INFO-VAX Sat, 14 Apr 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 205 Contents: Re: can you handle this? Re: ebay item OpenVMS IDLE application Re: OpenVMS IDLE application Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Process Software: SocketException: function not implemented Re: Sun shows Rock first silicon Re: VMS Alpha to Itanium port ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:45:54 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: can you handle this? Message-ID: <461fec01$0$7606$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > that evolution has been exposed as the lie it is ... > > click on this link if you want answers ... > > http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp Oh my, what a waste of bandwidth ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:19:33 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Ro=DFert_G=2E_Schaffrath=22?= Subject: Re: ebay item Message-ID: Richard B. gilbert wrote: > tomarsin2015@comcast.net wrote: >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=320100634058&rd=1&rd=1 >> >> Would like input on the item and how better I can improve it. >> tks >> > > Real VMS people don't say "Open"! > I cringed the day the DEC marketing weenies prefixed "Open" to VMS! Even "Micro" VMS was a bit too much. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:02:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Lukas Th. Hey" Subject: OpenVMS IDLE application Message-ID: Hi there, I recently downloaded the application IDLE.EXE so my simh-vax instances don't consume too much cpu cycles. Unfortunately the IDLE.EXE versions I got refuse to run with VMS 7.2/7.3. Answers usually are: %SYSTEM-E-UNSUPPORTED, unsupported operation or function -SYSTEM-W-SYSVERDIF, system version mismatch; please relink Does IDLE just work on Charon software or should I try to get the right IDLE.EXE? Thanks so far, Lukas -- DECADENCE IS: USING A CORDLESS PHONE TO HOOK IT UP TO YOUR ACOUSTIC COUPLER ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:24:45 -0700 From: "Ian Miller" Subject: Re: OpenVMS IDLE application Message-ID: <1176495885.750142.37420@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> I think that's a charon-vax specific program. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:07:01 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: <461fe2e4$0$7611$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> Andrew wrote: > On 12 Apr, 23:40, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: >> Richard B. gilbert wrote: >>> Bob Koehler wrote: >>>> In article <461c1f3a$0$7608$157c6...@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. >>>> Dweeb" writes: >>>>> C02 is not a pollutant, particulate mass is, and the stuff that >>>>> comes out of diesel engines is nasty stuff. >> >>>> As the Supreme Court just informed the White House and the rest >>>> of us have known all along, CO2 is a polutant. >> >>> When you equip yourself with a pollution control system to depollute >>> your own exhalations, we might take you seriously! >> >> Someone has calculated the volume of CO2 exhaled by biological >> organisms, but I cannot bebothered to find it just now. It is of >> course substantial. >> > > Of course thats screamingly obvious its all part of the carbon cycle > and its why we exist at all. > >> Obviously, the screaming alarmists that pervade this board do not >> rate highly with me. >> > > Clearly, its just a shame that you have failed to produce any credible > evidence to counter the "screaming alarmists" and since this is the > case one has to conclude that the "screaming alarmists" arn't alarmist > at all. > >> I think CO2, technically, is from an atmospheric perspective a trace >> gas. >> > > I am not quite sure what you intended by this comment but yes you are > correct CO2 only accounts for a very small % of our atmosphere. Just > in case your comment was intended to imply that because CO2 is a trace > gas that its effects cannot be anything like as severe as people > suggest let me remind you that even the anti-humans activities causing > global warming camp have had to conclude that increased levels of CO2 > will cause warming. > > just so you have some number to play with rather than a rather vague > "trace" pre large scale industrialization the concentrations of CO2 in > the atmosphere were around 280 ppm, this has now risen to about 380 > ppm. The IPPC report concludes that CO2 is likely to hit the 650 - 800 > ppm levels by 2100. Causing a 2-5 degree rise in average global > temperatures. > Sadly I will not be here to see this event. It's getting awarmer - adapt. As has been pointed out - the predictive capability of the models to which you refer is approximately zero, so relying on this prediction for anything other than entertainment is rather pointless. Dweeb > regards > Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:40:38 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: <461feac5$0$7604$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> Andrew wrote: > On 12 Apr, 23:36, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: >> Andrew wrote: >>> On 11 Apr, 00:35, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: >>>> Bill Todd wrote: >>>>> Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>>> In article <56v7fnF29prb...