Larry Wall and Cults
(Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
200012
Dear readers,
Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
It is a very interesting phenomenon. I don't have time to expound and
teach, but will try to brief you.
These cults, are often lead by a single person. They form a group as
small as a dozen to multinational octopuses (such as
Scientology). Their creed varies from the mild in appearance
(Dianetics) to appalling (flat earth, extraordinary life-after-death,
impinging apocalypse scenarios, militant anti-government conspiracy,
diabolism with human sacrifices ...). Don't think that i'm citing from
some arcane books buried in libraries. These are real, and not
difficult to find in real life. Some of these cult leaders, are so
able to totally wash their member's brain, as to have them
autonomously swear and volunteer to die for the cause of the cult.
Occasionally, you'll even see mass suicide.
You know, the world is not made completely of rubes. Somebody
somewhere, will observe this phenomenon and study or report it as
is. Big brother organizations, such as the FBI, is keen on these and
very interested in benefiting from social psychology themselves. They
are recorded in books too. Ever wonder why the library houses so many
cold volumes of paper? This is one contributing reason. You might be
interested to verify that sometimes.
These brain-washing phenomenon, are not limited to fanatical
life-and-death or otherwise dire beliefs. You see it work in all
manners of human thought in the general sense. From culture formation
to fashion to commercialism. Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
couldn't commit such a crime. You see, even if you are superman, you
can only kill few at a time. You see, it is the people, people like
you and me, who commit the killings willingly, by Hitler's
teaching. You may say: "no, i won't ever do such stupid thing", well
because you are very ignorant about social psychology. It is precisely
innocent people like you and (not) me, who were lead by the radical
leaders of supreme brain-washing abilities. The innocent mob were
fervent in their leader's vision and beliefs to commit anything. You
know the concept of war, right? We have two massive body of people
committed to cut off other people's head or otherwise stick a knife in
their bodies or bomb off an arm or leg. How did that happen? Well, it
starts with patriotism for people like you and (not) me.
Now, back to topic. In the computing world, there're also bad seeds
with colorful creed taking innocent mobs forming cults. The three
principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Hubris. Yes?
How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
--------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/larry_wall_n_cults.html
Copyright 2000-2004 Xah Lee. Verbatim Reproduction for non-commercial
purposes is hereby granted provided proper credit is given.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
On 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote:
>
>Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
Yes, we've heard of them.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
I had no idea. Good thing you're here to help us out.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Peter Hansen <·····@engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<······················@powergate.ca>...
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Isn't "Xah Lee" chinese for "Moron"?
>
> No, it's Esperanto (universal language) for "troll"...
>
> -Peter
Bonvolu ne s:ercu pri nekonatoj aferoj. "Xah Lee" certe - pro manko de
Ikso - ne estas esperanto. Kaj via s:erco nur s:tulta estas.
Norman
tradukita:
You certainly have not the slightest idea about esperanto. So please
dont't emberass yourself. And back to topic(?): "Xah lee" is not
esperanto.
norman werner wrote:
> Peter Hansen <·····@engcorp.com> wrote:
>>Robert wrote:
>>>Isn't "Xah Lee" chinese for "Moron"?
>>No, it's Esperanto (universal language) for "troll"...
>
> Bonvolu ne s:ercu pri nekonatoj aferoj. "Xah Lee" certe - pro manko de
> Ikso - ne estas esperanto. Kaj via s:erco nur s:tulta estas.
>
> Norman
> tradukita:
> You certainly have not the slightest idea about esperanto. So please
> dont't emberass yourself. And back to topic(?): "Xah lee" is not
> esperanto.
Well, let's see how your clear your mind was today.
Either it's a joke, in which case it is clear to all
that it doesn't really mean troll, or it's not a joke
in which case I obviously don't know Esperanto.
Here are the facts:
1. It's a joke, as you surmised.
2. I know Esperanto.
Now can you perhaps see that your first comment in the poor
translation of your own Esperanto is invalid and offensive?
By the way, to those not fluent in both languages, what this
fellow really wrote was more along the lines of "Please do not
joke about things you don't know about. Xah Lee certainly --
because Esperanto has no "x" -- is not Esperanto. And your
joke is merely stupid."
If you're going to accuse me of stupidity, please at least
get your own translation and logic skills in working order
first.
-Peter
> Well, let's see how your clear your mind was today.
>
> Either it's a joke, in which case it is clear to all
> that it doesn't really mean troll, or it's not a joke
> in which case I obviously don't know Esperanto.
>
>
I read it as an 'two-in-one'.
A (not funny) joke about the troll and an infantile sideremark about
eo spreading more half-truths.
"universal language" - Whats that? What is a universal language ...
Besides expressing basic wishes for food, attention or love. And
where is/was the relation between the troll and eo?
> Here are the facts:
>
> 1. It's a joke, as you surmised.
>
> 2. I know Esperanto.
i read it _later_ . From youre joke it seemed more like you "heard of
esperanto".
So I hereby withdraw the accusation of stupidity - standing firm only
on the not-funny-front.
> Now can you perhaps see that your first comment in the poor
> translation of your own Esperanto is invalid and offensive?
Allright - it was not a translation - the error was to call it an
translation. But since only a extremly small minority of readers could
read both - it seemed ok for me to change not the basic-message but
the way to express this message. E.g. I could not see the relevance
for a non-eo-speaker of eo having a x or not. So i changed this in the
"translation".
> By the way, to those not fluent in both languages, what this
> fellow really wrote was more along the lines of "Please do not
> joke about things you don't know about. Xah Lee certainly --
> because Esperanto has no "x" -- is not Esperanto. And your
> joke is merely stupid."
Yep.
>
> If you're going to accuse me of stupidity, please at least
> get your own translation and logic skills in working order
> first.
At least i was not the only who misunderstood you.
And please; Since you elaborated on my "translation" - it's ok to
criticize.
But the same does not hold true for my logic-skill-malfunction - so
either do not diagnose it or elaborate more on it.
Norman
Erm, please don't make false propaganda for the language I happen to love
;).
Btw:
(english-to-esperanto "troll") ==> "trolo"
Michiel
"Peter Hansen" <·····@engcorp.com> wrote in message
···························@powergate.ca...
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Isn't "Xah Lee" chinese for "Moron"?
>
> No, it's Esperanto (universal language) for "troll"...
>
> -Peter
Michiel Borkent wrote:
> "Peter Hansen" <·····@engcorp.com> wrote:
>>No, it's Esperanto (universal language) for "troll"...
> Erm, please don't make false propaganda for the language I happen to love
> ;).
>
> Btw:
>
> (english-to-esperanto "troll") ==> "trolo"
Pardonu... estis sxerco, evidente!
-Peter
Jes, mi komprenis. Dankon por la inspiro: mi jxus kreis novan subskribajxon.
Amike,
Michiel
--
LISP and Esperanto: my favorite languages.
Visit http://www.pictureofthemoon.net/~borkent for my webpage.
---
"Peter Hansen" <·····@engcorp.com> wrote in message
···························@powergate.ca...
> Michiel Borkent wrote:
>
> > "Peter Hansen" <·····@engcorp.com> wrote:
> >>No, it's Esperanto (universal language) for "troll"...
>
> > Erm, please don't make false propaganda for the language I happen to
love
> > ;).
> >
> > Btw:
> >
> > (english-to-esperanto "troll") ==> "trolo"
>
> Pardonu... estis sxerco, evidente!
>
> -Peter
Albert Reiner <·······@tph.tuwien.ac.at> wrote in message news:<···············@berry.phys.ntnu.no>...
> ["Michiel Borkent" <·······@cs.utwente.nl>, Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:35:38 +0200]:
> > LISP and Esperanto: my favorite languages.
>
> Ankaux miaj - krom, eble, ankaux la Haskella.
>
> Stranga koncentrigxo de verdlingvanoj cxe cll, cxu ne?
>
> Albert.
estas koncentrig:o. Ambau: lingvoj estas elektata de inteligentaj homoj :)
Espereble mi ne g:ustas - ne mi s:atas induktitan konkludon pri homaro.
Norman
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
> and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
I bet Larry Wall's life insurance premiums just skyrocketed. BTW, what
does this have to do with Lisp? We are more of a therapy and support
group than a cult.
On 25 Aug 2004 23:57:24 -0700, ···················@yahoo.com (Johnny)
wrote:
>···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
>
>> How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
>> and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
>> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
>
>I bet Larry Wall's life insurance premiums just skyrocketed. BTW, what
>does this have to do with Lisp? We are more of a therapy and support
>group than a cult.
That's fortunate, since Xah Lee obviously needs those services.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Also sprach Johnny:
> ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
>
>> How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
>> and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
>> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
>
> I bet Larry Wall's life insurance premiums just skyrocketed.
It would, if anyone could take Xah Lee Loo seriously. But really, no one
can. He's more like the court jester, creeping out of the dark every so
and so months. We're all very much enjoying his sporadic shows. Really.
;-)
Tassilo
--
$_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[·@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
$_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
Tassilo v. Parseval <····················@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> It would, if anyone could take Xah Lee Loo seriously. But really, no one
> can. He's more like the court jester, creeping out of the dark every so
> and so months. We're all very much enjoying his sporadic shows. Really.
>
> ;-)
>
No offense but could you add some references so anyone can make up is
own opinion?
O. Wyss
--
How to enhance your code, see "http://freshmeat.net/projects/wxguide/"
Also sprach Otto Wyss:
> Tassilo v. Parseval <····················@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
>> It would, if anyone could take Xah Lee Loo seriously. But really, no one
>> can. He's more like the court jester, creeping out of the dark every so
>> and so months. We're all very much enjoying his sporadic shows. Really.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> No offense but could you add some references so anyone can make up is
> own opinion?
For instance this one:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=ced06f6c6a36927f&rnum=4>
Pay particular attention to the fact that he's whining about a certain
feature of a Perl module but posts not only in comp.lang.perl.misc but
also in the scheme, lisp, python and ruby group.
Tassilo
--
$_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[·@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
$_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:49:48 +0200, "Tassilo v. Parseval"
<····················@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> I bet Larry Wall's life insurance premiums just skyrocketed.
>
>It would, if anyone could take Xah Lee Loo seriously. But really, no one
>can. He's more like the court jester, creeping out of the dark every so
>and so months. We're all very much enjoying his sporadic shows. Really.
Really!
Michele
--
you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:
- Xah Lee trolling on clpmisc,
"perl bug File::Basename and Perl's nature"
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Xah Lee wrote:
> Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Rich Teer wrote:
> I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
> Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
A great allegory about garbage collection, wasn't it?
Paul
Rich Teer <·········@rite-group.com> writes:
> I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
> Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
Great song, but their hard-hitting stuff is even better. For instance
"Lisp in the Hills" or "Career of Eval".
--
(espen ;-)
>>I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
>>Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
>
>
It was a great song, but it needed more cowbell...
Mark.
"Markus Wankus" <····························@hotmail.com> wrote in message
···························@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
> >>Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
> >
> >
>
> It was a great song, but it needed more cowbell...
>
> Mark.
Gotta have more cowbell. . . .
Johnny
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
On 2004-08-26, Markus Wankus <····························@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
>>>Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
>>
>>
>
> It was a great song, but it needed more cowbell...
Well, there is always Witchunt by Rush...
--
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["Tara is grass, and behold how Troy lieth
low--And even the English, perchance their hour will come!"]
In message <··············@merced.netfonds.no>, Espen Vestre
<·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes
>Great song, but their hard-hitting stuff is even better. For instance
>"Lisp in the Hills" or "Career of Eval".
They even provided your very own theme tune to red/black trees -
"The Red and the Black"
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
Rich Teer <·········@rite-group.com> writes:
> I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
Actually, there is also The Cult, a British band that lasted from
1984-1995.
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:5qktk6gx9kr3~T1
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:
> Rich Teer <·········@rite-group.com> writes:
>
> > I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
>
> Actually, there is also The Cult, a British band that lasted from
> 1984-1995.
I belive the Cult (She Sells Sanctuary, etc.) is another manfifestation
of the Blue �yster Cult.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Rich Teer wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:
>
>
>
>>Rich Teer <·········@rite-group.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, there is also The Cult, a British band that lasted from
>>1984-1995.
>>
>>
>
>I belive the Cult (She Sells Sanctuary, etc.) is another manfifestation
>of the Blue �yster Cult.
>
>
No, the two are totally unrelated. (One was American (New York) and led
by Eric Bloom, the other was British (London) and led by Ian Astbury.)
However, The Cult did have an earlier incarnation as Southern Death Cult.
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:09:32 -0700, Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com>
wrote:
>The Cult did have an earlier incarnation as Southern Death Cult.
And Blue Oyster Cult was originally Soft White Underbelly.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Rich Teer <·········@rite-group.com> writes:
> I belive the Cult (She Sells Sanctuary, etc.) is another manfifestation
> of the Blue �yster Cult.
Does not seem so: Founding member Ian Astbury is not listed as member
of any other groups, for instance.
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:5qktk6gx9kr3~T1
So spake Rich Teer:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Xah Lee wrote:
>
>> Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
>
>I think you're getting confused with the Blue �yster Cult.
>Don't Fear the Reaper - great song.
And then there's this crazy little thing called love...
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Reynir Stef�nsson wrote:
> And then there's this crazy little thing called love...
Nah - that was Queen!
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Reynir Stef�nsson wrote:
>
>
>>And then there's this crazy little thing called love...
>
>
> Nah - that was Queen!
When I was seventeen
I drank some very good beer.
I drank some very good beer
I purchased with a fake ID.
My name was Brian McGee.
I stayed up listening to Queen.
When I was seventeen.
Paul (channeling Homer)
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:
> When I was seventeen
> I drank some very good beer.
> I drank some very good beer
> I purchased with a fake ID.
> My name was Brian McGee.
> I stayed up listening to Queen.
> When I was seventeen.
>
> Paul (channeling Homer)
D'oh!
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
> 200012
>
> Dear readers,
>
> Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
> It is a very interesting phenomenon. I don't have time to expound and
> teach, but will try to brief you.
>
>
Hey this ain't no CULT! Our creedo is simply:
"Larry said it, I believe it, THAT settles it!"
If you don't believe it just look at the reaction if any questions any
element of Perl design!
On 2004-08-26, Sara <·········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey this ain't no CULT! Our creedo is simply:
>
> "Larry said it, I believe it, THAT settles it!"
>
> If you don't believe it just look at the reaction if any questions any
> element of Perl design!
Over here in c.l.python, it's more like
"Guido said it, that settles it, but we're going to discuss
it endlessly and and vote on it using six or seven
different voting algorithms anyway. Then we'll argue about
the voting algorithms."
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm ZIPPY!! Are we
at having FUN yet??
visi.com
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
Grant> "Guido said it, that settles it, but we're going to discuss
Grant> it endlessly and and vote on it using six or seven
Grant> different voting algorithms anyway. Then we'll argue about
Grant> the voting algorithms."
Are the voting algorithms indented consistently? That's a necessity,
correct? Surely, they have significant whitespace.
/me ducks back under his rock
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<······@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
On 2004-08-26, Randal L. Schwartz <······@stonehenge.com> wrote:
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
>
>Grant> "Guido said it, that settles it, but we're going to discuss
>Grant> it endlessly and and vote on it using six or seven
>Grant> different voting algorithms anyway. Then we'll argue about
>Grant> the voting algorithms."
>
> Are the voting algorithms indented consistently? That's a
> necessity, correct?
Of course, but are they consistently indented using tabs or
spaces?
> Surely, they have significant whitespace.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Gee, I feel kind of
at LIGHT in the head now,
visi.com knowing I can't make my
satellite dish PAYMENTS!
John Doherty <········@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> wrote:
> > Of course, but are they consistently indented using tabs or spaces?
>
> AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
You just reminded me of the infamous variable naming debate:
- visualBasicStyle
- javaStyle
- perl_style
- jumbledstyle
/me ducks out as sparks fly....
Tim Hammerquist
In article <·························@192.168.2.178>,
········@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
>In article <························@newsreader.visi.com>, Grant Edwards
><······@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-08-26, Randal L. Schwartz <······@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>> >
>> >>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Grant> "Guido said it, that settles it, but we're going to discuss
>> >Grant> it endlessly and and vote on it using six or seven
>> >Grant> different voting algorithms anyway. Then we'll argue about
>> >Grant> the voting algorithms."
>> >
>> > Are the voting algorithms indented consistently? That's a
>> > necessity, correct?
>>
>> Of course, but are they consistently indented using tabs or
>> spaces?
>
>AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
I guess not many will understand.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
+---------------
| ········@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
| >AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
|
| Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
| required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
| I guess not many will understand.
+---------------
You might be surprised, Barb. Quite a few of the comp.lang.lisp crew
are former PDP-10 geeks. ;-}
And just to be sure *I'm* understanding what you're talking about, ;-}
did you mean the convention of the second line of the following snippet?
foo: pushj p,ckperm
pjrst badprm ; user lacks privs, complain & return.
movei t0,cmdblk ; o.k. to proceed.
...
Indenting the non-skip return for a subroutine call was always pretty
clear to me. Where things got really muddled (and contentious!) was
when you had long skip chains of T{R,L}{Z,O,C,~}{N,E} instructions
in which whether a particular instruction was in the skipped-to or
non-skipped position depended dynamically on the flow of control
above it. [HAKMEM was chock-full of that kind of "efficient" code.]
In that case, it seemed more readable to simply not indent anything in
the skip chain, and put a scary comment warning about the tricky code.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>+---------------
>| ········@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
>| >AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
>|
>| Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
>| required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
>| I guess not many will understand.
>+---------------
>
>You might be surprised, Barb. Quite a few of the comp.lang.lisp crew
>are former PDP-10 geeks. ;-}
<GRIN> Yep for Lisp, but Perl and Python? Everything after python is
printing off my screen (I hate forms).
>
>And just to be sure *I'm* understanding what you're talking about, ;-}
>did you mean the convention of the second line of the following snippet?
Yep, but you have a bug. The MOVEI [emoticon scrolls down to look]
heh... my reply form is non-porportional and now everything is
wrong. That's why the hard and fast rule of 8 was used in PDP-10
land.
>
> foo: pushj p,ckperm
> pjrst badprm ; user lacks privs, complain & return.
> movei t0,cmdblk ; o.k. to proceed.
> ...
>
>Indenting the non-skip return for a subroutine call was always pretty
>clear to me.
It was to the -20 types, too. The -10 types maintained that,
if the human code reader didn't know the call had a skip return,
he had no business looking at the code. Having the opcodes all
line up left-justified made reading code quickly possible.
> ..Where things got really muddled (and contentious!) was
>when you had long skip chains of T{R,L}{Z,O,C,~}{N,E} instructions
>in which whether a particular instruction was in the skipped-to or
>non-skipped position depended dynamically on the flow of control
>above it. [HAKMEM was chock-full of that kind of "efficient" code.]
>In that case, it seemed more readable to simply not indent anything in
>the skip chain, and put a scary comment warning about the tricky code.
If you knew your biz, you didn't need the scary warning. Now
consider a list of PUSHJs where each could have a skip,
double-skip or triple-skip return. Depending on which way
you're flowing through the code, each and every one could be
indented and not-indented.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
>>AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
>
> Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
> required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
> I guess not many will understand.
I understand.
The style I used for PDP-10 macro assembly language was
*) Indent two spaces for error return from subroutine or UUO (or jsys)
*) Indent one space for instructions that skip or may skip.
The other point of contention was what to put between the opcode and
its arguments; space vs tab. I had some TECO macros that would
undo the damage after pristine code had been munged by someone
not conforming to style. :-)
-Joe
In article <······················@attbi_s52>,
Joe Smith <·········@inwap.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
>>
>> Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
>> required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
>> I guess not many will understand.
>
>I understand.
>The style I used for PDP-10 macro assembly language was
> *) Indent two spaces for error return from subroutine or UUO (or jsys)
> *) Indent one space for instructions that skip or may skip.
>
>The other point of contention was what to put between the opcode and
>its arguments; space vs tab. I had some TECO macros that would
>undo the damage after pristine code had been munged by someone
>not conforming to style. :-)
<GRIN> And we had some that put them back.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:31:07 -0500
········@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
> In article <························@newsreader.visi.com>, Grant Edwards
> <······@visi.com> wrote:
> > Of course, but are they consistently indented using tabs or
> > spaces?
>
> AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
One half inch is my preference for tab stops usually. A tab is a
tab and not some number of spaces.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
In article <·························@newsreader.visi.com>,
Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> wrote:
>On 2004-08-26, Sara <·········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey this ain't no CULT! Our creedo is simply:
>> "Larry said it, I believe it, THAT settles it!"
>> If you don't believe it just look at the reaction if any questions any
>> element of Perl design!
>Over here in c.l.python, it's more like
> "Guido said it, that settles it, but we're going to discuss
> it endlessly and and vote on it using six or seven
> different voting algorithms anyway. Then we'll argue about
> the voting algorithms."
Now I understand what happenend in the 2000 election: Al Gore, after
inventing the internet, became a python programmer :)
hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
·······@psu.edu 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
> 200012
>
<BIG SNIP>
In this context --- This is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. What a
maroon! What a Trollup!
RB
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:07:43 -0700, "R Baumann" <····@9yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message
>·································@posting.google.com...
>> Larry Wall and Cults
>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>> 200012
>>
><BIG SNIP>
>
>In this context --- This is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. What a
>maroon! What a Trollup!
>
His plane curve work is not far from some of my own obsessions. I knew
of and admired his site.
Didn't know he had other interests as well ;)
Maybe an extreme me.
All obsessions in moderation, is my motto.
Art
>RB
>
In alt.folklore.computers R Baumann <····@9yahoo.com> wrote:
> In this context --- This is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. What a
> maroon! What a Trollup!
>
He doesn't quite win, there's one regular afc troll who narrowly edges
him out... but I won't mention his name because that tends to invoke
him. ;)
pete
--
····@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
So spake R Baumann:
>
>"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message
>·································@posting.google.com...
>> Larry Wall and Cults
>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>> 200012
>>
><BIG SNIP>
>
>In this context --- This is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. What a
>maroon! What a Trollup!
Well, wasn't it lwall that said: "All language designers are arrogant.
Comes with the territory."?
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
In article <······················@megapath.net>,
R Baumann <····@9yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message
>·································@posting.google.com...
>> Larry Wall and Cults
>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>> 200012
>In this context --- This is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard.
Nah. I practiced law for five years. :)
hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
·······@psu.edu 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
In alt.folklore.computers Giles Todd <·@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>
> That's OK. I've done it for you. Now, try investigating "Rambling
> Sid Rumpo".
>
I need to fossick through me ganderbag and work out a way of mp3ing my
taped collection of Rambling Syd's artefacts, me dearios.
pete
--
····@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
On 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote, in part:
>Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
We have heard of it.
>Don't think that i'm citing from
>some arcane books buried in libraries. These are real, and not
>difficult to find in real life.
Unlike the cult of Chthulhu, for example.
>Big brother organizations, such as the FBI, is keen on these and
>very interested in benefiting from social psychology themselves. They
>are recorded in books too. Ever wonder why the library houses so many
>cold volumes of paper? This is one contributing reason. You might be
>interested to verify that sometimes.
Ah, yes. If it weren't for the interest of the FBI in cults, our
libraries would be much smaller, or they would emphasize warm audio and
video recordings more.
>Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
>and his atrocities of genocide?
Yes, you are rather safe in assuming that.
>I must alert you, that a single person
>couldn't commit such a crime. You see, even if you are superman, you
>can only kill few at a time.
Yes, despite claims at the Nuremberg trials, Hitler didn't run the
concentration camps as a one-man operation.
>You see, it is the people, people like
>you and me, who commit the killings willingly, by Hitler's
>teaching. You may say: "no, i won't ever do such stupid thing", well
>because you are very ignorant about social psychology. It is precisely
>innocent people like you and (not) me, who were lead by the radical
>leaders of supreme brain-washing abilities. The innocent mob were
>fervent in their leader's vision and beliefs to commit anything.
They did, though, have to select from the German people those who would
operate the concentration camps.
As for the masses, it was enough that they were afraid to try to do
anything to stop it.
>How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
>and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
>this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
You are not providing any validation for your claim that these things
are so dangerous that the use of deadly force is justified or necessary.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard wrote:
> They did, though, have to select from the German people those who
> would operate the concentration camps.
Which where the afraid ones or the ones that actually believed in him
for one reason or another. Yes, some people didn't need brain-washing
to believe him. I know it's a radical idea that some people are racist,
but it true!
> As for the masses, it was enough that they were afraid to try to do
> anything to stop it.
Perhaps you should look into the history books a little closer. There
was this thing call the resistance in *all* the countries you know, not
to mention the anti-nazi publications in the papers during his rise to
power. And without those resistance fighters, the allies might have
failed in there endeavour.
Why did you even give an actual reply to this guy anyway?
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
> 200012
[ Poor standup comedy deleted ]
> These brain-washing phenomenon, are not limited to fanatical
> life-and-death or otherwise dire beliefs. You see it work in all
> manners of human thought in the general sense. From culture formation
> to fashion to commercialism. Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
Godwin! In the first post of the thread too...
Joe
--
If you don't think too good, don't think too much
- Ted Williams
Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
>
What you mean with Unixism?
O. Wyss
--
How to enhance your code, see "http://freshmeat.net/projects/wxguide/"
·········@orpatec.ch (Otto Wyss) writes:
> Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
> > this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
> >
> What you mean with Unixism?
It's always funny to observe people's contradictions:
Last week i bought a chain saw with a
twisted handle. Perhaps i wasn't
careful, but by accident it chopped one
of my arm off, then i thought to myself
"gosh, this is POWERFUL!". This seems to
be the fashionable mode of thinking
among the unixers or unixer-to-be, who
would equate power and flexibility with
rawness and complexity; disciplined by
repeated accidents. Such a tool would
first chop off the user's brain, molding
a mass of brainless imbeciles and
microcephalic charlatans the likes of
Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
asses. --Xah Lee
$ telnet xahlee.org 80;
Trying 208.186.130.4...
Connected to xahlee.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> ·········@orpatec.ch (Otto Wyss) writes:
>
>
>>Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
>>>
>>
>>What you mean with Unixism?
>
>
> It's always funny to observe people's contradictions:
>
>
> Last week i bought a chain saw with a
> twisted handle. Perhaps i wasn't
> careful, but by accident it chopped one
> of my arm off, then i thought to myself
> "gosh, this is POWERFUL!". This seems to
> be the fashionable mode of thinking
> among the unixers or unixer-to-be, who
> would equate power and flexibility with
> rawness and complexity; disciplined by
> repeated accidents. Such a tool would
> first chop off the user's brain, molding
> a mass of brainless imbeciles and
> microcephalic charlatans the likes of
> Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
> asses. --Xah Lee
>
>
> $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
> Trying 208.186.130.4...
> Connected to xahlee.org.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> GET / HTTP/1.1
>
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you like my approach, which is to condemn things they have never used?
:)
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >>What you mean with Unixism?
> > repeated accidents. Such a tool would
> > first chop off the user's brain, molding
> > a mass of brainless imbeciles and
> > microcephalic charlatans the likes of
> > Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
> > Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> So you like my approach, which is to condemn things they have never used?
>
> :)
No, that of no more using things that you condemn.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
"Pascal Bourguignon" <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>> >>What you mean with Unixism?
>> > repeated accidents. Such a tool would
>> > first chop off the user's brain, molding
>> > a mass of brainless imbeciles and
>> > microcephalic charlatans the likes of
>> > Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
>> > Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> So you like my approach, which is to condemn things they have never used?
>>
>> :)
>
> No, that of no more using things that you condemn.
I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who drive
one every day.
DS
"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
> "Pascal Bourguignon" <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> ···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
>
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> >> >>What you mean with Unixism?
> >> > repeated accidents. Such a tool would
> >> > first chop off the user's brain, molding
> >> > a mass of brainless imbeciles and
> >> > microcephalic charlatans the likes of
> >> > Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
> >> > Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> So you like my approach, which is to condemn things they have never
> >> used?
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> > No, that of no more using things that you condemn.
>
> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
> meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
> drive one every day.
And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
that their complaints are insincere.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
<······@hotmail.com> wrote in message
··························@newsreader.com...
> "David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>> meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
>> drive one every day.
> And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
> that their complaints are insincere.
That's a load of crap.
DS
In article <············@nntp.webmaster.com>,
"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
><······@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>··························@newsreader.com...
>
>> "David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>>> meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
>>> drive one every day.
>
>> And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
>> that their complaints are insincere.
>
> That's a load of crap.
Sigh! Another one who has no appreciation of irony.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
David Schwartz wrote:
> <······@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ··························@newsreader.com...
>
>
>>"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>>>meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
>>>drive one every day.
>
>
>>And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
>>that their complaints are insincere.
>
>
> That's a load of crap.
>
> DS
>
>
You're both right but ...
Xah Lee: "I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl."
Pascal Bourguignon: <Xah Lee's website runs on Linux, a Unix-like OS>
Is more like
Joe Blow: I'm going to exterminate all morons who drive a Ford Explorer.
Fred Bloggs: But Joe, you drive a Ford Explorer!
Rather than
Joe Blow: Ford Explorers are a little bit expensive to service and the
doors squeak after a couple of years.
Fred Bloggs: Thanks for the tip Joe, I see you drive one, so you should
know.
Ian Wilson <·········@infotop.co.uk> writes:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > <······@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > ··························@newsreader.com...
> >
> >>"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
> >>>meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
> >>>drive one every day.
> >
> >>And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
> >>that their complaints are insincere.
> > That's a load of crap.
> > DS
> >
>
>
> You're both right but ...
>
> Xah Lee: "I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl."
>
> Pascal Bourguignon: <Xah Lee's website runs on Linux, a Unix-like OS>
>
>
> Is more like
>
> Joe Blow: I'm going to exterminate all morons who drive a Ford Explorer.
>
> Fred Bloggs: But Joe, you drive a Ford Explorer!
>
>
> Rather than
>
> Joe Blow: Ford Explorers are a little bit expensive to service and the
> doors squeak after a couple of years.
>
> Fred Bloggs: Thanks for the tip Joe, I see you drive one, so you
> should know.
Case closed. (And probably Xah has suicidal impulses).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
In article <··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>Ian Wilson <·········@infotop.co.uk> writes:
>
>> David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> > <······@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > ··························@newsreader.com...
>> >
>> >>"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>> >>>meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
>> >>>drive one every day.
>> >
>> >>And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
>> >>that their complaints are insincere.
>> > That's a load of crap.
>> > DS
>> >
>>
>>
>> You're both right but ...
>>
>> Xah Lee: "I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
>> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl."
>>
>> Pascal Bourguignon: <Xah Lee's website runs on Linux, a Unix-like OS>
>>
>>
>> Is more like
>>
>> Joe Blow: I'm going to exterminate all morons who drive a Ford Explorer.
>>
>> Fred Bloggs: But Joe, you drive a Ford Explorer!
>>
>>
>> Rather than
>>
>> Joe Blow: Ford Explorers are a little bit expensive to service and the
>> doors squeak after a couple of years.
>>
>> Fred Bloggs: Thanks for the tip Joe, I see you drive one, so you
>> should know.
>
>Case closed. (And probably Xah has suicidal impulses).
Nah, he's a Democrat of the Liberal flavor.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
"Ian Wilson" <·········@infotop.co.uk> wrote in message
·················@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>>>>meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who
>>>>drive one every day.
>>>And if they continue to drive one everyday, perhaps you would conclude
>>>that their complaints are insincere.
>> That's a load of crap.
> You're both right but ...
>
> Xah Lee: "I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl."
>
> Pascal Bourguignon: <Xah Lee's website runs on Linux, a Unix-like OS>
>
> Is more like
>
> Joe Blow: I'm going to exterminate all morons who drive a Ford Explorer.
>
> Fred Bloggs: But Joe, you drive a Ford Explorer!
The you're missing is that 'unixism' has nothing to do with *using*
UNIX.
> Rather than
>
> Joe Blow: Ford Explorers are a little bit expensive to service and the
> doors squeak after a couple of years.
>
> Fred Bloggs: Thanks for the tip Joe, I see you drive one, so you should
> know.
The problem with 'unixism' is its affect on UNIX, and it would be
logical that only those people who use UNIXes are affected by 'unixism' and
concerned about it.
DS
David Schwartz wrote:
> 'unixism' has nothing to do with *using* UNIX.
...
> only those people who use UNIXes are affected by 'unixism'
Sorry, I don't see how an activity can be affected by something that has
nothing to do with that activity.
Are you suggesting that Unix users don't have to deal with unixism? If
that were so, why would Xah Lee have such a bee in his bonnet about it? [2]
Xah Lee says "unix should mean unixism, the way things are done in unix
platform" [1]
Xah Lee also says "the unix shells ... is one giant unpurgeable shit
pile arose from ad hoc hacks of unixism." [2]
It seems legit to wonder why he chooses to place his web-pages amongst
shit piles.
[1]
The world unix should mean unixism, that is, the way things are done in
unix platform, their culture, their hacking attitude, their social
attitude, their preferences, their people, their tools, their languages,
their ps grep config make shebang tartall gunzip README manifesto et cetera.
http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html
[2]
By the way, the unix shells and environment variable and ways, is quite
a fucked up one. It is amazing to see its stupidities alluded as an
advance for some language design argument. The whole morbidity of the
prospect to place an executable script as any program name in any path
with the fucked up ways to search for programs to execute and the fucked
up way to determine whether it is a program by the fucked up permission
bits system is one giant unpurgeable shit pile arose from ad hoc hacks
of unixism.
http://www.xahlee.org/Writ_dir/comp_lang_lisp/124.txt
All hail!
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:30:38 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
Ian Wilson <·········@infotop.co.uk> wrote:
>David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> 'unixism' has nothing to do with *using* UNIX.
>...
>> only those people who use UNIXes are affected by 'unixism'
>
>Sorry, I don't see how an activity can be affected by something that has
>nothing to do with that activity.
>
>Are you suggesting that Unix users don't have to deal with unixism? If
>that were so, why would Xah Lee have such a bee in his bonnet about it? [2]
>
>Xah Lee says "unix should mean unixism, the way things are done in unix
>platform" [1]
>
>Xah Lee also says "the unix shells ... is one giant unpurgeable shit
>pile arose from ad hoc hacks of unixism." [2]
>
>It seems legit to wonder why he chooses to place his web-pages amongst
>shit piles.
ISTM that the criticism was better expressed by PDP-10ers in the "Unix
Hater's Handbook", available online. For further thoughts, read plan 9
documents, to see where the original implementors agree.
OTOH there's the other OSes that crash, crawl, or just get in the way
of getting work done because you've got to do it their way or else!
Feel free to use them instead, and be prepared to pay thru the nose.
If you don't like some standard Unix OS feature, there's probably
another one out there based on every system which ever existed to
download, or you could write your own.
If you don't like a standard Unix shell, there's probably another one
out there based on every system which ever existed to download, or you
could write your own.
If you don't like a standard Unix editor, there's probably another one
out there based on every system which ever existed to download, or you
could write your own.
etc...
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
"David Schwartz" <······@webmaster.com> writes:
> "Pascal Bourguignon" <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> ···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
>
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> >> >>What you mean with Unixism?
> >> > repeated accidents. Such a tool would
> >> > first chop off the user's brain, molding
> >> > a mass of brainless imbeciles and
> >> > microcephalic charlatans the likes of
> >> > Larry Wall and Linus Torvald jolly
> >> > Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> So you like my approach, which is to condemn things they have never used?
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> > No, that of no more using things that you condemn.
>
> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
> meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who drive
> one every day.
I'd expect to get these complaints indeed from people who drove it,
but I'd be puzzled if they'd continued to drive it every day.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
On 28 Aug 2004 03:41:22 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon
<····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> I don't follow you at all. I think you'll find the most useful,
>> meaningful complaints about, say, a Ford Explorer from the people who drive
>> one every day.
>
>I'd expect to get these complaints indeed from people who drove it,
>but I'd be puzzled if they'd continued to drive it every day.
Not me. I'd just assume that they couldn't afford to switch vehicles
whenever they had a complaint.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
> I'd expect to get these complaints indeed from people who drove it,
> but I'd be puzzled if they'd continued to drive it every day.
Um... maybe it's paid for?
I use things daily that I hate... I can't afford to replace them.
Maybe if the people had no *plans* to replace the Explorer, or they
turned around and bought yet another one, I could see your point.
--
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- [There is a limit to how stupid people really
are -- just as there's a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the Universe.
There's a lot, but there's a limit. -- Dave C. Barber on a.f.c. ]
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > What you mean with Unixism?
>
> It's always funny to observe people's contradictions:
>
>
> Last week i bought a chain saw with a
> twisted handle. Perhaps i wasn't
> careful, but by accident it chopped one
> of my arm off, then i thought to myself
> "gosh, this is POWERFUL!". This seems to
> be the fashionable mode of thinking
> among the unixers or unixer-to-be, who
Thanks, for the clarification. For a none native English it's sometimes
difficult to grasp the underlying meaning. And do I understand it right
that Xah Lee _speaks_ against "Unixism" instead of producing code?
Well then I may point at "wyoism", the cult of the code producer.
;-)
O. Wyss
--
How to enhance your code, see "http://freshmeat.net/projects/wxguide/"
>
> $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
> Trying 208.186.130.4...
> Connected to xahlee.org.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> GET / HTTP/1.1
>
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's a hosting provider. Funny though how they would use something like
Fedora.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
+---------------
| $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
| Trying 208.186.130.4...
| Connected to xahlee.org.
| Escape character is '^]'.
| GET / HTTP/1.1
|
| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
| Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
| Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+---------------
So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him? [A lot of them do,
these days, 'cuz it's much cheaper than preloading RedHat Enterprise.]
Or are you complaining about that perfectly correct error message
which pointed out that you omitted a required HTTP/1.1 header? ;-} ;-}
% telnet xahlee.org 80
Trying 208.186.130.4...
Connected to xahlee.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: xahlee.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:16:44 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
Last-Modified: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:36:38 GMT
ETag: "c41bc-87b-a8715980"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 2171
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Xah's Homepage</title>
</head>
<body ... >
...[trimmed]...
</body>
</html>
%
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
> | Trying 208.186.130.4...
> | Connected to xahlee.org.
> | Escape character is '^]'.
> | GET / HTTP/1.1
> |
> | HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> | Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
> | Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +---------------
>
> So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
> preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him? [A lot of them do,
> these days, 'cuz it's much cheaper than preloading RedHat Enterprise.]
>
> Or are you complaining about that perfectly correct error message
> which pointed out that you omitted a required HTTP/1.1 header? ;-} ;-}
Obviously, I'm complaining the contradiction between his opinion about
unix about what I've underlined.
And I take care to select my hosting providers not using MS-Windows
(since I'm critical about MS-Windows).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
On 2004-08-28, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> +---------------
>| $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
>| Trying 208.186.130.4...
>| Connected to xahlee.org.
>| Escape character is '^]'.
>| GET / HTTP/1.1
>|
>| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
>| Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
>| Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +---------------
>
> So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
> preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him?
There is no shortage of Windows-based hosting companies, so why
didn't he go there ? Whatever your opinions, it's best to put
your money where your mouth is if you expect to be taken
seriously.
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
"See daddy ? All the keys are in alphabetical order now."
Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2004-08-28, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>+---------------
>>| $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
>>| Trying 208.186.130.4...
>>| Connected to xahlee.org.
>>| Escape character is '^]'.
>>| GET / HTTP/1.1
>>|
>>| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
>>| Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
>>| Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
>>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>+---------------
>>
>>So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
>>preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him?
>
>
> There is no shortage of Windows-based hosting companies, so why
> didn't he go there ? Whatever your opinions, it's best to put
> your money where your mouth is if you expect to be taken
> seriously.
>
Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
-Antony
On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Andre Majorel wrote:
>> On 2004-08-28, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>+---------------
>>>| $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
>>>| Trying 208.186.130.4...
>>>| Connected to xahlee.org.
>>>| Escape character is '^]'.
>>>| GET / HTTP/1.1
>>>|
>>>| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
>>>| Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
>>>| Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
>>>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>+---------------
>>>
>>>So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
>>>preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him?
>>
>>
>> There is no shortage of Windows-based hosting companies, so why
>> didn't he go there ? Whatever your opinions, it's best to put
>> your money where your mouth is if you expect to be taken
>> seriously.
>
> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>
>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
> Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>
>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>
>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>
> DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
Unix-style file handles ?
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>
>>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>
>>DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>
>
> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
> Unix-style file handles ?
Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
... And has failed miserably to do so.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>>been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
> .... And has failed miserably to do so.
Not entirely. Porting GNU software and the like to MS-DOS and Windows
could be a hell of a lot more difficult than it is. Try porting almost
anything to, for example, the MVS (classic) environment (which is why
MVS now also includes a Unix-wise alternate environment).
