INFO-VAX Wed, 02 Jul 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 367 Contents: Re: Backup to SnapServer Re: Backup to SnapServer Re: Book "OpenVMS for Unix Users" Re: Newbie question on ON WARNING Re: Newbie question on ON WARNING OT: ATM PIN code theft Re: OT: ATM PIN code theft Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: Why did this RENAME lose my files? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jul 2008 07:54:21 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Backup to SnapServer Message-ID: In article <486a8859$0$11620$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "Carmine Castiglia" writes: > Any tips on how do do this? There is an awful lot I have learned about > OpenVMS, but the new stuff (that is, stuff I haven't had a need to do until > now) is still a bit imtimidating. > > I have enabled NFS service on the SnapServer and (yes, I know it is a whole > different animal...) I am able to FTP from the AlphaServer to the SnapServer > with a simple > > $ FTP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx /user="user" /password="password" > > where xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the napServer's IP address. > > But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do a simple file copy from > the Alpha to the Snap. > $ copy/ftp /user="user" /password="password" - infile xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx::outfile But you'll need something better than FTP access to get BACKUP to write to it and to prevent hosing the file attributes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:51:48 -0400 From: "Carmine Castiglia" Subject: Re: Backup to SnapServer Message-ID: <486b87fa$0$11608$607ed4bc@cv.net> > > $ copy/ftp /user="user" /password="password" - > infile xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx::outfile > > But you'll need something better than FTP access to get BACKUP to > write to it and to prevent hosing the file attributes. > Yes, I understood that; I was just trying to illustrate that I had an FTP connection. At any rate, it appears that my OpenVMS release (7.1-1H2 with DIGITAL TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V4.2 ) does not include an NFS Client so the previous suggestion to mount the SnapServer as an NFS drive does not appear to be possible. At the moment, I am considering using a PC-NFS client on a Windows box to batch copy files from the AlphaServer to an NFS share on the SnapServer. Any thoughts on whether this might work? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:39:56 +0200 From: Ralf Folkerts Subject: Re: Book "OpenVMS for Unix Users" Message-ID: Main, Kerry schrieb: [...] > Even though a bit dated, the following may be of interest: > http://tinyurl.com/58x4tk or actual url- > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/documentation/pdf/OVMS_PROG_ENVIRON.pdf > > And for future reference, OpenVMS archived doc's: > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/archived.html Hi Kerry, tahnks a lot! I had a look into the Programming Environment-Book which looks good; I think I'll download it and then read it once I finished the Users Guide and the "Getting Started...". I'll also check the archived books but would like to keep the stack of to-read material to a size I can handle -- I think I'd delay those until I'm much more into OpenVMS than I'm today ;-) Cheers, _ralf_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:19:51 +0000 (UTC) From: gartmann@nonsense.immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann) Subject: Re: Newbie question on ON WARNING Message-ID: In article <486afffd$0$15595$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >Generally speaking, in DCL procedures, the ON conditions are not >stacked. When one issues a second ON WARNING in a procedure, it replaces > any previously set ON WARNING condition. And ON condistion are >"consumed" if triggered, you need to re-issue them if necessary. > > >Does this also apply to subroutines ? Yes, it does. >AKA: does an ON WARNING/ERROR command inside a subroutine overwrite one >that was set in the calling code? Correct. >When the subroutine exits, does the previous ON WARNING/ERROR get re-instated? No, it doesn't, the ON WARNING condition is undefined afterwards. >Or must the calling code re-establish any/all ON conditions to ensure >the subroutine has not messed with them ? That's it. >Similarly, is it correct to state that the ON conditions are stacked >when a command procedure calls andother command procedure with the @ >command ? No, this is not the case. DCL is no "real" programming language. Regards, Christoph Gartmann -- Max-Planck-Institut fuer Phone : +49-761-5108-464 Fax: -452 Immunbiologie Postfach 1169 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de D-79011 Freiburg, Germany http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:42:15 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Newbie question on ON WARNING Message-ID: <042c5f9c-f158-4222-bbbe-884622f359f0@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Jul 2, 3:19 am, gartm...@nonsense.immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann) wrote: > In article <486afffd$0$15595$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > >Generally speaking, in DCL procedures, the ON conditions are not > >stacked. When one issues a second ON WARNING in a procedure, it replaces > > any previously set ON WARNING condition. And ON condistion are > >"consumed" if triggered, you need to re-issue them if necessary. > > >Does this also apply to subroutines ? > > Yes, it does. > > >AKA: does an ON WARNING/ERROR command inside a subroutine overwrite one > >that was set in the calling code? > > Correct. > > >When the subroutine exits, does the previous ON WARNING/ERROR get re-instated? > > No, it doesn't, the ON WARNING condition is undefined afterwards. > > >Or must the calling code re-establish any/all ON conditions to ensure > >the subroutine has not messed with them ? > > That's it. > > >Similarly, is it correct to state that the ON conditions are stacked > >when a command procedure calls andother command procedure with the @ > >command ? > > No, this is not the case. > > DCL is no "real" programming language. > > Regards, > Christoph Gartmann > > -- > Max-Planck-Institut fuer Phone : +49-761-5108-464 Fax: -452 > Immunbiologie > Postfach 1169 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de > D-79011 Freiburg, Germany > http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html Are we discussing GOSUB subroutines or CALL subroutines? For CALL subroutines, the error handler is indeed preserved for the calling routine: DCL> TYPE ERROR_SUB.COM $ ON WARNING THEN WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "WARNING FROM MAIN PROCEDURE!" $ CALL _SUB $ RETURN 'P1' $ EXIT $ $_SUB: SUBROUTINE $ ON ERROR THEN SHOW TIME $ RETURN 2 $ EXIT $ ENDSUBROUTINE DCL> DCL> @ERROR_SUB 0 %NONAME-E-NOMSG, Message number 00000002 2-JUL-2008 17:37:59 %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000 WARNING FROM MAIN PROCEDURE! DCL> But not for GOSUB subroutines: DCL> TYPE ERROR_GOSUB.COM $ ON WARNING THEN WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "WARNING FROM MAIN PROCEDURE!" $ GOSUB _SUB $ DIR ZXCV: $ EXIT $ $_SUB: $ ON ERROR THEN SHOW TIME $ DIR ASDF: $ RETURN DCL> DCL> @ ERROR_GOSUB.COM %DIRECT-E-OPENIN, error opening ASDF:[FELDMAN.VMS.DCL.ERROR]*.