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu >>>>>> (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>>>>>> Supposedly, diesels polute less than cars. >> >>>>>> Burning less fuel gives them a significant advantage here. >>>>>> But burning diesel fuel has caused them to emit much higher >>>>>> levels of NO. Recent tehnoogy, including new fuel blends, >>>>>> have significantly cut down the NO, but not as low as gas >>>>>> engines. >> >>>>> My dim recollection from around 40 years ago is that increased NO >>>>> in gasoline engines is a by-product of higher compression ratios >>>>> and, perhaps specifically, increases in 'quench area' used to >>>>> make them feasible (by increasing turbulence just before >>>>> combustion and thus better mixing the fuel and air). A quick >>>>> look now does not make it clear whether the NO increase comes >>>>> from compression ratio alone or is related to the relative >>>>> coolness of the quench area during combustion (which was said to >>>>> cause increases in other pollutants). >> >>>>> Since diesel engines run far higher compression ratios than >>>>> gasoline engines, their NO problem may be to some degree endemic. >>>>> Fortunately, exhaust processing seems to have been fairly >>>>> effective in reducing NO at the tailpipe for gas engines, and >>>>> presumably could work well for diesels too. >> >>>> IIRC the "environmental" issue with diesel engines is more with >>>> "particulate mass" and its elimintaion than gas emissions (NO, CO2 >>>> etc) >> >>>> C02 is not a pollutant, particulate mass is, and the stuff that >>>> comes out of diesel engines is nasty stuff. >> >>> That's 1990's thinking or perhaps you could describe it as US >>> thinking. Environmental science is changing all the time, CO2 has >>> moved from being a benign side effect of burning fossil fuel to an >>> environmental pollutant. Someone and it may have been you posted a >>> reference to an organization that is still trying yo describe CO2 >>> as a bountiful plant growth accelerator (only in the US). >> >>> The definition of Pollution is where something is where it is not >>> supposed to be, and causes some sort of damage or problem. >> >>> Many naturally occurring substances are necessary in small >>> quantities for life to occur, these same substances can cause >>> serious problems in larger quantities. CO2 was considered benign we >>> now know that in larger than normal quantities it isn't. >> >>> You are sort of right about Diesel. Older Diesel engines produce >>> more particles and combined with higher Sulphur Diesel fuel do >>> produce more pollutants (other than CO2) than petrol engines. >> >>> However low Sulphur Diesel and newer Diesel engine designs such as >>> the latest Mercedes Diesel engines have reduced these emissions >>> dramatically. >> >> Last time I looked, I was a major shareholder of a large fleet of >> Mercedes, MAN, HINO etc diesel engined vehicles. This is an issue >> that transport idustry has been following quite closely for many >> years. >> >> Newer fuels and better engines have reduced the size of the >> particulate mass, not its toxicity, and in fact the smaller >> particles are a severe problem, because larger particles tended to >> land somewhere and get washed away, the smaller particles are >> pervasive and it is essentially impossible to avoid them, short of >> living in a bubble Also, being smaller (microscopic), they are more >> easily absorbed into biological organisms and are for this reason >> even more problematic. >> > Again you seem to be slightly behind the times. Ford, Daimler, Renault > and a number of other manufacturers have been fitting Diesel Particle > Filters to their Diesel engined cars (Ford started doing this in 2003) > the DPF's remove the Ultra Fine particles that you refer to and DPF > manufacturers claim that Diesel exhaust gas treated with a DPF > contains less particles than the background air column, in effect they > are claiming that a Diesel fitted with a DPF cleans the air. > > http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/0209czerwinski/ > >> There have been various suggestions as to how to gather them so they >> are not emitted, but one of the issues is that the container of >> material is so severely toxic that there are in fact very few >> facilities capable of correctly dealing with them. >> > > Again this is also not correct the bulk of the particles are actually > carbon and many of the particle filter designs include regeneration > systems which destroy the particles captured in the filter. Having a > regeneration system is one factor which increases the life of the DPF. > > >> There is plenty of literature available on this matter that is not >> written by marketing droids. In this case, less is not actually >> better. >> > > Odd that your sources don't seem to be that accurate. Perhaps you > should read more marketing literature!! > > Regards > Andrew Harrison It appears, as you note, that products are on stream for ordinary motor vehicles. LT testing for heavy vehicle applications is ongoing and there are some references on dieselnet of recent successful evaluations. Heavy vehicle operational and maintenance requirements are significantly different than for regular automobiles, so it surprises me not that evaluation is still ongoing. Anyway, that many issues have been solved is good news for those of us who need to breathe :) Now, if only we could figure out a way for exhausts to emit O2 :) Dweeb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:59:44 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: Dr. Dweeb wrote: ... >> just so you have some number to play with rather than a rather vague >> "trace" pre large scale industrialization