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
>>>>> "John" == John W Kennedy <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
John> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since
John> 2.0, MS has been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into
John> a Unix clone.
With very little success. Notepad still only understands cr-lf line
breaks, and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
programs (which think / is for command line options).
Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
have only lately started to have some regrets, visible as the release
& future integration of SFU. Migrating ppl from Unix probably *is*
easier when you are not doing your best to make interoperability as
painful as possible.
--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
In article <···············@amadeus.cc.tut.fi>,
Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "John" == John W Kennedy <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> John> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since
> John> 2.0, MS has been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into
> John> a Unix clone.
>
>With very little success. Notepad still only understands cr-lf line
>breaks, and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
>programs (which think / is for command line options).
>
>Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
>have only lately started to have some regrets, visible as the release
...
Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?). Consider the "PIP" command.
When they went to MS/DOS 2.0 and needed path separators, they found
that "/" was already taken, so they used "\". But there was a hidden
way to tell the command interpreter that it could use "-" for options.
And in all systems starting with 2.0, the system calls have taken "/"
and "\" interchangably.
Craig, who wrote a lot of code for CP/M, MS-DOS 1* and Later....
On 31 Aug 2004 16:06:31 GMT, Craig A. Finseth <····@finseth.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>When they went to MS/DOS 2.0 and needed path separators, they found
>that "/" was already taken, so they used "\". But there was a hidden
>way to tell the command interpreter that it could use "-" for options.
Which got removed quite some back.
>And in all systems starting with 2.0, the system calls have taken "/"
>and "\" interchangably.
--
Arargh407 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
On 2004-08-31, Craig A Finseth <····@finseth.com> wrote:
> The / was chosen as the command line option separator because whoever
> wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands after a
> PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?).
Whoever = Tim Paterson, then working for Seattle Computer
Products. Interesting historical stuff at
http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
Craig A. Finseth <····@finseth.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
| >... and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
| >programs (which think / is for command line options).
| >Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
| >have only lately started to have some regrets...
|
| Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
| whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
| after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?).
+---------------
Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
+---------------
| Consider the "PIP" command.
+---------------
Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>Craig A. Finseth <····@finseth.com> wrote:
>+---------------
>| Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
>| >... and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
>| >programs (which think / is for command line options).
>| >Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
>| >have only lately started to have some regrets...
>|
>| Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
>| whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
>| after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?).
>+---------------
>
>Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
>PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
You'ld probably get further about who's on first by knowing that
the guy who did OS-8 also did TOPS-10 monitor work. It was not
unusual for one guy to work on all architectures within DEC.
If he liked to use TECO, he'd carry it over to the next project
and write it up in that computer's machine language. An even
easier way to transfer functionality back then was to use
a cross-assembler. For instance, I'd enter a programmer's PDP-11
code and put it into a file on the TOPS-10 system. Then after
a fast assembler check with the cross-assembler of the coder's
choice, I would either punch the ASCII out of papertape or
run FILEX which would transfer the PDP-10 bits onto the DECtape
in PDP-11 format.
That's how code migrated in the olden days.
>
>+---------------
>| Consider the "PIP" command.
>+---------------
>
>Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level
command.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 ·········@aol.com wrote:
> You'ld probably get further about who's on first by knowing that
> the guy who did OS-8 also did TOPS-10 monitor work.
I have here my manual of the "Cambridge Multiple-Access System -
User's Reference Manual" (that's Cambridge, England) dated 1968. The
file system hierarchy separator is "/".
I don't know where -they- got the convention from in the first place,
admittedly.
ObPDP: the TITAN system had a PDP7 as a peripheral device, sort-of.
--
"The disc file has a capacity of about 8 million words".
In article <································@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <·······@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You'ld probably get further about who's on first by knowing that
>> the guy who did OS-8 also did TOPS-10 monitor work.
>
>I have here my manual of the "Cambridge Multiple-Access System -
>User's Reference Manual" (that's Cambridge, England) dated 1968. The
>file system hierarchy separator is "/".
And slash was used as a command modifier on the -10s.
File specification parsing used :: : [ ] < > , .
(Note that I did not use punctuation in that last sentence;
all those characters denoted a piece of a full file specification.
A slash said, "Here comes an exception to the last phrase
of the command."
>
>I don't know where -they- got the convention from in the first place,
>admittedly.
Trial and error. Historic usage. Typability. Printability.
Not to mention the limitations of characters defined in the
ASCII-1964 standard.
>
>ObPDP: the TITAN system had a PDP7 as a peripheral device, sort-of.
I don't think I ever met a PDP-7.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
<·········@aol.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
| >+---------------
| >
| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
|
| Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
| command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
| using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level command.
+---------------
Yes, I knew that. What I was trying to convey is that the *names*
of those DOS commands had also been copied from the DEC lineages.
That is, COPY/DEL/DIR rather than cp/rm/ls.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
><·········@aol.com> wrote:
>+---------------
>| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
>| >+---------------
>| >
>| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
>|
>| Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
>| command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
>| using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level command.
>+---------------
>
>Yes, I knew that. What I was trying to convey is that the *names*
>of those DOS commands had also been copied from the DEC lineages.
>That is, COPY/DEL/DIR rather than cp/rm/ls.
IIRC, those verbs didn't show up until after 4S72 of TOPS-10 (it
wasn't TOPS-10 back then either). I would also suspect that
the PIP didn't originate at DEC either. A lot of those guys
did work at MIT before they coalasced into a startup company.
My whole point is that attributing who started it is not
as interesting as how the "it" flowed through the biz.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com writes:
> In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>><·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>+---------------
>>| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
>>| >+---------------
>>| >
>>| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
>>|
>>| Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
>>| command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
>>| using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level command.
>>+---------------
>>Yes, I knew that. What I was trying to convey is that the *names*
>>of those DOS commands had also been copied from the DEC lineages.
>>That is, COPY/DEL/DIR rather than cp/rm/ls.
They are not DOS commands, thay are CPM commands that just happened
to report for duty in redmondia.
> IIRC, those verbs didn't show up until after 4S72 of TOPS-10 (it
> wasn't TOPS-10 back then either). I would also suspect that the PIP
> didn't originate at DEC either. A lot of those guys did work at MIT
> before they coalasced into a startup company.
All of them where in the 4.x monitir I used. many of the 427 source file
are on Tim's site, so you can have a look in COMTAB and see.
> My whole point is that attributing who started it is not as
> interesting as how the "it" flowed through the biz.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
In article <··············@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com writes:
>
>> In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
>> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>><·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>+---------------
>>>| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>>| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
>>>| >+---------------
>>>| >
>>>| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
>>>|
>>>| Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
>>>| command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
>>>| using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level command.
>>>+---------------
>
>>>Yes, I knew that. What I was trying to convey is that the *names*
>>>of those DOS commands had also been copied from the DEC lineages.
>>>That is, COPY/DEL/DIR rather than cp/rm/ls.
>
>They are not DOS commands, thay are CPM commands that just happened
>to report for duty in redmondia.
>
>> IIRC, those verbs didn't show up until after 4S72 of TOPS-10 (it
>> wasn't TOPS-10 back then either). I would also suspect that the PIP
>> didn't originate at DEC either. A lot of those guys did work at MIT
>> before they coalasced into a startup company.
>
>All of them where in the 4.x monitir I used. many of the 427 source file
>are on Tim's site, so you can have a look in COMTAB and see.
huh..The why did I have to do TTY:_DT0:/L or LPT:_DT0:/L
to get directories? And to print a file on the line printer
required the PIP command LPT:_DSK:FOO.FOR
Sigh! Substitute those underscores with backarrows.
The point is still that these commands were "created" not
by one OS but by the conglomerate of future bit gods who
were yakking at each other and moving from one OS project
to another OS' project. Back then there were only a handful
of people who were doing this work.
Are we suffering from the demise of the thingies we used to
call DECUS when the workers got together instead of the PHBs
and marketeers?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 ·········@aol.com wrote:
> Are we suffering from the demise of the thingies we used to
> call DECUS when the workers got together instead of the PHBs
> and marketeers?
We certainly are. Self-help meetings of techies have always been
a step-child as far as manglement are concerned. I could list a few
that I've been involved in over the years, that have been chipped away
bit by bit by cost-paring management until they finally lost critical
mass.
But we have the 'net, so it's not all bad.
·········@aol.com writes:
> In article <··············@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
> Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>>All of them where in the 4.x monitir I used. many of the 427 source
>>file are on Tim's site, so you can have a look in COMTAB and see.
> huh..The why did I have to do TTY:_DT0:/L or LPT:_DT0:/L to get
> directories? And to print a file on the line printer required the
> PIP command LPT:_DSK:FOO.FOR
My bad... I claim bit rot of the grey stuff...
Yes DIR and friends came later, post or part of(?) COMPIL.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ·········@aol.com writes:
| > huh..The why did I have to do TTY:_DT0:/L or LPT:_DT0:/L to get
| > directories? And to print a file on the line printer required the
| > PIP command LPT:_DSK:FOO.FOR
|
| My bad... I claim bit rot of the grey stuff...
| Yes DIR and friends came later, post or part of(?) COMPIL.
+---------------
Yes, but... Wasn't COMPIL (at least a simple for of it) introduced
before or sometime during 4S72? We didn't switch from 4.x to 5.x until
5.02d (or so) IIRC, and I *thought* we used COMPIL earlier than that.
[But brain rot gets us all in the end...]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>+---------------
>| ·········@aol.com writes:
>| > huh..The why did I have to do TTY:_DT0:/L or LPT:_DT0:/L to get
>| > directories? And to print a file on the line printer required the
>| > PIP command LPT:_DSK:FOO.FOR
>|
>| My bad... I claim bit rot of the grey stuff...
>| Yes DIR and friends came later, post or part of(?) COMPIL.
>+---------------
>
>Yes, but... Wasn't COMPIL (at least a simple for of it) introduced
>before or sometime during 4S72? We didn't switch from 4.x to 5.x until
>5.02d (or so) IIRC, and I *thought* we used COMPIL earlier than that.
>[But brain rot gets us all in the end...]
There was a program COMPIL but you had to say
R COMPIL
FOO.REL_FOO.FOR
(The typo routine in my head just told me I goofed but I don't see it.)
but couldn't say
COMPIL FOO.FOR
I think (and only John Everett can say for sure) that what we
called compile-class commands came with the 5-series monitor.
I wasn't working for DEC then and had no idea about development
evolutions of code and features.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <··············@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com writes:
>
>> In article <··············@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
>> Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>
>>>All of them where in the 4.x monitir I used. many of the 427 source
>>>file are on Tim's site, so you can have a look in COMTAB and see.
>
>> huh..The why did I have to do TTY:_DT0:/L or LPT:_DT0:/L to get
>> directories? And to print a file on the line printer required the
>> PIP command LPT:_DSK:FOO.FOR
>
>My bad... I claim bit rot of the grey stuff...
Whew! Oh, good. At least I'm not complete nuts. I don't
good that your brain has rot but good that my brain didn't.
>
>Yes DIR and friends came later, post or part of(?) COMPIL.
Well, I always got confused with the lingo, too. There was
the program COMPIL and then there were the compile-class
commands which had a little something to do with COMPIL
but not really. I never did sort out the lingo.
The program COMPIL picked up where and which compiler would
get GETSEGed into your address space to compile your the
program specification you handed it. If your file had a
non-standard extension, e.g., FOO.BAR, COMPIL had a
heirarchal list of which compiler to choose to process
the contents of FOO.BAR. I always liked to feed a FORTRAN
program to COBOL and visa versa just to see if I wreak any
havoc to the compiler and the monitor.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
# Craig A. Finseth <····@finseth.com> wrote:
# +---------------
# | Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
# | >... and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
# | >programs (which think / is for command line options).
# | >Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
# | >have only lately started to have some regrets...
# |
# | Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
# | whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
# | after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?).
# +---------------
#
# Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
# PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
Dig deep enough and traces of old DEC, IBM, CDC, Honeywell, and Burroughs
can still be found.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
I'm not even supposed to be here today.
On Wednesday, in article
<···············@corp.supernews.com>
·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan"
wrote:
> There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>
> Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
> for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
-Peter
Peter Hansen wrote:
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>
>>> There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>>
>> Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
>> for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
>
> A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
> certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
> details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
> is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
--
Some similarities between GWB and Mussolini:
a) The strut; b) Making war until brought up short:
Mussolini: Ethiopia, France, Greece.
GWB: Afghanistan, Iraq.
CBFalconer wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>>·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>>>There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>>>
>>>Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
>>>for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
>>
>>A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
>>certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
>>details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
>>is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
>
> I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
> that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
> railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
You know, it's really rather helpful when people take the time to
read the things they are trying to discuss, since quite often
those things end up answering questions that those people
might have.
See the snapes.com article that Dave Hansen (no relation) posted
for more... and a response to your reasonable thoughts above.
-Peter
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:38:15 -0400, Peter Hansen <·····@engcorp.com>
wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>>>·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>>>>There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>>>>
>>>>Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
>>>>for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
>>>
>>>A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
>>>certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
>>>details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
>>>is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
>>
>> I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
>> that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
>> railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
>
>You know, it's really rather helpful when people take the time to
>read the things they are trying to discuss, since quite often
>those things end up answering questions that those people
>might have.
>
>See the snapes.com article that Dave Hansen (no relation) posted
>for more... and a response to your reasonable thoughts above.
>
The shuttle boosters are 3.7m diameter. Quite a bit larger than the
gage of any railroad I've ever seen.
More than you ever wanted to know:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Space%20Shuttle%20Solid%20Rocket%20Booster
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> The shuttle boosters are 3.7m diameter. Quite a bit larger than the
> gage of any railroad I've ever seen.
but they did have to be transported from utah to florida ... so while
the gauge may not have been issue ... there were things like
bridges, tunnels, etc. My understanding was the sectioning
was specifically because of length transportion issues.
i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
transportation constraints.
shortly have the disaster ... some magazine carried a story spoof
about columbus being told that his ships had to be built in the
mountains where the trees grew ... and because of the difficulty of
dragging them down to the sea ... they were to be built in sections
... and then tar would be used to hold them together when they were
put to sea.
earlier thread on this subject
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#83 CNN reports...
this has 149 feet long as 12 feet diameterin four sections from utah
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/shuttle1.htm
... making each section about 40 foot long. 12 foot high and wide on
flatbed .... 15-16 high (on flatbed) clears bridges and overpasses and
12 foot wide should hopefully be within bridge width restrictions.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
> assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
> florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
> because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
> transportation constraints.
Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
<·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
>> assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
>> florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
>> because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
>> transportation constraints.
>
>Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
>astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
either had to do with Utah.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
>>> assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
>>> florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
>>> because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
>>> transportation constraints.
>>Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
>>astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
These are the proximate causes. However, had almost anything been done
differently, these precise accidents would not have occured the way they
did. This provides the rhetorical oppurtunity to blame the disasters on any
particular decision one does not like, regardless of how remote its
connection to the actual failures.
DS
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
at the time of the 1st disaster ... the claim was that the utah bid
was the only solution that required manufactoring the boosters in
sections for transportion and the subsequent re-assembly in florida
with gaskets. the assertion was that none of the other solutions could
have had a failure because of gaskets ... because they didn't have
gaskets (having been manufactored as a single unit).
so the failure cause scenario went (compared to solutions that didn't
require gaskets and manufactoring in sections)
disaster because of inferior(?) gaskets
inferior(?) gaskets because of gaskets
gaskets because of transportion sectioning requirement
transportation sectioning requirement because the sections
were manufactored in utah
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:09:30 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<····@garlic.com> wrote:
> transportation sectioning requirement because the sections
> were manufactored in utah
No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
not.
Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be more
than one piece.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
> not.
>
> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be
> more than one piece.
as mentioned in the earlier post ... supposedly all other competing
bids were all sites on various shores that all allowed barging of
single, completed, manufactored unit to florida w/o sectioning and
no other designs had gaskets.
supposedly utah was the *only* bid that required sectioning to meet
various overland transportation requirement.
previous post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#58
earlier reply to your comment about ... "shuttle boosters are 3.7m
diameter" ... with comment about the alternative single unit
assemblers being barged to florida.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#54
as repeatedly posted ... as far as i know from all the stuff from the
period ... the comments were that the utah design was the *only*
design that had to be built in sections (because of transportation
issues) and re-assembled in florida and the only design that involved
such gaskets. all other designs were built on various shores in single
pieces and would be barged as single piece to florida and no gaskets
were involved (because they were manufactored in single pieces and
barged to florida in whole pieces).
the difference between barging and train ... was that there are
significantly less length, width, height, dimensional restrictions on
barged items compared to dimensional restrictions on overland train
.... because of bridges, tunnels, curves, clearances from adjacent
traffic, clearances involving any sort of structures near tracks.
i was under the impression that barging was fairly straight forward
from east coast, gulf coast, many major rivers, etc. i would guess
that anyplace that you could get a ship that was 160' or larger
... you could transport a barged assembly.
in fact, a shipyard that was accostomed to building a ship in a single
assemble (w/o needing gaskets to hold it together) could probably also
build a single assembly booster rocket ... and barge it to florida.
i'm not sure about how to catalog all the possible sites &/or
shipyards that could build single section unit (things like single
section ships that are build in single section w/o gaskets to hold the
different sections together) ... some quicky google about ports
http://www.aapadirectory.com/cgi-bin/showportprofile.cgi?id=3709®ion=US
turns up corpus cristi ... they handle ships built in single sections
(w/o gaskets to hold them together) up to 1000 ft long and 45 ft
depth. they also mention some docks that are barge use only that only
handl 260 ft length and 16 ft depth (course there probably isn't much
of height or width restriction with overhanging adjacent structures).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:22:55 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
>> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
>> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
>> not.
>>
>> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be
>> more than one piece.
>
>as mentioned in the earlier post ..
Your earlier post mentioned a unattributed "claim" and unattributed
"assertions", and extrapolated from there. I didn't take it as gospel.
Especially since a space shuttle is a rather complex object, and a
blithe assertion that it could be built as a "single unit" seems a bit
far-fetched.
I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
popular thing nowadays.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
> popular thing nowadays.
i never made any referrence to people or personalities ... somebody
else did.
i just repeated the claims after the disaster about majority of the
other launch things were single section and barged to the launch site
(as well as the alternative booster proposals).
the issue of the gaskets is pretty well established as being required
for the sectional manufactoring ... predicated on the dimensional
restrictions on overland train transportation ... that was perceived
to have been a pretty unique ... when other major deliverables have
been built in single section and barged to launch site.
from a purely fucntional standpoint to somebody's leap with regard to
personabilities ... is somebody else's doing.
i would say that any argument about the personality issues
... shouldn't creap into purely straight forward issue about whether
all manufactoring assemblies require sectioning because of
transportation restrictions. lots of assemblies are made in single
sections and barged to florida.
i can see taking issue with somebody (else) over their possible
personality assertions ... but that shouldn't also result in comments
about whether sectioning is required for all possible modes of
transportation.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:34:39 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com>
wrote:
> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>> popular thing nowadays.
>
> i never made any referrence to people or personalities ... somebody
> else did.
>
> i just repeated the claims after the disaster about majority of the
> other launch things were single section and barged to the launch site
> (as well as the alternative booster proposals).
>
> the issue of the gaskets is pretty well established as being required
> for the sectional manufactoring ... predicated on the dimensional
> restrictions on overland train transportation ... that was perceived
> to have been a pretty unique ... when other major deliverables have
> been built in single section and barged to launch site.
>
> from a purely fucntional standpoint to somebody's leap with regard to
> personabilities ... is somebody else's doing.
>
> i would say that any argument about the personality issues
> ... shouldn't creap into purely straight forward issue about whether
> all manufactoring assemblies require sectioning because of
> transportation restrictions. lots of assemblies are made in single
> sections and barged to florida.
>
> i can see taking issue with somebody (else) over their possible
> personality assertions ... but that shouldn't also result in comments
> about whether sectioning is required for all possible modes of
> transportation.
>
Norton Trikol alto buildt the Titan solid rocket booster along
simular lines. I has a resonably good record.
A extra gasket was added since it was supposed to be used
for human flight. Fron a engeneering stanpoint I can't see how you
are supposed to mold solid rocket fuel fot the booster in one piece.
But then I am not a rocket scientist.
Anyhow space flight is a riscy endevor. If it wasn't the booster then it
would have been something else. One in every 50 or so launces will fail.
Saying it was as good as murder is prepostrious.
The peaple who launced knew the riscs. Sitting attom of 10000 liters of
fuel undergoing a controlled explosion will probaly never be entirely safe.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Norton Trikol alto buildt the Titan solid rocket booster along
> simular lines. I has a resonably good record.
> A extra gasket was added since it was supposed to be used
> for human flight. Fron a engeneering stanpoint I can't see how you
> are supposed to mold solid rocket fuel fot the booster in one piece.
> But then I am not a rocket scientist.
> Anyhow space flight is a riscy endevor. If it wasn't the booster then it
> would have been something else. One in every 50 or so launces will fail.
> Saying it was as good as murder is prepostrious.
> The peaple who launced knew the riscs. Sitting attom of 10000 liters of
> fuel undergoing a controlled explosion will probaly never be entirely safe.
the two spoof stories in the aftermath
1) one about sectioning the boats for columbus because they had to be
built in the mountains where the trees grew and then used tar to stick
the sections together for the trip across the atlantic. lots of ships
were lost at sea for all sorts of reasons ... but hopefully none
because the ship was built in sections and tar was used to stick them
together.
2) way back when, because a wagon slipped off the trail and down the
side of the mountain and people died ... congress decreed that there
would be no more travel across the appalachian trail ... hardly
consistent with the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year.
... however, i think your reply is intended possibly for somebody
else's post ... not mine.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> the two spoof stories in the aftermath
>
> 1) one about sectioning the boats for columbus because they had to be
> built in the mountains where the trees grew and then used tar to stick
> the sections together for the trip across the atlantic. lots of ships
> were lost at sea for all sorts of reasons ... but hopefully none
> because the ship was built in sections and tar was used to stick them
> together.
No, but some Liberty ships built in WWII, welded together from pre-fab
sections, literally broke in half when the welds failed (IIRC, in very
cold water like the Barents sea). The problem was fixed by welding large
reinforcing "patches" on either side of the weak point in the hull.
--Larry
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:04:05 GMT, Larry Elmore <·········@_comcast_._net> wrote:
>No, but some Liberty ships built in WWII, welded together from pre-fab
>sections, literally broke in half when the welds failed (IIRC, in very
>cold water like the Barents sea).
Yep, the welding changed the structure of the steel and an unfortunately
placed hatch coaming created a high stress point. The cold made the
weld brittle and it cracked.
>The problem was fixed by welding large
>reinforcing "patches" on either side of the weak point in the hull.
That was a temporary solution, they later designed a re-inforced hatch
setup IIRC.
The ship was basically an 1880s British design not originally intended
to be welded up out of pre-fabricated bits :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
Alan Balmer wrote:
> Especially since a space shuttle is a rather complex object, and a
> blithe assertion that it could be built as a "single unit" seems a bit
> far-fetched.
The gaskets were /within/ the solid rocket boosters, which should have
been designed in one piece, and could have been designed in one piece,
if it were not for political corruption.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
> popular thing nowadays.
>
IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
President Bush accept some blame?
--
Gary Schenk
remove "fuzz" to reply
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
Schenk) wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>> popular thing nowadays.
>>
>
>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>President Bush accept some blame?
The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
Al Gore, who probably invented it.
The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
Bush became President.
Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
> Schenk) wrote:
>
>>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>>> popular thing nowadays.
>>>
>>
>>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>>President Bush accept some blame?
>
> The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
> Al Gore, who probably invented it.
>
Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/images/jfk-lbj01.jpg
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/launch_1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/163/1
> The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
> Bush became President.
>
True, although the first shuttle flight was in 1981, while Bush was vice-
president.
As the above references show, Bush was not head of the space council
as Reagan was not a fan. Bush was busy selling anthrax and missiles
to Iran and Iraq.
> Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
>
I doubt it.
--
Gary Schenk
remove "fuzz" to reply
Gary Schenk wrote:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
>>Schenk) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>>>>is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>>>>popular thing nowadays.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>>>President Bush accept some blame?
>>
>>The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
>>Al Gore, who probably invented it.
>>
>
>
> Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
>
> http://www.jfklibrary.org/images/jfk-lbj01.jpg
>
> http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/launch_1
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/163/1
>
>
>>The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
>>Bush became President.
>>
>
>
> True, although the first shuttle flight was in 1981, while Bush was vice-
> president.
>
> As the above references show, Bush was not head of the space council
> as Reagan was not a fan. Bush was busy selling anthrax and missiles
> to Iran and Iraq.
>
>
>>Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
>>
>
>
> I doubt it.
Well, I would hope not. You're even contradicting yourself in the same
post, while at the same time admitting that your references don't
support you. Must've skipped those classes in logic, huh?
--Larry
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:49:18 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
Schenk) wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
>> Schenk) wrote:
>>
>>>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>>>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>>>> popular thing nowadays.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>>>President Bush accept some blame?
>>
>> The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
>> Al Gore, who probably invented it.
>>
>
>Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
What's a "dittohead"? Are you trying to convey a personal insult of
some kind? Please let me know, so I can call you a name, too.
>
>http://www.jfklibrary.org/images/jfk-lbj01.jpg
>
>http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/launch_1
Johnson is no longer Vice President.
>http://www.thespacereview.com/article/163/1
>
As shown in the last reference, there is currently a *proposal* for a
new steering council to be chaired by the VP. Hasn't happened yet, and
if it does, it will be quite a stretch to say that it's "in charge" of
the space program.
>> The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
>> Bush became President.
>>
>
>True, although the first shuttle flight was in 1981, while Bush was vice-
>president.
>
>As the above references show, Bush was not head of the space council
>as Reagan was not a fan. Bush was busy selling anthrax and missiles
>to Iran and Iraq.
>
>> Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
>>
>
>I doubt it.
Don't sell your efforts short. Mr. Kerry needs all the help he can
get.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:29:04 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:49:18 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
>Schenk) wrote:
>
[...]
>>Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
>
>
>What's a "dittohead"? Are you trying to convey a personal insult of
>some kind? Please let me know, so I can call you a name, too.
A "dittohead" is someone who regularly listens to and agrees with Rush
Limbaugh (popular conservative U.S. radio talk show host). It is a
tradition that callers on his show (at least those that agree with
him) start their call with something like "Country redneck dittos to
you, Rush," or "Hey, Rush, blues-pickin' Cajun dittos" before
launching into the subject of their call. It is intended to be an
insult implying the "dittoheads" don't have any thoughts of their own,
but merely are told what to think (probably by Rush), and do so. The
"dittoheads" have embraced the moniker but not the implication, seeing
the insult as an act of desperation attacking the person (ad hominem)
rather than addressing the issues.
FWIW, I listen to Rush because he's the most entertaining thing on the
radio during my lunch hour, but I don't agree with him often enough to
be a dittohead.
ObPython: Rush could have been the basis of a great Monty Python skit.
AFWIW, My youngest nephew (5 months old) is named for his father. My
sister doesn't want him known as "Junior," so she is contemplating the
nickname "Ditto."
ObPerl: There really _is_ more than one way to do it.
ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
different.
ObLisp: I can't think of a thing. Weclome to afc thread drift...
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
In article <··················@News.individual.net>, ····@hotmail.com
(Dave Hansen) writes:
>A "dittohead" is someone who regularly listens to and agrees with Rush
>Limbaugh (popular conservative U.S. radio talk show host). It is a
>tradition that callers on his show (at least those that agree with
>him) start their call with something like "Country redneck dittos to
>you, Rush," or "Hey, Rush, blues-pickin' Cajun dittos" before
>launching into the subject of their call.
The way I heard it (which I can't confirm since I've never actually
listened to Limbaugh's show) is that so many people were calling
in to say what amounted to nothing more than "I agree with you"
that Rush himself suggested they just say "ditto" to save time.
Thus were "dittoheads" born.
>ObPython: Rush could have been the basis of a great Monty Python skit.
What a thought! That _would_ be fun. Eric Idle, are you reading this?
>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>different.
Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
utilities that would copy anything to anything? (Another version
was known as DEBE, which stood for "Does Everything But Eat".)
I got my hands on some source code and got one working on the Univac
9400 and 90/30. Thanks to our convention of prefixing such utility
program names with "UV" (for Univac Vancouver), it wound up being
called UVDITO (so that it would fit into the 6-character name limit).
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On 08 Sep 04 18:50:12 -0800 in alt.folklore.computers, "Charlie Gibbs"
<······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <··················@News.individual.net>, ····@hotmail.com
>(Dave Hansen) writes:
>>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>>different.
>
>Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
>utilities that would copy anything to anything? (Another version
>was known as DEBE, which stood for "Does Everything But Eat".)
>I got my hands on some source code and got one working on the Univac
>9400 and 90/30. Thanks to our convention of prefixing such utility
>program names with "UV" (for Univac Vancouver), it wound up being
>called UVDITO (so that it would fit into the 6-character name limit).
IBM DOS/VSE Data Interfile Transfer, Testing, and Operations utility
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
[snip]
>>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>>different.
>
>
> Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
> utilities that would copy anything to anything?
IBM 360/370/390... DOS (later DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, then VSE/SP, then VSE/ESA)
has a batch utility called DITTO, which copies files from device to device.
The closest analog in the pre-Unix and Unix world would be PIP
- --
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBQk2yagVFX4UWr64RApbeAJ9NPnvj1xxEHYQ88uZxuSPoFVAaJQCguw5X
+MJ6JJ0NS1fc4FnTsNCIzrI=
=MP33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lew Pitcher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>>ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
>>>different.
>>
>>
>>Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
>>utilities that would copy anything to anything?
>
>
> IBM 360/370/390... DOS (later DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, then VSE/SP, then VSE/ESA)
> has a batch utility called DITTO, which copies files from device to device.
There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since A)
OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER wasn't
all that hard to use.
And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.
> The closest analog in the pre-Unix and Unix world would be PIP
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
"John W. Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
> There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since
> A) OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER
> wasn't all that hard to use.
>
> And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.
similar to the stand-alone, self-loading (bootable) DEBE was LLMPS
... lincoln labs multiprogramming system .... which was self-loading
program with small multitasker and most of the feature/functions
provided were similar to DEBE.
the folklore is that LLMPS was also used as the core scaffolding for
MTS (michigan terminal system)
... misc. ref to LLMPS manual:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#0 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
random other refs to LLMPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#15 unit record & other controllers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#23 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#25 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#26 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#15 S/360 operating systems geneaology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#89 Ux's good points.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#55 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#45 Valid reference on lunar mission data being unreadable?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#89 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#54 SHARE MVT Project anniversary
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#64 PLX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#41 SLAC 370 Pascal compiler found
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#31 someone looking to donate IBM magazines and stuff
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:36:49 GMT, ····@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:29:04 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:49:18 GMT, ········@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
>>Schenk) wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>>Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
>>
>>
>>What's a "dittohead"? Are you trying to convey a personal insult of
>>some kind? Please let me know, so I can call you a name, too.
>
>A "dittohead" is someone who regularly listens to and agrees with Rush
>Limbaugh (popular conservative U.S. radio talk show host). It is a
>tradition that callers on his show (at least those that agree with
>him) start their call with something like "Country redneck dittos to
>you, Rush," or "Hey, Rush, blues-pickin' Cajun dittos" before
>launching into the subject of their call. It is intended to be an
>insult implying the "dittoheads" don't have any thoughts of their own,
>but merely are told what to think (probably by Rush), and do so. The
>"dittoheads" have embraced the moniker but not the implication, seeing
>the insult as an act of desperation attacking the person (ad hominem)
>rather than addressing the issues.
>
Ah, I see. Under the circumstances, that last observation may be
correct, especially when extended to those who cover their lack of
knowledge by accusing others of not having their facts right.
I have seen most of a TV interview with Mr. Limbaugh, when he was in
the news for prescription drug abuse, and I have heard him on the
radio briefly a couple of times. I find it distasteful and switch to
Tony Snow <G>.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle
> disaster(s) is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President
> Bush? That's the popular thing nowadays.
Alright, if you insist. But is it really necessary? We can find
adequate charges without reaching very hard.
--
Chuck F (··········@yahoo.com) (··········@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:02:03 GMT, CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Alan Balmer wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle
>> disaster(s) is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President
>> Bush? That's the popular thing nowadays.
>
>Alright, if you insist. But is it really necessary? We can find
>adequate charges without reaching very hard.
Then why are so many people reaching so hard?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:02:03 GMT, CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Alan Balmer wrote:
>>>
>>... snip ...
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle
>>> disaster(s) is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President
>>> Bush? That's the popular thing nowadays.
>>
>>Alright, if you insist. But is it really necessary? We can find
>>adequate charges without reaching very hard.
>
>Then why are so many people reaching so hard?
It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
did nothing to prevent it. The Bush-bashing is working. The
Democrats are opening the city gates to the barbarians.
/BAH
·········@aol.com writes:
> It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
> the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
> where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
> that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
> did nothing to prevent it.
They can have a nice chat with the 40-some-odd percent of the people
who think Saddam was working with al-Qaida...
-- Patrick
In article <···············@drizzle.com>,
Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com> wrote:
> ·········@aol.com writes:
>
> > It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
> > the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
> > where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
> > that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
> > did nothing to prevent it.
>
> They can have a nice chat with the 40-some-odd percent of the people
> who think Saddam was working with al-Qaida...
>
> -- Patrick
Does this come before or after the debate between the born again
evangelicals and the Hari Krisnas?
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
·········@aol.com wrote:
> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Balmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle
>>>> disaster(s) is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President
>>>> Bush? That's the popular thing nowadays.
>>>
>>> Alright, if you insist. But is it really necessary? We can find
>>> adequate charges without reaching very hard.
>>
>> Then why are so many people reaching so hard?
>
> It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
> the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
> where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
> that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
> did nothing to prevent it. The Bush-bashing is working. The
> Democrats are opening the city gates to the barbarians.
I deplore your tast in radio talk shows. It doesn't take much to
create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.
There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
(due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.
Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration, but we
have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.
--
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
Iraq. It was the right decision" - G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02
<Sorry for this off-topic post but I couldn't resist.>
CBFalconer wrote:
>
> There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
> intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
> their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
You should consider investing some time in learning some civics. The
president has no power to wage war without a *mandate* from congress.
It's assinine to suggest that the administration could have tricked or
lied it's way into a war in Iraq. People like Sen. Byden (D) who are
now considered experts with more than enough experience in overseeing
our intelligence organization take the lead on criticizing the
administration. But Sen. Byden and the rest were briefed before they
voted and they had the experience to make their own judgements. They
chose to effectively declare war on Iraq.
There's no question the legislative branch declared war and the
administrative is prosecuting it. The only question is how the
politics plays out.
> propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
> rate, medical care, deficit,
Yes there are economic cycles and we've been in a bit of a trough for
the past few years. There's nothing the government, nor any
administration, can do to significantly effect economic cycles. If it
can then the Clinton administration must have intentionally induced a
downturn for political purposes.
> death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
> and Iraqis),
But noticebly not in Chicago, L.A or anywhere else in "the great evil".
> abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt,
Capturing of OBL would be counterproductive. The problem won't go away
if he's caught but many people will assume it did.
> abridgement of
> civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),
Back to civics 101, laws are created by the legislature. They also
have the power to revoke them if a problem is demonstrated. How many
U.S. citizens have been victimized? How many dead U.S. citizens does
it take to justify that victimization? Both numbers are quire small.
> poor
> choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
That's just stupid. I'm sure the families of those Halliburton
employees who have died in Iraq and Afganistan would take issue with
you on this. Are you also leary of Clinton because his administration
contracted the same Halliburton subsidiaries in the Balkan conflict?
> trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
> gang),
It would be astounding if there was no Veteran backlash in response to
Kerry's activities and statements after he came back from Vietnam. You
bring up Halliburton as if it were somehow on topic and then in the
next phrase suggest that legitimate angst against Kerry's anti-war
activies (with Kerry building his campaign on his Vietnam service) is
somehow invalid. Strange thought process.
> irritation of allies,
It seems to me that from a geo-political perspective it would be a bad
thing if 100% of non-Muslim/non-Arab/non-Middleeastern states followed
the lead of the U.S. in a seemingly rash response to 9/11. It seems
like it would be much better if there was an overwhelming (as there
was) response balanced by some strong dissention so that it didn't look
like a world war.
> inability to deal with North Korea
> (due to involvement with useless adventures),
Patience grasshopper. Just because CNN isn't "breaking news" on a
daily basis doesn't mean nothing's being done. North Korea is
extremely fragile economically. They're not in the position to demand
they're just trying to barter.
> abandonment of
> efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.
You might not have noticed but on 9/11 the stakes were raised by about
an order of magnitude. They went up significantly again this weekend
in Beslan. As long as there are terrorist activities in "Palestine"
don't expect to see anyone giving ground.
>
> Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration, but we
> have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.
>
We know...
- Kerry voted to effectively declare war on Iraq and still stands by
that vote, most of the time. He only quibbles about the details.
- Kerry has no more power to affect the economy than W.
- Kerry's administration would continue to contract with Haliburton
subsidiaries. There's no reason not to, there's no other company who
can do the jobs they contract to do.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon wrote:
>> abridgement of
>> civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),
>
>
> [...] How many U.S. citizens have been victimized?
That's the problem -- we have *no* way of finding out, because part of
the Patriot Act is a gag rule that prevents the public from knowing how
it's used. It *may* be a small number, and we'd all like to think that
it is, but we really don't know.
> How many dead U.S. citizens does it take to justify that
> victimization? Both numbers are quire small.
Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," as Benjamin Franklin said.
The Patriot Act takes away our liberty in the name of temporary safety.
We need better security than we had pre-9/11, certainly, but we can get
it with a much lower cost to our personal liberty than has come with the
Patriot Act. We *don't* need secret police investigations, secret
courts, and secret detentions for secret reasons.
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
Jeff Shannon wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
>>> abridgement of
>>> civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),
>>
>>
>>
>> [...] How many U.S. citizens have been victimized?
>
>
>
> That's the problem -- we have *no* way of finding out, because part of
> the Patriot Act is a gag rule that prevents the public from knowing how
> it's used. It *may* be a small number, and we'd all like to think that
> it is, but we really don't know.
>
>> How many dead U.S. citizens does it take to justify that
>> victimization? Both numbers are quire small.
>
>
>
> Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
> citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
> of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".
That's intrinsically what the political process is all about. One has
to maintain confidence in the process. That requires that there be two
strong adversarial voices on *all* matters. Be it going to war, the
patriot act, abortion law or whatever.
If we went into Iraq and didn't hear dissension or if they passed the
patriot act and we didn't hear dissension then I would be worried. But
the process is healthy. It's how we identify a point of agreement in
the gray areas.
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," as Benjamin Franklin said.
> The Patriot Act takes away our liberty in the name of temporary safety.
> We need better security than we had pre-9/11, certainly, but we can get
> it with a much lower cost to our personal liberty than has come with the
> Patriot Act. We *don't* need secret police investigations, secret
> courts, and secret detentions for secret reasons.
It's easy to say we *don't* need but not so easy to demonstrate. You
don't even offer a hand wave attempt at articulating an alternative.
In the political world everything is subject to debate. Taking the war
to the middle east, increasing policing powers, increasing intelligence
capabilities... But in the real world there is a huge threat and
action must be taken.
Granting of any power to police is a compromise of personal liberty. A
cost/benefit analysis is needed to determine how much such power is
justifiable. Given the known presence of individuals in country that
are organized and willing to carry out crimes on massive scales most
folks think that for the time being the patriot act is justified.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon on Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:10:30 -0500 writes:
> justifiable. Given the known presence of individuals in country that
> are organized and willing to carry out crimes on massive scales most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing fits better this description more than armies and governments.
Open your eyes, _they_ are the criminals.
Anarchy Is Order.
--
Trenitalia censoring online!
Autistici/Inventati under attack!
-. .-----. .-----. ---------- .--.
#| o======|#####| o======|#####| |# #| .--. |##|
---. .------------. .------------. |----+####+-----+##+--+##|
o)o ) ( (o)o(o)o(o)o ) ( (o)o(o)o(o)o ) |###aAAb###aAAb###aAAb###|
= http://www.autistici.org/ai/trenitalia =-|--(doob)-(doob)-(doob)--#
o )) ( o )) ( o )) ( o )) ( o )) `uu' `uu' `uu'
Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> It's easy to say we *don't* need but not so easy to demonstrate.
