... Or his old wife had an affair with a younger male prostitute ;-) :-) :-) :-) Next thing you know, someone will find some verse that will be interpreted in the death penalty needing to be applied to anyone using Viagra to have sex. I can see Pfeizer's stack plummet ... NOT !. In the end, even those who pretent to be ultra-religious really enjoy those Victoria-Seecret ads on Republican-TV (Fox), they also have affairs, cheat on their wife etc. I also like the part about Abraham at 100 still being able to climb up on a donkey to travel. Perhaps this is just an image because back then, the term "PopeMobile" had not yet been invented :-) Found one interesting paragraph though (even though the credibility of those texts is low;) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&version=31 ## When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty [a] ; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." ## This would explain all the rules about cleanliness, not touching meat, not eating certain meats etc etc. Essentially, "god" gave Abraham a course on hygiene in order to increase survival rates and hence population growth for those following those hygiene regulation/covenants. Funny that there isn't "thou shall take a shower on a daily basis". I have 0 idea where this "Leviticus" thing came from. Perhaps he heard the story from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a distant cousin who may have heard it from someone who had once met Abraham ? Another one; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2017:15 ## 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. ## According to this, wouldn't all world leaders be required to be israelites ? And no american jew or christian would be allowed to vote for a non-israelite candidate for presidency. So the USA constitution is against the old testament since it requires a presidential candidate to be USA born (and perhaps will allow Austrian born ones ina few years). This is actually funny to read this. Sorry, but those translations really cannot be taken seriously and anyone taking them at their own words is really naive. In fairness though, many of the rules seem to be founded on good hygiene. Not having sex with animals for instance would reduce incidence of some nasty virus being transmitted from animals to humans. Sodomy could probably also be placed in this category since it too increases risk of skin tears and hence catching something the other has. (but this applies to male-female sex just as much, so I don't see why one should tranliterate sodomy with homosexuality which the right-wingers tend to do in the USA). But MORE IMPORTANTLY: I have seen many passages where if one , then one must be put to death. I cannot understand this at all since one of the 10 commandements is "thou shalt not kill". (or whatever spelling/wording is used). Sorry, but it seems to me that those passages that discuss killing of humans if they stray from correct behaviour goes against "prime directives" and I cannot accept that God would issue the 10 commandments and then issue rules that would contradict one of those commandments. Looking at that internet bible, it explains that they changed "thou shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder". So, translators can decide on a whim to change the meaning of a commandement in a fraily dramatic way ? (I guess this was to allow the USA to continue to claim its death penalty is not against the bible). If someone in this century can decide to retranslate a major pillar of the bible to change the meaning of one of the commandments, then those bibles really are just non-authoritative stories loosely based on some original book. Just like TV mini-series that are loosely based on real events with lots of changes and dramatisations made to it. And this would mean that if they have "adjusted" the bible's meaning over the centuries, the current version could be extremely different from the original. Following it to the letter would be quite stupid. Also, what happens when new testament says one thing, but old testament says the opposite ? If apostles now rule it is OK to eat rabbit, but the old testament says it is "unclean", which rule takes precedence ? The order presumably issued by God to abraham in old testament, or some decision made by some apostle in order to increase the marketability of the new christian religion to new areas like the roman empire ? So Boob: bringing up this bible stuff made me look it it and lose confidence in the bible, probably the exact opposite of what you would have expected. I also have even less respect for those people who blindly believe every word of the bible. The current bible has just about as much credibility that Bliar's sexed up Iraq dossier that tried to convince people to believe Iraq was an imminent danger. By twisting words and using old evidence, you can make a document sound authoritative even tough it is totall false. Or the white house changing "is having an effect" to "might be having an effect" in climate change research papers allowed the Bush regime to claim that there is no conclusive proof and that the research only shows it is "possible" it is happening. So a few words changed here and there can greatly change the meaning of a written text. So those with some agenda can produce a version of the bible with wording that fits their exact goals and use the "bible" as justification for their agenda. This is no different from terrorist groups who do the same to the Quoran to justify their acts. And finally, funny that the right wingers want to use "thou shall not murder" interpretation to allow them to still kill people under their own definition or when it is OK to kill people, but they would consider research on sperm/ova to be murder. So they end up deciding on what circumstances it is OK to kill a human and what circumstances are not OK. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:19:50 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <462A9C16.209@comcast.net> Dr. Dweeb wrote: > genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > >>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55273 > > > Dr . Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to > people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an > observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to > Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The > following > is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on > the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: > > Dear Dr. Laura: > Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have > learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as > many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, > for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to > be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, > regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. > > 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a > pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They > claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? > > 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus > 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? > > 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her > period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I > tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. > > 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and > female, > provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine > claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify - > why can't I own Canadians? > > 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 > clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill > him myself? > > 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an > abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I > don't agree. Can you settle this? > > 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a > defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my > vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? > > 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair > around > their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How > should they die? > > 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me > unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? > > 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different > crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two > different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse > and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble > of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't > we just burn them to death at a > private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? > (Lev. 20:14) > > I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you > can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and > unchanging. > > Your devoted fan, > Jim > > You forgot one! "He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." I forget the chapter and verse but it's in the Old Testament somewhere. Would anyone care to enforce this against those of our troops who have been so wounded? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:44:15 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <5ae61$462aa20d$cef8887a$32053@TEKSAVVY.COM> Michael Helmeste wrote: > Sorry to contribute to the off-topicness, but perhaps this might be > appropriate: > > http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html Now, that is entertainment !!! :-) ;-) :-) Thanks for the link. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2007 17:33:45 -0700 From: genius@marblecliff.com Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <1177202025.607971.235270@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Apr 21, 3:59 pm, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55273 > > Dr . Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to > people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an > observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to > Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The > following > is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on > the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: > > Dear Dr. Laura: > Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have > learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as > many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, > for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to > be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, > regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. > > 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a > pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They > claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? > > 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus > 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? > > 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her > period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I > tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. > > 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and > female, > provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine > claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify - > why can't I own Canadians? > > 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 > clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill > him myself? > > 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an > abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I > don't agree. Can you settle this? > > 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a > defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my > vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? > > 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair > around > their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How > should they die? > > 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me > unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? > > 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different > crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two > different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse > and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble > of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't > we just burn them to death at a > private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? > (Lev. 20:14) > > I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you > can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and > unchanging. > > Your devoted fan, > Jim different group of people (jews) different time period ... when Christ died and rose again all of that changed ... He became the sacrifice for sins so that was no longer required ... if you want to study jewish law under Moses, then you need to sign up for a bible study group at a church or a class at a Christian or jewish university ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:28 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > different group of people (jews) different time period ... Dear Mr Genius, You cannot selectively use portions of the old testament that fit your agenda, and then claim the old testament doesn't apply to christians. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2007 18:05:21 -0700 From: genius@marblecliff.com Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <1177203921.789997.157490@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> On Apr 21, 6:13 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > > >>him, as God commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his > >>son Isaac was born to him. > > Cool. This means Viagra was really invented thousands of years ago... > Or his old wife had an affair with a younger male prostitute ;-) :-) :-) :-) > > I also like the part about Abraham at 100 still being able to climb up > on a donkey to travel. Perhaps this is just an image because back then, > the term "PopeMobile" had not yet been invented :-) Adam lived to be over 900 years old ... many old testament people lived very long because of the garden of eden ... the tree of life was there and when they ate the apple they were banned from it, but its effects lingered for generations ... God finally settles and states that an average age for a man would be 70 years ... so Abraham and others living beyond 100 years was common ... > I have 0 idea where this "Leviticus" thing came from. Perhaps he heard > the story from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a > distant cousin who may have heard it from someone who had once met > Abraham ? translations were handed down from generation to generation and written ... nothing unusual about that ... > 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He > must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, > one who is not a brother Israelite. > According to this, wouldn't all world leaders be required to be > israelites ? And no american jew or christian would be allowed to vote > for a non-israelite candidate for presidency. So the USA constitution is > against the old testament since it requires a presidential candidate to > be USA born (and perhaps will allow Austrian born ones ina few years). much of the old testament is God and HIs covenant and dealings with the descendants of Abraham ... He made a covenant with Him and God always keeps His promises ... you cannot relate most of the old law to todays jews, let alone gentiles ... I really wish you would take an old testament study course so you can learn what these things were all about ... if we would still have bible study in public schools like we had up until 1962, you would not be so ignorant of the bible ... > Sorry, but it seems to me that those passages that discuss killing of > humans if they stray from correct behaviour goes against "prime > directives" and I cannot accept that God would issue the 10 commandments > and then issue rules that would contradict one of those commandments. again this was a covenant with Moses and the jews and they were under the old law ... God was physically with them and they were under the same idea of law as is when you die ... God cannot and will not allow sin in heaven just like He did not allow it with Moses and the jews ... the wages of sin is death, which still holds true when you die, if you are not saved then you will go to hell and the lake of fire ... Christ like I said above eliminated the need for sacrifice and brought a new way of living under Gods law ... you really need to go to a good church and study Gods word! > If apostles now rule it is OK to eat rabbit, but the old testament says > it is "unclean", which rule takes precedence ? The order presumably > issued by God to abraham in old testament, or some decision made by some > apostle in order to increase the marketability of the new christian > religion to new areas like the roman empire ? Christ ate with sinners and ate meat which was forbidden under jewish law to show that because of Him they were no longer bound by the old law ... the bible also states that even though this was now lawful, that does not mean it is good for you ... the old laws of God about eating healthy and living right were still in force ... just because you are allowed to do something does not make it proper to do ... eating candy everyday is lawful, but you will undoubtedly die before you should ... please go to a church and learn if you really want to find God! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:12:15 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article <07042018595203_202002DA@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org says... > From: genius@marblecliff.com > > > from Proverbs King James Version > > [...] > > IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, YOU WILL CORRECT > > THEM THE WAY GOD SAYS TO! > > As you seem to be an expert on such things, perhaps you should > consider how your God would suggest (command?) that an adult should > correct an apparent child who continues to post inappropriate religious > drool to a VMS news group. > > > If I did not listen, I got a swat on the behind ... [...] > > Your listening ability seems not to have been improved by the > experience. If you have any better ideas, please try them on yourself, > while the world hopes and/or prays for your success in self-stiflement. > > About as wise, and loads more entertaining: > > http://www.venganza.org/ > > Praised be His Noodly Appendage, I always say. > Arrrghh! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org > 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 > Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 > -- John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:40:41 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: looking for up-to-date LaTex etc for VMS Message-ID: In article <39kpbVlolKc1@eisner.encompasserve.org>, wb8tyw@qsl.network (John E. Malmberg) wrote: > [followups set to comp.os.vms] > In article , helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de > (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: > > > I used to update my LaTeX semi-regularly from CTAN, which worked OK. > > However, since it has now been 7 years or so since the last update, that > > is probably not a viable approach. > > I would recommend trying that first just to see what happens. Good advice. > If the build procedure needs Perl, then first visit the Open Office on > OpenVMS > site. There you will find instructions for making Perl, Python, and Java > play > better in the GNV environment. You may need to use the variant perl known as > "blead" for best results. Blead perl is only available in source form, and I > am not sure if it is available in a tarball. I get my copy of the source > using rsync. This is getting rather ahead of the game since we don't know which, if any, of these utilities the LaTex build procedure uses. However, since it's been brought up, if anyone does want to build unreleased Perl versions from source, the easiest way to do that is grab a snapshot from one of the following locations. The first one will give you "bleadperl," the development stream leading toward the next major release, and the second one will give you "maintperl," the development stream leading toward the next minor update to the current stable release: http://mirrors.develooper.com/perl/APC/perl-current-snap/ http://mirrors.develooper.com/perl/APC/perl-5.8.x-snap/ Be aware that these snapshots are in a rapid state of flux and may or may not be buildable on VMS from day to day and from hour to hour. > Unfortuantely Configure tests are usually testing the default behavior of the > LIBC, syscalls, or library entry points on a system, not the behavior of a > program using ANSI or X/Open compliant header files. They may be doing the equivalent thing by defining something in the environment or using compiler switches. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2007 21:59:52 +0200 From: eplan@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) Subject: [TCPIP V5.6/OpenVMS V8.2] SSL required for BIND Message-ID: <462a8958$1@news.langstoeger.at> Just for the records If you run TCPIP V5.6 on OpenVMS V8.2, you have to ensure that SSL gets started before TCPIP (or else eg. BIND service won't start). btw: In OpenVMS V8.3, SSL gets started by VMS itself before TCPIP (and you have to remove SSL$STARTUP.COM from SYSTARTUP_VMS and/or SYSMAN STARTUP). Strange thing with TCPIP BIND startup is, that it doesn't start BIND then, but doesn't run TCPIP$BIND_SHUTDOWN.COM afterwards. So one have to manually do a TCPIP$BIND_SHUTDOWN.COM and then (after SSL startup) invoke the TCPIP$BIND_STARTUP.COM again. (may happen with other services as well) Happy VMSing -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.219 ************************