*;* as input -RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation 2-JUL-2008 17:41:05 %DIRECT-E-OPENIN, error opening ZXCV:[FELDMAN.VMS.DCL.ERROR]*.*;* as input -RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation DCL> AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:32:36 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: OT: ATM PIN code theft Message-ID: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/national/main4226061.shtml It occurs to me that one should check what type of systems your bank uses. I have an account at a bank that runs IIS on their front-end as a result I never use that ATM card. BoA, last I chewcked was all IBM. I uses to use Iserver Lookup but they seem to be out of order. What are the rest of you using? http://www.rjlsoftware.com/software/internet/iserver/default.shtml -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: 02 Jul 2008 14:50:23 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ATM PIN code theft Message-ID: <486b95af$0$11608$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article , "Tom Linden" writes: >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/national/main4226061.shtml > >It occurs to me that one should check what type of systems your bank >uses. I have an account at a bank that runs IIS on their front-end >as a result I never use that ATM card. BoA, last I chewcked was all >IBM. Look again or in the near future. My bank (BofA) recently replaced its ATMs with new machines. The machine which was accessible from outside the bank -- not the lobby machine -- was found in a perpet- ual Weendoze Reboot cycle one day when I approached it. Scarey... VERY SCAREY! -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:21:32 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > > >Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex >with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. > >Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself. > >The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are >one and the same. > >When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an >absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace >identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced >with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother). > You are presupposing a deterministic universe so that the result would be the person who travelled back in time. If you don't make that supposition then if he has sex with his mother and got her pregnant then the genes from the mother need not necessarily be the same since he only gets half of her genes. Sure this would create a paradox since the birth of a different child when he was due to be born would mean he had in effect killed himself which meant he couldn't then have traveled back to have sex with his mother etc etc ie A variant of the Grandfather paradox. This is a rather old SCI-FI staple. The best version of which is probably Robert Heinlein's - All You Zombies http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and gives birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives him access to the time machine ... This overcomes the problem of only having half the mother's genes. (Note. Again this is a deterministic universe ie no free will since if the hermaphrodite doesn't travel back and seduce herself she/he won't exist). Perfectly logical if the hermaphrodite exists but how did the loop get started to produce the hermaphrodite to travel back in time ... A Universe in which the time travelling hermaphrodite doesn't exist is less complicated. >There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during >fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable. > >This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's >genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had >come from his mother, producing an exact replica. > >Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting >somewhere: > >Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on >the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father >etc etc. Infinite loop. > >At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable >(so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm >with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain >genetic makeup and create an offspring. > >However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have >never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time >(the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more >than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a >different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth. > >So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin >air, or just merely exist. > > > >Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big >bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years >and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang. > >If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling >back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the >universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a >loop where it creates itself over and over again. As mentioned above that doesn't really explain why such a loop should exist rather than nothing existing. > >And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where >all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The >matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created. This also sounds like the cyclic universe idea ie Big Bang occurs Universe expands Universe eventually slows Universe collapses Universe contracts to a point Point explodes in Big Bang Anyway as you say this is extremely of topic. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:36:40 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > >> And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where >> all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The >> matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created. > > OK, now you can get a little close to reality. There have been > discussions of the end of the universe comming as a big squeeze, > which might be followed by a new big bang. But that was when the > known value of Hubble's constant allowed the possibility of a big > squeeze. There's a reason the Large Space Telescope was renamed the > Hubble Space Telescope, and one of it's most important results is > an established value of Hubble's constant which rules out a big > squeeze. > Yes the results which show the expansion of the Universe speeding up seem to mean that it is unlikely that the Universe will collapse. However since we are still uncertain about what dark energy is and its long term behaviour it is not totally impossible that it might become an attractive force at some point in the far far future. However I seem to recall that some mathematical studies of possible cyclic universes (before the discovery of dark energy) pointed out some problems with the theory which meant such loops wouldn't be stable either leading to universes which would expand forever or universes which would be smaller and smaller each time. I think it was something to do with entropy - unfortunately I can't recall the details. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:24:56 -0700 From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > > > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself. > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are > one and the same. > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother). > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable. > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had > come from his mother, producing an exact replica. > > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting > somewhere: > > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father > etc etc. Infinite loop. > > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain > genetic makeup and create an offspring. > > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth. > > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin > air, or just merely exist. > > > > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang. > > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a > loop where it creates itself over and over again. > > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created. I normally don't participate in off topic subjects, but since others have responded, here goes. I have been trying to digest the book "A World Without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_8_167/ai_n13595656 If Godel is right, then the whole question of time travel is, I understand this book, not relevant to our universe. Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:17:54 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: In article , "Jeffrey H. Coffield" writes: > > >JF Mezei wrote: >> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. >> >> >> >I normally don't participate in off topic subjects, but since others >have responded, here goes. > >I have been trying to digest the book "A World Without Time: the >Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" > >See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_8_167/ai_n13595656 > >If Godel is right, then the whole question of time travel is, I >understand this book, not relevant to our universe. > Not quite. The world without time part of the title refers to the intuitive concept of time as flowing from the past through a present to the future. In Special Relativity space-time forms a block with the concept of simultaneity and "now" depending on the position and velocity of the observer. All times past, present and future have an exactly equal status and there is no flow of time. There is no universally agreed "now". However there existed the possibility that GR could somehow resurrect the notion of intuitive time by singling out privileged frames of reference namely those frames which follow the mean motion of matter in the Universe. Godel refers to time relative to those frames as "cosmic time". Godel then proved that there exists solutions of General Relativity which allow travel into the past. This effectively destroys the possibility of regarding "cosmic time" in GR as a surrogate for intuitive time since it destroys the distinction between past, present and future. For Godel intuitive time cannot exist in a Universe compatible with GR and SR. Time though in the form of a space-like dimension which is part of the block of space-time exists and GR allows for the possibility of travel within that dimension in the same way as travel in space is permitted. This is covered in most detail in Chapter 7 - The scandal of Big "T" and Little "t" in "A World Without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" Godel's particular solution involved the whole universe rotating which although a valid mathematical solution of the equations of General Relativity doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction of our Universe. However work since then has produced smaller scale solutions involving distributions of matter within the universe which could produce the same possibility of travel into the past. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 03:31:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Eckert Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <53420f62-1619-4510-88f0-7284fa1d5e0e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> On Jul 1, 12:17=A0am, JF Mezei wrote: > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > Person X,male, =A0aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has se= x > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself. > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are > one and the same. > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother). > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable. > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had > come from his mother, producing an exact replica. > The premise is incorrect: the mixture of genes does NOT occur in an absolutely predictable way. Each gamete (sperm or ovum) contains a mixture of chromosomes from the person's mother and father. There are 23 pair of chromosomes, thus each person produces gametes with 2^23 (8,388,608) different sets of chromosomes (not including genetic mutations). Accepting, for the sake of discussion, the premise of time travel, and further assuming that the act of intercourse fertilized the same egg, the probability of the resulting embryo having the same genetic combination as the original is less than 1 in 8.3 million (assuming the original father and mother have no common genetic material). If the same egg is not fertilized, the probability of the two embryos having the same genetic material decreases to less than 1 in 70 trillion 70*10^12) -- quite possibly nil (a female has only approximately 700,000 primary oocytes (the cells that develop into ova), so the chances of more than one having the same genetic content is less than 1 in 10; assuming there are two with the same genetic combination, the chances of one of those two being released during any given cycle is approximately either 1 in 350,000 or 1 in 700,000, depending on whether one of the two has already been released.) Hardly deterministic. :) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 2008 07:56:30 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <5sslqGHci1Oa@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and gives > birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives him > access to the time machine ... "How do I know he didn't invent it?" - Scotty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:08:22 GMT From: "John E. Malmberg" Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: Doug Phillips wrote: > On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: >> > >>> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > 88 > > (JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this > wouldn't work.) According the the British news reports, Doctor Who is dating Doctor Who's daughter. -John wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 2008 07:52:25 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Why did this RENAME lose my files? Message-ID: In article <5e207cb6-1f8b-4f08-8c8f-1a73905c8c63@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > Actually, I renamed these .DIR;1 files by setting the system > protection temporarily to RWED. So maybe all I had to do was one or > two SET FILE/PROT commands! I guess this makes sense if that portion > of the .DIR;1 file was the corrupted part you mentioned, and running > the SET FILE/PROT command overwrote it with good data. Glad you got it all straightened out. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.367 ************************