> You don't even offer a hand wave attempt at articulating an
> alternative. In the political world everything is subject to
> debate. Taking the war to the middle east, increasing policing
> powers, increasing intelligence capabilities... But in the real
> world there is a huge threat and action must be taken.
Must it? I am not claiming that it must not, but that the matter
deserves more thought than a panic reaction. The very first thing
to settle should be the objectives. Then the means and costs of
achieving such can be considered.
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
CBFalconer wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>It's easy to say we *don't* need but not so easy to demonstrate.
>>You don't even offer a hand wave attempt at articulating an
>>alternative. In the political world everything is subject to
>>debate. Taking the war to the middle east, increasing policing
>>powers, increasing intelligence capabilities... But in the real
>>world there is a huge threat and action must be taken.
>
>
> Must it? I am not claiming that it must not, but that the matter
> deserves more thought than a panic reaction. The very first thing
> to settle should be the objectives. Then the means and costs of
> achieving such can be considered.
>
Your choice to charactize things in terms like "panic reaction" doesn't
make it so. If their was a rush to act by a pseudo-democratic
government it is because the "loyal opposition" chooses to act in
concert with the majority party. There was virtually no resistance
from the Democrat side when debating the effective declaration of war
on Iraq nor the Patriot Act. If you got the impression of panic it
comes from the bipartisan nature of the actions taken.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
>>> abridgement of
>>> civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),
>>
>>
>> [...] How many U.S. citizens have been victimized?
>
>
>That's the problem -- we have *no* way of finding out, because part of
>the Patriot Act is a gag rule that prevents the public from knowing how
>it's used. It *may* be a small number, and we'd all like to think that
>it is, but we really don't know.
>
>> How many dead U.S. citizens does it take to justify that
>> victimization? Both numbers are quire small.
>
>
>Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
>citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
>of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".
Okay, that's it! Tell me what freedoms you have lost. Be specific.
No sound bytes and no rhetoric parroting allowed.
I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
freedoms have been lost.
<snip quote>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
>In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
>>citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
>>of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".
>>
>>
>
>Okay, that's it! Tell me what freedoms you have lost. Be specific.
>No sound bytes and no rhetoric parroting allowed.
>
>I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>freedoms have been lost.
>
>
I've lost the freedom to read whatever books I want, without the
government snooping over my shoulder.
I've lost what little was left of the freedom to presume that the
government isn't listening to my phone calls and scanning my email.
(This particular freedom has been being eroded for decades, but the
Patriot Act is pretty much the final nail in the coffin.)
I've lost the freedom from the assumption that, if I read certain books
and speak of believing in certain principles, I'm not necessarily going
to act in a criminal manner to further those principles. (If I loudly
proclaim that the government is horribly wrong, and I also happen to buy
a copy of something like, say, The Anarchist's Cookbook... I'm now
liable to be perceived by the government as a terrorist, and thus be
subject to arrest and imprisonment with no charges being filed and no
access to legal recourse. It doesn't matter whether the government can
*prove* that I planned anything, or even if I can prove that I have no
such plans -- there's no opportunity for me to offer or dispute evidence.)
I have a good friend who's a (European) immigrant. It is now legal for
the government to detain her for any length of time they so desire,
without giving any reason more definite than "suspected involvement in
terrorism" -- and with *no* need to provide any evidence to back that
claim. Whether it's been done or not is irrelevant -- she's very much
aware of the feeling that, despite the fact that she's been living and
working in the US for most of her adult life, the mere fact that she's
not "American" makes her immediately suspect, and potentially subject to
being "disappeared". Trusting to the goodwill and honesty of the
government to *not* use its authority is, to say the least, not exactly
heartening.
Most importantly, I've lost the freedom to live my life *without*
feeling quite so much like Big Brother is just waiting for me to make a
mistake, so that the rest of the US can be "saved" from terrorism.
(I've said my piece, but I don't expect we're likely to ever reach an
agreement. So, especially considering that I don't feel that
comp.lang.* is really an appropriate place for political discussion, I
won't be commenting further in this subthread.)
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
>>>citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
>>>of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Okay, that's it! Tell me what freedoms you have lost. Be specific.
>>No sound bytes and no rhetoric parroting allowed.
>>
>>I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>>freedoms have been lost.
>>
>>
>
>I've lost the freedom to read whatever books I want, without the
>government snooping over my shoulder.
You lost that before 9/11; its cause was tranferrring library
catalogs and book tracking online.
>
>I've lost what little was left of the freedom to presume that the
>government isn't listening to my phone calls and scanning my email.
This is not a freedom.
>(This particular freedom has been being eroded for decades, but the
>Patriot Act is pretty much the final nail in the coffin.)
Are you kidding? Did you live through the McCarthy and Hoover
eras? Hoover as in FBI, not president. AFAICT, this Patriot ACt
at least leaves a paper trail.
>
>I've lost the freedom from the assumption that, if I read certain books
>and speak of believing in certain principles, I'm not necessarily going
>to act in a criminal manner to further those principles. (If I loudly
>proclaim that the government is horribly wrong, and I also happen to buy
>a copy of something like, say, The Anarchist's Cookbook... I'm now
>liable to be perceived by the government as a terrorist, and thus be
>subject to arrest and imprisonment with no charges being filed and no
>access to legal recourse.
How did you get this conclusion? Has a US citizen bought the book,
only yakked about it and then was arrested and imprisoned
with no trail or arraignment?
> .. It doesn't matter whether the government can
>*prove* that I planned anything, or even if I can prove that I have no
>such plans -- there's no opportunity for me to offer or dispute evidence.)
>
>I have a good friend who's a (European) immigrant. It is now legal for
>the government to detain her for any length of time they so desire,
>without giving any reason more definite than "suspected involvement in
>terrorism" -- and with *no* need to provide any evidence to back that
>claim. Whether it's been done or not is irrelevant -- she's very much
>aware of the feeling that, despite the fact that she's been living and
>working in the US for most of her adult life, the mere fact that she's
>not "American" makes her immediately suspect, and potentially subject to
>being "disappeared".
People are not being made to disappear. YOu do know what that
term means?
> .. Trusting to the goodwill and honesty of the
>government to *not* use its authority is, to say the least, not exactly
>heartening.
You have been doing it all your life.
>
>Most importantly, I've lost the freedom to live my life *without*
>feeling quite so much like Big Brother is just waiting for me to make a
>mistake, so that the rest of the US can be "saved" from terrorism.
Now I know you didn't live through the Nam war.
>
>(I've said my piece, but I don't expect we're likely to ever reach an
>agreement. So, especially considering that I don't feel that
>comp.lang.* is really an appropriate place for political discussion, I
>won't be commenting further in this subthread.)
This is not a political discussion.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Fri, 10 Sep 04 12:39:57 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
>In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>>·········@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Jeff Shannon <····@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>>>
<snip uninformed panic reaction>
>>proclaim that the government is horribly wrong, and I also happen to buy
>>a copy of something like, say, The Anarchist's Cookbook... I'm now
>>liable to be perceived by the government as a terrorist, and thus be
>>subject to arrest and imprisonment with no charges being filed and no
>>access to legal recourse.
>
>How did you get this conclusion? Has a US citizen bought the book,
>only yakked about it and then was arrested and imprisoned
>with no trail or arraignment?
>
The book is readily available from Amazon.com, and 145 of their
customers have written reviews of it. We'll have to check how many of
them are in jail in Guantanamo ;-) One reviewer recommended a
companion book - "Home Workshop Explosives", also available from
Amazon.
Also available on DVD.
I see a lot of second-hand opinions on the Patriot Act. Hardly any of
them have actually read it.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
> freedoms have been lost.
>
Since this is somewhat related to computer programming and AI I will reply.
The US has started a initiative to integrate all information about people
in the USA into a central database.
This includes confidential information like your medical files. Think what
you say to your psychologist is confidential? Think again. Being paranoid
can be enough to get a "red flag".
They will have access to all your credit records and will monitor all your
travels in and out of the country.
If you buy flowers on the apposite side of town they can deduce that you
have a lover and
use this as a means of distortion. (Edgar A. Hoover style)
Initially this was just supposed to be used to monitor terrorist like
behaviour
but now the FBI and CIA are also seeing the power of such a system.
The main challenge in computing is sieving through the amount of data.
Politically it is to pressure the foreign governments to wave their
privacy protection acts and allow unlimited access to information to a
foreign power.
Don't know what you think of this but it scares the hell out of me!
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>, ··············@chello.no
(John Thingstad) writes:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>> freedoms have been lost.
>
>Since this is somewhat related to computer programming and AI I will
>reply.
>
>The US has started a initiative to integrate all information about
>people in the USA into a central database.
Not just people in the USA.
>This includes confidential information like your medical files.
<snip>
>The main challenge in computing is sieving through the amount of data.
>Politically it is to pressure the foreign governments to wave their
>privacy protection acts and allow unlimited access to information to
>a foreign power.
It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
>Don't know what you think of this but it scares the hell out of me!
Me too.
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On 09 Sep 04 15:28:13 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
Can you point to the relevant section(s) of the Act?
Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
>
Canada does extradite to the US on a case by case basis, if there is no
death penalty (though there has been at least one exception to that
condition too). However, I can't see a Liberal government ever extraditing
based on information obtained by farmed out medical records. More likely
the RCMP would come round for a polite conversation.
Unless they were french speaking immigrants living in Quebec. I believe the
law grants them a presumption of innocence *in spite of* evidence to the
contrary.
Jack Peacock
# Unless they were french speaking immigrants living in Quebec. I believe the
# law grants them a presumption of innocence *in spite of* evidence to the
# contrary.
I hope you understand that when US takes over Canada, we are not accepting Quebec.
That province will be floated and barged out somewhere into the north Atlantic. I
can't imagine France wanting them back. Maybe leave them in the middle with a big
bulls eye for the next comet. Atlantis II.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Death is the worry of the living. The dead, like myself,
only worry about decay and necrophiliacs.
On 2004-09-10, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
>>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
>
> Can you point to the relevant section(s) of the Act?
>
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
I know I shouldn't reply to threads like this, but I just can't
help it...
What makes you think that the current US government gives a
shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
pretty good Stalin.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Now we can
at become alcoholics!
visi.com
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> What makes you think that the current US government gives a
> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
> them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
> pretty good Stalin.
>
Such statements only underscore the incredible ignorance of the author
or his/her assumption of ignorance in the reader. President !=
Dictator. The U.S. President is limited to two four year terms so if
someone is locked up "forever" the power to do so must extend far
beyond any President. Fully one third of Americans are Democrats and
our press is still free (not necessarily without bias but free). You
must think W a genius to think he could pull something like that off.
So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
Say Bush did study the treaties and we failed to stop an attack and
some other 3k folks got fried a few months later. Would you be
supporting his re-election today or be slamming him for being indecisive?
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
"Chuck Dillon" <····@nimblegen.com> wrote in message
·················@grandcanyon.binc.net...
> The U.S. President is limited to two four year terms so if someone is
> locked up "forever" the power to do so must extend far beyond any
> President.
That's why we have 4+ term incumbents in Congress. Though I believe they
are encouraged to accept retirement when they reach the age of 100.
Jack Peacock
On 2004-09-10, Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>> What makes you think that the current US government gives a
>> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
>> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
>> them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
>> pretty good Stalin.
>
> Such statements only underscore the incredible ignorance of
> the author or his/her assumption of ignorance in the reader.
> President != Dictator.
Such statements only underscore the incredible inability of the
author to recognize hyperbole.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Boy, am I glad it's
at only 1971...
visi.com
Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
> So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
> lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
> killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
> longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
> risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
> studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
>
How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
help avoid
9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
-Antony
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:35:48 +0000, Antony Sequeira wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>>
>> So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
>> lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
>> killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
>> longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
>> risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
>> studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
>>
> How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
> Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
> help avoid
> 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
> Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
> that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
> anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
> to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
You'd better fix your qqqqqqqqqqqq key before your head pops.
--
Keith
Antony Sequeira wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
>>
>> So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
>> lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have
>> been killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers).
>> You no longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or
>> imminence of risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do
>> you spend studying up international treaties before you decide how to
>> act?
>>
> How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
> Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
> help avoid
> 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
nothing to do with Iraq.
However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
avoid another 9/11...
1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
future attach.
2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.
3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
will never have to happen.
5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
least implicit support by a state or very large organization with
resources. If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going
to sell your plan to say Syria?
You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
> Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
> that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
> anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
> to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
We could have destroyed Iraq's military in days if we had applied our
full military capabilities without regard to civilian damage and
casualties. We took more American casualties than we had to and we
continue to so that we can minimize civilian risk. We have made no
effort to destroy Iraq, only Hussein's army. The "insurgents" are the
ones blowing up pipelines, other infrastructure and law enforcement
officials. We have people building schools, churches and
infrastructure. You need to find a more accurate news source.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> Antony Sequeira wrote:
>
> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
> > that help avoid
> > 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>
> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
> nothing to do with Iraq.
>
> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> avoid another 9/11...
> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> such a future attach.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
> 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not
> developing) WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no
> WMD stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the
> expertise to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there
> are stockpiles.
I'm sure there are lots of countries that have the expertise & the
will- how many countries should we invade before that approach starts
looking like a bad idea? I think we should also invade Pakistan right
away- they have working nuclear weapons & real live terrorists, not
just half-baked piles of rusty junk scattered around the country and
half buried under a decade & a half of 3rd world style bureaucratic
corruption & desert sand.
> 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they
> could have a regime change in about a month's time if they allow
> themselves to be in the position of being held accountable for any
> future attack.
Don't you mean "if they are ever placed on the Axis Of Evil?"
> 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a
> base of operations in the center of the region. We probably won't
> have to ask for access to bases and airspace in future operations,
> which hopefully will never have to happen.
So now we're back to being an imperial power? I thought we were in
Iraq for humanitarian reasons- I guess I didn't get the memo.
> 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
> establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to practice this sort of thing
before imposing it elsewhere?
> 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
> category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
Afganistan taught that. Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
crazy.
>
> You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
> question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
> self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
>
So you're talking about a "preemptive defense"?
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
>
>>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chuck Dillon wrote:
>>>How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
>>>spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
>>>of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
>>>that help avoid
>>>9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>>
>>If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
>>nothing to do with Iraq.
>>
>>However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
>>avoid another 9/11...
>> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
>>such a future attach.
>
>
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
> the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
> change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
> better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
> the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
Please try and follow the trend of the thread you respond to. I did
not address whether or not regime change in Iraq was an optimal move.
I'm responding to the question posed, see above for what it was.
Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
the "war on terror". That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq. See the various
U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale. Also, see
the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
the part of the Iraqi government.
>
>> 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
>>category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
>
>
> Afganistan taught that.
Hence my use of the qualifier "underscores".
> Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
> crazy.
By "we" you are referring to the some 40 nations who have contributed
to the effort right?
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> >
> >>Antony Sequeira wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Chuck Dillon wrote:
> >>>How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> >>>spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
> >>>of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
> >>>that help avoid
> >>>9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
> >>
> >>If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
> >>nothing to do with Iraq.
> >>
> >>However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> >>avoid another 9/11...
> >> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> >>such a future attach.
> > Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
> > the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
> > change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
> > better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
> > the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
>
> Please try and follow the trend of the thread you respond to. I did
> not address whether or not regime change in Iraq was an optimal
> move. I'm responding to the question posed, see above for what it was.
>
> Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
> the "war on terror". That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
> them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq. See the various
> U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale. Also, see
> the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
> the part of the Iraqi government.
I still fail to see why invading Iraq has anything to do with "war on
terror". If the goal is to fight terror (laudable), then why are we
not invading the countries that actually sponsor it? Afganistan was
the right step- but who the hell cares if Iraq "obeyed" the
resolutions? Saddam's regime was wasting away on its own. At some
point, someone was going to get lucky and off him- and then the
Islamic fundamentalist state that Iraq seems to want to become would
start up with the west as investors, not invaders.
> >> 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
> >>category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
> > Afganistan taught that.
>
> Hence my use of the qualifier "underscores".
>
But you keep proposing that Iraq is also underscoring the same point.
What it means to me is that the US will attack the weakest, easiest
opponent- but not really take over. Instead we'll fool around trying
to be civilized- not much deterrent value there.
If the goal is really to change regimes, then you go in heavy, crack
skulls & massacre as required and then occupy for decades like the
Soviets had to do in the Balkans. THAT would make the impression you
seem to want. If we're unwilling to be the butchers we appropriately
condemn others for being, then we shouldn't be playing games invading
and occupying other countries.
Iraq is a frigging joke- the most powerful military in the world has
every spare soldier both regular and reserves, occupying essentially a
3rd world country, yet is subject to "no go zones" and is forced to
allow organized resistance to simply walk home & start fighting again?
This is a textbook case of how to take on a superpower and win, taught
directly to the people we're trying to fight.
> > Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
> > crazy.
>
> By "we" you are referring to the some 40 nations who have contributed
> to the effort right?
>
Each nation with their couple hundred or fewer people? Don't make me
laugh. This one is the US and the UK and whatever bits & pieces we
could muscle out of all the countries that owe favors. Last time
around we had an actual coalition this one is pretty much only PR.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
>>Greg Menke wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
>>the "war on terror". That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
>>them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq. See the various
>>U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale. Also, see
>>the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
>>the part of the Iraqi government.
>
>
> I still fail to see why invading Iraq has anything to do with "war on
> terror". If the goal is to fight terror (laudable), then why are we
> not invading the countries that actually sponsor it? Afganistan was
> the right step- but who the hell cares if Iraq "obeyed" the
> resolutions? ...
I suggest you look a little deeper into the problem than simply which
states are undergoing what problematic behaviors now or recently. What
is the underlying cause of the terror and how can we address that?
No it's not oil. It is the pressure of social and political change in
the Islamic world that has tried for generations to isolate itself
from, what you and I would call progressive changes, happening
elsewhere in the world. The ever shrinking world is breaking down
their methods of isolation and bringing the fundamental conflicts
between traditional Islam and the modern world to a head. The changes
that occurred over generations in the west and far east are being
flooded on Islam in a fraction of the time. It's no surprise, to me at
least, that there are side effects. A similar thing would happen if we
were talking about applying comparable pressure on Catholicism or any
other religion. It's not specific to Islam.
The west has for a long time taken a hands off "let nature take its
course" approach. Islamic terrorism was an unfortunate side effect
that could be mostly ignored as long as it remained at an acceptable
level and mostly contained in the middle east. Israel has been in a
very disadvantages position as a result of this approach by the west.
9/11 blew that norm to hell.
Bin Laden (and others of his ilk) is, IMHO, similar to what Charlie
Manson was except that where Manson had a relatively small pool of
young disillusioned people susceptible to his powers of manipulation,
bin Laden has many millions. Where Manson had no resources bin Laden
has wealthy backers who want to hold on to their power.
So now the west must take a more active role in the situation. We need
to find a way to contain the problem to the middle east and try to
achieve the prior norm, with a level of acceptable terrorism. And we
need to impress on the Islamic leadership (i.e. clerics) as well as
governments that they must take responsibility for dealing with the
side effects of social change.
Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11 or the
war on terror. Setting up a more democratic and educated Afghanistan
and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation efforts and forces them
to deal with the reality of the 21st century. The process will be
bumpy but we can no longer be patient when the mainstream of Islam
allow violence on the scale of 9/11 or beyond to occur.
As for the go it alone issue. Given the above "theory" if you prefer
and what happened on 9/11. It seems natural that we (the USA) would
have a more acute interest in replacing the "let nature take its
course" strategy with a more active one than other western nations that
were not directly attacked. Those other nations might call for us to
be patient and accept the cost. Basically what we and the rest of the
western world have asked Israel to do for some 50 years. It's not
surprising that the decision to take a more active strategy toward the
middle east was less than unanimous. It also would not be surprising
for only one or two nations to take the lead and therefor the brunt of
the near term acute risk of reprisals while other nations give passive
support.
That's how I see it at least.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11
> or the war on terror. Setting up a more democratic and educated
> Afghanistan and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation
> efforts and forces them to deal with the reality of the 21st
> century. The process will be bumpy but we can no longer be
> patient when the mainstream of Islam allow violence on the scale
> of 9/11 or beyond to occur.
I disagree. Afghanistan, yes. Chasing Bin Laden, yes. They were
the direct cause of 9/11 (which was not a unique occurance, except
in degree). Iraq, no. That was the descendent of "avenge
disrespect to Daddy" syndrome, and has been shown to have no
connection with either 9/11 nor with WMDs.
The whole business has effectively ended the punishment phase of
9/11 and justified it in the minds of many Moslems. For a short
while there was an opportunity to do an exemplary job in
Afghanistan and show the Islamic world the possibilities. That
has been thrown away by our Glorious Inept Leaders.
--
"This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield
"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"
In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <··········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Chuck Dillon wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11
>> or the war on terror. Setting up a more democratic and educated
>> Afghanistan and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation
>> efforts and forces them to deal with the reality of the 21st
>> century. The process will be bumpy but we can no longer be
>> patient when the mainstream of Islam allow violence on the scale
>> of 9/11 or beyond to occur.
>
>I disagree. Afghanistan, yes. Chasing Bin Laden, yes. They were
>the direct cause of 9/11 (which was not a unique occurance, except
>in degree). Iraq, no. That was the descendent of "avenge
>disrespect to Daddy" syndrome, and has been shown to have no
>connection with either 9/11 nor with WMDs.
The adversary is easy to describe, if not to find. He (and almost
certainly he is male) is strongly idelogical and religous; and
can be very patient. The ideology far transcends the national part.
This fits Afghanistan like a glove. It fits Sudan and the (now
expelled) Yemenis. It fits a lot of Pakistan; and almost all of Iran.
Saddam however was a "dictator classic". His system looked
more like a South American strongman like Stroessner than
Al-Quada. So does the Assad family in Syria, and Ghadaffi's; and
Burma. Even North Korea may have slid into this camp.
Pakistan, Algeria and Lebanon have had lethal fights between the
"dictator classics" and the islamic revolutionaries. None look
very appealing; but at least the "dc" does not send bombs to
the west as long as we keep shipping the caviar.
On another note we have three countries spiralling into
internal destruction so fast they may implode alltogether. They
are Sudan, North Korea and Turkmenistan.
As the US Army seems to have enourmous problems in Iraq, rapidly
becoming another Vietnam in scale, up to ten other spots may
require a rapid reaction force.
We europeans have better saddle up; the US is going to be so
bogged down they will be stuck.
>The whole business has effectively ended the punishment phase of
>9/11 and justified it in the minds of many Moslems. For a short
>while there was an opportunity to do an exemplary job in
>Afghanistan and show the Islamic world the possibilities. That
>has been thrown away by our Glorious Inept Leaders.
I don't lament that so much. It is impossible to satisfy people
that have decided otherwise, and Afghanistan was going to be a tough
one anyhow.
But I am a lot more worried that the western alliance is unable to
project power even against a militarily beaten people like Iraq.
-- mrr
Greg Menke wrote:
>
>>>Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
>>>crazy.
>>
>>By "we" you are referring to the some 40 nations who have contributed
>>to the effort right?
>>
>
>
> Each nation with their couple hundred or fewer people? Don't make me
> laugh. This one is the US and the UK and whatever bits & pieces we
> could muscle out of all the countries that owe favors. Last time
> around we had an actual coalition this one is pretty much only PR.
>
And, of course, very few countries sent troops to be part of the
invasion force. Many others, like ours, are there in
non-combatant roles to help repair the damage the invaders caused.
--brian
--
Brian Boutel
Wellington New Zealand
Note the NOSPAM
In article <··············@europa.pienet>,
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> wrote:
>Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
>> Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>
>> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
>> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
>> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
>> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
>> > that help avoid
>> > 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>>
>> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
>> nothing to do with Iraq.
>>
>> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
>> avoid another 9/11...
>> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
>> such a future attach.
>
>Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia?
No. It would have been the stupidest thing to do. Invasion
of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
turned into a 100% religious war.
> .. Thats where
>the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from.
IIRC, Hitler came from Austria. So we should have only
invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?
> .. Iraq is chump
>change on that account-
It's an ideal place. It's located right in the middle of
all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
than the other countries' populations so getting them
self-supporting doesn't need a cold start. The country
was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
again.
> .. heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
>better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
>the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
Yes. It's a good plan and the cheapest.
<snip>
/BAH
·········@aol.com writes:
> In article <··············@europa.pienet>,
> Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> wrote:
> >Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> >
> >> Antony Sequeira wrote:
> >>
> >> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
> >> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> >> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
> >> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
> >> > that help avoid
> >> > 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
> >>
> >> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
> >> nothing to do with Iraq.
> >>
> >> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> >> avoid another 9/11...
> >> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> >> such a future attach.
> >
> >Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia?
>
> No. It would have been the stupidest thing to do. Invasion
> of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
> turned into a 100% religious war.
They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya called this
a crusade from day 1. I thought this war was about threats, not
superstition. You wingers keep changing it around. In what way would
invading and occupying a country that supplies, trains, funds the
terrorists who performed 9/11 be the supidest thing? Isn't the
stupidest thing really invading a country that neither trained nor
harbored 9/11 terrorists or even had much of any weapons suitable for
attacking a neighbor country? If we invaded Iraq simply because its
<easier>, and then back off from laying waste to whatever we want
whenever we want inside the country, then we're not really sending a
convincing message are we? And then, if we choose to get tough and
carpet bomb any city with insurgent activity, then we become the evil
country that we're accused of being. This is one of the faces of
quagmire & we're stuck in it.
Kicking around the weak kids does not impress another bully enough to
leave you alone, you have to beat him up. We started doing so in
Afganistan, then blew it in Iraq.
> > .. Thats where
> >the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from.
>
> IIRC, Hitler came from Austria. So we should have only
> invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?
But Hitler was a real threat to his neighbors and was occupying other
countries. Saddam could hardly feed his own troops much less invade
anybody. 10 years ago was different, I'm not vastly fond of Dubya
Sr., but I think he did the right things in Iraq; he was a better
president than his son in all respects.
> > .. Iraq is chump
> >change on that account-
>
> It's an ideal place. It's located right in the middle of
> all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
> than the other countries' populations so getting them
> self-supporting doesn't need a cold start. The country
> was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
> over and over and over and over and over and over ...
> again.
Are you really advocating that we invade, depose, occupy, torture and
kill all for foreign policy convience? And what in the world makes
you think the Iraqi economy is going to be self-sufficient anytime in
the next 5 years? Their economy was a top to bottom disaster, a new
one isn't "started", its grown. You'll be happy pumping untold
billions of dollars into their economy over there as long as you don't
have to pay for it with taxes over here. GOP fantasy-land.
The "violations" of the cease-fire were the equivalent of kids
throwing rocks at passing airplanes. Big deal. Saddam's luck was
going to run out at some point- and keeping the lid on him was VASTLY
cheaper than taking over his country.
Well, you've gotten your legally entitled revenge- I hope you like it.
> > .. heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
> >better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
> >the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
>
> Yes. It's a good plan and the cheapest.
So you're feeling pretty good about the bodycount these days. How
many dead US soldiers and Iraqiis will slake your bloodlust?
I will look forward to your spirited defense of any country in the
world invading another simply because they can & feel like it.
Gregm
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Greg Menke wrote:
> ·········@aol.com writes:
>
> > turned into a 100% religious war.
>
> They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya called this
> a crusade from day 1.
I seriously doubt that he understood what the word meant.
Soo, another lisper cannot resist the temptation.
>>>>> "GM" == Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
[...]
GM> They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya
GM> called this a crusade from day 1. [...]
In all fairness I think that was plain dumbness in use of langauge.
He didn't mean a crusade in the historic sense. Even if he thinks it,
that was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words. I am 99%
sure of this as I vividly remeber my jaw dropping when I saw him say
it in the window to the left of the one I was reading this very
newsgroup in. The men in that family are not good public speakers
and they seem to have trouble expressing themselves to reporters.
I see no malice in that.
[...]
GM> I'm not vastly fond of Dubya Sr., but I think he did the right
GM> things in Iraq; he was a better president than his son in all
GM> respects.
He was, but the Iraq thing wasn't done right back then either. Of
course it is easy to say this with hindsight, but saving a shiekdom
and a kingdom while ending up in a position where you cross your
fingers that Saddam supresses uprisings w/o too much visible carnage
is not a good outcome. Maintaining a state of embargo against, as it
turned out, the people of Iraq indefinitely was not a good option
either.
It is one of those cases where it's pretty clear that any obvious
option is not good, but it is not clear what the right thing to do is.
Had it been possible to leave the region alone after (or indeed
during) WW-I, some reasonably stable state of affairs might have
emerged. Actually, this is not unlike the Balkans. There, oil was
not in the equation but once Tito was gone, things that should have
happened between the Balkan wars and maybe 1950's ended up happening
in the 90s with much bloodshed and no clean ending (think Kosovo).
Presumably the people who get elected to positions of power are called
leaders because they are supposed to have better ideas and visions on
these things than us geeks do. That has clearly not been the case so
far.
9/11 seems to have gotten rid of any chance of sane action by the US in
the region, anyway. So basically the problem is no longer how the
civilized and reasonably free world will exert its influence in the
middle east, but how the world can try to influence the lone superpower
so it doesn't do too much damage to itself and the rest of the world.
Now that, I suspect, could have been prevented had the influential
people in the states (be it the press, the congress, whatever) showed
some backbone.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> Soo, another lisper cannot resist the temptation.
>
> >>>>> "GM" == Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> GM> They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya
> GM> called this a crusade from day 1. [...]
>
> In all fairness I think that was plain dumbness in use of langauge.
> He didn't mean a crusade in the historic sense. Even if he thinks it,
> that was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words. I am 99%
> sure of this as I vividly remeber my jaw dropping when I saw him say
> it in the window to the left of the one I was reading this very
> newsgroup in. The men in that family are not good public speakers
> and they seem to have trouble expressing themselves to reporters.
> I see no malice in that.
You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language, but thats
not germane. What is important are the conclusions people in the
middle east draw from it.
>
> [...]
> GM> I'm not vastly fond of Dubya Sr., but I think he did the right
> GM> things in Iraq; he was a better president than his son in all
> GM> respects.
>
> He was, but the Iraq thing wasn't done right back then either. Of
> course it is easy to say this with hindsight, but saving a shiekdom
> and a kingdom while ending up in a position where you cross your
> fingers that Saddam supresses uprisings w/o too much visible carnage
> is not a good outcome. Maintaining a state of embargo against, as it
> turned out, the people of Iraq indefinitely was not a good option
> either.
>
> It is one of those cases where it's pretty clear that any obvious
> option is not good, but it is not clear what the right thing to do is.
> Had it been possible to leave the region alone after (or indeed
> during) WW-I, some reasonably stable state of affairs might have
> emerged. Actually, this is not unlike the Balkans. There, oil was
> not in the equation but once Tito was gone, things that should have
> happened between the Balkan wars and maybe 1950's ended up happening
> in the 90s with much bloodshed and no clean ending (think Kosovo).
What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a hugely
expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid situation. We
weren't before we invaded.
> Presumably the people who get elected to positions of power are called
> leaders because they are supposed to have better ideas and visions on
> these things than us geeks do. That has clearly not been the case so
> far.
To be sure.
> 9/11 seems to have gotten rid of any chance of sane action by the US in
> the region, anyway. So basically the problem is no longer how the
> civilized and reasonably free world will exert its influence in the
> middle east, but how the world can try to influence the lone superpower
> so it doesn't do too much damage to itself and the rest of the world.
> Now that, I suspect, could have been prevented had the influential
> people in the states (be it the press, the congress, whatever) showed
> some backbone.
One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in strongly
hinting that disagreement was akin to treason. There was simply no
policital room for debate after 9/11. Bush was well on his way to
sinking into his own incompetence by September 2001- the incompetence
hasn't changed, but he sure got his mandate to Do Something.
Gregm
>>>>> "GM" == Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
[on the 'crusade' faux pas]
GM> You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language,
GM> but thats not germane. What is important are the conclusions
GM> people in the middle east draw from it.
I think the retraction/clarification came out in less than a day if
not in hours. People who'd report this to further their agenda are also
the kind of people who shamelessly lie regardless of who says what
anyway, so I doubt he did any major damage. But of course it couldn't
have helped.
[...]
GM> What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a
GM> hugely expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid
GM> situation. We weren't before we invaded.
I'll tell you what's worse: if the guys who got you into this
situation aren't duly punished at the polls, we may well see more of
it. Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
to have political consequences domestically. With the Soviets gone,
the only force that can keep the US gov't in check right now is the
reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
weren't true and with the US$ getting weaker by about 20-50% against
major currencies in the past 3-4 years, the true cost of these
adventures would have been obvious by now. But then again, what
do I know?)
[...]
GM> One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in
GM> strongly hinting that disagreement was akin to treason.
So it seems.
GM> There was simply no policital room for debate after 9/11. [...]
Yeah that's probably why people didn't point and laugh at the officials
who implied the treason bit above. Now, I suppose it will be having the
armed forces stuck in hostile territory that'll be used for this
purpose.
cheers,
BM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:13:41 +0300, Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org>
wrote:
> Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
>he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
>to have political consequences domestically.
So, for the sake of Bush getting what you consider his just desserts,
you are willing to have a replacement who would be worse. In the
middle of a war.
People like you frighten me.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
[snipped]
This thread is becoming a nuisance in at least some of the groups
it is crossposted to. I suggest taking out at least the comp.lang.
groups.
Anno
In article <············@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>,
········@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel) wrote:
>This thread is becoming a nuisance in at least some of the groups
>it is crossposted to. I suggest taking out at least the comp.lang.
>groups.
I'll start taking them out but I have no idea where people are.
So, if you're not in a.f.c. and want to read what I write, go there.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
> reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
> bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
> term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
I think there is about as much chance of that happening as
there was of Deutsche Bank saying "No" to the Nazis in WWII.
Take a look at the guff that erupted when Deutsche found
some chump change in their back pocket and decided to buy
Banker's Trust (circa 1998-1999).
Cheers,
Rupert
In article <··············@p4.internal>,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
>
>Soo, another lisper cannot resist the temptation.
>
>>>>>> "GM" == Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
>[...]
> GM> They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya
> GM> called this a crusade from day 1. [...]
>
>In all fairness I think that was plain dumbness in use of langauge.
>He didn't mean a crusade in the historic sense. Even if he thinks it,
>that was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words. I am 99%
>sure of this as I vividly remeber my jaw dropping when I saw him say
>it in the window to the left of the one I was reading this very
>newsgroup in. The men in that family are not good public speakers
>and they seem to have trouble expressing themselves to reporters.
>I see no malice in that.
This style of language had more to do with born-again Christians
dropping into preacher-speak when talking to more than zero
people.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <··············@europa.pienet>,
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> wrote:
>
>·········@aol.com writes:
>
>> In article <··············@europa.pienet>,
>> Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> wrote:
>> >Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Antony Sequeira wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
>> >> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
>> >> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
>> >> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How
does
>> >> > that help avoid
>> >> > 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>> >>
>> >> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
>> >> nothing to do with Iraq.
>> >>
>> >> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
>> >> avoid another 9/11...
>> >> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
>> >> such a future attach.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia?
>>
>> No. It would have been the stupidest thing to do. Invasion
>> of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
>> turned into a 100% religious war.
>
>They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya called this
>a crusade from day 1. I thought this war was about threats, not
>superstition. You wingers keep changing it around. In what way would
>invading and occupying a country that supplies, trains, funds the
>terrorists who performed 9/11 be the supidest thing?
I don't know. Ask Kerry. He's been saying that everything George
Bush did was wrong; this has to include dealing with the Taliban
in Afghanistan.
> .. Isn't the
>stupidest thing really invading a country that neither trained nor
>harbored 9/11 terrorists or even had much of any weapons suitable for
>attacking a neighbor country?
Nope. Transforming attitudes is the goal. If the only justification
of dealing with a mess is revenge, then you do not believe that
mess prevention is a valid reason. I happen to think that mess
prevention is the best approach. We have different styles.
> .. If we invaded Iraq simply because its
><easier>, and then back off from laying waste to whatever we want
>whenever we want inside the country, then we're not really sending a
>convincing message are we?
I have problems with these actions, too. BAcking off is the
very last thing we should be doing with people who think in
the militants' style.
> .. And then, if we choose to get tough and
>carpet bomb any city with insurgent activity, then we become the evil
>country that we're accused of being. This is one of the faces of
>quagmire & we're stuck in it.
Nope. Not carpet bomb. Carpet bombing a city will not work. This
has to be up close and personal.
>
>Kicking around the weak kids does not impress another bully enough to
>leave you alone, you have to beat him up. We started doing so in
>Afganistan, then blew it in Iraq.
Iraq hasn't even had time to start. Nobody can tell if we've
blown it in Iraq. That country is filled with entrepeneur
potential. So far, that potential is getting spent on weapons
procurements and discharges. The trick for success will be
to herd the potential into non-self-destructive enterprises.
That is where we have made a mistake. That guy that was
put in charge favored foreign, not local, enterprises AIUI.
I interpretated this favortism as an effort to appease
France and Germany...I'm not sure about Russia.
>
>
>> > .. Thats where
>> >the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from.
>>
>> IIRC, Hitler came from Austria. So we should have only
>> invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?
>
>But Hitler was a real threat to his neighbors and was occupying other
>countries. Saddam could hardly feed his own troops much less invade
>anybody.
This should give you a clue. If Saddam was cash poor what do
you think he would do to acquire more cash. After 1990, Saddam
seems to have into transferring all of Iraq's wealth into his
foreign bank accounts or cold hard American cash.
> .. 10 years ago was different, I'm not vastly fond of Dubya
>Sr., but I think he did the right things in Iraq; he was a better
>president than his son in all respects.
That was a UN effort.
>
>
>> > .. Iraq is chump
>> >change on that account-
>>
>> It's an ideal place. It's located right in the middle of
>> all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
>> than the other countries' populations so getting them
>> self-supporting doesn't need a cold start. The country
>> was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
>> over and over and over and over and over and over ...
>> again.
>
>Are you really advocating that we invade, depose, occupy, torture and
>kill all for foreign policy convience?
It's called national security and, if that is what it takes,
yes. In this case, diplomacy didn't work; sanctions didn't work;
containment didn't work [please ignore this, Rupert]; isolated
bombing of borders didn't work; cease fires after getting the
shit beat of him didn't work. Other than completely
wiping the country and its contents off the map which is a
physical impossibility, invasion is about the only option
left.
> .. And what in the world makes
>you think the Iraqi economy is going to be self-sufficient anytime in
>the next 5 years?
Who says I think it's only going to take 5 years?
> ..Their economy was a top to bottom disaster, a new
>one isn't "started", its grown. You'll be happy pumping untold
>billions of dollars into their economy over there as long as you don't
>have to pay for it with taxes over here.
Why are you assuming that I think all of this effort is going
to be free?
> .. GOP fantasy-land.
>
>The "violations" of the cease-fire were the equivalent of kids
>throwing rocks at passing airplanes. Big deal.
This is where your logic flaw lies. It was a big deal. Others
interpreted this as weakness of Western resolve.
> .. Saddam's luck was
>going to run out at some point- and keeping the lid on him was VASTLY
>cheaper than taking over his country.
It would not have been cheaper. Not at all.
>
>Well, you've gotten your legally entitled revenge- I hope you like it.
Afghanistan was revenge. This is mess prevention and has nothing
to do with revenge.
>
>
>> > .. heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
>> >better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
>> >the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
>>
>> Yes. It's a good plan and the cheapest.
>
>So you're feeling pretty good about the bodycount these days. How
>many dead US soldiers and Iraqiis will slake your bloodlust?
Go ahead and count the bodies. I'm amazed it is so low.
>
>I will look forward to your spirited defense of any country in the
>world invading another simply because they can & feel like it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
"Greg Menke" <··········@toadmail.com> wrote in message
···················@europa.pienet...
> Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
> > However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> > avoid another 9/11...
> > 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> > such a future attach.
>
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
> the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
> change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
> better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
> the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
I think Iraq provided a tempting combination of circumstances. It was an
easy military target, it saw an easy sell to the American public and the
American congress, it was a valuable target in terms of regional strategies
and it has very lucrative natural resources. All the other justifications
are very transparent propoganda, and the furious debating (was there WMD,
wasn't there) and hand-ringing (should we have, shouldn't we have..) are a
part of the accidental genius of the American media's opinion construction
machine.
> > 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not
> > developing) WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no
> > WMD stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the
> > expertise to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there
> > are stockpiles.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of countries that have the expertise & the
> will- how many countries should we invade before that approach starts
> looking like a bad idea? I think we should also invade Pakistan right
> away- they have working nuclear weapons & real live terrorists, not
> just half-baked piles of rusty junk scattered around the country and
> half buried under a decade & a half of 3rd world style bureaucratic
> corruption & desert sand.