the concentrations of CO2 in >> the atmosphere were around 280 ppm, this has now risen to about 380 >> ppm. The IPPC report concludes that CO2 is likely to hit the 650 - 800 >> ppm levels by 2100. Causing a 2-5 degree rise in average global >> temperatures. >> > > Sadly I will not be here to see this event. It's getting awarmer - adapt. Easy for you to say, since (as you note) you won't be around to be affected one way or the other. Unfortunately, many people *will* be, and consigning them to a fate considerably worse than necessary just because you can't be bothered to give them as close to the same quality of planet which you have enjoyed as is feasible is damnably irresponsible. Even worse is denying the evidence (accepted by the significant majority of people who are far more qualified to assess it than you are) that this *likely* will happen and that there *are* ways we can mitigate it (and accepted by an even larger percentage of qualified people that it at least *may well* happen and that there *are* ways we can mitigate it) just because you find dealing with the problem inconvenient is out-right knavery - but, sadly, it's par for the course for your selfish ilk. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:38:37 +0800 From: "Richard Maher" Subject: Process Software: SocketException: function not implemented Message-ID: Hi, Below is the complete request entered the other day on the Rdb ListServer but I thought I'd enter it here as well in case Richard Whalen or Hunter Goatley or anyone from Process Software still bother to look here. In a nutshell, Rdb is using Java's ServerSocket class bind() method, and is receiving the above error. A look through cov shows some hits for a similar error from Appache and Tomcat and that it was possibly fixed with a later TCPware patch set; ring any bells with anyone? I spoke with Hunter Goatley here 7 years ago about TCPware not supporting uxc$c_share as a Socket Option and Java doesn't appear to surface an interface for the option so maybe it's on by default? But then I used to get the error when the second process tried to take ownership of the socket and not when the listener bound to it; maybe you now reject the socket option a setmode time? Maybe none of this has anything to do with ucx$c_share? Maybe the error message is completely misleading? But I'm always interested in any incompatibility in _BG: drivers between UCX, TCPware and Multinet, anyone else? Cheers Richard Maher Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:07 AM Subject: JAVA Thin server problem We just installed Rdb JDBC version 7.25 and we are having trouble with installing the JDBC Thin Server. When we tried to test the Thin server we got this: PDIDS2>spawn/nowait/proc=rdbthinsrvtest java -jar rdbthinsrv.jar %DCL-S-SPAWNED, process RDBTHINSRVTEST spawned PDIDS2>pipeshow system|search sys$input rdbthinsrvtest Unable to listen on port 1701 java.net.SocketException: function not implemented at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketBind(Native Method) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.bind(PlainSocketImpl.java:331) at java.net.ServerSocket.bind(ServerSocket.java:318) at java.net.ServerSocket.(ServerSocket.java:185) at java.net.ServerSocket.(ServerSocket.java:141) at oracle.rdb.jdbc.srv.RdbSrv.getServerSocket(RdbSrv.java:649) at oracle.rdb.jdbc.srv.RdbThinSrv.(RdbThinSrv.java:127) at oracle.rdb.jdbc.srv.RdbThinSrv.main(RdbThinSrv.java:251) %SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched Rdb Technical Service couldn't solve the problem expect thinking it was Process Software (our tcp/ip) the was the problem. We don't think so. So I am putting on the list to see if anyway else have the some problem and maybe a solution! Thanks, Melinda ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2007 15:51:58 -0500 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Sun shows Rock first silicon Message-ID: In article <589tgdF2fdm4cU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > In article <461fb58b$1@flight>, > "Malcolm Dunnett" writes: >> "Andrew" wrote in message >> news:1176470355.483306.114870@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> After quietly announcing 1.95Ghz and 2.1Ghz Dual Core UltraSPARC IV+ >>> modules Sun have show pictures of the first Rock Silicon along with a >>> claim that these are working chips. >>> >> >> Wonderful, how well do they run VMS? > > Who's fault is it that they don't? That is not the issue. The point is, who claims this is a VMS matter ? It has long ago been acknowledged there are chips on which VMS does not run. This is not the newsgroup for discussing them. Perhaps instead of splitting the newsgroup we need to make it moderated since people have so little self-control. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2007 19:32:40 -0700 From: "bclaremont" Subject: Re: VMS Alpha to Itanium port Message-ID: <1176517960.036001.263110@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> > The only wild-card that I'd be concerned about is > MACRO, but Alpha to IA64 will likely be much less trouble than a VAX > to IA64 would be. Moving Macro-32 to Integrity is much smoother than Macro-64. Macro-64 is not portable to the Integrity. Our Migration RPG product is primarily written in Macro-32. It moved to Integrity with little drama. See the porting article at: http://www.migrationspecialties.com/pdf/Porting%20Migration%20RPG%20to%20Itanium_TJ.pdf ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.205 ************************