There are of course dozens of countries with these kinds of weapons. And I
think it is extremely unlikely that Iraq's WMD programs will now be halted
under US control. And it is equaly unlikely that UN inspectors will be
allowed back in as long as the US or a US backed gov't is in power there.
But of course that is acceptable for a client state.
> > 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they
> > could have a regime change in about a month's time if they allow
> > themselves to be in the position of being held accountable for any
> > future attack.
>
> Don't you mean "if they are ever placed on the Axis Of Evil?"
Indeed, it takes more than supporting terrorism. As you pointed out, Saudi
Arabia and its ruling royal family has verified and direct financial and
operational connections to Al Qaeda and related Islamic extremist groups,
yet they are not in any immediate danger of US invasion. Again it is much
more a question specific regional strategies, the "War on Terror" is just
the excuse to sell this violence to those of us "to squemish" to understand
the unpleasant realities of foriegn affairs. ("You can't handle the
truth!")
> > 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a
> > base of operations in the center of the region. We probably won't
> > have to ask for access to bases and airspace in future operations,
> > which hopefully will never have to happen.
>
> So now we're back to being an imperial power? I thought we were in
> Iraq for humanitarian reasons- I guess I didn't get the memo.
Wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons. This war, like all others,
is about economic positioning and power. Believing that the US would spend
100's of billions of dollars just to "liberate" the population of a foreign
nation is laughable except for the fact that so many otherwise intelligent
people actually believe it. Reason 4 above is the only one that can hold an
ounce of water.
> > 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
> > establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
>
> Don't you think it would be a good idea to practice this sort of thing
> before imposing it elsewhere?
>
>
> > 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
> > category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
>
> Afganistan taught that. Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
> crazy.
Iraq teaches the Islamic world that the US is indeed their biggest enemy and
lends credibility to the lunacy being preached by the likes of Bin Laden and
Al Zawqari.
> > You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
> > question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
> > self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
> >
>
> So you're talking about a "preemptive defense"?
This is just standard American double-speak whereby a unilateral invasion of
a foriegn nation that *has not* attacked them is self-defense, and where the
delibrate targeting of civilians (as in Fallujah) is referred to as
liberation and where guerilla murderers attacking Nicaragua from another
country are "Freedom fighters" and people resisting an illegitimate foreign
occupying power in Iraq are "terrorists."
And where serious journalists swallow their government's line that foreign
affairs is about "good vs. evil" Again it would be laughable except for its
apathetic acceptance and the horrible cost in human terms that the world
pays.
Us, good, them, evil? No, the world is not so simplistic and Good vs Evil
is a false dichotomy. There are very few truly good forces at play, it is
so much more about personal profit and power. And definitley governments do
not generally place Good and Just above economic advantage.
The US invasion of Iraq is like every other unilateral invasion in human
history, it is about money and power.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
In article <············@grandcanyon.binc.net>,
Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>
>> Chuck Dillon wrote:
[snipped iraqqqqq-rich posting]
>> Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
>> help avoid
>> 9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>
>If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
>nothing to do with Iraq.
>
>However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
>avoid another 9/11...
> 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
>future attach.
Yes, maybe. Iraq was definatly a rouge nation; a mainstay in all the
export documents (You may not export to Libya, Cuba, North Korea,
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and at times Yemen and Sudan). This is
a long-term; non-urgent argument.
> 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
>WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
>stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
>to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.
also valid. A long-term argument, too.
> 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
>a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
>in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
>Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
>since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
Dont' you think they already knew that? The main problem is rather
how many iraq's can we handle.
> 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
>operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
>for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
>will never have to happen.
> 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
>establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
Valid arguments, but this "democracy-building" has been utterly
mishandled. Firstly by an [almost] US-only war, and then by a US
occupation by PHB's.
> 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
>future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
Are you listening Saudi Arabia?
It may actually have worked with Libya; who consiquosly have changed
sides to want friendly terms with the west, and is making a serious
effort to reform. They also had far more WMD's in the pipeline than
Saddam probably ever had. THAT was a surprise.
>Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
>terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
>But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
>resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
>least implicit support by a state or very large organization with
>resources. If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going
>to sell your plan to say Syria?
>
>You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
>question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
>self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
Naivite can take many forms.
This is going to be a long battle, and a lot of the success will
be places at simple logistics. Factors like how much real security
burdons on aviation gives. How much the single victories cost.
We have sort of taken control fo Iraq.
Now, can we handle a North Korea that really goes sour; together
with an al-Quada insurgency in a few african states, plus Sudan,
a few tribal genosides, Turkmenistan gone bad (sliding there fast),
and islamic revolution in Pakistan; or civil war there; plus another
backlash in Afghanistan.
All of these are very real and immediate conserns. I haven't even
touched the Burmas and the Indoneias that seem stable at the moment.
This is why I critisize the go-it-alone policy so harshly. I have
a feeling we haven'ẗ seen the worst yet.
>> Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
>> that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
>> anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
>> to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
>
>We could have destroyed Iraq's military in days if we had applied our
>full military capabilities without regard to civilian damage and
>casualties. We took more American casualties than we had to and we
>continue to so that we can minimize civilian risk. We have made no
>effort to destroy Iraq, only Hussein's army. The "insurgents" are the
>ones blowing up pipelines, other infrastructure and law enforcement
>officials. We have people building schools, churches and
>infrastructure. You need to find a more accurate news source.
It is going to require a solid defense to make Iraq come out right,
and the civil toll in lives is getting large.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <············@grandcanyon.binc.net>,
> Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>
>>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
>
>
>> 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
>>a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
>>in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
>>Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
>>since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
>
>
> Dont' you think they already knew that? The main problem is rather
> how many iraq's can we handle.
Apparently not since the Taliban ignored it and it seems the Saudi's
did as well.
>
>
>> 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
>>operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
>>for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
>>will never have to happen.
>> 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
>>establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
>
>
> Valid arguments, but this "democracy-building" has been utterly
> mishandled. Firstly by an [almost] US-only war, and then by a US
> occupation by PHB's.
Easy to say and perhaps true. What benchmark does one use to make the
judgment? Can one reasonably expect another administration to do
better? It's easy to criticize something this messy (to say the
least). But unrealistic to expect that there was a significantly
easier road that we failed to see.
>
>>Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
>>terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
>>But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
>>resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
>>least implicit support by a state or very large organization with
>>resources. If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going
>>to sell your plan to say Syria?
>>
>>You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
>>question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
>>self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
>
>
>
> Now, can we handle a North Korea that really goes sour; together
> with an al-Quada insurgency in a few african states, plus Sudan,
> a few tribal genosides, Turkmenistan gone bad (sliding there fast),
> and islamic revolution in Pakistan; or civil war there; plus another
> backlash in Afghanistan.
>
> All of these are very real and immediate conserns. I haven't even
> touched the Burmas and the Indoneias that seem stable at the moment.
>
> This is why I critisize the go-it-alone policy so harshly. I have
> a feeling we haven'ẗ seen the worst yet.
I don't see that we've gone it alone at all. Again it is easy to
criticize. I think politically we are better off having our power
tempered by strong nations. It reduces the concerns of all
non-combatants in the west and in the Islamic states. Good cop bad cop
comes to mind.
We may not have seen the worst. Who knows? I cannot see the danger
being significantly reduced until the Islamic mainstream begins to take
ownership of the problem rather than nurturing with unfortunate
rhetoric. And I can't see that happening without a strong incentive.
And I can't imagine a stronger incentive than understanding that we
hold them accountable when extremism from their midsts manifests itself
in the non-Islamic world.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
# It may actually have worked with Libya; who consiquosly have changed
# sides to want friendly terms with the west, and is making a serious
# effort to reform. They also had far more WMD's in the pipeline than
# Saddam probably ever had. THAT was a surprise.
Libya has been changing for a long time. As Qaddify ages and hears the
flutterring wings of the Angel of Death, he has evolved from fiery
revolutionary sending out terrorists from the safety of his bunker,
to a fledging statesman organising a peaceful and orderly Africa. Libya's
biological and chemical warfare research was too expensive with too
little return, so it was being shut down anyway due to finances. He wants
all embargos ended, trade fully resumed, his people happy enough to
stop trying to kill him, and to go down in history books as a great
leader.
It's been going along for a long time. I doubt it was less about fear
of an attack, and more about political opportunism in both Libya and
the USA.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
She broke your heart and inadvertendently drove men to deviant lifestyles.
# However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
# avoid another 9/11...
# 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
# future attach.
Putting that in more mundane terms, if you walk around with loaded shotgun
and gut shoot anyone you think might look funny at you, you will be safer.
Ignores the possibility that the townsfolk might not like your attitude
and arrange an ambush followed by a hanging as needed.
# 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
# WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
# stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
# to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.
Leaving Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Korea unmolested. There's a lot of
expertise _and_ material floating around in Russa. A lot of those experts
are now jobless with worthless pensions. If you want to talk about threats,
it would Russians exporting material and experts across their southern border.
That is a threat we can deal with: offer these people worthwhile pensions
to keep their mouths shut. Buy fission materials from Russia. Pay off Russia.
But we don't because that's too expensive.
# 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
# a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
# in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
# Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
# since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
With what army do you propose to invade Syria and Iran and Sudan and Korea?
Taliban is regaining control in Afghanistan after the USA abandonned the
war on terrorism to seek oil profits. Iraq is a tar baby. Saddam Hussein
might be permanently out of the picture, but there's no reason yet to think
that if Iraq does somehow become a democracy it will be friendly to the USA.
# 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
# operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
# for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
# will never have to happen.
A soveign Iraq has the right to demand the USA leave. Do you think Iraq
wants to become a target of Al Qaeda the way Saudi Arabia has been simply
for the honor of having USA soldiers in their country?
# 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
# establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
Why not start with Jordan and Egypt? Those governments are already friendly
to the USA and more suspectible to gentler persuasion than an invading
army. Because they aren't sitting on a sea of oil to make it worthwhile.
The Afghanistan central government is falling apart because the USA abandonned
it and never did the hard work of nation building there.
# 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
# future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
Again only you and Dick Cheney believe Iraq had anything to do with
terrorism. The real terrorist are back in Afghanistan laughing their
butts off; they are safe today than two years ago because the USA
abandonned the war on terrorism. The only terrorist organisation that
had been operating in Iraq was in the northern fly zone outside of
Saddam's control. These same terrorists are causing so much trouble now.
These same terrorists the USA and Kurds could have dealt with a long
time, except the USA needed to have a terrorist organisation in Iraq
to provide a cause belli.
# Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
# terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
# But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
# resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
The organisation was being dismantled. But now that the USA has abandonned
the war on terrorism for the quagmire in Iraq, terrorists are reorganising.
Ask Australians about their embassy remodelling.
# You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
# question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
# self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
Iraq was never a threat to the USA. Al Qaeda is, and the USA has
abandonned the quest to end it or capture Osama bin Laden.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
I'm not even supposed to be here today.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:50:40 -0000, SM Ryan
<·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
>Taliban is regaining control in Afghanistan after the USA abandonned the
>war on terrorism to seek oil profits.
Well, I'll be damned! There actually *was* someone who believed the
recent Al Qaeda propaganda video!
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
SM Ryan wrote:
<lots of stuff that misses the point of the post removed>
>
> # 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
> # future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
>
> Again only you and Dick Cheney believe Iraq had anything to do with
> terrorism.
I don't think anything of the kind. I have no evidence that they were
involved. Whether they were or not is not the point. My point is that
removal of the Iraqi regime *underscores* the potential consequences of
actions like 9/11. It underscores it because Iraq was the largest Arab
military power in the region.
> The real terrorist are back in Afghanistan laughing their
> butts off; they are safe today than two years ago because the USA
> abandonned the war on terrorism. The only terrorist organisation that
I very much doubt you really think the above to be true.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon wrote:
> actions like 9/11. It underscores it because Iraq was the largest Arab
> military power in the region.
... 15 years ago maybe, 2 years ago - no fucking way.
--
Cheers,
Rupert
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
<snip>
> A soveign Iraq has the right to demand the USA leave. Do you think Iraq
> wants to become a target of Al Qaeda the way Saudi Arabia has been simply
> for the honor of having USA soldiers in their country?
<snip>
We have to expect a sovereign Iraq will be US hostile at best. And a
state with a state Mosque at best.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
In article <·························@newsreader.visi.com>,
Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> wrote:
>On 2004-09-10, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>>>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>>>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>>>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
>>>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>>>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>>>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
>>
>> Can you point to the relevant section(s) of the Act?
>>
>> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
>> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
>
>I know I shouldn't reply to threads like this, but I just can't
>help it...
>
>What makes you think that the current US government gives a
>shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
>to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
>them up in secret forever.
Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
Then these released people go blow up something else.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv <·········@aol.com> writes:
jmf> Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> wrote:
>> ... Bush thinks he's entitled
>> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
>> them up in secret forever.
jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn into
bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?
I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as much as we
fear, yet. But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice is
between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial oversight
then it will get far worse than we fear.
I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might be
believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and trying to get rid
of the said freedoms in the hope that it will appease the terrorists.
Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on me and
shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the US because of
the sentence above? Would I see a judge? Lawyer? Would anybody even
know? Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of behaviour
from your gov't?
cheers,
BM
In article <··············@p4.internal>,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv <·········@aol.com> writes:
> jmf> Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> wrote:
> >> ... Bush thinks he's entitled
> >> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
> >> them up in secret forever.
>
> jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
> jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
>
>Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn into
>bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?
Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
it feels better]
>
>I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as much as we
>fear, yet.
Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.
> ... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice is
>between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial oversight
>then it will get far worse than we fear.
WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?
>
>I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might be
>believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and trying to get rid
>of the said freedoms in the hope that it will appease the terrorists.
Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you think you
did.
>
>Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on me and
>shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the US because of
>the sentence above?
Too many people coming in. As long as you don't stand up and
shout bomb or make a fool of yourself going through customs
and fill out the paperwork without trying to be a smartass,
I don't see people who are already overworked and stretched
thin bothering with you.
> .. Would I see a judge? Lawyer?
I don't know. I had understood that, if you didn't get
through customs, you were put back on a plane out of the
country.
> ... Would anybody even
>know?
Yes. Lots of people.
> ..Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of behaviour
>from your gov't?
If you are a terrorist with the intent to wreak death and
destruction in this country, I sure as hell hope somebody
doesn't let you in.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv <·········@aol.com> writes:
[...]
jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
bm> Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn
bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?
jmf> Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
jmf> it feels better]
I didn't mean to upset you. But sigh indeed. Offtopic in all groups
too. Maybe we should get jailed? Who knows _what else_ we might be
up to? Can't be too cautious these days. What color was that alert
now? Better call the authorities.
bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
bm> much as we fear, yet.
jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.
Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused. That's
the whole point of a separate status, no? I thought the 'enemy
combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law, and
the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs. As for the _US_ doing it,
yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it. Indeed the
whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought
that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear
to stay within certain boundaries. Maybe they needen't have bothered?
>> ... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
>> is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
>> oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]
jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?
Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207
;)
cheers,
BM
>> I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might
>> be believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and
>> trying to get rid of the said freedoms in the hope that it will
>> appease the terrorists.
jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
jmf> think you did.
Let's hear it.
>> Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on
>> me and shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the
>> US because of the sentence above?
jmf> Too many people coming in. As long as you don't stand up and
jmf> shout bomb or make a fool of yourself going through customs
jmf> and fill out the paperwork without trying to be a smartass, I
jmf> don't see people who are already overworked and stretched
jmf> thin bothering with you.
>> .. Would I see a judge? Lawyer?
jmf> I don't know. I had understood that, if you didn't get
jmf> through customs, you were put back on a plane out of the
jmf> country.
>> ... Would anybody even know?
jmf> Yes. Lots of people.
>> ..Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of
>> behaviour from your gov't?
jmf> If you are a terrorist with the intent to wreak death and
jmf> destruction in this country, I sure as hell hope somebody
jmf> doesn't let you in.
jmf> /BAH
jmf> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <··············@p4.internal>,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv <·········@aol.com> writes:
>[...]
> jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
> jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
> bm> Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn
> bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?
>
> jmf> Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
> jmf> it feels better]
>
>I didn't mean to upset you. But sigh indeed.
<GRIN> I'm about to sigh back at you.
> .. Offtopic in all groups
>too.
I don't know where you are so I can't trim newsgroups. I'm in a.f.c.
> ..Maybe we should get jailed? Who knows _what else_ we might be
>up to? Can't be too cautious these days. What color was that alert
>now? Better call the authorities.
>
> bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
> bm> much as we fear, yet.
>
> jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.
>
>Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
>There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused. That's
>the whole point of a separate status, no? I thought the 'enemy
>combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law,
Sigh! US law doesn't apply in Afghanistan nor any other country.
> ...and
>the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs.
What people are not getting treated using the Geneva Convetion
terms?
> ... As for the _US_ doing it,
>yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it. Indeed the
>whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought
>that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear
>to stay within certain boundaries. Maybe they needen't have bothered?
>
> >> ... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
> >> is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
> >> oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]
>
> jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?
>
>Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
>where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:
>
>http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207
I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one. Just
mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
with a BS filter. ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
become completely inconsist these days.
>
>;)
>
>cheers,
>
>BM
>
>
> >> I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might
> >> be believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and
> >> trying to get rid of the said freedoms in the hope that it will
> >> appease the terrorists.
>
> jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
> jmf> think you did.
>
>Let's hear it.
The ACLU types that you're listening to are giving away our
(the US) freedoms to people who don't want us to have them.
IOW, these liberal types are working in concert with these
militants.
<snip...I hate the way your software prefixes these posts>
/BAH
On Mon, 13 Sep 04 10:39:16 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
>>Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
>>where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:
>>
>>http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207
>
>I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one. Just
>mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
>with a BS filter. ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
>become completely inconsist these days.
This particular article isn't even consistent within itself. They try
to make the reader equate "detainees" (most of whom have just been
sent back home) and "secret arrests" which they somehow know all
about. They also complain that "this group is almost entirely Arab,
South Asian, or Muslim ...". Surprise, surprise.
In fact, the article with its list of actions the ACLU has taken
belies its own premise that all these things are happening in secret
without any representation for the "victims."
Years ago, I thought the ACLU was a Good Thing.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 04 10:39:16 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
>>>where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:
>>>
>>>http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207
>>
>>I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one. Just
>>mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
>>with a BS filter. ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
>>become completely inconsist these days.
>
>This particular article isn't even consistent within itself. They try
>to make the reader equate "detainees" (most of whom have just been
>sent back home) and "secret arrests" which they somehow know all
>about. They also complain that "this group is almost entirely Arab,
>South Asian, or Muslim ...". Surprise, surprise.
>
>In fact, the article with its list of actions the ACLU has taken
>belies its own premise that all these things are happening in secret
>without any representation for the "victims."
Yea. They seem to have taken logic lessons from Kerry.
>
>Years ago, I thought the ACLU was a Good Thing.
I agreed with a few things they did; I disagreed with a lot more.
However, I recognized that they were a good check on the
balances. But their latest choices (not only the secret
detainee thing..there were others but I can't recall details)
have had me wondering about how do they come up with their
choices? It's almost as if they cast lots to choose the
case and then flip a coin to see which side they'll defend.
Perhaps our pet lawyer^Wex-lawyer can explain this legal
logic.
/BAH
>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.
I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
Godwin's law.
--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
In article <···············@mozart.cc.tut.fi>,
Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
>
> Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
> Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
> Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
> Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.
>
>I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
>Godwin's law.
This law doesn't work in a.f.c. newsgroup. It just gets us
started talking about computers and guns and big [rhummm,rhummm]
vehicles.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <···············@mozart.cc.tut.fi>,
Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
>
> Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
> Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
> Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
> Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.
>
>I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
>Godwin's law.
OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
# In article <···············@mozart.cc.tut.fi>,
# Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
# >>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards <······@visi.com> writes:
# >
# > Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
# > Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
# > Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
# > Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.
# >
# >I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
# >Godwin's law.
#
# OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.
Hence the well known Usenet acronym PKB: Pol Khan Bloody.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Haven't you ever heard the customer is always right?
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
># In article <···············@mozart.cc.tut.fi>,
># Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
<snip I don't like those pound sign prefix characters>
># >I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
># >Godwin's law.
>#
># OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.
>
>Hence the well known Usenet acronym PKB: Pol Khan Bloody.
I never saw that. Is it new?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On 13 Sep 2004 09:39:00 +0300, Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com>
wrote:
>I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
>Godwin's law.
Godwin's law does not say that when Hitler is invoked, the thread
terminates. Rather it is an indicator the thread has lost all
usefulness. If it ever had any.
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
It's probably in the same international agreement that allows citizens of
any country to be held incommunicado indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. And
the same international agreement that allows Afgan and Iraqi POW's to be
imprisoned with no Geneva convention protection and hidden from
International Red Cross. Do you really think the Bush administration cares
about international agreements?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:05:06 GMT, "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>
>"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
>·······································@4ax.com...
>> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
>> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
>
>It's probably in the same international agreement that allows citizens of
>any country to be held incommunicado indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. And
>the same international agreement that allows Afgan and Iraqi POW's to be
>imprisoned with no Geneva convention protection
They are being treated under the Conventions, even though not legally
entitled to such treatment. This was discussed in some depth quite a
while ago - if you're really interested, check google groups.
>and hidden from
>International Red Cross.
Not very well, apparently. The Red Cross found them. So did a bunch of
lawyers.
You apparently haven't been keeping up. Those DNC talking points have
been obsolete for a while now.
> Do you really think the Bush administration cares
>about international agreements?
Yes.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@spamcop.net> wrote:
+---------------
| >and hidden from International Red Cross.
|
| Not very well, apparently. The Red Cross found them. So did a bunch of
| lawyers.
|
| You apparently haven't been keeping up. Those DNC talking points have
| been obsolete for a while now.
+---------------
The OP is apparently not the only one who hasn't been keeping up! ;-}
Look in today's (or yesterday's) news about new revelations during
recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings of dozens (possibly
hundreds) more "ghost detainees" at Abu Ghurayb that the CIA kept
off the books... and *still* hasn't produced records for. [Reference:
Knight Ridder story on page 7A of today's San Jose Mercury News.]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
··························@clgrps12...
> Do you really think the Bush administration cares
> about international agreements?
>
Governments all over the world tremble in fear of a strongly worded UN
resolution. No one would dare risk the consequences of a second, or third,
or fourth, or 37th follow on resolution...
Jack peacock
In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>, ··············@chello.no
>(John Thingstad) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>>> freedoms have been lost.
>>
>>Since this is somewhat related to computer programming and AI I will
>>reply.
>>
>>The US has started a initiative to integrate all information about
>>people in the USA into a central database.
>
>Not just people in the USA.
>
>>This includes confidential information like your medical files.
>
><snip>
>
>>The main challenge in computing is sieving through the amount of data.
>>Politically it is to pressure the foreign governments to wave their
>>privacy protection acts and allow unlimited access to information to
>>a foreign power.
>
>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation.
I'll bet one of your pennies that the subsidiary has farmed it
back out of the country.
> .. According to the Patriot Act,
>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
[emoticon daydreams about certain talking heads getting caught]
>
>>Don't know what you think of this but it scares the hell out of me!
>
>Me too.
Sure. But the whole thing becomes moot if western civ is gone.
There are other things getting put into law and custom by
politicians that are even scarier but there won't be any chance
of rectifying rabid Republican brain damage if there isn't
any civ left.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:06:57 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>> freedoms have been lost.
>>
>
>Since this is somewhat related to computer programming and AI I will reply.
>
>The US has started a initiative to integrate all information about people
>in the USA into a central database.
Where have you been? This has been happening for years, in fits and
starts punctuated by ACLU lawsuits. The current political climate
(including the Patriot Act) may expedite the process by providing more
money and (possibly) better coordination between agencies, but it's
nothing new.
>
>This includes confidential information like your medical files. Think what
>you say to your psychologist is confidential? Think again. Being paranoid
>can be enough to get a "red flag".
>They will have access to all your credit records and will monitor all your
>travels in and out of the country.
>If you buy flowers on the apposite side of town they can deduce that you
>have a lover and
>use this as a means of distortion. (Edgar A. Hoover style)
>
Most of the above is speculative fiction.
BTW, did you mean "extortion"? Distortion is what we see a lot of
here, though Hoover may have done some of that too.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:36:29 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
> BTW, did you mean "extortion"? Distortion is what we see a lot of
> here, though Hoover may have done some of that too.
>
I guess what I see are endless possibilities of abuse.
No government can be trusted with that type of power.
I feel it is our responsibility as programmers to prevent this type
of abuse of information. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.
When you sell out freedom, liberty and justice then what exactly are we
fighting to protect?
Bader-Meihof groups philosophy was that in order to protect the public
from terror
the government would turn the country into a police state. Then the people
would rebel and
support the revolution. From this point of view Bush is letting the
terrorist's win by
sacrificing our constitutional rights.
Anyhow this is probably not the place to discuss this...
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:04:50 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:36:29 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, did you mean "extortion"? Distortion is what we see a lot of
>> here, though Hoover may have done some of that too.
>>
>
>I guess what I see are endless possibilities of abuse.
>No government can be trusted with that type of power.
Of course not. That's why we have separation of powers, checks and
balances, a multi-party system, and elections.
>I feel it is our responsibility as programmers to prevent this type
>of abuse of information. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.
>When you sell out freedom, liberty and justice then what exactly are we
>fighting to protect?
>Bader-Meihof groups philosophy was that in order to protect the public
> from terror
>the government would turn the country into a police state. Then the people
>would rebel and
>support the revolution. From this point of view Bush is letting the
>terrorist's win by
>sacrificing our constitutional rights.
>
>Anyhow this is probably not the place to discuss this...
Probably not - there are too many intelligent, informed people here
who might poke holes in it.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:36:29 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, did you mean "extortion"? Distortion is what we see a lot of
>> here, though Hoover may have done some of that too.
>>
>
> I guess what I see are endless possibilities of abuse.
> No government can be trusted with that type of power.
> I feel it is our responsibility as programmers to prevent this type
> of abuse of information.
IMHO, it is unrealistic/naive to expect society to get all of the
benefits of an integrated digital world and at the same time have
significant protection of the information that world thrives upon.
Everybody and their uncle is walking around in public having "private"
conversations on their wireless gadget without realizing that privacy
doesn't apply to what they are doing. The data systems are really no
different, the risk is just less obvious.
> I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.
And at the same time groups like the 9/11 families are clamoring for
answers as to why the government didn't prevent the attack. If you
believe what you say I suggest you work to wean your fellow citizens
from their government centric lives.
> When you sell out freedom, liberty and justice then what exactly are we
> fighting to protect?
> Bader-Meihof groups philosophy was that in order to protect the public
> from terror
> the government would turn the country into a police state. Then the
> people would rebel and
> support the revolution. From this point of view Bush is letting the
> terrorist's win by
> sacrificing our constitutional rights.
Your argument is shallow if you direct it to the person who happens to
be holding the office of President at the moment. The President can't
introduce or pass law. The Patriot Act is a nearly bipartisan law of
the land passed by the congress. If you have a problem with the
government then address the government realistically. Otherwise it's
just part of the political noise of an election year.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
"Chuck Dillon" <····@nimblegen.com> wrote in message
·················@grandcanyon.binc.net...
> Your argument is shallow if you direct it to the person who happens to be
> holding the office of President at the moment. The President can't
> introduce or pass law.
>
Laws no, but the definition of a law can be ambiguous. Congress has given
federal agencies under the President broad power to issue regulations with
the same effect as laws, but without going through the legislative process.
Anyone who has ever battled with the Bureau of Land Management or ran afoul
of the Endangered Species Act knows that "laws" are often created by fiat in
a Washington DC office building.
Then there are presidential Executive Orders which are often attempts to end
run around a lack of congressional cooperation. Clinton attempted to use
this to outlaw firearms posession in federal housing until the Supreme Court
put a stop to it.
And finally there are international treaties, which operate with the force
of law but are not passed by the House of Representatives. The President
signs it and the Senate confirms it, but half the legislative process is cut
out. Often all that protects the country from disasters like the Kyoto
Treaty is a filibuster by a Senate minority.
Jack Peacock
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:51:56 -0700, Jack Peacock wrote:
> "Chuck Dillon" <····@nimblegen.com> wrote in message
> ·················@grandcanyon.binc.net...
>> Your argument is shallow if you direct it to the person who happens to be
>> holding the office of President at the moment. The President can't
>> introduce or pass law.
>>
> Laws no, but the definition of a law can be ambiguous. Congress has given
> federal agencies under the President broad power to issue regulations with
> the same effect as laws, but without going through the legislative process.
> Anyone who has ever battled with the Bureau of Land Management or ran afoul
> of the Endangered Species Act knows that "laws" are often created by fiat in
> a Washington DC office building.
>
> Then there are presidential Executive Orders which are often attempts to end
> run around a lack of congressional cooperation. Clinton attempted to use
> this to outlaw firearms posession in federal housing until the Supreme Court
> put a stop to it.
>
> And finally there are international treaties, which operate with the force
> of law but are not passed by the House of Representatives. The President
> signs it and the Senate confirms it, but half the legislative process is cut
> out. Often all that protects the country from disasters like the Kyoto
> Treaty is a filibuster by a Senate minority.
In the case of Kyoto, no filibuster was necessary. Even Kerry wouldn't
have voted for it (it went doen 99-0 in a trial balloon). ...though might
today. Who knows what he'd support tomorrow. He's been on eight sides
(and still inventing more) of the Iraq issue.
--
Keith
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
There has been a request to [spit] these newsgroups. Where
do you read from? I'm over in a.f.c.
>On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>> freedoms have been lost.
>>
>
>Since this is somewhat related to computer programming
>and AI I will reply.
Thank you. I appreciate the effort.
>
>The US has started a initiative to integrate all
>information about people in the USA into a central database.
This is why I'm puzzled. This stuff is nothing new; about
the only difference is the detail.
>
>This includes confidential information like
>your medical files. Think what
>you say to your psychologist is confidential?
It never was confidential. People talk; doctors confer. It
was off limits w.r.t. law enforcement but I think that had
more to do with not having to testify against yourself.
This still is not a freedom; it's a right that is listed.
> ..Think again. Being paranoid
>can be enough to get a "red flag".
>They will have access to all your credit records
>and will monitor all your
>travels in and out of the country.
>If you buy flowers on the apposite side of town they can deduce that you
>have a lover and
>use this as a means of distortion. (Edgar A. Hoover style)
>
>Initially this was just supposed to be used to monitor terrorist like
>behaviour
>but now the FBI and CIA are also seeing the power of such a system.
Sure. They had that kind of power and were abusing it in the 70s.
Both departments got the wings clipped. Because they did get
reorg'ed back then, a lot of the work, that they are accused of not
doing after 9/11, didn't get done because they weren't allowed to
do that work. Now Congress is shifting towards giving them
more leeway. I sure as hell hope they remember Hoover and his
abuses of power before they suggest putting one guy over it all.
>
>The main challenge in computing is sieving through the amount of data.
>Politically it is to pressure the foreign governments to wave their
>privacy protection acts and allow unlimited access to information to a
>foreign power.
This won't happen. Foreign governments will do whatever is in their
best interests as the US should do things in its best interests.
>
>Don't know what you think of this but it scares the hell out of me!
It should. But this isn't a breach of freedom. It is a breach
of privacy which can only be protected by each individual, not
the government.
See, people keep saying freedoms. But I get confused and don't
consider these things freedoms. In some very stretched cases,
I might consider them rights.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
> In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
> There has been a request to [spit] these newsgroups. Where
> do you read from? I'm over in a.f.c.
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 04 13:12:17 GMT, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I really want to know. People keep saying this but never say which
>>> freedoms have been lost.
>>>
>>
>>Since this is somewhat related to computer programming
>>and AI I will reply.
>
> Thank you. I appreciate the effort.
>
>>
>>The US has started a initiative to integrate all
>>information about people in the USA into a central database.
>
> This is why I'm puzzled. This stuff is nothing new; about
> the only difference is the detail.
>>
>>This includes confidential information like
>>your medical files. Think what
>>you say to your psychologist is confidential?
>
> It never was confidential. People talk; doctors confer. It
> was off limits w.r.t. law enforcement but I think that had
> more to do with not having to testify against yourself.
The Hippocratic Oath demands that patient confidentiality
be respected.
I'm sure that there is plenty of material out there which
explains why the Oath exists and why it might be desirable.
--
Cheers,
Rupert
On Sat, 11 Sep 04 14:24:09 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
> Now Congress is shifting towards giving them
>more leeway. I sure as hell hope they remember Hoover and his
>abuses of power before they suggest putting one guy over it all.
The suggestion has already been made, and President Bush is apparently
going along with it, but refusing to give the position the unlimited
power its proponents want. This gives the disloyal opposition grounds
to claim he's not really serious about terrorism.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Sep 04 14:24:09 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Now Congress is shifting towards giving them
>>more leeway. I sure as hell hope they remember Hoover and his
>>abuses of power before they suggest putting one guy over it all.
>
>The suggestion has already been made, and President Bush is apparently
>going along with it, but refusing to give the position the unlimited
>power its proponents want. This gives the disloyal opposition grounds
>to claim he's not really serious about terrorism.
Reporting this has been terrible in this corner of the map. I also
had understood that somebody was insisting that the position be
outside the cabinet. I don't like this because it will ensure
a long-term head who will gradually get corrupt as Hooever did.
I also understand that making this a cabinet position will
"politicize" it but there isn't as much chance for having 100%
corruption.
I also need a lesson on policizing. Can't have a head of the
CIA be an ex-Congresscritter because that would politicize the
department. But the CIA has been hogtied with politicizations
since Nixon.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
So spake CBFalconer:
>There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
>intrinsically evil intentions.
Merely remember Occam's and Hanlon's Razors.
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Alan Balmer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>... snip ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle
>>>>> disaster(s) is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President
>>>>> Bush? That's the popular thing nowadays.
>>>>
>>>> Alright, if you insist. But is it really necessary? We can find
>>>> adequate charges without reaching very hard.
>>>
>>> Then why are so many people reaching so hard?
>>
>> It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
>> the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
>> where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
>> that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
>> did nothing to prevent it. The Bush-bashing is working. The
>> Democrats are opening the city gates to the barbarians.
>
>I deplore your tast in radio talk shows.
Oh! Taste in talk shows.
> .. It doesn't take much to
>create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.
I listen to them for data about how the rabble is thinking
and the logic they use to form their opinions. I also
watch those religious cable TV shows to gather the same kinds
of information; note that I can only manage to listen to these
about 10 minutes and not more than once/year. I also listen
to Rushie to see what kinds of lies that half of the world is
listening to. I watch CSPAN who never cut out for commericals,
don't edit too much, and tend to leave the mike on after the
meetings break up.
>
>There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
>intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
>their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
>propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
>rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
>and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
>civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
>choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
>trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
>gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
>(due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
>efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.
Well, your Bush-hater campaign is working beyond all your
expectations. One day, you will have to live it.
>
>Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration,
OH, fuckmeverymuch. I am in Mass. We do have some
experience of a Kerry administration. For those you who don't,
watch how he runs his campaign. He will run the country in the
same manner.
> .. but we
>have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.
Do you think that hiring a person who doesn't like to do
work will make things better? Things can be worse..a lot
worse.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>·········@aol.com wrote:
>>> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>>> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Alan Balmer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>... snip ...
[snipp Rush Limbaugh's's talks show mentioned]
>>I deplore your tast in radio talk shows.
>
>Oh! Taste in talk shows.
Ah, then I have deplorable tastes in your opinion. I find Rush
greatly entertaining; but wouldn't use him as a data point.
I wish the left could dig up someone as entertaining as Rush.
>> .. It doesn't take much to
>>create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.
>
>I listen to them for data about how the rabble is thinking
>and the logic they use to form their opinions. I also
>watch those religious cable TV shows to gather the same kinds
>of information; note that I can only manage to listen to these
>about 10 minutes and not more than once/year. I also listen
>to Rushie to see what kinds of lies that half of the world is
>listening to. I watch CSPAN who never cut out for commericals,
>don't edit too much, and tend to leave the mike on after the
>meetings break up. '
With most of these you miss the point if you listen for content
at all. The media IS the message. And you are the product, to
be entertained enough so you can be sold to advertisers.
>>There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
>>intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
>>their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
>>propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
>>rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
>>and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
>>civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
>>choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
>>trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
>>gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
>>(due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
>>efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.
A lack of focus on world politics has been a characteristica of the
US presidents since Eisenhower. Bush is not special, he just got
the mess in his lap and had to deal with it; just as Nixon inherited
the Vietnam war.
>Well, your Bush-hater campaign is working beyond all your
>expectations. One day, you will have to live it.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> A lack of focus on world politics has been a characteristica of
> the US presidents since Eisenhower. Bush is not special, he just
> got the mess in his lap and had to deal with it; just as Nixon
> inherited the Vietnam war.
That is understandable considering the relative sizes of the US
GDP and the rest of the world (until recently), the isolationist
ethic between the wars, and such things as the world attitude that
Spain was much more then the US could bite off in 1898. Wilson,
Roosevelt (both), Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Nixon are
among the counter-examples. Even Reagan, while a sad example of
domestic policy, did fairly well in the foreign affairs
department. Elephants do not need to pay too much attention to
the surrounding fauna.
However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
leaders since being elected.
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <··········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> A lack of focus on world politics has been a characteristica of
>> the US presidents since Eisenhower. Bush is not special, he just
>> got the mess in his lap and had to deal with it; just as Nixon
>> inherited the Vietnam war.
>
>That is understandable considering the relative sizes of the US
>GDP and the rest of the world (until recently), the isolationist
>ethic between the wars, and such things as the world attitude that
>Spain was much more then the US could bite off in 1898. Wilson,
>Roosevelt (both), Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Nixon are
>among the counter-examples. Even Reagan, while a sad example of
>domestic policy, did fairly well in the foreign affairs
>department. Elephants do not need to pay too much attention to
>the surrounding fauna.
I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
the
Carter was not so bad; but remained unfocused; using all energy
withing the US. I still don't get why they didn't see the Iranian
blow-up. Everyone else did.
Nixon is a special case; the way he inherited the Vietnam war,
the Cold war and the way he messed up domestic policy. I think
he did all right, but no better, on a foreign policy front.
>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>leaders since being elected.
Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
If it is oil, then he is mishandling it big time; Iraqi oil is NOT
flowing. Iraq is a huge mess. Why was that guy Bremer chosen; his
qualifications does not make sense.
You either have to make converts or do a Pinochet. (hit so hard
everyone is afraid they will NOT die.)
-- mrr
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
<·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>>leaders since being elected.
>
>Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>
And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:15 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>
> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
Yes, the Iraq war ruled that out.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
> <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
> >>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
> >>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
> >>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
> >>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
> >>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
> >>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
> >>leaders since being elected.
> >
> >Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
> >
> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
"We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
--> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
--> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
test missles all over the place.
--> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
"We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
--> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
"We must fight terrorism"
--> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
to invade Iraq.
--> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
link from Iraq to Osama.
--> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:18:33 GMT, "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>
>"Alan Balmer" <········@att.net> wrote in message
>·······································@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
>> <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>
>> >>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>> >>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>> >>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>> >>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>> >>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>> >>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>> >>leaders since being elected.
>> >
>> >Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>> >
>> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
>Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>
>"We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
>--> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
>--> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
> test missles all over the place.
>--> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
>
>"We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
>--> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
> was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
>
>"We must fight terrorism"
>--> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
> to invade Iraq.
>--> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
> link from Iraq to Osama.
>--> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
>
>
My, you are behind the times. Sorry, I'm not going to rehash all this
stuff now. It's been done too many times. Check the archives.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
>
> Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared war.
The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear where
we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the others on
the Democrat side, stood their ground. They didn't revoke the
declaration. They didn't even have debates on the subject.
If you condemn Bush on going into Iraq you condemn Kerry who stills
says it was the right thing to do. His issue is with the details and
like most political rhetoric is mostly spin to underscore the negative
and downplay the positive.
While we're at it, you might also consider a more strategic view of why
we went to Iraq. Publicly, all you are going to hear is glowing words
about the long term benefits of bringing democracy to the middle east.
But that's only part of it and the governments, as well as religious
leaders, in the middle east know it.
If what you write below is what you really believe you aren't thinking
you are just regurgitating what you hear from those you listen to the most.
-- ced
>
> "We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
> --> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
> --> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
> test missles all over the place.
> --> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
>
> "We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
> --> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
> was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
>
> "We must fight terrorism"
> --> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
> to invade Iraq.
> --> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
> link from Iraq to Osama.
> --> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
>
>
>
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> >>
> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>
> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
^^^
Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
-- Patrick
On 14 Sep 2004 10:15:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
wrote:
>Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>>
>> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
>> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
>> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
>> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
> ^^^
>Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
>voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
>
>Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
>administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
>there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
>out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
http://intelligence.house.gov/
http://intelligence.senate.gov/
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> On 14 Sep 2004 10:15:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> >
> >> Coby Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> >> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
> >> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
> >>
> >> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
> >> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
> >> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
> >> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
> > ^^^
> >Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
> >voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
> >
> >Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
> >administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
> >there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
> >out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
>
> http://intelligence.house.gov/
> http://intelligence.senate.gov/
They have committees, they don't have independent
intelligence-gathering ability.
-- Patrick
On 17 Sep 2004 23:10:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
wrote:
>Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
>
>> On 14 Sep 2004 10:15:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Coby Beck wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>> >> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>> >> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>> >>
>> >> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
>> >> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
>> >> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
>> >> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
>> > ^^^
>> >Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
>> >voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
>> >
>> >Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
>> >administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
>> >there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
>> >out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
>>
>> http://intelligence.house.gov/
>> http://intelligence.senate.gov/
>
>They have committees, they don't have independent
>intelligence-gathering ability.
>
Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all those field
trips. That's why he gets reports from the various intelligence
agencies, who also report to the Congressional intelligence
committees.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer wrote:
> Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> They have committees, they don't have independent
>> intelligence-gathering ability.
>
> Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all
> those field trips. That's why he gets reports from the various
> intelligence agencies, who also report to the Congressional
> intelligence committees.
Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
a few days ago?
--
"It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing
the course" - John Kerry, 2004-09-20
"Ask any boat owner the eventual result of continuing the
present course indefinitely" - C.B. Falconer, 2004-09-20
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:07:50 GMT, CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Alan Balmer wrote:
>> Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>>
>>> They have committees, they don't have independent
>>> intelligence-gathering ability.
>>
>> Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all
>> those field trips. That's why he gets reports from the various
>> intelligence agencies, who also report to the Congressional
>> intelligence committees.
>
>Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
>the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
>a few days ago?
Have you read the report?
By "ignore them", I presume you mean that his reaction to them wasn't
the same as yours would have been.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
CBFalconer wrote:
> Alan Balmer wrote:
>
>>Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>>They have committees, they don't have independent
>>>intelligence-gathering ability.
>>
>>Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all
>>those field trips. That's why he gets reports from the various
>>intelligence agencies, who also report to the Congressional
>>intelligence committees.
>
>
> Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
> the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
> a few days ago?
>
You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there is no
loop.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
Chuck Dillon wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
>> the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
>> a few days ago?
>
> You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
> response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there
> is no loop.
On the contrary, I have a basis. GWB has continued to bray about
"staying the course" since the report was available to him.
--
"It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing
the course" - John Kerry, 2004-09-20
"Ask any boat owner the eventual result of continuing the
present course indefinitely" - C.B. Falconer, 2004-09-20
CBFalconer wrote:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>>Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
>>>the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
>>>a few days ago?
>>
>>You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
>>response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there
>>is no loop.
>
>
> On the contrary, I have a basis. GWB has continued to bray about
> "staying the course" since the report was available to him.
>
Which of course is a basis of nothing.
It appears you consider reports from intelligence reliable enough for
the administration to take action with a sense of urgency. So you must
support actions taken last year based on similar intelligence right?
You also seem to support delegating control to whomever writes a
sufficiently gloomy report.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Chuck Dillon wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >>
> >> Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
> >> the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret
> >> until a few days ago?
> >
> > You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
> > response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there
> > is no loop.
>
> On the contrary, I have a basis. GWB has continued to bray about
> "staying the course" since the report was available to him.
Out of curiosity, why is what GWB does count as braying? What is what
Kerry says count as?
Joe
--
Always drink upstream from the herd.
- Will Rogers
# >They have committees, they don't have independent
# >intelligence-gathering ability.
# >
# Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all those field
# trips. That's why he gets reports from the various intelligence
# agencies, who also report to the Congressional intelligence
# committees.
You're right. He is the Excuses president.
In case you missed reading the Constitution in school, briefly, the CIA,
the DoD and its intelligence staffs, the State Department and its intelligence
staffs, the FBI, DoJ, BATF, etc etc etc etc are all part of the executive
branch. The only elected officer of the executive branch, from whom all other
executive officers draw their authority, is the President.
In short, ding dong, the President _does_ have independent intelligence
gatherring ability. It's called the executive branch, and it's at his
beck and call for all legal orders. It's that commander in chief bit.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
I have no respect for people with no shopping agenda.
SM Ryan wrote:
>
>
> In short, ding dong, the President _does_ have independent intelligence
> gatherring ability. It's called the executive branch, and it's at his
> beck and call for all legal orders. It's that commander in chief bit.
>
You missed the part of the constitution that speaks of checks and
balances. By definition the 3 branches are co-dependent.
Administration and oversight of our intelligence systems/agencies have
been pretty sophisticated for a long time. Are you suggesting that
somehow this administration has completely restructured it in just 3.5
years and somehow undermined the oversight authority of the congress?
If, so you have a very high opinion of the abilities of this
administration. I assume you think Tony Blair accomplished the same
thing in the U.K...
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
In article <············@grandcanyon.binc.net>, ····@nimblegen.com
(Chuck Dillon) writes:
>SM Ryan wrote:
>
>> In short, ding dong, the President _does_ have independent
>> intelligence gatherring ability. It's called the executive
>> branch, and it's at his beck and call for all legal orders.
>> It's that commander in chief bit.
>
>You missed the part of the constitution that speaks of checks and
>balances. By definition the 3 branches are co-dependent.
GWB's conduct during the recent gay marriage flap was enough to
convince me of just how much of a pain in the ass he considers an
independent judiciary to be. Considering that a couple of Supreme
Court judges are delaying their retirement just to try to fend him
off a little longer, I'd say that some of the judiciary agree.
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:44:20 -0000, SM Ryan
<·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
A classic resort to name-calling, indicating that (1) he knows he's
wrong, (2) he's not worth corresponding with.
<plonk>
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> On 17 Sep 2004 23:10:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 14 Sep 2004 10:15:27 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Chuck Dillon <····@nimblegen.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Coby Beck wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> >> >> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
> >> >> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
> >> >> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
> >> >> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
> >> >> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
> >> > ^^^
> >> >Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
> >> >voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
> >> >
> >> >Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
> >> >administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
> >> >there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
> >> >out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
> >>
> >> http://intelligence.house.gov/
> >> http://intelligence.senate.gov/
> >
> >They have committees, they don't have independent
> >intelligence-gathering ability.
> >
> Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all those field
> trips. That's why he gets reports from the various intelligence
> agencies, who also report to the Congressional intelligence
> committees.
The intelligence goes from the analysts to administration appointees,
who filter out what they don't want to hear and pass the remainder on
to POTUS and Congress.
-- Patrick
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <········@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
><·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>>>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>>>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>>>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>>>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>>>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>>>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>>>leaders since being elected.
>>
>>Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>>
>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
I just cannot understand what he wanted to do with Iraq, so fast and
with such a limited expedition corps.
If we for a moment give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
Iraq WAS a hotbed of terrorists buiding WMD's. There may after all be
some information they cannot tell us. This would explain the
hurry and the go-it-alone tactic. In that case , why wasn't the place
hit a lot harder; int the Nixon/Pinochet style? Why a PHB like Bremer?
Why not a real tough army goy the first couple of months? I just cannot
make sense of this scenario.
On the other hand, it may be a wish to liberate Iraq from the ravages
of Saddam, and a final round of being pissed at Saddam repeatedly
flouting the ceasefire agreement. This is a perfectly legitimate
reason to escalate the war again (it is the same war, there was never
a peace agreement, only a cease-fire). In that case a few rounds of
UN song and dance could be done while a new coalition was built; with
the US taking around a fourth of the cost and manpower, like last time.
This could be convincingly sold to the Iraqi populace as a liberation.
So, I don't get it if the agenda is just what is spoken. If the agenda
is to make way for Israel scenario #2 would still be a better one.
Contrast this with Afghanistan, where there was a pretty high urgency
to get the al-Quaeda and the Taliban before they moved with another
terrorist monstrosity. Yet, a large alliance was built, NATO was used
as far as it could be stretched. the UN was in on it; and the US ended
taking around half the cost and supplying a fifth of the manpower.
With a similar strategy in Iraq the US could have resources left over
to handle North Korea, Sudan, Sierra Leone with less expenditure than
what you ended up with.
I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
misimplemented.
-- mrr
On 2004-09-10 14:56, in article ··············@via.reistad.priv.no, "Morten
Reistad" <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
> I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
> misimplemented.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained through
incompetence.
--jon
Jon Boone wrote:
> On 2004-09-10 14:56, in article ··············@via.reistad.priv.no,
> "Morten Reistad" <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>> I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
>> misimplemented.
>
> Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained through
> incompetence.
>
> --jon
That doesn't adequately cover incompetantance and malice combined. :)
-- Rupert
# I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
# misimplemented.
You haven't been listenning carefully enough. The agenda is to destroy the UN.
Neo-conservatives recognise that if the UN becomes powerful enough to deal with
people like Saddam Hussein, then it can deal with Bush as well. People
like Kissinger are still running around as big shots in America while other
countries consider him a war criminal.
There are actually idiots that believe the US will remain the most powerful
military forever (or until God ends the world a few years from now). The
rest who know that power is fleeting have two options: construct a world of
comprehensive cooperative political structures, or batter any possible opponents
so they cannot attack the eventually weakenned US.
The first choice was the one (more or less) followed by the US since about 1945
through 2000. It has a long history of success behind: while not yet of that scale,
the notion of uniting disparate political units to a larger whole for mutual
security and mutual trade has worked time and time again: modern England out of the
old feudal lords, or the US out of thirteen colonies. Up side: long term peace and
stability for your grandchildren. Down side: your own power is eclipsed by the
centralised power.
The second choice has been followed by the US since 2001. Again there is a long
history behind, always ending in failure: Persian empires, Roman Empires, Chinese
empires, etc. You can never inflict enough damage on your opponents so that once
you do weaken they cannot strike back and eviscerate your corpse. Up side: you
continue to live in wealth and luxury as long as you die before the bill comes due.
Down side: your grandchildren will curse your name if they survive.
So why follow a course known to end in disaster? Pride? Greed? Delusion that
the end of the world is nigh and God will forgive warmaking and genocide?
There is a second agenda which is also being implemented successfully. Conservatives
want to dismantle government because it interferes with their private pursuit
of profit and power (see also Miliken and Quatrone). Actually repealing the legal
framework has been unsuccessful: no matter how appealing their claims about taxes
and regulation, when push comes to shove, most people want a government that's
powerful enough to provide for the sick and old, stop quacks from killing patients,
stop manufacturers from killing customers, and to have water and air that are not
fatal to touch.
So since 1980 the conservatives still whine about big government, but they are quite
happy to increase the government size and expenditure. While cutting taxes. The net
effect is a government that is increasingly in debt. The long term goal is to get
the government so heavily indebted that it can no longer borrow money. Then it will
collapse of its own dead weight.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
No pleasure, no rapture, no exquiste sin greater than central air.
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
># I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
># misimplemented.
>
>You haven't been listenning carefully enough. The agenda is to destroy the UN.
>Neo-conservatives recognise that if the UN becomes powerful enough to deal with
>people like Saddam Hussein, then it can deal with Bush as well. People
>like Kissinger are still running around as big shots in America while other
>countries consider him a war criminal.
This is not the stated agenda; but it may sound plausible. There is enough
UN-bashing going around to support it.
>There are actually idiots that believe the US will remain the most powerful
>military forever (or until God ends the world a few years from now). The
>rest who know that power is fleeting have two options: construct a world of
>comprehensive cooperative political structures, or batter any possible opponents
>so they cannot attack the eventually weakenned US.
>
>The first choice was the one (more or less) followed by the US since about 1945
>through 2000. It has a long history of success behind: while not yet of that scale,
>the notion of uniting disparate political units to a larger whole for mutual
>security and mutual trade has worked time and time again: modern England out of the
>old feudal lords, or the US out of thirteen colonies. Up side: long term peace and
>stability for your grandchildren. Down side: your own power is eclipsed by the
>centralised power.
>
>The second choice has been followed by the US since 2001. Again there is a long
>history behind, always ending in failure: Persian empires, Roman Empires, Chinese
>empires, etc. You can never inflict enough damage on your opponents so that once
>you do weaken they cannot strike back and eviscerate your corpse. Up side: you
>continue to live in wealth and luxury as long as you die before the bill comes due.
>Down side: your grandchildren will curse your name if they survive.
>
>So why follow a course known to end in disaster? Pride? Greed? Delusion that
>the end of the world is nigh and God will forgive warmaking and genocide?
Unilateralism can work for a while; as long as you switch back before it is
too late. Look at Holland and Britain for examples of successes.
But it still does not explain Iraq, except as a bungled attempt at
unilateralism. It expecially does not explain Bremer. Bremer is a PHB.
You would expect someone like Patton. Perhaps the right people didn't want
the job?
To get in control of a hostile country requires you to take hard action
immediatly. When someone blows a bomb you set a curfew in that province
for months, and shoot everyone that doesn't respect it; meanwhile you walk
through the whole place looking for the culprits. Perhaps they didn't have
stomack for this brutality?
>There is a second agenda which is also being implemented successfully. Conservatives
>want to dismantle government because it interferes with their private pursuit
>of profit and power (see also Miliken and Quatrone). Actually repealing the legal
>framework has been unsuccessful: no matter how appealing their claims about taxes
>and regulation, when push comes to shove, most people want a government that's
>powerful enough to provide for the sick and old, stop quacks from killing patients,
>stop manufacturers from killing customers, and to have water and air that are not
>fatal to touch.
>
>So since 1980 the conservatives still whine about big government, but they are quite
>happy to increase the government size and expenditure. While cutting taxes. The net
>effect is a government that is increasingly in debt. The long term goal is to get
>the government so heavily indebted that it can no longer borrow money. Then it will
>collapse of its own dead weight.
A weak central government is also a stated goal, but not a mainstream Republican
one. The official policy is a strong, but limited one.
-- mrr
In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <··································@4ax.com>,
>Alan Balmer <········@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
>><·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>
>>>>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>>>>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>>>>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>>>>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>>>>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>>>>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>>>>leaders since being elected.
>>>
>>>Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>>>
>>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
>I just cannot understand what he wanted to do with Iraq, so fast and
>with such a limited expedition corps.
>
>If we for a moment give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
>Iraq WAS a hotbed of terrorists buiding WMD's. There may after all be
>some information they cannot tell us. This would explain the
>hurry and the go-it-alone tactic. In that case , why wasn't the place
>hit a lot harder; int the Nixon/Pinochet style? Why a PHB like Bremer?
>Why not a real tough army goy the first couple of months? I just cannot
>make sense of this scenario.
I had assumed this was to placate France, Germany and Russia.
IMO, there was too much politics and not enough military.
>
>On the other hand, it may be a wish to liberate Iraq from the ravages
>of Saddam, and a final round of being pissed at Saddam repeatedly
>flouting the ceasefire agreement. This is a perfectly legitimate
>reason to escalate the war again (it is the same war, there was never
>a peace agreement, only a cease-fire). In that case a few rounds of
>UN song and dance could be done while a new coalition was built; with
>the US taking around a fourth of the cost and manpower, like last time.
>This could be convincingly sold to the Iraqi populace as a liberation.
But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build
a coalition. They were farting around using all kinds of delay
tactics and were more than willing to allow Saddam to flaunt
the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could
do anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport
across his country from east to west.
>
>So, I don't get it if the agenda is just what is spoken. If the agenda
>is to make way for Israel scenario #2 would still be a better one.
>
>Contrast this with Afghanistan, where there was a pretty high urgency
>to get the al-Quaeda and the Taliban before they moved with another
>terrorist monstrosity. Yet, a large alliance was built, NATO was used
>as far as it could be stretched. the UN was in on it; and the US ended
>taking around half the cost and supplying a fifth of the manpower.
>With a similar strategy in Iraq the US could have resources left over
>to handle North Korea, Sudan, Sierra Leone with less expenditure than
>what you ended up with.
>
>I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
>misimplemented.
Or the agenda changed in midstream.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
# But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
# It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build
France said all along it would agree to military action in Iraq
_if_ NBC weapons or development where discoverrd.
So where are these weapons?
France and Germany are in Afghanistan fighting and dying on our behalf,
along with other NATO armies. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism
except for the echoing looniness inside Dick Cheney's empty skull.
The real war on terrorism is in Afghanistan which the USA abandonned
in search of more profitable plunder. France and Germany and other
NATO armies are fighting the war on terrorism, and they were doing
so long before the USA got involved. It's the USA that abandonned
the war on terrorism in favour of trying to break OPEC and control
the flow of oil from Arab states, not France and Germany.
# the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could
# do anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport
# across his country from east to west.
The borders of Iraq were far better regulated under Saddam than today.
The chaos that USA inflicted openned the borders. Remember Bunker
Hill? Remember Valley Forge? Remember Yorktown? Do you think only
Americans are capable of taking up arms against a foreign occupier
and fighting for their independence? We have become the redcoats
and Hessians. Makes you kinda proud, doesn't it?
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
JUSTICE!
Justice is dead.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:05:52 +0000, SM Ryan wrote:
> # But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
> # It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build
>
> France said all along it would agree to military action in Iraq
> _if_ NBC weapons or development where discoverrd.
>
> So where are these weapons?
We don't know. We *do* know they had them. We don't know what happened
to them (though some have shown up). Indeed I hope they did disappear
into a black hole somewhere (never to be seen again).
> France and Germany are in Afghanistan fighting and dying on our behalf,
> along with other NATO armies.
Our? Al-Quida is only a US issue? France and Germany have nothing to
fear from terrorism?
> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism
Bullshit. It may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but only the infirm
would believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
> except for the echoing looniness inside Dick Cheney's empty skull.
You're projecting again.
> The
> real war on terrorism is in Afghanistan which the USA abandonned in
> search of more profitable plunder.
Oh, please! No one abandoned Afghanistan. Just because it's not first
up on Dan Blather, doesn't mean it fell off teh radar screen.
> France and Germany and other NATO
> armies are fighting the war on terrorism, and they were doing so long
> before the USA got involved. It's the USA that abandonned the war on
> terrorism in favour of trying to break OPEC and control the flow of oil
> from Arab states, not France and Germany.
...any more fairy tales? France and Germany were the ones profiting,
under the table, from trade with Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program.
They didn't want to kill the goose...
> # the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could # do
> anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport # across
> his country from east to west.
>
> The borders of Iraq were far better regulated under Saddam than today.
Is that why there were so many terrorists living in Iraq? I thought
Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism? ...can't have it both ways.
> The chaos that USA inflicted openned the borders.
Perhaps. Iran and Syria do not want Iraq to be free. Much of the funding
for the "insurgents" is from Iran and Syria.
> Remember Bunker Hill? Remember Valley Forge? Remember Yorktown?
How about Antietam, Harpers Ferry, and Gettysburgh? ...or maybe Pearl
Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guada Canal? See I can name irrelevant battles
too.
> Do you think only Americans are capable of taking up arms against a
> foreign occupier and fighting for their independence? We have become the
> redcoats and Hessians. Makes you kinda proud, doesn't it?
The US seems to be the only one with a real military left. The French?
Italy? Canada?
--
Keith
keith wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:05:52 +0000, SM Ryan wrote:
[SNIP]
>> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism
>
> Bullshit. It may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but only the infirm
> would believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
Show me the hard evidence. All I've seen are word association
games. I'm sure you would expect me to provide evidence if I
accused the US of harbouring convicted terrorists.
The US reminds me of Ronnie's "Evil Empire" at the moment. :(
--
Cheers,
Rupert
·········@aol.com wrote:
[SNIP]
> I had assumed this was to placate France, Germany and Russia.
> IMO, there was too much politics and not enough military.
I can't see why you bother making excuses on behalf of the
Administration. It was the Administration's call as to who
ran the CPA, let them take responsibility for it.
--
Cheers,
Rupert
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
> record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
> examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
> the
Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.
Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.
-- Patrick
On 14 Sep 2004 09:52:15 -0700, Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com>
wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>
>> I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
>> record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
>> examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
>> the
>
>Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
>not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
>and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
>decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.
>
>Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
>Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
>by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.
>
I didn't get the reference to the "Cuba crisis", either. I assume it
refers to the missile crisis (which kept me in Oakland for a week
while the Army decided which country to send us to.) I thought it was
the Cubans and Russians who miscalculated that one.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
In article <···············@drizzle.com>,
Patrick Scheible <···@drizzle.com> wrote:
> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>
> > I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
> > record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
> > examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
> > the
>
> Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
> not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
> and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
> decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.
>
> Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
> Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
> by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.
>
> -- Patrick
His mistake, was IIRC, promising air cover and then not delivering. Hey,
that's a mistake that has been made by real military leaders.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com>
wrote:
>>In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
>> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>·········@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Balmer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>... snip ...
>
>[snipp Rush Limbaugh's's talks show mentioned]
>
>>>I deplore your tast in radio talk shows.
>>
>>Oh! Taste in talk shows.
>
>Ah, then I have deplorable tastes in your opinion. I find Rush
>greatly entertaining; but wouldn't use him as a data point.
Oh, not just him but the ...I can't think of a good word to
use...I use it as a pulse measurement to find out what that
particular ilk of people are thinking.
>
>I wish the left could dig up someone as entertaining as Rush.
Carvell.
>
>>> .. It doesn't take much to
>>>create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.
>>
>>I listen to them for data about how the rabble is thinking
>>and the logic they use to form their opinions. I also
>>watch those religious cable TV shows to gather the same kinds
>>of information; note that I can only manage to listen to these
>>about 10 minutes and not more than once/year. I also listen
>>to Rushie to see what kinds of lies that half of the world is
>>listening to. I watch CSPAN who never cut out for commericals,
>>don't edit too much, and tend to leave the mike on after the
>>meetings break up. '
>
>With most of these you miss the point if you listen for content
>at all.
I generally use the content as a clue to figure out what the
group is trying to not talk about a.k.a. smoke and mirrors.
There are other things one can deduce based on what is getting
talked about and how it's getting described.
> ..The media IS the message. And you are the product, to
>be entertained enough so you can be sold to advertisers.
Sure. The exception is those who don't have normal behaviour
patterns.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
> CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
>> intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
>> their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
>> propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
>> rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
>> and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
>> civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
>> choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
>> trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
>> gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
>> (due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
>> efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.
>
> Well, your Bush-hater campaign is working beyond all your
> expectations. One day, you will have to live it.
But the point is that most people neither love nor hate Bush.
They hate his misguided and thoughtless actions. The comics love
him, as he provides so many ridiculous quotes. The wealthy love
him, as he transfers taxes from them to the middle class and the
poor. Bin Laden loves him, as he provides manna for his rabble
rousing. The NRA loves him, as he blocks any renewal of gun
laws. Halliburton loves him.
>>
>> Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration,
>
> OH, fuckmeverymuch. I am in Mass. We do have some
> experience of a Kerry administration. For those you who don't,
> watch how he runs his campaign. He will run the country in the
> same manner.
No, you have experience of a Senate career. The famous war votes
show that he is responsible, since he voted for a bill that
provided for financing, and against a modified bill that simply
ran up the deficit. At the time very few knew that the alleged
Sadamian sins were largely pipe dreams, that the hunt for the 9/11
perpetrators was to be discarded, and that no preparation for the
results was to be made. His major error was in placing some trust
in the Bush administration. The post Viet Nam episodes show that
he has a functioning conscience. Some people learn from their
mistakes.
Bush is a much different thing. With him you had experience of a
Governorship in a state that almost totally emasculates the power
of a Governor, apart from the ability to sign death warrants and
deny mercy. We have seen the ugly result of giving him some
power, as I partially enumerated above.
>
>> .. but we
>> have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.
>
... snip adhominem garbage ...
> Things can be worse..a lot worse.
True. But those candidates aren't running for President this time.
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
> not.
>
> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be more
> than one piece.
i have vague recollection of a picture of saturn v 1st stage being
barged to florida ... having been built someplace in a single assemble
... and not requiring re-assemble in florida with gaskets.
can you imagine it being built in sections that required meeting
overland train transportion restrictions? ... not only would it have
to be section in 40ft long pieces .... but probably each 40ft section
would have to be cut into slivers since it would otherwise have too
big/wide .... and then assembled with huge amounts of gaskets in
florida ... not only around the circumference but huge amount of
gaskets up and down its length.
lets see what search engine comes up with for saturn v 1st stage
reference ... aha ... it turns out that wikipedia is your friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Stages
fist stage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC
is 138ft ... about the same length as the assembled shuttle booster
rocket ... but 33ft in diameter. can you imagine the saturn v first
stage being built someplace in 40ft sections .... as well as down
its length 40ft long section down the length ... sort of like a pie
... say 8ths ... what is the straight line between the end points for
1/8th arc of a 33ft diamter circle ...
the circumference is a little over 103ft so 1/8th of that is about
13ft arc ... which would make the straight line for the end-points of
the arc about 12ft .... which might just about fit overland train
transportion restrictions. so saturn v first stage could be
manufactored in 32 sections ... transported to florida by train and
re-assembled with gaskets.
saturn v second stage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
doesn't give the dimensions ... picture seems to imply about the same
circumference but not as long.
saturn v third stage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:24:46 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<····@garlic.com> wrote:
>fist stage:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC
>
>is 138ft ... about the same length as the assembled shuttle booster
>rocket ... but 33ft in diameter. can you imagine the saturn v first
>stage being built someplace in 40ft sections .... as well as down
>its length 40ft long section down the length ... sort of like a pie
>... say 8ths ... what is the straight line between the end points for
>1/8th arc of a 33ft diamter circle ...
I don't really know what imagination has to do with the question. I
can imagine it being carved into 1277 pieces, but won't offer that as
a meaningful argument.
Here in Arizona, we recently had a transformer delivered. On a 800,000
pound, 280 foot long rig. By highway. No barges involved.
As for the reference to Hatch, that's exactly what the OP was writing
about.
I apologize for not having the time to read and research your comments
properly, so if it seems that I'm just picking on your logic, or lack
thereof, you are correct.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> I don't really know what imagination has to do with the question. I
> can imagine it being carved into 1277 pieces, but won't offer that
> as a meaningful argument.
>
> Here in Arizona, we recently had a transformer delivered. On a
> 800,000 pound, 280 foot long rig. By highway. No barges involved.
>
> As for the reference to Hatch, that's exactly what the OP was
> writing about.
>
> I apologize for not having the time to read and research your
> comments properly, so if it seems that I'm just picking on your
> logic, or lack thereof, you are correct.
my uncle moved houses ... i helped on maybe a dozen or so ... needed
special permits ... and wide load escorts ... and carefully planned
routes ... frequently for relatively controlled distances.
if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
back as the house moved under.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> writes:
> if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
> of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
> route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
> the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
> back as the house moved under.
oh ... and people have died doing that ...
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> writes:
>> if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
>> of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
>> route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
>> the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
>> back as the house moved under.
>
>oh ... and people have died doing that ...
That was my next question :-). How did you manage?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com writes:
> That was my next question :-). How did you manage?
the first i remember was two story with steep roof. i got to demolish
the brick chimmny in the middle of the house... and remove the bricks
... lifting the house for the timbers to go under and move, there
wouldn't be anything to support the chimney. when the house came to
the wires, i went up thru the hole in the roof where the chimney had
been; walk out to the edge and gather the wires and lift them above
the peek ... and walk with them as the house moved under the wires. i
was 12. several years later, one of my uncles fell off the roof of a
house being moved and died.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
·········@aol.com wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> writes:
>>
>>> if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss
>>> a lot of the problems that you would run into moving by train.
>>> we had one route where i was on the peak of the house and had
>>> to grab wires over the side .... lift the wires up to clear the
>>> peak and walk the wires back as the house moved under.
>>
>> oh ... and people have died doing that ...
>
> That was my next question :-). How did you manage?
He didn't. You missed the funeral.
--
Chuck F (··········@yahoo.com) (··········@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
> Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> > I don't really know what imagination has to do with the question. I
> > can imagine it being carved into 1277 pieces, but won't offer that
> > as a meaningful argument.
> >
> > Here in Arizona, we recently had a transformer delivered. On a
> > 800,000 pound, 280 foot long rig. By highway. No barges involved.
> >
> > As for the reference to Hatch, that's exactly what the OP was
> > writing about.
> >
> > I apologize for not having the time to read and research your
> > comments properly, so if it seems that I'm just picking on your
> > logic, or lack thereof, you are correct.
>
> my uncle moved houses ... i helped on maybe a dozen or so ... needed
> special permits ... and wide load escorts ... and carefully planned
> routes ... frequently for relatively controlled distances.
>
> if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
> of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
> route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
> the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
> back as the house moved under.
I had an uncle in the business, his job was to check the route, they
didn't want him to retire. (O baby, when it comes time to move, nothing
beats the feeling of finding out by experience that the route is
untenable and no one wanted to put their career on the line, I suppose.)
But he finally convinced them, that he couldn't do the job forever.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <····@garlic.com> wrote in message
··················@mail.comcast.net...
> at the time of the 1st disaster ... the claim was that the utah bid
> was the only solution that required manufactoring the boosters in
> sections for transportion and the subsequent re-assembly in florida
> with gaskets. the assertion was that none of the other solutions could
> have had a failure because of gaskets ... because they didn't have
> gaskets (having been manufactored as a single unit).
>
> so the failure cause scenario went (compared to solutions that didn't
> require gaskets and manufactoring in sections)
>
> disaster because of inferior(?) gaskets
> inferior(?) gaskets because of gaskets
> gaskets because of transportion sectioning requirement
> transportation sectioning requirement because the sections
> were manufactored in utah
True, but totally irrelevent. Had they gone with any other design, they
could not have had a disaster due to any defect in the design they wouldn't
have chosen.
DS
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> >> i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
> >> assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
> >> florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
> >> because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
> >> transportation constraints.
> >
> >Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
> >astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
>
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
IIRC (always risky), the use of a segmented booster calling for
o-rings in the first place came from the need to transport the
boosters from Utah.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Alan Balmer wrote:
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
There should never have been any O-rings in the first place. Three
better designs were offered, but NASA was ordered by the Nixon White
House to pick Thiokol's design, a distant fourth, for political reasons.
The decision to launch wasn't "inferior judgment", it was pure damned
politics, too.
The Challenger seven were just as good as murdered.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
In article <······················@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
·······@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) writes:
>The Challenger seven were just as good as murdered.
I prefer "sacrificed on the altar of political expediency."
Recommended reading: "What Do _You_ Care What Other People Think?"
by Richard P. Feynman (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-02659-0)
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Alan Balmer wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>>i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
>>>assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
>>>florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
>>>because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
>>>transportation constraints.
>>
>>Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
>>astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
>
>
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
The gaskets wouldn't have been necessary if the SRBs had been built in a
single piece instead of having to be assembled from seven sections. The
problem was that one-piece SRBs are too big for land transport, and for
political reasons (i.e., buying support), the SRBs were to be built in
Utah by Morton-Thiokol. Ergo, multi-section SRBs with gaskets "required".
--Larry
Larry Elmore wrote:
[SNIP]
> The gaskets wouldn't have been necessary if the SRBs had been built in a
> single piece instead of having to be assembled from seven sections. The
> problem was that one-piece SRBs are too big for land transport, and for
> political reasons (i.e., buying support), the SRBs were to be built in
> Utah by Morton-Thiokol. Ergo, multi-section SRBs with gaskets "required".
I would hope that Morton Thiokol's experience at building a diverse
range of rockets might have been a factor in the decision too. I
suppose they might have systematically fired every rocket scientist
they had (wouldn't put it past a PHB) to save cost though. :)
Too many ifs & butts. IMO. Folks caved to political pressure, but
the blame doesn't just lie with the rank and file. The folks
applying the pressure from the top would have known full well what
they were doing. If they didn't they were unfit for the task, if
not negligent anyways.
Cheers,
Rupert
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> The gaskets wouldn't have been necessary if the SRBs had been built in
>> a single piece instead of having to be assembled from seven sections.
>> The problem was that one-piece SRBs are too big for land transport,
>> and for political reasons (i.e., buying support), the SRBs were to be
>> built in Utah by Morton-Thiokol. Ergo, multi-section SRBs with gaskets
>> "required".
Erk, _four_ sections, not seven. Not sure where that came from. :(
> I would hope that Morton Thiokol's experience at building a diverse
> range of rockets might have been a factor in the decision too. I
> suppose they might have systematically fired every rocket scientist
> they had (wouldn't put it past a PHB) to save cost though. :)
http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
"Competition for the SRB Contract"
"Four companies bid for the contract to design and manufacture the solid
rocket boosters (SRBs). Aerojet Solid bid the program at $655 million,
United Technologies at $710 million, Morton Thiokol at $710 million, and
Lockheed at $714 million. All the bids were relatively similar in both
price and technology. Based on cost, the NASA advisory panel recommended
that the contract be awarded to Aerojet; they believed that money could
be saved without sacrificing technical quality by choosing the lowest
bid. NASA administrator Dr. James Fletcher overruled this recommendation
and awarded the contract to Morton Thiokol in Brigham City, Utah.
Aerojet appealed the decision and after many allegations and
counter-allegations, the GAO (General Accounting Office) was instructed
by Congress to investigate the matter. The GAO found that the contract
award procedure was not improper. NASA regulations clearly stated that
the decision was to be made by the chief administrator, not the advisory
panel. However, the GAO could find no reason for selecting Morton
Thiokol over Aerojet and recommended that NASA reconsider the decision [1]."
"Political Compromises in the Contract"
"The nature of the political connections between the Space Program and
prominent figures of the state of Utah has long been debated. Utah
Senators Jake Garn and Frank Moss have been active supporters of the
Space Program, particularly when it benefits Utah-based industries.
There is nothing wrong with this; Representatives of Congress are
expected to be interested in furthering the activities of their
constituents. The real cloud of suspicion hung over former Morton
Thiokol employees who worked for NASA at the time of the contract award,
and the head of NASA itself, Dr. James Fletcher [4]."
"Dr. Fletcher served as the President of the University of Utah from
1964 through 1971. His connections with the state and its industries
were numerous and far reaching, but he denied that these connections had
any influence on his decision to award the SRB contract to Morton
Thiokol. However, many people who observed the contract award process
remained unconvinced. Fletcher's inability to provide solid reasons for
the selection of Morton Thiokol over Aerojet did nothing to ease the
controversy surrounding the decision; his reasons were vague and
referred to minor points in the advisory committee's study. NASA's
refusal to discuss whether former Morton Thiokol employees had been part
of the advisory committee simply fueled speculation of wrong-doing.
Whether Morton Thiokol used political influence to secure the SRB
contract has never been determined, but lack of clear answers caused
many to conclude that the contract may have been awarded improperly[1]."
> Too many ifs & butts. IMO. Folks caved to political pressure, but
> the blame doesn't just lie with the rank and file. The folks
> applying the pressure from the top would have known full well what
> they were doing. If they didn't they were unfit for the task, if
> not negligent anyways.
Oh, it appears to me the problem was almost entirely with the PHBs both
at NASA and at Morton-Thiokol. Engineers at Morton-Thiokol knew there
was a problem long before the accident, as did people at NASA.
--Larry
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Rupert Pigott wrote:
[SNIP]
> http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
>
> "Competition for the SRB Contract"
>
> "Four companies bid for the contract to design and manufacture the solid
> rocket boosters (SRBs). Aerojet Solid bid the program at $655 million,
> United Technologies at $710 million, Morton Thiokol at $710 million, and
> Lockheed at $714 million. All the bids were relatively similar in both
> price and technology. Based on cost, the NASA advisory panel recommended
> that the contract be awarded to Aerojet; they believed that money could
> be saved without sacrificing technical quality by choosing the lowest
> bid. NASA administrator Dr. James Fletcher overruled this recommendation
[SNIP]
Even if hypothetically superior Aerojet boosters were used I would
bet a life's salary that mismanagement would nail them in the end...
Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
building large solid-fuel rockets.
Cheers,
Rupert
"Rupert Pigott" <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message ······················@teapot.planet.gong...
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
> >
> > "Competition for the SRB Contract"
> >
> > "Four companies bid for the contract to design and manufacture the solid
> > rocket boosters (SRBs). Aerojet Solid bid the program at $655 million,
> > United Technologies at $710 million, Morton Thiokol at $710 million, and
> > Lockheed at $714 million. All the bids were relatively similar in both
> > price and technology. Based on cost, the NASA advisory panel recommended
> > that the contract be awarded to Aerojet; they believed that money could
> > be saved without sacrificing technical quality by choosing the lowest
> > bid. NASA administrator Dr. James Fletcher overruled this recommendation
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Even if hypothetically superior Aerojet boosters were used I would
> bet a life's salary that mismanagement would nail them in the end...
You will never understand past mistakes with an attitude like that.."Oh
well, who knows? It could have been worse!"
> Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
> exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
> were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
> building large solid-fuel rockets.
And there would have been a clear answer: they had the lowest bid and a
committee responsible for technical evaluation approved them.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
> "Rupert Pigott" <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message ······················@teapot.planet.gong...
>
> > Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
> > exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
> > were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
> > building large solid-fuel rockets.
However, it would certainly not have failed at the segment joints.
The more I read sci.space.tech the more convinced I am that the whole
shuttle concept was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Putting
the orbiter next to (rather than on top of) the huge tank of high
explosive is not a good idea. Reentry from orbit is not the same as
flying an airplane; ablative heat shields work and work well.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>"Rupert Pigott" <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>message ······················@teapot.planet.gong...
>>
>>
>>>Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
>>>exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
>>>were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
>>>building large solid-fuel rockets.
>
>
> However, it would certainly not have failed at the segment joints.#
Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to itself... :)
The O-Ring thing had been identified, was preventable and should have
been prevented. Sure, perhaps the design did suck, but the point is
the whole disaster was trivially avoidable if the people running the
show were willing to grasp the nettle.
> The more I read sci.space.tech the more convinced I am that the whole
> shuttle concept was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Putting
> the orbiter next to (rather than on top of) the huge tank of high
> explosive is not a good idea. Reentry from orbit is not the same as
> flying an airplane; ablative heat shields work and work well.
It does seem silly, but it is a glorious piece of brute force design
in the face of impossible odds none the less.
Cheers,
Rupert
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Discussing the shuttle in the wrong newsgroups (was Re: Xah Lee's Unixism)
Date:
Message-ID: <xYqdnUCRPJQUpafcRVn-qQ@dls.net>
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> However, it would certainly not have failed at the segment joints.#
>
> Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to itself... :)
For example, it would have been more difficult to cast, so it could
have been more prone to catastrophic failures due to casting errors
(voids in the grain, poor bonding of the grain to the casing, etc.)
The safer answer would have been liquid boosters, but they cost more.
The underlying problem was that the shuttle never made economic sense
(fraudulent projections of high flight rates notwithstanding.)
Followup to sci.space.policy.
Paul
Rupert Pigott wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>
> Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to itself... :)
>
> The O-Ring thing had been identified, was preventable and should have
> been prevented. Sure, perhaps the design did suck, but the point is
> the whole disaster was trivially avoidable if the people running the
> show were willing to grasp the nettle.
>
Since we're so far off-topic here anyway ...
It has been so many years since the Challenger disaster
that memory fades (especially at my age), so bear with
me if a misremember something.
As I recall, the particular launch happened during
an unusual cold spell in Florida. I also recall
that the investigation uncovered strong recommendations
by several senior engineers, prior to launch, that the launch
should be postponed because the system (shuttle and boosters)
had never been launched during those kinds of
weather conditions. (It could very well be that they
might have pointed out the O-rings specifically,
but I don't recall.) Some managementcritter
at some level (probably in NASA) ignored or overruled
those recommendations. I can only conjecture that
this was because that the prevailing culture (in most
corporations, then and now) is "we have to meet
our schedules."
The managmentcritters' attitude can be
summarized by:
- "If *we* don't meet *our* schedules, it's my butt on the
line." (The regal "we" and "our" purposely emphasized.)
- "If we meet our schedules and **** up, it's someone
else's butt on the line."
NPL
P.S. - I make no claim that the design was good,
bad, or indifferent. It is outside my area of expertise.
I *do* know, from personal experience, that many
technically sound recommendations are overruled by management,
for whatever reasons. The root cause could well
have been in the choice of Morton-Thiokol, I don't
know. If my recollections above are correct, tho,
the "proximate cause" was launching the shuttle at all
given the objections of the engineers.
--
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
- A. Bloch
Nick Landsberg wrote:
> The managmentcritters' attitude can be
> summarized by:
> - "If *we* don't meet *our* schedules, it's my butt on the
> line." (The regal "we" and "our" purposely emphasized.)
> - "If we meet our schedules and **** up, it's someone
> else's butt on the line."
The actual words were (approximately), "Take off your engineering hat
and put on your management hat."
In a just society, he would have received the death penalty.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Nick Landsberg <···············@SPAMworldnetTRAP.att.net> writes:
>> Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to
>> itself... :) The O-Ring thing had been identified, was preventable
>> and should have been prevented. Sure, perhaps the design did suck,
>> but the point is the whole disaster was trivially avoidable if the
>> people running the show were willing to grasp the nettle.
> Since we're so far off-topic here anyway ...
> It has been so many years since the Challenger disaster that memory
> fades (especially at my age), so bear with me if a misremember
> something.
> As I recall, the particular launch happened during an unusual cold
> spell in Florida. I also recall that the investigation uncovered
> strong recommendations by several senior engineers, prior to launch,
> that the launch should be postponed because the system (shuttle and
> boosters) had never been launched during those kinds of weather
> conditions. (It could very well be that they might have pointed out
> the O-rings specifically, but I don't recall.) Some
> managementcritter at some level (probably in NASA) ignored or
> overruled those recommendations. I can only conjecture that this
> was because that the prevailing culture (in most corporations, then
> and now) is "we have to meet our schedules."
Grab a copy of `Genius', Gleiks bio of RF and read the end chapters
and note what was `leaked' to him.
Before the launch, it was known that they where colder than any
previous launch, and that the seal erosion problems they worried about
where wose in colder conditions.
The engineers wanted to holdm but that would have meant Ronny Raygun
could not grandstand on TV, so N.A.S.A.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
In article <··············@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
Paul Repacholi <····@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>Nick Landsberg <···············@SPAMworldnetTRAP.att.net> writes:
>
>>> Indeed, it could have failed in a way entirely unique to
>>> itself... :) The O-Ring thing had been identified, was preventable
>>> and should have been prevented. Sure, perhaps the design did suck,
>>> but the point is the whole disaster was trivially avoidable if the
>>> people running the show were willing to grasp the nettle.
>
>> Since we're so far off-topic here anyway ...
>
>> It has been so many years since the Challenger disaster that memory
>> fades (especially at my age), so bear with me if a misremember
>> something.
>
>> As I recall, the particular launch happened during an unusual cold
>> spell in Florida. I also recall that the investigation uncovered
>> strong recommendations by several senior engineers, prior to launch,
>> that the launch should be postponed because the system (shuttle and
>> boosters) had never been launched during those kinds of weather
>> conditions. (It could very well be that they might have pointed out
>> the O-rings specifically, but I don't recall.) Some
>> managementcritter at some level (probably in NASA) ignored or
>> overruled those recommendations. I can only conjecture that this
>> was because that the prevailing culture (in most corporations, then
>> and now) is "we have to meet our schedules."
>
>Grab a copy of `Genius', Gleiks bio of RF and read the end chapters
>and note what was `leaked' to him.
>
>Before the launch, it was known that they where colder than any
>previous launch, and that the seal erosion problems they worried about
>where wose in colder conditions.
>
>The engineers wanted to holdm but that would have meant Ronny Raygun
>could not grandstand on TV, so N.A.S.A.
Somebody just wrote in another newsgroup that the two pilots
of the shuttle used to sit in ejectable seats but the others
didn't. So politically correct equal employment opportunity
PHBs eliminated the ejections because it wasn't fair to rest of
the crew.
There is something wrong with this logic.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On 04 Sep 2004 13:25:41 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <········@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> "Rupert Pigott" <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> message ······················@teapot.planet.gong...
>>
>> > Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
>> > exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
>> > were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
>> > building large solid-fuel rockets.
>
> However, it would certainly not have failed at the segment joints.
>
> The more I read sci.space.tech the more convinced I am that the whole
> shuttle concept was fundamentally flawed from the beginnin g.Putting
> the orbiter next to (rather than on top of) the huge tank of high
> explosive is not a good idea. Reentry from orbit is not the same as
> flying an airplane; ablative heat shields work and work well.
I second that.
Making a space veicle look like a plane is a lame idea.
It makes launch more complicated because the lift of the wings
gives force and this has to be continously compenated for by rotating the
veicle.
(Does "roger, roll" ring a bell)
During reentry the wing surfaces and other protruding objects adds to the
heat signature
and adds to the risc. (I think the Columia disaster illustrates this.)
The only time the plane shape makes sense is for the last 4 last minutes
of a
mission. For this I think parachutes would be a better option.
In short it adds risk for very little gain.
The real reason NASA thought a plane would be great is because all
the astronaughts are previous test pilots. And, well, they like planes.
Ideally a space reentry veicle should look as much as a drop as possible
and should enter with the butt end. (Minimum air drag.)
Instead of fighting nature they should be using it..
This minimizes risc.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Rupert Pigott" <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message ······················@teapot.planet.gong...
>
>>Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
>>>
>>>"Competition for the SRB Contract"
>>>
>>>"Four companies bid for the contract to design and manufacture the solid
>>>rocket boosters (SRBs). Aerojet Solid bid the program at $655 million,
>>>United Technologies at $710 million, Morton Thiokol at $710 million, and
>>>Lockheed at $714 million. All the bids were relatively similar in both
>>>price and technology. Based on cost, the NASA advisory panel recommended
>>>that the contract be awarded to Aerojet; they believed that money could
>>>be saved without sacrificing technical quality by choosing the lowest
>>>bid. NASA administrator Dr. James Fletcher overruled this recommendation
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>Even if hypothetically superior Aerojet boosters were used I would
>>bet a life's salary that mismanagement would nail them in the end...
>
>
> You will never understand past mistakes with an attitude like that.."Oh
> well, who knows? It could have been worse!"
That's not it at all : It's a recognition of the sickness in the
safety culture that existed.
>>Consider this : If the tables were turned and an Aerojet booster
>>exploded in the sky I'll bet the armchair QBs would be asking why
>>were Aerojet chosen over Morton-Thiokol who had more experience of
>>building large solid-fuel rockets.
>
>
> And there would have been a clear answer: they had the lowest bid and a
> committee responsible for technical evaluation approved them.
You would get accusations that the tech.eval was approving them
to cut corners in the budget... AFAICT MT had more experience
of building that kind of gadget at the time.
Don't get me wrong : M-T & NASA fucked up, I'm not defending
them. I'm just a bit wary of pinning it on the choice of maker
when in fact it seems to be a cultural sickness that eventually
led to a *predictable* and *preventable* catastrophic failure.
Cheers,
Rupert
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:08:22 GMT, Larry Elmore
<·········@_comcast_._net> wrote:
>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
Good read. Thanks for digging this up. However, you seem to have left
out the part about it being Orrin Hatch's fault ;-)
I did notice that the article indicated that the four bids were
"relatively similar in ... technology."
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> I would hope that Morton Thiokol's experience at building a diverse
> range of rockets might have been a factor in the decision too.
I would hope so too, but that isn't how it happened. In history as it
actually went, the Morton-Thiokol design came in a distant fourth, and
the White House ordered NASA to try again, but this time come up with
the "right" answer.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:47:20 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
<·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> I would hope that Morton Thiokol's experience at building a diverse
>> range of rockets might have been a factor in the decision too.
>
>I would hope so too, but that isn't how it happened. In history as it
>actually went, the Morton-Thiokol design came in a distant fourth, and
>the White House ordered NASA to try again, but this time come up with
>the "right" answer.
This disagrees with the scenario presented (and documented)
elsethread. Do you have supporting references?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> writes:
> The shuttle boosters are 3.7m diameter. Quite a bit larger than the
> gage of any railroad I've ever seen.
>
> More than you ever wanted to know:
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Space%20Shuttle%20Solid%20Rocket%20Booster
More than the track gauge, certainly, but the edges of the train cars
-- and the largest items that can be carried on the train -- hang out
significantly outside the track. Structure gauge is how much wide
and tall a load can be carried, or the size of the cars. Even if
there are no bridges or tunnels, you have to be careful of the trains
on the adjoining tracks if you're carrying something overwidth.
3.7 meters is not impossibly large for carrying on a railroad car.
Specifics would depend on the particular route, though.
-- Patrick
Alan Balmer wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> The shuttle boosters are 3.7m diameter. Quite a bit larger than
> the gage of any railroad I've ever seen.
Clearance is more or less dependant on gauge. The story is that
Lincolns assasination made the Pullman Co., because before that
many clearances were too small for his sleepers. For the funeral
train they had to widen the clearances.
--
Some similarities between GWB and Mussolini:
a) The strut; b) Making war until brought up short:
Mussolini: Ethiopia, France, Greece.
GWB: Afghanistan, Iraq.
In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <··········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Peter Hansen wrote:
>> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>
>>>> There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>>>
>>> Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
>>> for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
>>
>> A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
>> certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
>> details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
>> is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
>
>I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
>that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
>railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
ISTR there was some tunnel NASA had to relate to if they wanted
to move the goods from production to launch. But that may have been
earlier products.
But rail tunnels are also descended from the same asses, so to speak.
-- mrr
In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
>CBFalconer <··········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Peter Hansen wrote:
>>> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>>> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they
are.
>>>>
>>>> Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also
accounts
>>>> for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
>>>
>>> A quick search using Google will show that while there is a
>>> certain amount of truth in the original story, most of the
>>> details are wrong, and the final bit about the booster rockets
>>> is unsubstantiated. But it's still a cute story.
>>
>>I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
>>that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
>>railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
>
>ISTR there was some tunnel NASA had to relate to if they wanted
>to move the goods from production to launch. But that may have been
>earlier products.
>
>But rail tunnels are also descended from the same asses, so to speak.
There was a city getting restored in Turkey that JMF and I visited;
I cannot remember its name other than it's in the New Testament
written by Paul. It was one of most fascinating places I'd ever
been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage. I always
wanted to get a big stone and spend 5 min/day rubbing it to see
if the claim was true.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
>
> There was a city getting restored in Turkey that JMF and I visited;
> I cannot remember its name other than it's in the New Testament
> written by Paul. It was one of most fascinating places I'd ever
> been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
> stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
> We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage.
There are many streets and paths in the UK still in everyday use where this
is the case!
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 18:12:20 +0100
"Stimpy" <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ·········@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
> > stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
> > We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage.
>
> There are many streets and paths in the UK still in everyday use where this
> is the case!
There are stone stairs in my old school and in many college buildings
that have deep curves worn into them by feet over a century or three.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 18:12:20 +0100
> "Stimpy" <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ·········@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
> > > stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
> > > We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage.
> >
> > There are many streets and paths in the UK still in everyday use where this
> > is the case!
>
> There are stone stairs in my old school and in many college buildings
> that have deep curves worn into them by feet over a century or three.
Heh. There are marble stairs with deep wear in them in the main
library at my school... only that particular building was only built
in 1925 or thereabouts.
-- Patrick
In article <···············@drizzle.com>, ···@drizzle.com
(Patrick Scheible) writes:
>Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> There are stone stairs in my old school and in many college
>> buildings that have deep curves worn into them by feet over a
>> century or three.
>
>Heh. There are marble stairs with deep wear in them in the main
>library at my school... only that particular building was only built
>in 1925 or thereabouts.
Another damned contractor swapping in substandard materials...
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> (Patrick Scheible) writes:
>> Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> There are stone stairs in my old school and in many college
>>> buildings that have deep curves worn into them by feet over a
>>> century or three.
>>
>> Heh. There are marble stairs with deep wear in them in the main
>> library at my school... only that particular building was only built
>> in 1925 or thereabouts.
>
> Another damned contractor swapping in substandard materials...
I believe marble is a relatively soft stone, and not suitable for
heavy traffic. Maybe you should castigate the architect.
--
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
Iraq. It was the right decision" - G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02
On Friday, in article
<·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
wrote:
[Horses' arses and 4'8.5" gauge for railways and previously carts]
> There was a city getting restored in Turkey that JMF and I visited;
> I cannot remember its name other than it's in the New Testament
> written by Paul. It was one of most fascinating places I'd ever
> been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
> stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
> We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage. I always
> wanted to get a big stone and spend 5 min/day rubbing it to see
> if the claim was true.
I one visits Paleaopaphos, the ancient capital of [the west of] Cyprus,
one can see such runnels in the stones. Moreover, the gate into the city
has two 90-deg bends in it, to prevent a frontal assault (certain
American Consulates could have learnt from that) and there are "turning
stones" on the corners of this entrance.
Such stones ensure that a wagon gets tilted up to one side if the wheel's
tyre is too close to the walls, thereby ensuring that the wheel's hub
does not strike and erode the stonework of the walls.
This ancient city wall is totally unremarked, in a field about 2km from
the modern-day village of Kouklia, which has evolved around the ancient
Sanctuary of Aphrodite. There one can still see the remnants of the
siege-mound erected by Darius (or was it Xerxes?) in ca.452 BC. One can
also see the tunnels ("mines") dug by the defenders of Paphos underneath
that siege-mound, and the caverns created when the wood that had been
placed beneath was burnt, leading to the collapse of the mound and
(eventually) the defeat of the Persians.
Even some two-and-a-half-centuries later, one can still see that the
earth was burnt by that firing, which amazes me.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
On Saturday, in article <······················@dsl.co.uk>
···@dsl.co.uk "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote:
[Persian siege of Paphos, 452BC]
> Even some two-and-a-half-centuries later, one can still see that the
> earth was burnt by that firing, which amazes me.
s/centuries/millennia/
Well, it _was_ very late at night when I wrote that.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
<·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
>>CBFalconer <··········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>>>> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan" wrote:
>>ISTR there was some tunnel NASA had to relate to if they wanted
>>to move the goods from production to launch. But that may have been
>>earlier products.
>>
>>But rail tunnels are also descended from the same asses, so to speak.
>
>There was a city getting restored in Turkey that JMF and I visited;
>I cannot remember its name other than it's in the New Testament
>written by Paul. It was one of most fascinating places I'd ever
>been other than aquariums and zoos. There are ruts in the
>stone-block pavements caused by running carts to/from harbor/city.
>We were told that these ruts were worn down by usage. I always
>wanted to get a big stone and spend 5 min/day rubbing it to see
>if the claim was true.
Just visit my old gymnasium (aka "High School", but that loses part
of the concept). 320 pupils entering and leaving 14-18 times a day
wears down asphalt in 2 years, sandstone in 10 and granite in 100.
-- mrr
CBFalconer wrote:
> I know nothing about those stories, but it seems reasonable to me
> that the boosters would have been designed to be transportable by
> railroad, which ties their dimensions to track gauge.
That's the nature of urban legends -- they seem reasonable.
Paul
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:43:03 +0100 (BST), ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>On Wednesday, in article
> <···············@corp.supernews.com>
> ·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org "SM Ryan"
> wrote:
>
>> There's a story about why railroad tracks are spaced the way they are.
>
>Is this the one about two Roman horses' arses? If so, it also accounts
>for the physical dimensions of the Space Shuttle's boosters.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:36:14 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>Craig A. Finseth <····@finseth.com> wrote:
>+---------------
>| Ville Vainio <·····@spammers.com> wrote:
>| >... and / as path separator still screws up most of their cmd line
>| >programs (which think / is for command line options).
>| >Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea, and
>| >have only lately started to have some regrets...
>|
>| Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
>| whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
>| after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?).
>+---------------
>
>Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
>PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
>
>+---------------
>| Consider the "PIP" command.
>+---------------
>
>Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
But CP/M also derived from IBM VM CP(!) and CMS:
mount a ...
attach con/rdr/lst/pun ...
It's been too long!
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.ab.ca> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| >Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
| >PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
| >
| >+---------------
| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
| >+---------------
| >
| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
|
| But CP/M also derived from IBM VM CP(!) and CMS:
| mount a ...
| attach con/rdr/lst/pun ...
+---------------
Those were also PDP-10 Monitor commands, and probably PDP-6 Monitor
before that.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Those were also PDP-10 Monitor commands, and probably PDP-6 Monitor
> before that.
there may have been a little bit of common tracing back to the ctss
days ... however recent posting about him using cp/cms at npg when
he was writing pl/m
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#40 Which Monitor Would You Pick????
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.ab.ca> wrote:
>+---------------
>| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>| >Which, like PS/8 & OS-8 [and "DECsystem-8" from Geordia Tech] for the
>| >PDP-8, modelled the command syntax after that of the venerable PDP-10!!
>| >
>| >+---------------
>| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
>| >+---------------
>| >
>| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
>|
>| But CP/M also derived from IBM VM CP(!) and CMS:
>| mount a ...
>| attach con/rdr/lst/pun ...
>+---------------
>
>Those were also PDP-10 Monitor commands, and probably PDP-6 Monitor
>before that.
Sigh! Fortunately, IBMers and DECcies all spoke English.
There were a few words that were spelt differently just
to satisfy NIH syndromes.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Craig A. Finseth wrote:
> Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator because
> whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled their commands
> after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?). Consider the "PIP" command.
> When they went to MS/DOS 2.0 and needed path separators, they found
> that "/" was already taken, so they used "\". But there was a hidden
> way to tell the command interpreter that it could use "-" for options.
Except, of course, that it was useless, because 99% of programs did
their own option parsing, and still do. The hidden option only lasted
one .1 subrelease, as I recall.
> And in all systems starting with 2.0, the system calls have taken "/"
> and "\" interchangably.
...which is /one/ thing that the FLOSS community can honestly thank them
for.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
In article <························@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
·······@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) writes:
>Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator
>> because whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled
>> their commands after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?). Consider
>> the "PIP" command.
At least PIP would copy zero-length files.
>> When they went to MS/DOS 2.0 and needed path separators, they
>> found that "/" was already taken, so they used "\". But there
>> was a hidden way to tell the command interpreter that it could
>> use "-" for options.
>
>Except, of course, that it was useless, because 99% of programs did
>their own option parsing, and still do. The hidden option only lasted
>one .1 subrelease, as I recall.
Yes, my programs indeed do their own parsing. And they insist on
"-", no matter which OS they're running on. :-)
>> And in all systems starting with 2.0, the system calls have taken "/"
>> and "\" interchangably.
>
>...which is /one/ thing that the FLOSS community can honestly thank them
>for.
Now, do you trust Microsoft to keep it that way? I don't. That's why
my programs are full of things like:
#ifdef DOSWIN
strcat (filespec, "\\");
#else
strcat (filespec, "/");
#endif
Yes, it's bulky and ugly. But it's also future-proof.
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <························@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
>·······@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) writes:
>
>>Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong. The / was chosen as the command line option separator
>>> because whoever wrote MSDOS was looking to CP/M, who modelled
>>> their commands after a PDP-11 operating system (RT-11?). Consider
>>> the "PIP" command.
>
>At least PIP would copy zero-length files.
Until I started using this braindead OS, I hadn't realized
how spoiled I was w.r.t. combining listed files into one.
>
>>> When they went to MS/DOS 2.0 and needed path separators, they
>>> found that "/" was already taken, so they used "\". But there
>>> was a hidden way to tell the command interpreter that it could
>>> use "-" for options.
>>
>>Except, of course, that it was useless, because 99% of programs did
>>their own option parsing, and still do. The hidden option only lasted
>>one .1 subrelease, as I recall.
>
>Yes, my programs indeed do their own parsing. And they insist on
>"-", no matter which OS they're running on. :-)
<GRIN> And everybody had to invent their own continuation
characters.
>
>>> And in all systems starting with 2.0, the system calls have taken "/"
>>> and "\" interchangably.
>>
>>...which is /one/ thing that the FLOSS community can honestly thank them
>>for.
>
>Now, do you trust Microsoft to keep it that way? I don't. That's why
>my programs are full of things like:
>
>#ifdef DOSWIN
> strcat (filespec, "\\");
>#else
> strcat (filespec, "/");
>#endif
>
>Yes, it's bulky and ugly. But it's also future-proof.
>
Well, it is until code substitution at execution time
is provided as a service.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Ville Vainio wrote:
>> "John" == John W Kennedy <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since
>> 2.0, MS has been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into
>> a Unix clone.
>
> With very little success. Notepad still only understands cr-lf
> line breaks, and / as path separator still screws up most of their
> cmd line programs (which think / is for command line options).
>
> Microsoft probably thought avoiding compatibility is a good idea,
> and have only lately started to have some regrets, visible as the
> release & future integration of SFU. Migrating ppl from Unix
> probably *is* easier when you are not doing your best to make
> interoperability as painful as possible.
Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:43:34 GMT, red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>
>
>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
>Get gvim! www.vim.org
WordPerfect PE or later ED. No longer sold, AFAIK.
--
Arargh407 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
···············@NOW.AT.arargh.com writes:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:43:34 GMT, red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>> Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>>
>>
>>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>>
>>Get gvim! www.vim.org
>
> WordPerfect PE or later ED. No longer sold, AFAIK.
Office68. Look for an LPROM on ebay.
--
M�ns Rullg�rd
···@mru.ath.cx
red floyd wrote:
> Let the editor flame wars begin!
Anyone else remember Blackbeard?
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
On 2004-08-31, Sherm Pendley <········@dot-app.org> wrote:
> red floyd wrote:
>
>> Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
> Anyone else remember Blackbeard?
Arr Sherm, me-lad, that I do, great man, never got his
round in though ;)
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
Black holes suck!
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:13:36 -0400, Sherm Pendley <········@dot-app.org> wrote:
>red floyd wrote:
>
>> Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
>Anyone else remember Blackbeard?
Strangely enough I came across a floppy with that on yesterday...
(I've been sorting out my old 5.25-inch floppies with a view to archiving
them all on a spare hard disk...)
I use BBEdit, but you need a Mac for that :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
So spake red floyd:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>
>
>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
>Get gv im!www.vim.org
In that case, I'll make a word for the microEmacs line. I very much
like MEWIN (a Windows 3.1 version of, I think, me311). It even has
user-definable newlines.
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:43:34 GMT
red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>
> > Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
> >
>
> Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
> Get gvim! www.vim.org
Wordstar 3.3 of course.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>
>
>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
>Get gvim! www.vim.org
You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <·························@news.rcn.com>, ·········@aol.com
(jmfbahciv) writes:
>In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>> Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>>
>>
>>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>>
>>Get gvim! www.vim.org
>
>You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
>and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
I'll give up CygnusEd (and the Amiga it runs on) when they
pry it from my cold dead fingers.
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
> / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Well said, that man! (Here, HTML messages are bounced by my
mail server, so I don't even see 'em...)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
·········@aol.com wrote:
> In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>>
>>
>>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>>
>>Get gvim! www.vim.org
>
>
> You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
> and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
>
My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the TOPS10 days.
It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you typed
"make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before beginning the edit.
regards
Steve
Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> writes:
> ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> > red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
> >
> >>CBFalconer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Let the editor flame wars begin!
> >>
> >>Get gvim! www.vim.org
> > You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
> > and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
> >
> My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the
> TOPS10 days.
>
> It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you
> typed "make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before
> beginning the edit.
But can it quote Zippy the Pinhead?
Joe
--
If you don't think too good, don't think too much
- Ted Williams
In article <··············@invalid.address>, ···@invalid.address wrote:
>Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> writes:
>
>> ·········@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>> > red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>> >
>> >>CBFalconer wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>> >>
>> >>Get gvim! www.vim.org
>> > You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
>> > and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
>> >
>> My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the
>> TOPS10 days.
>>
>> It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you
>> typed "make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before
>> beginning the edit.
>
>But can it quote Zippy the Pinhead?
Who?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com writes:
> In article <··············@invalid.address>, ···@invalid.address wrote:
> >Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> writes:
> >
> >> ·········@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> > red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>CBFalconer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Let the editor flame wars begin!
> >> >>
> >> >>Get gvim! www.vim.org
> >> > You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
> >> > and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
> >> >
> >> My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the
> >> TOPS10 days.
> >>
> >> It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you
> >> typed "make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before
> >> beginning the edit.
> >
> >But can it quote Zippy the Pinhead?
>
> Who?
http://www.zippythepinhead.com/
If you're runnning emacs, you can get a quote from him with M-X yow
Not exactly a typical editor function, agreed. I was feeling a little
whimsical at the time.
Joe
--
If you don't think too good, don't think too much
- Ted Williams
···@invalid.address writes:
> http://www.zippythepinhead.com/
>
> If you're runnning emacs, you can get a quote from him with M-X yow
>
> Not exactly a typical editor function, agreed. I was feeling a little
> whimsical at the time.
i once did a random email/usenet signature with zippy/yow ... but i
added two other files to it ... and then i had to fix a feature in
yow. yow uses a 16bit random number to index a yow file ... it was ok
as long as your sayings file was less than 64kbytes. i had to modify
yow to handle files larger than 64kbytes ... the "sayings" file used
for 6670 separater pages was 167k bytes and the jargon file was 413k
bytes ... while a current zippy yow file is 52,800 bytes.
recent reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#48 Random signatures
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
# > Not exactly a typical editor function, agreed. I was feeling a little
# > whimsical at the time.
#
# i once did a random email/usenet signature with zippy/yow ... but i
# added two other files to it ... and then i had to fix a feature in
# yow. yow uses a 16bit random number to index a yow file ... it was ok
# as long as your sayings file was less than 64kbytes. i had to modify
# yow to handle files larger than 64kbytes ... the "sayings" file used
# for 6670 separater pages was 167k bytes and the jargon file was 413k
# bytes ... while a current zippy yow file is 52,800 bytes.
It's nice to know people still have time to work on really important things.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
I'm not even supposed to be here today.
In article <···············@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
># > Not exactly a typical editor function, agreed. I was feeling a little
># > whimsical at the time.
>#
># i once did a random email/usenet signature with zippy/yow ... but i
># added two other files to it ... and then i had to fix a feature in
># yow. yow uses a 16bit random number to index a yow file ... it was ok
># as long as your sayings file was less than 64kbytes. i had to modify
># yow to handle files larger than 64kbytes ... the "sayings" file used
># for 6670 separater pages was 167k bytes and the jargon file was 413k
># bytes ... while a current zippy yow file is 52,800 bytes.
>
>It's nice to know people still have time to work on
>really important things.
Before you choke on your stuffiness, you should know that
playing uncovered an ungodly number of bugs that would
have never been exercised doing computing that had been
approved by PHBs.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> writes:
> It's nice to know people still have time to work on really important things.
was also responsible for adeventure inside the company ... recent
pst in a.o.m
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#38 Adventure
slight reference to the internal network in above
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtnetwork.html#internalnet
one of the arguments we used in proposed security sweeps to find all
copies ... was that a public entertainment area would be less of a
problem than attempting to outright & totally outlaw such activities.
for one thing a single (trusted?) entertainment area would use less
disk space than lots of disguised (to evade security sweep) individual
copies.
random past adventure threads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#56 Earliest memories of "Adventure" & "Trek"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#169 Crowther (pre-Woods) "Colossal Cave"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#72 Microsoft boss warns breakup could worsen virus problem
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#33 Adventure Games (Was: Navy orders supercomputer)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#14 adventure ... nearly 20 years
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#17 3270 protocol
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#44 Call for folklore - was Re: So it's cyclical.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#46 Any DEC 340 Display System Doco ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003i.html#69 IBM system 370
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003l.html#40 The real history of computer architecture: the short form
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#34 Playing games in mainframe
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#2 Text Adventures (which computer was first?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#7 Text Adventures (which computer was first?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#49 Adventure game (was:PL/? History (was Hercules))
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#57 Adventure game (was:PL/? History (was Hercules))
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
# SM Ryan <·······@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> writes:
# > It's nice to know people still have time to work on really important things.
#
# was also responsible for adeventure inside the company ... recent
# pst in a.o.m
# http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#38 Adventure
Is there a javascript version of Advent? I've been looking for a game to sneak into
software I've been working on. I can try to do little animated gifs.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
The little stoner's got a point.
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:51:27 GMT, <···@invalid.address> wrote:
> ·········@aol.com writes:
>
>> In article <··············@invalid.address>, ···@invalid.address wrote:
>> >Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> ·········@aol.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >> > red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>CBFalconer wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>G etgvim!www.vim.org
>> >> > You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
>> >> > and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
>> >> >
>> >> My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the
>> >> TOPS10 days.
>> >>
>> >> It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you
>> >> typed "make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before
>> >> beginning the edit.
>> >
>> >But can it quote Zippy the Pinhead?
>>
>> Who?
>
> http://www.zippythepinhead.com/
>
> If you're runnning emacs, you can get a quote from him with M-X yow
>
> Not exactly a typical editor function, agreed. I was feeling a little
> whimsical at the time.
>
> Joe
altso try psykoanalize-pinhead ;)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
In article <··················@okepread01>,
Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <····················@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>> red floyd <·······@here.dude> wrote:
>>
>>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let the editor flame wars begin!
>>>
>>>Get gvim! www.vim.org
>>
>>
>> You think notepad is an editor? <snort> You must be young
>> and inexperienced in the ways of Real Man's Editing sports.
>>
>My choice? Definitely TECO, a real programmable editor from the TOPS10
days.
>
>It would create a file if invoked by the "make" command. If you typed
>"make love" it would respond with "...not war?" before beginning the edit.
Yup. Definitely a side effect of a pony-tailed hippie protesting
the Nam war.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
red floyd <·······@here.dude> writes:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>
> > Dump Notepad and get Textpad. www.textpad.com. First class.
> >
>
> Let the editor flame wars begin!
>
> Get gvim! www.vim.org
none of those can hold the dimmest candle to the GNU Emacs.
Klaus Schilling
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Andre Majorel wrote:
>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>
>>>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>
>>>DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>>
>>
>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>> Unix-style file handles ?
>
>Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
what causes the crashes!
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> writes:
> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
> what causes the crashes!
and unix goes back to multics ... which was on 5th floor, 545 tech sq.
while cp/cms was at the science center on 4th floor, 545 tech sq ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
and they both go backto ctss
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> writes:
>> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
>> what causes the crashes!
>
>and unix goes back to multics ... which was on 5th floor, 545 tech sq.
>while cp/cms was at the science center on 4th floor, 545 tech sq ...
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
>and they both go backto ctss
>
And everybody seems to think that those people never talked to
each other. Even boasting about whose is bigger, faster,
and longer would transmit new ideas among the bit setters.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com writes:
> And everybody seems to think that those people never talked to each
> other. Even boasting about whose is bigger, faster, and longer
> would transmit new ideas among the bit setters.
and some of them worked jointly/together on ctss ... before some of
them going to multics on the 5th floor and others going to the science
center on the 4th floor. also the north half of 1st floor, 545 tech sq
had a lunch room on the east side and a lounge on the west side
... and if nothing else ... people ran into each other there.
then there is melinda's vm history which has a lot of the ctss, multics,
cp/cms early lore .... current copy at:
http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/
a much earlier version was posted to vmshare computer conference in
eight parts and can be found at the vmshare archive site:
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST01&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST02&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST03&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST04&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST05&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST06&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST07&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST08&ft=NOTE
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
·········@aol.com writes:
> And everybody seems to think that those people never talked to each
> other. Even boasting about whose is bigger, faster, and longer
> would transmit new ideas among the bit setters.
some number were co-workers on ctss before some went to 5th floor and
multics and others went to science center on the 4th floor. north
side of 545 tech sq 1st floor had lunch room on the east side and
lounge on west side; besides running into people in the elevator
... there were coffee breaks and lunch in the lunch room and after
work in the lounge.
melinda, on her site has historical write up with some early ctss,
multics, cp/cms lore:
http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/
an earlier version was posted in eight parts to vmshare computer
conferencing ... vmshare archive:
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST01&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST02&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST03&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST04&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST05&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST06&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST07&ft=NOTE
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=VMHIST07&ft=NOTE
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
>Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Andre Majorel wrote:
>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>>Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>>
>>>>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>>
>>>>DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>>>
>>>
>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>>> Unix-style file handles ?
>>
>>Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>>been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
>
>MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
above.
>Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
>what causes the crashes!
Nope. If you want to know what will get added to the next release
of MS' OSes, just read their small company acquisitions in the WSJ.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Thursday, in article
<·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>
> All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
> from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
> above.
VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU) or
Wollongong universities. Then, of course, there was what many regarded
as the best TCP/IP stack for VMS, MultiNet from TGV (Two Guys and a VAX).
That product also included a working NFS implementation.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>On Thursday, in article
> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
> wrote:
>
>> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
>> Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>>
>> All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
>> from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
>> above.
>
>VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it. I don't know anything about
NFS.
>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>
>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
VMS.
> ..or
>Wollongong universities. Then, of course, there was what many regarded
>as the best TCP/IP stack for VMS, MultiNet from TGV (Two Guys and a VAX).
>That product also included a working NFS implementation.
Boy, I sure remember a lot of TCP/IP talk over the walls. However,
I don't seem to recall what was said nor when.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On 2004-09-05 05:42, in article ·························@news.rcn.com,
··········@aol.com" <·········@aol.com> wrote:
> Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
> VMS.
>
>> ..or
>> Wollongong universities. Then, of course, there was what many regarded
>> as the best TCP/IP stack for VMS, MultiNet from TGV (Two Guys and a VAX).
>> That product also included a working NFS implementation.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the remaining VMS machines at CMU
seemed to mostly run TGV MultiNet, which was an absolutely awesome TCP/IP
implementation. All of the VMS admins I had contact with (I had to admin a
single VMS machine) seemed to use MultiNet.
--jon
In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
<·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>On Thursday, in article
>> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
>>> Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>>> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>>>
>>> All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
>>> from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
>>> above.
>>
>>VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
>
>I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it. I don't know anything about
>NFS.
VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.
TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so.
TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
Internet people hammered them.
>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>>
>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
>
>Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>VMS.
Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A L
one.
>> ..or
>>Wollongong universities. Then, of course, there was what many regarded
>>as the best TCP/IP stack for VMS, MultiNet from TGV (Two Guys and a VAX).
>>That product also included a working NFS implementation.
One of these got the nickname Willgowrong aroung here.
>Boy, I sure remember a lot of TCP/IP talk over the walls. However,
>I don't seem to recall what was said nor when.
-- mrr
In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
>> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>>On Thursday, in article
>>> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
>>>> Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>>>> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>>>>
>>>> All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
>>>> from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
>>>> above.
>>>
>>>VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
>>
>>I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it. I don't know anything about
>>NFS.
>
>VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.
>
>TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so.
>TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
>Internet people hammered them.
>
>>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>>>
>>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
>>
>>Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>>VMS.
>
>Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A L
>one.
It didn't have to be a DEC invention. If it was CMU, we got it
shoved down our throats and up our asses. However, I see
that the dates explain why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS.
Apparently the protocol got good after Gordon Bell left DEC.
Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
swear that cybercurd meant something.
ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
<·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
>>> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>>>On Thursday, in article
>>>> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
>>>> wrote:
>>VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.
>>
>>TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so.
>>TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
>>Internet people hammered them.
>>
>>>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>>>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>>>>
>>>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>>>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
>>>
>>>Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>>>VMS.
>>
>>Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A L
>>one.
>
>It didn't have to be a DEC invention. If it was CMU, we got it
>shoved down our throats and up our asses. However, I see
>that the dates explain why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS.
>Apparently the protocol got good after Gordon Bell left DEC.
1995 was the year everyone and Bill Gates discovered the Internet
existed; and wanted in on the deal. Suddenly everyone needed Internet
solutions.
>Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
>over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
>swear that cybercurd meant something.
>
>ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
by mid march 1983.
Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
.. mrr
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:56:33 +0200, Morten Reistad
<·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
> In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
> TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
> converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
> by mid march 1983.
>
> Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
> and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
>
> .. mrr
>
>
Internet was discovered long before this.
(In 1965 a research project, by the Rand cooperation, for a network that
could survive a nuclear attack. Sponsored by DARPA.
These is the real creators of the Internet technology. Not Unix hackers.)
It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
Internet.
So the year in question is about 1987.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
In article <·································@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk> on
Monday 06 September 2004 18:55, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, John Thingstad wrote:
>
>> It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
>> Internet.
>
> Eh?
A simple case of cart/horse inversion, methinks.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:55:28 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<·······@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, John Thingstad wrote:
>
>> It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
>> Internet.
>
>Eh?
http://www.hitmill.com/internet/web_history.asp
Or rather the history of Tim Berners-Lee.
(I even believeI have read it Berners-Lee first tried to implement
this on a norwegian Nord machine - Norsk Data :)
--
mvh/Regards K�re Olai Lindbach
(News: Remove '_delete_' and '.invalid')
(HTML-written email from unknown will be discarded)
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--616733697-1790690609-1094564072=:21175
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, K�re Olai Lindbach wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:55:28 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
> <·······@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, John Thingstad wrote:
> >
> >> It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
> >> Internet.
> >
> >Eh?
>
> http://www.hitmill.com/internet/web_history.asp
> Or rather the history of Tim Berners-Lee.
Try http://www.w3.org/History.html
I'm sorry - I didn't really mean to trap anyone into trying to
teach Great-Uncle Alan how to suck eggs.
It's just that those of us who had /some/ contact with the original
developments (and mine was fairly tenuous, I confess) would have told
the story of the development of the /Internet/ quite differently. But
I leave that to other "old farts" who are already posting their
versions ;-)
I've no disagreement that the availability of a graphical web browser
was -one- of the driving forces towards wider access to and
commercialisation of the Internet. But that didn't emerge on any kind
of scale until 1994-ish and later.
"Eternal September" dates from 1993. To toss just another data point
into the ring.
--616733697-1790690609-1094564072=:21175--
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:34:32 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<·······@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, K�re Olai Lindbach wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:55:28 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
>> <·······@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, John Thingstad wrote:
>> >
>> >> It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
>> >> Internet.
>> >
>> >Eh?
>>
>> http://www.hitmill.com/internet/web_history.asp
>
>> Or rather the history of Tim Berners-Lee.
>
>Try http://www.w3.org/History.html
>
>I'm sorry - I didn't really mean to trap anyone into trying to
>teach Great-Uncle Alan how to suck eggs.
I wasn't! I know you have been along for a long time. It was merely a
link to the above www/CERN thing.
I must admit I got a bit uncertain with your "Eh?". I should have done
my original first reply: "Eh? to what?" ;-)
>It's just that those of us who had /some/ contact with the original
>developments (and mine was fairly tenuous, I confess) would have told
>the story of the development of the /Internet/ quite differently. But
>I leave that to other "old farts" who are already posting their
>versions ;-)
But can you please give some brief points. I would like to hear some
more about this...
>I've no disagreement that the availability of a graphical web browser
>was -one- of the driving forces towards wider access to and
>commercialisation of the Internet. But that didn't emerge on any kind
>of scale until 1994-ish and later.
I also did connections through X.25 back in late 80ties, so I know
about pre-GUI stuff.
>"Eternal September" dates from 1993. To toss just another data point
>into the ring.
Yes, I remember when we got ordinary connection at work, using
GUI-browsers and stuff!
--
mvh/Regards K�re Olai Lindbach
(News: Remove '_delete_' and '.invalid')
(HTML-written email from unknown will be discarded)
So spake Alan J. Flavell:
>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, John Thingstad wrote:
>
>> It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
>> Internet.
>
>Eh?
Could the 'movement' be the mass influx of muggles?
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:56:33 +0200, Morten Reistad
><·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>> In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>> TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
>> converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
>> by mid march 1983.
>>
>> Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
>> and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
>>
>> .. mrr
>>
>>
>
>Internet was discovered long before this.
>(In 1965 a research project, by the Rand cooperation, for a network that
>could survive a nuclear attack. Sponsored by DARPA.
Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :
Project start : 1964
First link : 1969
Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
Congested : 1976
TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
Web launced : 1992
Web got momentum : 1994
Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
Dotcom burst : 2001
>These is the real creators of the Internet technology. Not Unix hackers.)
>It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the
>Internet.
>So the year in question is about 1987.
In 1987 the Internet wasn't even commercial. You had to apply to get in.
We fought a bitter fight to break this open in 1990-1991.
It was official policy of governements to stay with ITU (then CCITT)
protocols and OSI/whatever until the web was well deployed. This even
goes for the US government.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
I thought PSINET claimed to be the first. Let's see....
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ claimes UUNET wasn't
founded until 1987 and doesn't mention PSINET until '91 when CIX
was created. Oh well.
Interesting charts regarding the growth from about '90 on at the
bottom of that page.
/ marc
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:00:23 GMT
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
> Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :
>
> Project start : 1964
> First link : 1969
> Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
> Congested : 1976
> TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
> First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
> Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
> Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
> Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
> Web launced : 1992
> Web got momentum : 1994
> Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
> Dotcom burst : 2001
One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
worlds computers became linked together.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> writes:
> One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
> written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
> worlds computers became linked together.
Yeah, but unfortunately (fortunately?) nobody predicted that 99%
of them would be running such an incredibly stupid dumbed down
OS. Maybe that's the only reason why we're still around. :-)
Steve O'Hara-Smith schrieb:
> One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
> written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
> worlds computers became linked together.
Hi,
as long as nothing new goes in, nothing. Maybe we read yesterdays
papers?
stefan
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:30:28 +0200
lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> wrote:
>
>
> Steve O'Hara-Smith schrieb:
>
> > One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
> > written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
> > worlds computers became linked together.
>
> Hi,
> as long as nothing new goes in, nothing. Maybe we read yesterdays
> papers?
Most of the SF carried the assumption that once a certain level of
complexity was reached the network would "wake up" as some kind of self aware
intelligence.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> wrote:
>> Steve O'Hara-Smith schrieb:
>> > One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
>> > written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
>> > worlds computers became linked together.
>> as long as nothing new goes in, nothing. Maybe we read yesterdays
>> papers?
> Most of the SF carried the assumption that once a certain level of
> complexity was reached the network would "wake up" as some kind of self aware
> intelligence.
Well, taking a wild assumption and running with it is one of the really
well-tried and proven-good ways to get started when writing fiction,
right?
Although some of the later or better researched pieces of fiction did
have either a strong randomness element or a purposefully designed one
to the awareness thing - or probably both...
The Star Trek episode (TNG) was a particularly silly one IMHO.
One (fairly recent book) had even a seemingly feasible scenario - a
trojan planted inside the most popular OS, with a self-learning system
for supporting a certain armed underground resistance movement, that
eventually gained some form of awareness - and that was killed by
an "antivirus" application. And all this would still be in the future
too. (Anyone else read that book?)
--
Mikko Nahkola <········@trein.ntc.nokia.com>
#include <disclaimer.h>
#Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV.
Mikko Nahkola schrieb:
Hi.
This is only for forward looking testers otherwise it is stupid.
I try to translate your text to uncomplete ()'s.
Change adress to cll.
> Well, taking a wild assumption and running with it is one of the really
> well-tried and proven-good ways to get started when writing fiction,
> right?
(if (and (A B)) (wish (make C)))
> Although some of the later or better researched pieces of fiction did
> have either a strong randomness element or a purposefully designed one
> to the awareness thing - or probably both...
(on-demand (arg1 arg2)
(or
(collect random-element)
(analyse input-stream (gate1 gate2))
))
> The Star Trek episode (TNG) was a particularly silly one IMHO.
(leave-behind memory-status)
> One (fairly recent book) had even a seemingly feasible scenario - a
> trojan planted inside the most popular OS, with a self-learning system
> for supporting a certain armed underground resistance movement, that
> eventually gained some form of awareness - and that was killed by
> an "antivirus" application. And all this would still be in the future
> too. (Anyone else read that book?)
(defun secret-resistance
(get OS-Level)
(if-present (OS-selfprotection) switch (mirror-box2))
(manage-cpu-cycles (update underground-movement))
(set support-event-status (t primary-mission))
) ; needs some polish
oh dear - far is the way to the horizont.
stefan
Steve O'Hara-Smith schrieb:
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:30:28 +0200
> lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> wrote:
> > Steve O'Hara-Smith schrieb:
> > > One thing I always found amusing is the amount of science *fiction*
> > > written in the first half of this period about what would happen if the
> > > worlds computers became linked together.
> > Hi,
> > as long as nothing new goes in, nothing. Maybe we read yesterdays
> > papers?
> Most of the SF carried the assumption that once a certain level of
> complexity was reached the network would "wake up" as some kind of self aware
> intelligence.
Collecting Neurons do not make a spirit.
To wake-up needs an event - every program waits for a call.
Adding AI-Routines will not produce sense for human interpreters.
Leaving the mediante among humans needs a purpose. (possible makeable)
...
Hmmm. Like a big bang or so many small steps no one could realised?
Mystify viewpoint -
... searching for controller(s) ...
stefan
be aware of self recocnition
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :
>
> Project start : 1964
> First link : 1969
> Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
> Congested : 1976
> TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
> First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
> Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
> Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
> Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
> Web launced : 1992
> Web got momentum : 1994
> Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
> Dotcom burst : 2001
nsfnet1 backbone RFP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#12
misc. reference to award announcement
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#10
was for backbone between regional locations ... it was suppose to be
T1 links. What was installed was IDNX boxes that supported
point-to-point T1 links between sites ... and multiplexed 440kbit
links supported by racks & racks of PC/RTs with 440kbit boards ... at
the backbone centers.
the t3 upgrades came with the nsfnet2 backbone RFP
my wife and i somewhat got to be the red team design for both nsfnet1
and nsfnet2 RFPs.
note that there was commercial internetworking protocol use long
before 1991 ... in part evidence the heavy commercial turn-out at
interop '88
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88
the issue leading up to the cix war was somewhat whether commercial
traffic could be carried over the nsf funded backbone .... the
internetworking protocol enabling the interconnection and heterogenous
interoperability of large numbers of different "internet" networks.
part of the issue was that increasing commercial use was starting to
bring down the costs (volume use) .... so that a purely nsfnet
operation was becomming less and less economically justified (the cost
for a nsfnet only operation was more costly and less service than what
was starting to show up in the commercial side).
part of the issue was that there was significant dark fiber in the
ground by the early 80s and the telcos were faced with a significant
dilemma .... if the dropped the bandwidth price by a factor of 20
and/or offerred up 20 times the bandwidth at the same cost .... it was
be years before the applications were availability to drive the
bandwdith costs to the point where they were taking in sufficient
funds to cover their fixed operating costs. so some of the things you
saw happening were controlled bandwidth donations (in excess of what
might be found covered by gov. RFPs) to educational institutions by
large commercial institutions .... for strictly non-commercial use
Such enourmous increases in bandwidth availability in a controlled
manner for the educational market would hopefully promote the
development of bandwidth hungry applications. They (supposedly) got
tax-deduction for their educational-only donations .... and it
wouldn't be made available for the commercial paying customers.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>> Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :
>>
>> Project start : 1964
>> First link : 1969
>> Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
>> Congested : 1976
>> TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
>> First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
>> Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
>> Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
>> Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
>> Web launced : 1992
>> Web got momentum : 1994
>> Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
>> Dotcom burst : 2001
>
[i'll snip the excellent references you always come up with]
>was for backbone between regional locations ... it was suppose to be
>T1 links. What was installed was IDNX boxes that supported
>point-to-point T1 links between sites ... and multiplexed 440kbit
>links supported by racks & racks of PC/RTs with 440kbit boards ... at
>the backbone centers.
It was an upgrade from 56k. The first versions of NSFnet was not really
scalable either; noone knew quite how to design a erally scalable network,
so that came as we went.
>the t3 upgrades came with the nsfnet2 backbone RFP
For the grand timeline I'll see the two nsfnets as a continuing
development.
>my wife and i somewhat got to be the red team design for both nsfnet1
>and nsfnet2 RFPs.
>
>note that there was commercial internetworking protocol use long
>before 1991 ... in part evidence the heavy commercial turn-out at
>interop '88
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88
Yes, commercial internet offerings were available as early as in
1983-84; but until Cisco, IBM, Wellfleet and Proteon made real router
gear (1986?) it was a little lame. I remember lamenting the software
of the IBM routers in ca1988; because they were light years ahead
of the competition in the actual hardware design.
But until 1991 (Gordon Cook has the gory detail) you had to accept the
NSFnet AUP if you wanted full connectivity. (academic only, in
principle; although dissimination of Open Source products was probably
acceptable). A lot of the important servers and sites was only reachable
through this "full connectivity"; so uunet, EUnet, PSInet and others
had a collaboration to build around NSFnet. The first 'Ix was born
to exchange traffic; the CIX.
It didn't go smoothly though. Some institutions had to be threatened
with retribution; and "Inverse AUP" to accept connectivity. But the
"CIX war" was won by the good guys; and the Internet became a commercial
endeavour.
In other jurisdictions it took a little longer. In Norway it took a
parliamentary debate to make it crystal clear that a soggy half-commercial
model was unacceptable; and the threat of legislation was used.
We had plans for a fully commercial ISP ready, in practice since 1986;
and in 1992 we ran to implement them.
>the issue leading up to the cix war was somewhat whether commercial
>traffic could be carried over the nsf funded backbone .... the
>internetworking protocol enabling the interconnection and heterogenous
>interoperability of large numbers of different "internet" networks.
>
>part of the issue was that increasing commercial use was starting to
>bring down the costs (volume use) .... so that a purely nsfnet
>operation was becomming less and less economically justified (the cost
>for a nsfnet only operation was more costly and less service than what
>was starting to show up in the commercial side).
It was the pains of the Internet growing out of academia, without a
good model to regulate it.
>part of the issue was that there was significant dark fiber in the
>ground by the early 80s and the telcos were faced with a significant
>dilemma .... if the dropped the bandwidth price by a factor of 20
>and/or offerred up 20 times the bandwidth at the same cost .... it was
>be years before the applications were availability to drive the
>bandwdith costs to the point where they were taking in sufficient
>funds to cover their fixed operating costs. so some of the things you
>saw happening were controlled bandwidth donations (in excess of what
>might be found covered by gov. RFPs) to educational institutions by
>large commercial institutions .... for strictly non-commercial use
>Such enourmous increases in bandwidth availability in a controlled
>manner for the educational market would hopefully promote the
>development of bandwidth hungry applications. They (supposedly) got
>tax-deduction for their educational-only donations .... and it
>wouldn't be made available for the commercial paying customers.
But this cannot be enforced without firewalls; and these institutions
didn't want to erect those; and wanted the policy hammered into the
Internet itself. That would have killed the Internet. Fortunatly
the "second internet"; a commercial Internet on purely commercially
obtained hardware and circuits; was built around the NSFnet. But the
two needed to interconnect. For a while there were two internets;
one commercial and one academic that only half-way interconnected.
It was finally resolved in 1991; and from then on the Internet as
such was a fully comemrcial internetwork; where AUP's only applied to
local networks.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> It was an upgrade from 56k. The first versions of NSFnet was not
> really scalable either; noone knew quite how to design a erally
> scalable network, so that came as we went.
we had a project that i called HSDT
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
for high-speed data transport ... to differentiate from a lot of stuff
at the time that was communication oriented ... and had real T1 (in
some cases clear-channel T1 w/o the 193rd bit) and higher speed
connections. It had an operational backbone ... and we weren't allowed
to directly bid NSFNET1 .... although my wife went to the director of
NSF and got a technical audit. The technical audit summary said
something to the effect that what we had running was at least five
years ahead of all NSFNET1 bid submissions to build something new.
one of the other nagging issues was that all links on the internal
network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
had to be encrypted. at the time, not only were there not a whole lot
of boxes that supported full T1 and higher speed links ... but there
also weren't a whole lot of boxes that support full T1 and higher
speed encryption.
a joke a like to tell ... which occured possibly two years before the
NSFNET1 RFP announcement ... was about a posting defining "high-speed"
.... earlier tellings:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#33b High Speed Data Transport (HSDT)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#69 oddly portable machines
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#45 IBM's Workplace OS (Was: .. Pink)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#59 SR 15,15
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#12 network history
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>> It was an upgrade from 56k. The first versions of NSFnet was not
>> really scalable either; noone knew quite how to design a erally
>> scalable network, so that came as we went.
>
>we had a project that i called HSDT
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
>
>for high-speed data transport ... to differentiate from a lot of stuff
>at the time that was communication oriented ... and had real T1 (in
>some cases clear-channel T1 w/o the 193rd bit) and higher speed
>connections. It had an operational backbone ... and we weren't allowed
>to directly bid NSFNET1 .... although my wife went to the director of
>NSF and got a technical audit. The technical audit summary said
>something to the effect that what we had running was at least five
>years ahead of all NSFNET1 bid submissions to build something new.
In 1987 T1's(or E1's in this end of the pond) were pretty normal;
T3's was state of the art. But it is not very difficult to design
interfaces that shift the data into memory; and 1987'is cumputers
could handle a few hundred megabit worth of data pipe without too
much trouble; but you needed direct DMA access, not some of the
then standard busses or channels.
IBM always designed stellar hardware for such things; what was
normally needed was the software. To see what Cisco got away with
regarding lousy hardware (GS-series) is astonishing.
There was a large job to be done to handle routing and network
management issues. BGP4 didn't come out until 1994, nor did
a decent OSPF or SNMP.
>one of the other nagging issues was that all links on the internal
>network
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
>
>had to be encrypted. at the time, not only were there not a whole lot
>of boxes that supported full T1 and higher speed links ... but there
>also weren't a whole lot of boxes that support full T1 and higher
>speed encryption.
If you could do it hardware-assisted you could do T1s in 1987; but
in software you would have had large problems.
>a joke a like to tell ... which occured possibly two years before the
>NSFNET1 RFP announcement ... was about a posting defining "high-speed"
>.... earlier tellings:
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#33b High Speed Data Transport (HSDT)
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#69 oddly portable machines
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#45 IBM's Workplace OS (Was: .. Pink)
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#59 SR 15,15
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#12 network history
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> In 1987 T1's(or E1's in this end of the pond) were pretty normal;
> T3's was state of the art. But it is not very difficult to design
> interfaces that shift the data into memory; and 1987'is cumputers
> could handle a few hundred megabit worth of data pipe without too
> much trouble; but you needed direct DMA access, not some of the
> then standard busses or channels.
>
> IBM always designed stellar hardware for such things; what was
> normally needed was the software. To see what Cisco got away with
> regarding lousy hardware (GS-series) is astonishing.
>
> There was a large job to be done to handle routing and network
> management issues. BGP4 didn't come out until 1994, nor did
> a decent OSPF or SNMP.
even in mid-80s .... t1/e1 ... the only (ibm) support was the really
old 2701 and the special zirpel card in the Series/1 that had been
done for FSD.
in fall 1986, there was a technology project out of la gaude that was
looking at a T1 card for the 37xx ... however, the communication
division wasn't really planning on T1 until at least 1991. They had
done a customer survey. since ibm (mainframe) didn't have any T1
support ... they looked at customers that were using 37xx "fat pipe"
support that allowed ganging of multiple 56kbit into single logical
unit. they plotted the number of ganged 56kbit links that customers
had installed .... 2-56kbit links, 3-56kbit links, 4-56kbit links,
5-56kbit links. However, they found no customers with more than five
gnaged 56kbit links in a single fat-pipe. Based on that they weren't
projecting any (mainframe) T1 useage before 1991.
what they didn't appear to realize was that the (us) tariffs at the
time had cross-over where five or six 56kbit links were about the same
price as a single T1. so what was happening ... customers that hit
five or six 56kbit links ... were making transition directly to T1 and
then using non-IBM hardware to drive the link (which didn't show up on
the communication divisions 37xx high-speed communication
survey). hsdt easily identified at least 200 customers with T1
operation (using non-ibm hardware support) at the time the
communication division wasn't projecting any mainframe T1 support
before 1991.
because of the lack of T1 support (other than the really old 2701 and
the fairly expensive zirple-series/1 offering) ... was one of the
reasons that the NSFNET1 response went with (essentially) a pbx
multiplexor on the point-to-point telco T1 links ... with the actual
computer links running 440kbits/cards with the pc/rt 440kbit/sec cards.
hsdt
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
had several full-blown T1 links since the early 80s ... and was
working with a project for a full-blown ISA 16-bit T1 card ... with
some neat crypto tricks.
I think it was supercomputing 1990 (or 1991?) in austin where they
were demo'ing T3 links to offsite locations.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :
>
> Project start : 1964
> First link : 1969
> Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
> Congested : 1976
> TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
> First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
> Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
> Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
> Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
> Web launced : 1992
> Web got momentum : 1994
> Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
> Dotcom burst : 2001
oh, and here is a recent referenct to some bitnet activity:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#66
in the listserv history section
some general bitnet/earn posts:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
more than 20 year old email reference about earn
http://www.garlic.com.~lynn/2001h.hytml#65
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:56:33 +0200, Morten Reistad
><·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>> In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>> TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
>> converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
>> by mid march 1983.
>>
>> Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
>> and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
>>
>> .. mrr
>>
>>
>
>Internet was discovered long before this.
WTF do you mean "discovered". There was a hell of alot of
work done to make the damned thing work, let along wire
things together.
>(In 1965 a research project, by the Rand cooperation, for a network that
>could survive a nuclear attack. Sponsored by DARPA.
>These is the real creators of the Internet technology. Not Unix hackers.)
You need to learn that there is a big difference between a research
project and selling the product for the sole purpose of making
a profit.
>It was the realization of www (CERN) that spawned
>the movement toward the >Internet.
>So the year in question is about 1987.
How strange that is. JMF worked on a project a ORNL to make
all kinds of computers talk to each other. The year was 1970.
My first meeting with a PDP-10 involved calling up the comuputer
and, when it answered, hurriedly shoving the phone into the
acoustic coupler before the computer hung up. That year was
1969.
The internet was around for me in the 60s.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Internet was discovered long before this. (In 1965 a research
> project, by the Rand cooperation, for a network that could survive a
> nuclear attack. Sponsored by DARPA. These is the real creators of
> the Internet technology. Not Unix hackers.) It was the realization
> of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the Internet.
>
> So the year in question is about 1987.
packet networking was "discovered" in the 60s(?) ... but it was
homogeneous networking with pretty much homogeneous infrastructure
implementation.
the great switch-over to internetworking protocol was 1/1/83. i've
frequently asserted that one of the reasons that the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
was larger than the arpanet from just about the beginning until
sometime mid-85 ... was because the internal network nodes effectively
had a form of gateway functionality ... which showed up in the
internetworking protocol switchover on 1/1/83.
packet switching technology for the (homogeneous) arpanet is somewhat
orthogonal to internetworking protocol technology .... which was
deployed in the great switchover on 1/1/83.
some minor other references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm
CERN and SLAC were sister sites, did some amount of common tool
development, used common infrastructures and were big GML users
.... which had been done at the science center circa 1970
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
which morphed into SGML and then html, xml, etc. SLAC had the first
web server outside of europe .... running on vm/cms system
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/earlyweb/history.shtml
the distinction of internetworking protocol isn't packet switching
... it is gateways and interoperability of lots of different kinds of
networking.
OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
the switch-over to internetworking protocol on 1/1/83 somewhat also
coincided with the expanding role of csnet activity ... and more &
more NSF involvement .... compared to the extensive earlier arpa/darpa
involvement; aka csnet ... and then nsfnet1 backbone rfp and then
nsfnet2 enhanced backbone rfp.
misc. internet and nsfnet related history pointers:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietf.htm#history
the proliferation of the internetworking protocol and use in the
commercial sector was also happening during the 80s .... which you
could start to see by (1988) at the interop '88 show. misc. interop
'88 references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
>OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
>switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
>protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
>(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
>layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
Reynir Stefánsson <········@mi.is> writes:
> Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
> everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?
interconnection and interoperability happen at both a protocol level
and a operational level .... being able to have both independence
and interoperability offers huge amount of advantages.
i don't know what the original idea was .... however, my impression of
looking at what it became .... was that it sprang up from telco
point-to-point copper wire orientation. iso/osi even precludes LANs.
the work on high speed protocol ... which would go directly from
level4/transport layer to LAN/MAC interface ... was precluded in ISO
standards organizations because it didn't conform to OSI model for
two reasons
1) it skipped the OSI level4/level3 transport/network interface and
was therefor precluded in ISO standards bodies
2) it went directly to the LAN/MAC interface .... LAN/MAC interface
is not allowed for in the OSI model ... so therefor intefacing to
LAN/MAC interface would be violation of OSI model
... the sort of third reason was that it would also incorporate
internetworking layer within its functionality .... also a violation
of the OSI model.
misc. past comments
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:05:31 +0000 in alt.folklore.computers, Reynir
Stef�nsson <········@mi.is> wrote:
>So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
>
>>OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
>>switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
>>protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
>>(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
>>layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
>>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
>
>Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
>everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?
A common network run by PTTs with ISDN terminal links IIRC.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
So spake Brian Inglis:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:05:31 +0000 in alt.folklore.computers, Reynir
>Stef�nsson <········@mi.is> wrote:
>
>>Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
>>everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?
>
>A common network run by PTTs with ISDN terminal links IIRC.
That's sort of the idea that I got: Job Security for the telcos.
--
Reynir Stef�nsson (········@mi.is)
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Reynir Stef�nsson <········@mi.is> wrote:
>So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
>
>>OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
>>switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
>>protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
>>(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
>>layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
>>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
>
>Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
>everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?
There were provisions for many networks; but it was a design that
requires (large) service providers; aka Phone Companies to provide
service.
Self-provisioning like we do all the time on the Internet was difficult.
-- mrr
In article <·············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
>>>> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>>>>On Thursday, in article
>>>>> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.
>>>
>>>TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so.
>>>TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
>>>Internet people hammered them.
>>>
>>>>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>>>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded
heap
>>>>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various
third-party
>>>>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
>>>>
>>>>Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>>>>VMS.
>>>
>>>Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A
L
>>>one.
>>
>>It didn't have to be a DEC invention. If it was CMU, we got it
>>shoved down our throats and up our asses. However, I see
>>that the dates explain why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS.
>>Apparently the protocol got good after Gordon Bell left DEC.
>
>1995 was the year everyone and Bill Gates discovered the Internet
>existed; and wanted in on the deal. Suddenly everyone needed Internet
>solutions.
I knew the Internet existed when I started reading the ads in the
WSJ and they had this strange arrangement of characters that
began with www. At first, there were only a few. _One_ year
later there were lot. Less than two years later, everybody had
one. I watch ads to foretell trends.
>
>>Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
>>over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
>>swear that cybercurd meant something.
>>
>>ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
>
>TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
>converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
>by mid march 1983.
Aha! Whew! Then my memory isn't completely gone. If it was
launched in 1982, then they had to have been yakking about it
in 1980 and 1981.
>
>Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
>and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
Version 4 and version 7 were way after 1980.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <·············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>>> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>
>>1995 was the year everyone and Bill Gates discovered the Internet
>>existed; and wanted in on the deal. Suddenly everyone needed Internet
>>solutions.
>
>I knew the Internet existed when I started reading the ads in the
>WSJ and they had this strange arrangement of characters that
>began with www. At first, there were only a few. _One_ year
>later there were lot. Less than two years later, everybody had
>one. I watch ads to foretell trends.
I knew we had succeeded in making the Internet mainstream when
I saw that the plane I was about to board had the URL I made for
them written along the entire plane in 2 meter high letters.
And we had to do a hard sell for the Internet bit. 2 years later more
than 50% of their tickets were sold over the Internet.
>>>Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
>>>over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
>>>swear that cybercurd meant something.
>>>
>>>ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
>>
>>TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
>>converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
>>by mid march 1983.
>
>Aha! Whew! Then my memory isn't completely gone. If it was
>launched in 1982, then they had to have been yakking about it
>in 1980 and 1981.
The period 1978-1982 was the intense design phase of the infrastructure
of the modern Internet. It would have been on the mind of IT engineers
worldwide.
>>Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
>>and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
>
>Version 4 and version 7 were way after 1980.
Yep, but it was in version 4 there was real TCP/IP support. ISTR there
was a retrofit to a late version 3; but that was made after V4 was out.
This version more or less depended on other boxes, just like a PC does
today. "Real" TCP/IP came out in V7 (or possibly late V6. I more or
less skipped the entire V6 of Tops20).
.. mrr
Morten Reistad wrote:
> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>>
>>> TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet,
>>> rather) converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned
>>> off everywhere by mid march 1983.
>>
>> Aha! Whew! Then my memory isn't completely gone. If it was
>> launched in 1982, then they had to have been yakking about it
>> in 1980 and 1981.
>
> The period 1978-1982 was the intense design phase of the
> infrastructure of the modern Internet. It would have been on
> the mind of IT engineers worldwide.
Back in those days (early 70s) we hired a consultant for some of
our software development, both because I was overloaded and
because I didn't know enough. He was Gerry Ogdin, out of the
Washington area, and active in the development of the Arpanet.
I learned a good deal from him, and managed to largely ignore his
irascibility etc. That may have been connected with the fact that
he later (so I have been told) underwent a sex change operation
and became Geraldine.
I wonder what became of him/her.
--
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
Iraq. It was the right decision" - G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02
In article <·············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com>
wrote:
>>In article <·············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>>>> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>>
>>>1995 was the year everyone and Bill Gates discovered the Internet
>>>existed; and wanted in on the deal. Suddenly everyone needed Internet
>>>solutions.
>>
>>I knew the Internet existed when I started reading the ads in the
>>WSJ and they had this strange arrangement of characters that
>>began with www. At first, there were only a few. _One_ year
>>later there were lot. Less than two years later, everybody had
>>one. I watch ads to foretell trends.
>
>I knew we had succeeded in making the Internet mainstream when
>I saw that the plane I was about to board had the URL I made for
>them written along the entire plane in 2 meter high letters.
<GRIN> Oh, neat. That must have been a unique feeling of
accomplishment.
>
>And we had to do a hard sell for the Internet bit. 2 years later more
>than 50% of their tickets were sold over the Internet.
I don't think we've even seen the beginning.
>
>>>>Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
>>>>over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
>>>>swear that cybercurd meant something.
>>>>
>>>>ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
>>>
>>>TCP/IP was launched in 1982, and the Internet (or the Arpanet, rather)
>>>converted Jan 1st 1983; with final NCP service turned off everywhere
>>>by mid march 1983.
>>
>>Aha! Whew! Then my memory isn't completely gone. If it was
>>launched in 1982, then they had to have been yakking about it
>>in 1980 and 1981.
>
>The period 1978-1982 was the intense design phase of the infrastructure
>of the modern Internet. It would have been on the mind of IT engineers
>worldwide.
>
>>>Tops20 has an IP package; but it was pretty rudimentary in version 4,
>>>and not quite complete even by those standards even in version 7.
>>
>>Version 4 and version 7 were way after 1980.
>
>Yep, but it was in version 4 there was real TCP/IP support. ISTR there
>was a retrofit to a late version 3; but that was made after V4 was out.
>This version more or less depended on other boxes, just like a PC does
>today. "Real" TCP/IP came out in V7 (or possibly late V6. I more or
>less skipped the entire V6 of Tops20).
TOPS-20 development was not known for their innovation acclerity.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Mon, 06 Sep 04 11:23:17 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
·········@aol.com wrote:
>In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
> Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>In article <·························@news.rcn.com>,
>> <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
>>> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>>>On Thursday, in article
>>>> <·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>>>>> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right. Now I'm mystified. Why did they have to borrow code
>>>>> from Unix? They already had VMS. ISTM, VMS had all of the
>>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>>VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
>>>
>>>I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it. I don't know anything about
>>>NFS.
>>
>>VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.
>>
>>TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so.
>>TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
>>Internet people hammered them.
>>
>>>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>>>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
I was never aware that DEC offered TCP/IP.
>>>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>>>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
The commercialized product from T[he]W[ollongong]G[roup] and TGV
MultiNet seemed to be ubiquitous.
Both products seemed to operate application level protocols very much
in leaf node store and forward mode, rather than supporting routing or
passthru, on VMS.
>>>Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>>>VMS.
>>
>>Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A L
>>one.
IIRC there was a majority of PDP-10s running on ARPAnet (1982 and
earlier) and later TCP/IP (1983 on), but most may have been running
Tenex, as BBN was running the network.
>It didn't have to be a DEC invention. If it was CMU, we got it
>shoved down our throats and up our asses. However, I see
>that the dates explain why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS.
Politics and not timing was why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS:
d|i|g|i|t|a|l backed the European horse that never ran as it fitted
better with their network hardware capabilities and DECnet plans.
It also meant they did not have to deal with those BBN guys that had
developed a competing OS and network.
They had whole suites of products layered on top of DECnet that were
sold to European governments and contractors.
They bet that the ISO and governments couldn't be wrong and they
wouldn't lose out, but they did, as did IBM with SNA networks.
>Apparently the protocol got good after Gordon Bell left DEC.
TCP/IP didn't get better, but the implementations of OSI networking
performed badly and did not interoperate, so TCP/IP swept the
networking competition off the board, and that may have had an
influence on his departure.
>Since TCP/IP was in the 90s, I couldn't have heard about it
>over the wall (I think I stopped working in 1987). I could
>swear that cybercurd meant something.
WWW was in the 90s, as was allowing commercial access to and
competition to operate the Internet backbone, so it became a must have
for the previously clueless, like digital and MS.
>ISTR, the -20 types yakking about it.
BBN and Tenex heritage probably.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
On Tuesday, in article
<··································@4ax.com>
············@SystematicSW.Invalid "Brian Inglis" wrote:
> I was never aware that DEC offered TCP/IP.
You'll have seen my later post about "TCP/IP Services for Vax/VMS"
(which, a niggle tells me, had a different name, either before or after).
This was written by the Unix developers at DEC, and consequently was very
kuldgy and astonishingly badly-documented (for those of us used to the
high quality of VMS documentation).
Did you never see a
UCX>
prompt?
> Politics and not timing was why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS:
> d|i|g|i|t|a|l backed the European horse that never ran as it fitted
> better with their network hardware capabilities and DECnet plans.
> It also meant they did not have to deal with those BBN guys that had
> developed a competing OS and network.
> They had whole suites of products layered on top of DECnet that were
> sold to European governments and contractors.
Can you say "Colour Book Software"? :-(
(Mind you, unattended file transfer running overnight beats FTP hands
down.)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:04:52 +0100 (BST) in alt.folklore.computers,
···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>On Tuesday, in article
> <··································@4ax.com>
> ············@SystematicSW.Invalid "Brian Inglis" wrote:
>
>> I was never aware that DEC offered TCP/IP.
>
>You'll have seen my later post about "TCP/IP Services for Vax/VMS"
>(which, a niggle tells me, had a different name, either before or after).
>This was written by the Unix developers at DEC, and consequently was very
>kuldgy and astonishingly badly-documented (for those of us used to the
>high quality of VMS documentation).
>
>Did you never see a
> UCX>
>prompt?
>
>> Politics and not timing was why TCP/IP didn't get into VMS:
>> d|i|g|i|t|a|l backed the European horse that never ran as it fitted
>> better with their network hardware capabilities and DECnet plans.
>> It also meant they did not have to deal with those BBN guys that had
>> developed a competing OS and network.
>> They had whole suites of products layered on top of DECnet that were
>> sold to European governments and contractors.
>
>Can you say "Colour Book Software"? :-(
I thought it was "Colouring Book Networking" ;^>
>(Mind you, unattended file transfer running overnight beats FTP hands
>down.)
Until you measure the transfer rate. Reliable unattended FTP file
transfer is doable with some work (mainly due to FTP not always
returning useful error codes), and finishes much faster.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
On Sunday, in article
<·························@news.rcn.com> ·········@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>,
> ···@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
> >
> >VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
>
> I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it. I don't know anything about
> NFS.
>
> >Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
> >d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
> >of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
> >
> >Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
> >solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU)
>
> Sigh! If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
> VMS.
CMU's implementation did not get added to VMS. It was, however, widely
used, because (IIRC) academic sites could get it at a very low cost.
Digital themselves didn't have any TCP/IP support until the release of
"TCP/IP Services for Vax/VMS", which was written by the Unix-end of
Digital, and was *really* cruddy. This didn't happen until the
mid-1990s, anyway.
Hence why most folks, if they could afford it (it was by no means cheap),
bought MultiNet.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, Brian Inglis
<············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
> Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Andre Majorel wrote:
>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>> Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>>
>>>>> If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>> hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>> would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>> including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>> side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>>
>>>> DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>>>
>>>
>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>>> Unix-style file handles ?
>>
>> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
>
> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
> what causes the crashes!
>
You seeem misinformed.
Microsoft swallowed up a team from DEC.
The were developing a operating system called PRISM.
When the project was cancelled they quit DEC in protest.
These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in developing
muliuser /
mutitasking operating systems between them. The fact that the NT kernel is
not
entirely stable yet really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has
messed with
it's kernel for 30 years. But the modular arcitecture and the microkernel
are new ideas in
OS design and should in time lead to a more extensible OS than unix.
(Unix tradionally has a spagetti of intercalling function calls as a
kernel.)
As for following standards thats just plain sense.
Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the problems
with
interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, Brian Inglis
> <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
>> Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Andre Majorel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>>> Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>>> hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>>> would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>>> including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>>> side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>>>> Unix-style file handles ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>>> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
>>
>>
>> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
>> what causes the crashes!
>>
>
> You seeem misinformed.
> Microsoft swallowed up a team from DEC.
> The were developing a operating system called PRISM.
> When the project was cancelled they quit DEC in protest.
> These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in developing
> muliuser /
> mutitasking operating systems between them. The fact that the NT kernel
> is not
> entirely stable yet really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has
> messed with
> it's kernel for 30 years. But the modular arcitecture and the
> microkernel are new ideas in
> OS design and should in time lead to a more extensible OS than unix.
uKernels are *NOT* a new idea at all. They weren't a new idea when
NT was unleashed on the world. What people think of as "NT" is a big
pile of shite that obscures the uKernel. Since the graphics stuff
got put into ring 0 I think that you could legitimately claim that
BSD Unix is more of a micro kernel than NT. :)
> (Unix tradionally has a spagetti of intercalling function calls as a
> kernel.)
Remember NeXTStep ?
> As for following standards thats just plain sense.
> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
> problems with
> interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
Which I believe is derived from a Mach uKernel... The "UNIX" bits
are the FreeBSD userland utilities that surround it.
Cheers,
Rupert
Rupert Pigott <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Remember NeXTStep ?
>
>> As for following standards thats just plain sense.
>> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
>> problems with
>> interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
>
> Which I believe is derived from a Mach uKernel... The "UNIX" bits
> are the FreeBSD userland utilities that surround it.
a cmu effort along with various andrew activities and camelot ... minor
recent ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#42 Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Rupert Pigott <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> writes:
> John Thingstad wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, Brian Inglis
> > <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
> >> Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andre Majorel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
> >>>>> Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
> >>>>>> hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
> >>>>>> would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
> >>>>>> including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
> >>>>>> side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
> >>>> Unix-style file handles ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
> >>> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
> >>
> >>
> >> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
> >> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
> >> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
> >> what causes the crashes!
> >>
> > You seeem misinformed.
> > Microsoft swallowed up a team from DEC.
> > The were developing a operating system called PRISM.
> > When the project was cancelled they quit DEC in protest.
> > These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in developing
> > muliuser /
> > mutitasking operating systems between them. The fact that the NT
> > kernel is not
> > entirely stable yet really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix
> > has messed with
> > it's kernel for 30 years. But the modular arcitecture and the
> > microkernel are new ideas in
> > OS design and should in time lead to a more extensible OS than unix.
>
> uKernels are *NOT* a new idea at all. They weren't a new idea when
> NT was unleashed on the world. What people think of as "NT" is a big
> pile of shite that obscures the uKernel. Since the graphics stuff
> got put into ring 0 I think that you could legitimately claim that
> BSD Unix is more of a micro kernel than NT. :)
>
> > (Unix tradionally has a spagetti of intercalling function calls as a
> > kernel.)
>
> Remember NeXTStep ?
Yes. NeXTStep didn't have a microkernel. The Mach kernel didn't get
changed to a microkernel design until after NeXTStep split off from
it.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible wrote:
[SNIP]
> Yes. NeXTStep didn't have a microkernel. The Mach kernel didn't get
> changed to a microkernel design until after NeXTStep split off from
> it.
Hmmm, you had better tell these folks they are wrong for starters :
http://www.macos.utah.edu/Documentation/MacOSXClasses/macosxone/unix.html
Do a google for NextStep and Microkernel, it appears to be a very
common understanding/myth...
Cheers,
Rupert
In comp.lang.lisp Rupert Pigott <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> John Thingstad wrote:
>>
>> As for following standards thats just plain sense. Note the Mac OS
>> 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the problems with
>> interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
>
> Which I believe is derived from a Mach uKernel... The "UNIX" bits
> are the FreeBSD userland utilities that surround it.
Well, no. Mac OS X uses a BSD kernel implemented on top of the Mach
microkernel, much as Apple's experimental mkLinux placed a Linux kernel
on top of Mach. OS X also uses a pretty standard set of BSD libraries
and utilities -- as well as the NeXT-derived ones. (You can tell the
heritage apart pretty easily -- if it's written in Objective-C, it's
from the NeXT side.)
The BSD heritage is a two-way street: Apple has contributed code
developed for OS X back to the FreeBSD and OpenBSD projects, as well as
releasing the whole Unix core of OS X as the open-source Darwin system.
It's also not particularly accurate to say that the reason Apple moved
to Unix was "interoperability". Rather, the old Mac System was simply
never designed for what it ended up being used to do. There were too
many layers of cruft -- and too many design decisions that were right
for 1984 but wrong for 1999. Single-user, cooperative multitasking, and
a network stack designed for small LANs rather than the Internet ... the
old Mac System was a great microcomputer OS but not a great workstation
OS.
When you consider that the first Macs to run OS X were several hundred
times faster than the 1984 Mac, had one thousand times as much RAM, and
had fifty thousand times as much mass storage, it should follow pretty
naturally that the constraints of the old system's design would cease to
be appropriate.
1984 Original Macintosh: 128kB RAM, 8MHz m68k, 400kB disk
1999 Power Macintosh G4: 128MB RAM, 400MHz PPC G4, 20 GB disk
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> When you consider that the first Macs to run OS X were several hundred
> times faster than the 1984 Mac, had one thousand times as much RAM, and
> had fifty thousand times as much mass storage, it should follow pretty
> naturally that the constraints of the old system's design would cease to
> be appropriate.
Yes, but the first NeXTcube or NeXTstation were not much more
powerfull than even the original Macintosh. In anycase, at the time
the Macintosh appeared, there were already 680x0 based unix workstations.
> 1984 Original Macintosh: 128kB RAM, 8 MHz 68000, 400 kB disk
1989 low end NeXTcube: 128MB RAM, 25 MHz 68030, 256 MB optical disk!
> 1999 Power Macintosh G4: 128MB RAM, 400MHz PPC G4, 20 GB disk
NeXTstep could have run on a MacIIfx (The TI Explorer ran on a MacIIfx).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
"I don't think it* can be won." (*):the war on terror.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> (The TI Explorer ran on a MacIIfx).
...on a nubus card (just like the MacIvory (Symbolics)), if I
remember right.
--
(espen)
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
>
>>When you consider that the first Macs to run OS X were several hundred
>>times faster than the 1984 Mac, had one thousand times as much RAM, and
>>had fifty thousand times as much mass storage, it should follow pretty
>>naturally that the constraints of the old system's design would cease to
>>be appropriate.
>
>
> Yes, but the first NeXTcube or NeXTstation were not much more
> powerfull than even the original Macintosh. In anycase, at the time
> the Macintosh appeared, there were already 680x0 based unix workstations.
It was specifically the 68000. Fixes were made that took effect in the
68010 and 68020. Dunno about 68008. IIRC the problem was that you could
not restart some instructions properly. Some UNIX workstations did use
68Ks, there was an Apollo that had two of them running in lock-step,
with one of them one instruction behind the other. When the leading CPU
barfed, action would be taken and the other CPU would take over. Someone
in comp.arch worked on the Fortune boxes and IIRC he claimed they had a
more elegant single CPU solution.
Cheers,
Rupert
Rupert Pigott <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+---------------
| Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
| > In anycase, at the time the Macintosh appeared, there were
| > already 680x0 based unix workstations.
|
| It was specifically the 68000. Fixes were made that took effect in the
| 68010 and 68020. Dunno about 68008. IIRC the problem was that you could
| not restart some instructions properly. Some UNIX workstations did use
| 68Ks, there was an Apollo that had two of them running in lock-step,
| with one of them one instruction behind the other. When the leading CPU
| barfed, action would be taken and the other CPU would take over. Someone
| in comp.arch worked on the Fortune boxes and IIRC he claimed they had a
| more elegant single CPU solution.
+---------------
That would have been me, in <···························@speakeasy.net>,
replying to John Mashey. We tweaked the C compiler's calling conventions
enough to allow automatic stack growth by faulting off the end of the
stack to work reliably. See the referenced article for more detail.
But as I finished there:
Though there were certainly other places where the mc68000's imprecise
exceptions left no choice but to blow the offending process away...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> But as I finished there:
>
> Though there were certainly other places where the mc68000's imprecise
> exceptions left no choice but to blow the offending process away...
>
Hence the need for the MC68010.
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> It was specifically the 68000. Fixes were made that took effect in the
> 68010 and 68020. Dunno about 68008. IIRC the problem was that you could
> not restart some instructions properly. Some UNIX workstations did use
> 68Ks, there was an Apollo that had two of them running in lock-step,
> with one of them one instruction behind the other. When the leading CPU
> barfed, action would be taken and the other CPU would take over. Someone
> in comp.arch worked on the Fortune boxes and IIRC he claimed they had a
> more elegant single CPU solution.
68000 - original
68010 - 68000 + SR access is privileged, CCR is unpriviliated +
instruction restart for VM access
68008 -- 68000 with 8 bit external data bus, possibly restricted address
bus (can't remember)
68020 -- 68010 + full 32-bit
68030 -- 68020 + MMU
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:03:21 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John Thingstad wrote:
[...]
>
>uKernels are *NOT* a new idea at all. They weren't a new idea when
>NT was unleashed on the world. What people think of as "NT" is a big
>pile of shite that obscures the uKernel. Since the graphics stuff
>got put into ring 0 I think that you could legitimately claim that
>BSD Unix is more of a micro kernel than NT. :)
>
>> (Unix tradionally has a spagetti of intercalling function calls as a
>> kernel.)
>
>Remember NeXTStep ?
QNX is another example of a microkernel OS, "unixy" without being
unix. It's been around since, what, 1981?
AIUI, it used to be called Q-NIX, until a certain telephone company
complained.
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
> kernel for 30 years.
I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
better stability after just a few years.
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
<········@teezer.fr> wrote:
> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>> kernel for 30 years.
>
> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
> better stability after just a few years.
>
I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard which
is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a new
operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:32:09 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
><········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>>> kernel for 30 years.
>>
>> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
>> better stability after just a few years.
>>
>
>I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard which
>is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a new
>operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
standards. I don't know the current level of compliance, though I'm
pretty sure that some parts of POSIX.4 have been implemented.
I wouldn't describe the POSIX standards as a "recipie for writing
unix", anyway.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer wrote:
> Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
> standards. I don't know the current level of compliance, though I'm
Nah, that's been going on since at least 1994 when I installed it.
> pretty sure that some parts of POSIX.4 have been implemented.
God only knows, as long as it works I'm not complaining. :)
Cheers,
Rupert
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:28:16 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan Balmer wrote:
>
>> Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
>> standards. I don't know the current level of compliance, though I'm
>
>Nah, that's been going on since at least 1994 when I installed it.
>
That's what I mean - it's been (and is still) "going on." It ain't
soup yet., and only recently (imo) has it been taken seriously. I
think pthreads were the defining point for me.
It is certainly not the case that Linux was written by following the
POSIX "recipe."
>> pretty sure that some parts of POSIX.4 have been implemented.
>
>God only knows, as long as it works I'm not complaining. :)
>
>Cheers,
>Rupert
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:28:16 +0100, Rupert Pigott
> <···@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Balmer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
>>>standards. I don't know the current level of compliance, though I'm
>>
>>Nah, that's been going on since at least 1994 when I installed it.
>>
>
> That's what I mean - it's been (and is still) "going on." It ain't
> soup yet., and only recently (imo) has it been taken seriously. I
> think pthreads were the defining point for me.
PThreads is considered to be a tar-pit by far wiser people than I,
so I can't blame folks for being behind the curve on this regard.
> It is certainly not the case that Linux was written by following the
> POSIX "recipe."
I think it's fair to say it was. As I'm sure you know : Back in the
early 90s you had two main flavours of UNIX, BSD & SYSV (still do I
guess). Where there was any disagreement Linux generally went for
the third flavour, namely POSIX...
The differences showed when you used a true BSD or a true SYSV box.
There also used to be quite a few references in the man pages and
includes. Maybe this has changed, it's been a while since I cared
enough. :/
Cheers,
Rupert
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote in message
<·······································@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:32:09 +0200, "John Thingstad"
><··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix
>>standard which is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did
>>not write a new operating system. They implemented a tested and
>>proven one.
> Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
> standards.
Linus deliberately tried to pay attention to the POSIX standard
almost as soon as he realized that his terminal emulator project
was turning into an OS. 1991 isn't all that long ago, but I'm
not sure I would refer to it as "recent" in this context.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Jul3.100050.9886%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:58:34 -0000, "David K. Wall"
<·····@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote in message
><·······································@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:32:09 +0200, "John Thingstad"
>><··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
>>>I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix
>>>standard which is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did
>>>not write a new operating system. They implemented a tested and
>>>proven one.
>
>> Huh? Linux is only recently paying some attention to the POSIX
>> standards.
>
>Linus deliberately tried to pay attention to the POSIX standard
>almost as soon as he realized that his terminal emulator project
>was turning into an OS. 1991 isn't all that long ago, but I'm
>not sure I would refer to it as "recent" in this context.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Jul3.100050.9886%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
I don't know that the "interest" he expresses in this post proves the
point ;-) However, Linux was based on Minix, and I think Minix was
POSIX.2 compliant.
Actually, what I'm remembering is a few years ago, when I was querying
a allegedly expert Linux developer. The question was, roughly, "Is
Linux POSIX-compliant." and the answer was, roughly, "Not very."
However, I seem to remember that we were talking POSIX.4 at the time.
Many systems don't yet support all of dot-4. I haven't looked at the
headers of my latest Linux install to see what sections are
implemented - I'll try to do that tonight.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting John Thingstad's remarks, but I was mostly
objecting to the idea that Linus sat down with a copy of the POSIX
specifications and turned them into an OS. (Especially since not all
of the current POSIX standards existed at the time :-)
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:58:34 -0000, "David K. Wall"
><·····@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>Linus deliberately tried to pay attention to the POSIX standard
>>almost as soon as he realized that his terminal emulator project
>>was turning into an OS. 1991 isn't all that long ago, but I'm
>>not sure I would refer to it as "recent" in this context.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Jul3.100050.9886%
40klaava.Helsinki.FI
>
> I don't know that the "interest" he expresses in this post proves the
> point ;-) However, Linux was based on Minix, and I think Minix was
> POSIX.2 compliant.
Well, I'm in no way a Linux or Minix expert, but I do have a copy of
Linus' book "Just for Fun", about the creation of Linux. Just by chance, I
happened to pick it up last night and read a chapter or two, and read that
same usenet post. So I'm pretty sure that the project was Linux. He didn't
actually get a copy at that time, because he found out it would cost money
he didn't have, so he used (IIRC) some Sun manuals for reference. Just
adding a data point....
I'll snip the stuff about POSIX.4, because I'm completely ignorant of what
is actually *contained* in the POSIX standards. :-)
Alan Balmer wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting John Thingstad's remarks, but I was
> mostly objecting to the idea that Linus sat down with a copy of
> the POSIX specifications and turned them into an OS. (Especially
> since not all of the current POSIX standards existed at the time
> :-)
Considering the POSIX standard as a cookbook for an OS makes no
more sense than considering the C99 standard as a cookbook for a C
compiler.
--
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews
On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
><········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>>> kernel for 30 years.
>>
>> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
>> better stability after just a few years.
>>
>
> I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard
> which is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a
> new operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
the years, since its API has not changed ?
--
Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
<········@teezer.fr> wrote:
> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
>> <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>>>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>>>> kernel for 30 years.
>>>
>>> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
>>> better stability after just a few years.
>>>
>>
>> I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard
>> which is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a
>> new operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
>
> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>
No but the algorithms for memory management, disk mangement and FTP in
unix were
well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and then
went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
Seem to remeber this from my student days.
Operating Systems (design and implication) Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Intrucudes minix, a mini unix compatible with version 7 of unix.
(Not to be confused with system V.. the roman numerals were introdused by
AT&T)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:40:14 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and then
>went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
Linux Pauling? I know about Linus Torvalds and Linus Pauling . I don't
think the latter had much to do with Linux.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:13:20 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:40:14 +0200, "John Thingstad"
> <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
>> well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and
>> then
>> went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
>
> Linux Pauling? I know about Linus Torvalds and Linus Pauling . I don't
> think the latter had much to do with Linux.
>
lol.. oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
No idea why that came out. (assosiative memory can be a bich)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>, ··············@chello.no
(John Thingstad) writes:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:13:20 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:40:14 +0200, "John Thingstad"
>> <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>
>>> well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix
>>> and then went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
>>
>> Linux Pauling? I know about Linus Torvalds and Linus Pauling .
>> I don't think the latter had much to do with Linux.
>
>lol.. oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
>No idea why that came out. (assosiative memory can be a bich)
They were both heavily into C. For one, it was the language;
for the other, the vitamin.
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no> on Thursday 02 September 2004
19:46, John Thingstad wrote:
> oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
And a nobel prize winning peace activist.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:13:20 -0700, Alan Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:40:14 +0200, "John Thingstad"
>> <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>
>>> well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and
>>> then
>>> went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
>>
>> Linux Pauling? I know about Linus Torvalds and Linus Pauling . I don't
>> think the latter had much to do with Linux.
>>
>
>lol.. oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
>No idea why that came out. (assosiative memory can be a bich)
>
The guys figured it out. You have an interested associative
memory :-).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
>>>>> "John" == John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> writes:
John> lol.. oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
Speaking of which, why are we still waiting for Linus Torvalds' Nobel
prize? I'm sure there are tons of less significant
inventions/achievements that have won the prize.
On related note, this thread is way off topic for most involved
newsgroups, and doesn't show any signs of ending either (and yes, I
wasn't helping ;-).
--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> lol.. oops. No Pauling was a nobel prize winning chemist.
> No idea why that came out. (assosiative memory can be a bich)
Maybe human memory is based on a list of CONS cells...
Alan Balmer wrote:
> <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
>> well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix
>> and then went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
>
> Linux Pauling? I know about Linus Torvalds and Linus Pauling . I
> don't think the latter had much to do with Linux.
This has to do with the well known metamorphosis of the common
cold into an OS when treated with large doses of vitamin C. Those
viruses are smart.
--
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.perl.misc.]
On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
><········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> No but the algorithms for memory management, disk mangement and FTP in
> unix were
> well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and then
> went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.
IIRC, the only relation that Minix has with Linux is that Linus (Torvalds,
Pauling is a geneticist IIRC) was using it as an OS when he started
developing the terminal emulator that eventually became Linux, and indeed
the kernel architecture is pretty fundementally different.
> Seem to remeber this from my student days.
>
> Operating Systems (design and implication) Andrew S. Tanenbaum
>
> Intrucudes minix, a mini unix compatible with version 7 of unix.
> (Not to be confused with system V.. the roman numerals were introdused by
> AT&T)
Yeah, and apparently it is still the classic text on OS design.
- --
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
'No, `Eureka' is Greek for `This bath is too hot.'' -- Dr. Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBN6OYqfSmHkD6LvoRAi8FAJsHV2zx+TfKfwq7zkir91O4qvX7zwCdEeYn
HLHT0Bk2u7z/Y/zMTqFMuUc=
=vWN2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, in article
<······················@vulcain.knox.com> ········@teezer.fr
"Andre Majorel" wrote:
> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
> the years, since its API has not changed ?
I'd like to imagine that it's because there are fewer fuckwits using it;
BICBW....
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>, ···@dsl.co.uk
(Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>On Thursday, in article
><······················@vulcain.knox.com> ········@teezer.fr
>"Andre Majorel" wrote:
>
>> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
>> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
>> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>
>I'd like to imagine that it's because there are fewer fuckwits using
>it; BICBW....
Does this mean that XP is getting less stable?
--
/~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On 07 Sep 04 09:44:24 -0800, Charlie Gibbs <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>, ···@dsl.co.uk
> (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>
>> On Thursday, in article
>> <······················@vulcain.knox.com> ········@teezer.fr
>> "Andre Majorel" wrote:
>>
>>> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
>>> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
>>> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>>
>> I'd like to imagine that it's because there are fewer fuckwits using
>> it; BICBW....
>
> Does this mean that XP is getting less stable?
>
> --
> /~\ ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
> \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
> X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
> / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
>
As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
Exchange server (email) has always sucked,
you can disengage the windows interface,
the system still wants to warn you on the screen forcing you to have
access to the screen at all times,
so the function as a server it leaves something to be desired.
I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
As a workstation XP seems OK.
I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
without
a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
+---------------
| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
...
| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
| As a workstation XP seems OK.
| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
+---------------
*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
[an old, slow '486]:
% uptime
2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
%
That's over *20* months!!
-Rob
p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>+---------------
>| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
>....
>| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
>| As a workstation XP seems OK.
>| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
>| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
>| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
>| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
>| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
>+---------------
>
>*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>[an old, slow '486]:
>
> % uptime
> 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
> %
>
>That's over *20* months!!
I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
>
>
>-Rob
>
>p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
>we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
>of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
>Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
>usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}
One? Had to be two. FS was supposed to use their service pack
as the system disk, not the customers!!! I believe that was
true even in 1970. The dangers of smushing bits was too great.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
On Wed, 08 Sep 04 11:48:36 GMT
·········@aol.com wrote:
> In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> >*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
> >[an old, slow '486]:
> >
> > % uptime
> > 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
> > %
> >
> >That's over *20* months!!
>
> I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
The Yahoo! server farm ran to very long uptimes last time I had
any details. The reason being that they commission a machine, add it to
the farm and leave it running until it is replaced two or three years
later.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
In article <······························@eircom.net>,
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Sep 04 11:48:36 GMT
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
>> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>
>> >*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>> >[an old, slow '486]:
>> >
>> > % uptime
>> > 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02,
0.00
>> > %
>> >
>> >That's over *20* months!!
>>
>> I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
>
> The Yahoo! server farm ran to very long uptimes last time I had
>any details. The reason being that they commission a machine, add it to
>the farm and leave it running until it is replaced two or three years
>later.
Sure. But regular users of such computing services never get an
uptime report. Hell, they have no idea how many systems their
own webbit has used, let alone all the code that was executed
to paint that pretty picture on their TTY screen.
I bet, if we start asking, we might even get some bizarre
definitions of uptime.
I do know that the defintion of CPU runtime is disappearing.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com wrote:
> In article <······························@eircom.net>,
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Sep 04 11:48:36 GMT
>>·········@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
>>> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>
>>>>*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>>>>[an old, slow '486]:
>>>>
>>>> % uptime
>>>> 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02,
>
> 0.00
>
>>>> %
>>>>
>>>>That's over *20* months!!
>>>
>>>I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
>>
>> The Yahoo! server farm ran to very long uptimes last time I had
>>any details. The reason being that they commission a machine, add it to
>>the farm and leave it running until it is replaced two or three years
>>later.
>
>
> Sure. But regular users of such computing services never get an
> uptime report. Hell, they have no idea how many systems their
> own webbit has used, let alone all the code that was executed
> to paint that pretty picture on their TTY screen.
>
> I bet, if we start asking, we might even get some bizarre
> definitions of uptime.
Well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, don't
you know? :)
I have absolutely no idea of the size of Yahoo's "server
farm," but let's assume that it's roughly 100 servers
to make the arithmetic easier. Let's further assume
that the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is roughly
2000 hours (about 3 months, or about 90 days).
Given these numbers (which are not real, I remind you,
just made up), it is likely that on any given day
one of those servers suffers some kind of failure.
However, one can argue, quite legitimately, that
the service which Yahoo! provides is still "up and
running." 1% of the users may not be able to access
their mail for a few hours, for example, but the Yahoo! is
still running.
>
> I do know that the defintion of CPU runtime is disappearing.
>
Not everywhere, Steve. There are still shops
which do measure CPU time for transactions
and base their sizing computations on that.
The better ones actually start from the requirements
and derive the CPU budget, Disk I/O budget, Lan budget, etc.
for each transaction based on that!
(Examples: "Hmmm... an in-memory dbms access takes about 150 usec,
my dbms schema requires 12 reads for this query. That's
1.8 msec. My CPU budget is 750 usec. Maybe I should
redesign something here?" ... or ... "Hmm... my CPU
budget is 3 ms. for this transaction, and I'm constrained
to use a particular XML parser. Time to measure. Whoops,
parsing takes around 6 ms for the average message on
my box. Maybe we shouldn't be using this particular
parser just because it's cheap? Or maybe we throw
more hardware at the problem and bid twice the number
of servers if we can't find a better XML parser.")
--
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
- A. Bloch
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:21:15 GMT
Nick Landsberg <···············@SPAMworldnetTRAP.att.net> wrote:
> ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In article <······························@eircom.net>,
> > Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The Yahoo! server farm ran to very long uptimes last time I had
> >>any details. The reason being that they commission a machine, add it to
> >>the farm and leave it running until it is replaced two or three years
> >>later.
> >
> > Sure. But regular users of such computing services never get an
> > uptime report. Hell, they have no idea how many systems their
> > own webbit has used, let alone all the code that was executed
> > to paint that pretty picture on their TTY screen.
> >
> > I bet, if we start asking, we might even get some bizarre
> > definitions of uptime.
>
> Well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, don't
> you know? :)
>
> I have absolutely no idea of the size of Yahoo's "server
> farm," but let's assume that it's roughly 100 servers
> to make the arithmetic easier. Let's further assume
> that the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is roughly
> 2000 hours (about 3 months, or about 90 days).
>
> Given these numbers (which are not real, I remind you,
> just made up), it is likely that on any given day
> one of those servers suffers some kind of failure.
> However, one can argue, quite legitimately, that
> the service which Yahoo! provides is still "up and
> running." 1% of the users may not be able to access
> their mail for a few hours, for example, but the Yahoo! is
> still running.
Erm in this case the farm is a search engine service, if one of
the machines goes down then the searching gets a bit slower for everyone.
At any rate the report from inside Yahoo! was that they considered it
normal for a machine to run uninterrupted for a couple of years and
then get replaced.
> > I do know that the defintion of CPU runtime is disappearing.
> >
>
> Not everywhere, Steve. There are still shops
That's /BAH you're responding to there :)
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>+---------------
>>| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
>>....
>>| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
>>| As a workstation XP seems OK.
>>| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
>>| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
>>| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
>>| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
>>| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
>>+---------------
>>
>>*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>>[an old, slow '486]:
>>
>> % uptime
>> 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
>> %
>>
>>That's over *20* months!!
>
>I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
>>
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
>>we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
>>of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
>>Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
>>usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}
>
>One? Had to be two. FS was supposed to use their service pack
>as the system disk, not the customers!!! I believe that was
>true even in 1970. The dangers of smushing bits was too great.
But with a PM you had to do a cold start. All the disks had to be
spun down, filters changed, and they had to spin for an ungodly long
time after the filter change before heads could be enabled again. This
was to bring all the dust that was let loose in the process into the new
filters before heads went to fly over the platters again.
Also power supplies had to be checked for the dreaded capacitor
problems. Tape drives also had these. This was industry-wide
problems; and news from a few burned UPS'es the last couple of
months tell me that the capacitor problems are still with us.
It was a real accomplishment when we in 1988 could do a full
PM (Prime gear) without shutting down the system. All disks were
mirrored, and all power duplicated, so we shut down half of the
hardware and did PM on that; and took the other half next week.
SMD filters were used at a quite high rate; even inside well
filtered rooms. ISTR 6 months was a pretty long interval between PM's.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> But with a PM you had to do a cold start. All the disks had to be
> spun down, filters changed, and they had to spin for an ungodly long
> time after the filter change before heads could be enabled
> again. This was to bring all the dust that was let loose in the
> process into the new filters before heads went to fly over the
> platters again.
>
> Also power supplies had to be checked for the dreaded capacitor
> problems. Tape drives also had these. This was industry-wide
> problems; and news from a few burned UPS'es the last couple of
> months tell me that the capacitor problems are still with us.
>
> It was a real accomplishment when we in 1988 could do a full PM
> (Prime gear) without shutting down the system. All disks were
> mirrored, and all power duplicated, so we shut down half of the
> hardware and did PM on that; and took the other half next week.
>
> SMD filters were used at a quite high rate; even inside well
> filtered rooms. ISTR 6 months was a pretty long interval between
> PM's.
360s, 370s, etc differentiated between smp ... which was either
symmetrical multiprocessing or shared memory (multi-)processing
... and loosely-coupled multiprocessing (clusters).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
in the 70s, my wife did stint in POK responsible for loosely-coupled
multiprocessing architecture and came up with peer-coupled shared
data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#shareddata
also in the 70s, i had done a re-org of the virtual memory
infrastructure for vm/cms. part of it was released as something called
discontiguous shared memory ... and other pieces of it was released
as part of the resource manager having to do with page migration
(moving virtual pages between different backing store devices).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#mmap
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#adcon
in the mid-70s, one of the vm/cms timesharing service bureaus
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare
was starting to offer 7x24 service to customers around the world; one
of the issues was being able to still schedule PM .... when there
was never a time that there wasn't anybody using the system. they
had already providing support for loosely-coupled, similar to
HONE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone
for scallability & load balancing. what they did in the mid-70s was to
expand the "page migration" ... to include all control blocks ... so
that processes could be migrated off one processor complex (in a
loosely-coupled environment) to a different processor complex ... so
a processor complex could be taken offline for PM.
in the late '80s, we started the high availability, cluster multiprocessing
project:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
of course the airline res system had been doing similar things on 360s
starting in the 60s.
totally random references to airline res systems, tpf, acp, and/or pars:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#29 Mainframes & Unix
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#17 Old Computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#100 Why won't the AS/400 die? Or, It's 1999 why do I have to learn how to use
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#103 IBM 9020 computers used by FAA (was Re: EPO stories (was: HELP IT'S HOT!!!!!))
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#136a checks (was S/390 on PowerPC?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#152 Uptime (was Re: Q: S/390 on PowerPC?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#20 How many Megaflops and when?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#61 VM (not VMS or Virtual Machine, the IBM sort)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#65 oddly portable machines
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#60 Disincentives for MVS & future of MVS systems programmers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#21 Competitors to SABRE? Big Iron
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#22 Is a VAX a mainframe?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#20 Competitors to SABRE?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#26 Disk caching and file systems. Disk history...people forget
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#37 John Mashey's greatest hits
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#69 Block oriented I/O over IP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#2 Block oriented I/O over IP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#35 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#45 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#46 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#47 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#49 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#17 I hate Compaq
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#0 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#3 News IBM loses supercomputer crown
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#9 IBM Doesn't Make Small MP's Anymore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#2 Computers in Science Fiction
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#3 Why are Mainframe Computers really still in use at all?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#12 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#43 IBM doing anything for 50th Anniv?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#63 Hercules and System/390 - do we need it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#83 HONE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#83 Summary: Robots of Doom
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#67 Tweaking old computers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#29 why does wait state exist?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#28 TPF
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#58 AMP vs SMP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#48 InfiniBand Group Sharply, Evenly Divided
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#30 diffence between itanium and alpha
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#67 unix
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#30 One Processor is bad?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#32 One Processor is bad?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#37 Lisp Machines
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#2 Fix the shuttle or fly it unmanned
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#3 Ping: Anne & Lynn Wheeler
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#47 What makes a mainframe a mainframe?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#45 Saturation Design Point
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#24 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#49 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#50 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#6 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#7 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#35 Computer-oriented license plates
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#44 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#58 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#14 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>>
>> SMD filters were used at a quite high rate; even inside well
>> filtered rooms. ISTR 6 months was a pretty long interval between
>> PM's.
>
>360s, 370s, etc differentiated between smp ... which was either
smD the TLA that represents a washing-machine size disk. Mountable.
^ Made impressive head crashes from time to time.
But I won't interfere with this lovely thread drift with lots
of relevant facts.
>symmetrical multiprocessing or shared memory (multi-)processing
>... and loosely-coupled multiprocessing (clusters).
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
>
>in the 70s, my wife did stint in POK responsible for loosely-coupled
>multiprocessing architecture and came up with peer-coupled shared
>data
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#shareddata
>
>also in the 70s, i had done a re-org of the virtual memory
>infrastructure for vm/cms. part of it was released as something called
>discontiguous shared memory ... and other pieces of it was released
>as part of the resource manager having to do with page migration
>(moving virtual pages between different backing store devices).
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#mmap
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#adcon
>
>in the mid-70s, one of the vm/cms timesharing service bureaus
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare
>
>was starting to offer 7x24 service to customers around the world; one
>of the issues was being able to still schedule PM .... when there
>was never a time that there wasn't anybody using the system. they
>had already providing support for loosely-coupled, similar to
>HONE
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone
>
>for scallability & load balancing. what they did in the mid-70s was to
>expand the "page migration" ... to include all control blocks ... so
>that processes could be migrated off one processor complex (in a
>loosely-coupled environment) to a different processor complex ... so
>a processor complex could be taken offline for PM.
>
>in the late '80s, we started the high availability, cluster multiprocessing
>project:
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
>
>of course the airline res system had been doing similar things on 360s
>starting in the 60s.
>
>totally random references to airline res systems, tpf, acp, and/or pars:
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#29 Mainframes & Unix
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#17 Old Computers
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#100 Why won't the AS/400 die? Or, It's 1999 why do I have to learn how to use
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#103 IBM 9020 computers used by FAA (was Re: EPO stories (was: HELP IT'S HOT!!!!!))
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#136a checks (was S/390 on PowerPC?)
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#152 Uptime (was Re: Q: S/390 on PowerPC?)
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#20 How many Megaflops and when?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#61 VM (not VMS or Virtual Machine, the IBM sort)
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#65 oddly portable machines
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#60 Disincentives for MVS & future of MVS systems programmers
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#21 Competitors to SABRE? Big Iron
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#22 Is a VAX a mainframe?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#20 Competitors to SABRE?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#26 Disk caching and file systems. Disk history...people forget
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#37 John Mashey's greatest hits
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#69 Block oriented I/O over IP
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#2 Block oriented I/O over IP
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#35 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#45 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#46 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#47 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#49 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#17 I hate Compaq
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#0 TSS/360
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#3 News IBM loses supercomputer crown
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#9 IBM Doesn't Make Small MP's Anymore
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#2 Computers in Science Fiction
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#3 Why are Mainframe Computers really still in use at all?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#12 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#43 IBM doing anything for 50th Anniv?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#63 Hercules and System/390 - do we need it?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#83 HONE
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#83 Summary: Robots of Doom
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#67 Tweaking old computers?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#29 why does wait state exist?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#28 TPF
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#58 AMP vs SMP
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#48 InfiniBand Group Sharply, Evenly Divided
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#30 diffence between itanium and alpha
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#67 unix
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#30 One Processor is bad?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#32 One Processor is bad?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#37 Lisp Machines
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#2 Fix the shuttle or fly it unmanned
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#3 Ping: Anne & Lynn Wheeler
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#47 What makes a mainframe a mainframe?
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#45 Saturation Design Point
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#24 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#49 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#50 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#6 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#7 Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive workloads
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#35 Computer-oriented license plates
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#44 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#58 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#14 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
>
>--
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> smD the TLA that represents a washing-machine size disk. Mountable.
> ^ Made impressive head crashes from time to time.
>
> But I won't interfere with this lovely thread drift with lots
> of relevant facts.
the first disks i played with at the univ. were 2311s on 360/30; they
were individual, top-loading, with mountable disk packs; 2311 disk
pack was a little over 7mbytes. didn't find picture of 2311 ... but
this picture of 1311 were similar ... the lid of the unit was released
and raised (something like auto engine hood)
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_1311.html
the next were 2314s that came with 360/67. it was long single unit
with drive drawers that slid out. top & bottom row with 9 drives.
drives had addressing plugs .... eight plus a spare. a 2314 pack could
be mounted on the spare drive, spun up .... and then the addressing
plug pop'ed from an active unit and put in the spare drive. it reduced
the elapsed time that the system saw unavailable drive (time to power
off a drive, open the drawer, remove a pack, place in new pack, close
drawer, power up the drive). 2314 pack was about 29 mbytes. picture
of 2314 cabinet
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_2314.html
the next were the 3330s ... long cabinet unit looked similar to 2314
... but with only 8 drawers (instead of 9). 3330-i pack had 100mbytes
... later 3330-ii pack had 200mbytes. picutre of 3330 unit ... the three
cloaded plastic units on top of the unit were used to remove disk pack
and hold it.
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3330.html
close up of 3330 disk pack in its storage case ... also has picture
of 3850 tape cartridges
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3850B.html
misc. other storage pictures:
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_photo.html
next big change was 3380 drives with totally enclosed, non-mountable
cabinet.
old posting on various speeds and feeds
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#8 3330 disk drives
and some more old performance data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#10 virtual memory
i had written a report that relative disk system performance had
declined by a factor of ten times over a period of 10-15 years. the
disk division assigned their performance group to refute the
claim. they looked at it for a couple of months and concluded that i
had somewhat understated the relative system performance decline
... that it was actually more. the issue was that other system
components had increased in performance by 40-50 times ... while disks
had only increased in performance by 4-5 times ... making relative
disk system performance 1/10th what it had been. misc. past posts
about the gpd performance group looking at the relative system
performance issue:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#40 MVS History (all parts)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#29 Computers in Science Fiction
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#18 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#22 Vnet : Unbelievable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#63 Help me find pics of a UNIVAC please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#3 IBM 360 memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#16 Paging query - progress
it was possibly one of the things contributing to disk divisionproviding
funding for the group up in berkeley ... misc. references
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#4 Mainframers: Take back the light (spotlight, that is)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#47 Do any architectures use instruction count instead of timer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#29 cheaper low quality drives
i use to wander around bldgs 14 & 15 and eventually worked on redoing
kernel software for their use. misc. past posts about disk engineering
and product test labs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>> smD the TLA that represents a washing-machine size disk. Mountable.
>> ^ Made impressive head crashes from time to time.
>>
>> But I won't interfere with this lovely thread drift with lots
>> of relevant facts.
>
>the first disks i played with at the univ. were 2311s on 360/30; they
>were individual, top-loading, with mountable disk packs; 2311 disk
>pack was a little over 7mbytes. didn't find picture of 2311 ... but
>this picture of 1311 were similar ... the lid of the unit was released
>and raised (something like auto engine hood)
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_1311.html
>
>the next were 2314s that came with 360/67. it was long single unit
>with drive drawers that slid out. top & bottom row with 9 drives.
>drives had addressing plugs .... eight plus a spare. a 2314 pack could
>be mounted on the spare drive, spun up .... and then the addressing
>plug pop'ed from an active unit and put in the spare drive. it reduced
>the elapsed time that the system saw unavailable drive (time to power
>off a drive, open the drawer, remove a pack, place in new pack, close
>drawer, power up the drive). 2314 pack was about 29 mbytes. picture
>of 2314 cabinet
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_2314.html
>
>
>the next were the 3330s ... long cabinet unit looked similar to 2314
>... but with only 8 drawers (instead of 9). 3330-i pack had 100mbytes
>... later 3330-ii pack had 200mbytes. picutre of 3330 unit ... the three
>cloaded plastic units on top of the unit were used to remove disk pack
>and hold it.
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3330.html
These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
Originally existed as 80-megabyte, pretty light units (30 kg);
later expanded to 160-megabyte. Then the real washing machines
turned up; 300 mb (315 unformatted megabytes). Originally 4 on a chain,
15 mbit analogue readout (MFM ISTR; they never tried RLL).
These were a mainstay among the smaller mini vendors from approx 1974
to the advent of winchesters around a decade later. The earliest
winchesters made exact hardware replicas of the SMD. Then the
spec was expanded and became ESMD, but ESMD was never as robustly
standardized. Sacrifices of goats, PHBs and undergraduates was needed
to stabelize long ESMD chains.
>close up of 3330 disk pack in its storage case ... also has picture
>of 3850 tape cartridges
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3850B.html
>
>misc. other storage pictures:
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_photo.html
>
>next big change was 3380 drives with totally enclosed, non-mountable
>cabinet.
>
>old posting on various speeds and feeds
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#8 3330 disk drives
>
>and some more old performance data
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#10 virtual memory
>
>i had written a report that relative disk system performance had
>declined by a factor of ten times over a period of 10-15 years. the
>disk division assigned their performance group to refute the
>claim. they looked at it for a couple of months and concluded that i
>had somewhat understated the relative system performance decline
>... that it was actually more. the issue was that other system
>components had increased in performance by 40-50 times ... while disks
>had only increased in performance by 4-5 times ... making relative
>disk system performance 1/10th what it had been. misc. past posts
>about the gpd performance group looking at the relative system
>performance issue:
And we are still on that line.
Nowadays most heavy production database data really stays in memory;
with the disk as a backup medium.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
> the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
> by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
>
> Originally existed as 80-megabyte, pretty light units (30 kg); later
> expanded to 160-megabyte. Then the real washing machines turned up;
> 300 mb (315 unformatted megabytes). Originally 4 on a chain, 15 mbit
> analogue readout (MFM ISTR; they never tried RLL).
>
> These were a mainstay among the smaller mini vendors from approx
> 1974 to the advent of winchesters around a decade later. The
> earliest winchesters made exact hardware replicas of the SMD. Then
> the spec was expanded and became ESMD, but ESMD was never as
> robustly standardized. Sacrifices of goats, PHBs and undergraduates
> was needed to stabelize long ESMD chains.
some number of the senior disk engineers left in the late '60s and
early '70s .... fueling the shugart, seagate, memorex, cdc, etc disk
efforts. in fact, the excuse given (later half 70s) for dragging me
into bldg. 14 disk engineering conference calls with the pok
cpu&channel engineers was that so many of the senior disk engineers
(that were familiar with the channel interface) had left.
random disk history URLs from around the web:
http://www.old-computers.com/history/detail.asp?n=51&t=2
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/lectures/shugart_09052002/shugart/
http://www.logicsmith.com/hdhistory.html
http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/revolution/shugart/i_a.html
http://www.disktrend.com/disk3.htm
search engine even turns up one of my posts that somebody appears
to be shadowing at some other site:
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/lynn/2002.html#17
of course the original
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#17
in the previous posting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#12
this reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#8
also gave the speeds and feeds for 3350 (including 317mbyte capacity).
the 1970s washing machines were the 3340s & 3350s ... but the 3350s
enclosed and not removable/mountable; 3340s .... which had
removable/mountable packs .... included the head assemble & platters
completely enclosed.
3340 (winchester) reference, picture includes removable assembly on
top of drives ("3348 data module"):
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3340.html
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3340b.html
picture of row of 3350 drives is similar to that of 3340s ... except
the 3350 packs weren't removable and had much larger capacity
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3350.html
postings reference product code names:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#53 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#7 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill
3340-35 was code named Winchester and as per the IBM 3340 ULR began shipping
to customers november, 1973.
we had a joke when the 3380s were introduced about filling them
completely full. if you converted an installation with say 32 3350
drives .... to 16 3380s (sufficient to hold 32-3350 drives worth of
data, 10gbytes) ... you could have worse performance ... while 3380s
were faster than 3350s, there weren't twice as fast. the proposal was
to have a special microcode load for the 3880 controller .... which
would only support half of a 3380 disk drive. There were a number of
customer people (mostly technies) at share which thought it would be a
good idea ... and furthermore that ibm should price these half-sized
3380s higher than full-sized 3380s (to make the customer exectives
feel like they were getting something special). They would be called
"fast" 3380s (because avg. seek only involved half as many cylindes)
and it was important that the limitation be built into the hardware
and be priced higher. It was recognized that installations could
create their own "fast" 3380s ... just by judicious allocation of data
and no special microcode. However, it was pretty readily acknowledged
that w/o the hardware enforced restrictions, that there were all sorts
of people that populate datacenters that would be unable to control
themselves and fully allocated each 3380.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
# the 1970s washing machines were the 3340s & 3350s ... but the 3350s
# enclosed and not removable/mountable; 3340s .... which had
# removable/mountable packs .... included the head assemble & platters
# completely enclosed.
#
# 3340 (winchester) reference, picture includes removable assembly on
# top of drives ("3348 data module"):
How's it feel to be a like an old war veteran sitting against the wall,
blinking in the morning sunlight? I used to lug around disk packs before
the first winchesters. Now I have a laptop with one disk drive, higher
capacity and faster access than a Cyber 170 disk farm. I remember when
we first saw the portapotty winchesters.
Before that they had a problem with (?)844 (I think that was the model
number). They transferred fast enough that on older machine, by the
time periphial processors read a sector, checked it, packaged it, moved
it central memory, the next sector was already under the head, requiring
a full revolution to read each sector. So they used half tracking
to make logical contiguous sectors physically discontiguous.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Title does not dictate behaviour.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:08:58 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Morten
Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <·············@mail.comcast.net>,
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>>Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>>the next were the 3330s ... long cabinet unit looked similar to 2314
>>... but with only 8 drawers (instead of 9). 3330-i pack had 100mbytes
>>... later 3330-ii pack had 200mbytes. picutre of 3330 unit ... the three
>>cloaded plastic units on top of the unit were used to remove disk pack
>>and hold it.
>>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3330.html
>
>These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
>the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
>by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
ISTR RP series were Memorex drives; RM series were CDC drives; the
latter were more reliable than the former.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
In article <··············@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <·········@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <························@news.rcn.com>, <·········@aol.com>
wrote:
>>In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
>> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>>John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>>+---------------
>>>| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
>>>....
>>>| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
>>>| As a workstation XP seems OK.
>>>| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
>>>| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on
that.
>>>| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
>>>| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
>>>| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
>>>+---------------
>>>
>>>*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>>>[an old, slow '486]:
>>>
>>> % uptime
>>> 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
>>> %
>>>
>>>That's over *20* months!!
>>
>>I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.
>>>
>>>
>>>-Rob
>>>
>>>p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
>>>we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
>>>of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
>>>Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
>>>usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}
>>
>>One? Had to be two. FS was supposed to use their service pack
>>as the system disk, not the customers!!! I believe that was
>>true even in 1970. The dangers of smushing bits was too great.
>
>But with a PM you had to do a cold start. All the disks had to be
>spun down, filters changed, and they had to spin for an ungodly long
>time after the filter change before heads could be enabled again. This
>was to bring all the dust that was let loose in the process into the new
>filters before heads went to fly over the platters again.
That's why there was always two boots; one for FS to bring up thier
service pack to run diags; the other one was when the system was
handed back to the customer.
>
>Also power supplies had to be checked for the dreaded capacitor
>problems. Tape drives also had these. This was industry-wide
>problems; and news from a few burned UPS'es the last couple of
>months tell me that the capacitor problems are still with us.
>
>It was a real accomplishment when we in 1988 could do a full
>PM (Prime gear) without shutting down the system. All disks were
>mirrored, and all power duplicated, so we shut down half of the
>hardware and did PM on that; and took the other half next week.
That's exactly what JMF's and TW's implementation of SMP gave
the customer. Not only that but a catastrophic hardware failure
no longer brought down the whole system. What was really amusing
to me is that TW and JMF had no idea what they'ld created. The
first time I told them that a system would never ever have
to be rebooted, I grew two heads. OTOH, it was impossible
to convince FS that a PM didn't have to be a system-wide PM.
I don't think we ever got that change permutated throughout the
org.
>
>SMD filters were used at a quite high rate; even inside well
>filtered rooms. ISTR 6 months was a pretty long interval between PM's.
Our FS liked to have PMs done weekly and then a major PM done monthly.
I never had time to learn exactly what the procedures were. They
were documented and laid out but I don't know what happened to
that info.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <······················@speakeasy.net>,
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
>John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>+---------------
>| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
>...
>| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
>| As a workstation XP seems OK.
>| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
>| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
>| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
>| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
>| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
>+---------------
There you say it all. I consider two of my FreeBSD-boxes unstable
at the moment. I've had to reboot each of them twice in 18 months.
They both run the full complement of apache, sendmail, mysql, Free/SWAN
leafnode and a score of other stuff; and they go into wedged mode.
Different expectations.
>*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
>[an old, slow '486]:
>
> % uptime
> 2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
> %
>
>That's over *20* months!!
>
>
>-Rob
>
>p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
>we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
>of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
>Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
>usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}
I had a customer complaint at Prime framed at their tech dept; it was
about wrapped counters after ~300 days uptime.
-- mrr
On 07 Sep 04 09:44:24 -0800 in alt.folklore.computers, "Charlie Gibbs"
<······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <······················@dsl.co.uk>, ···@dsl.co.uk
>(Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>
>>On Thursday, in article
>><······················@vulcain.knox.com> ········@teezer.fr
>>"Andre Majorel" wrote:
>>
>>> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
>>> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
>>> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>>
>>I'd like to imagine that it's because there are fewer fuckwits using
>>it; BICBW....
>
>Does this mean that XP is getting less stable?
Well MS touted their SP2 security upgrade, then backed down rather
quickly, as it created as many new bugs and holes as it fixed, and
also broke a large number of third party applications, possibly
because they were coded to work with the way XP actually behaved,
rather than as it was documented to work.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
><········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>>> kernel for 30 years.
>>
>> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
>> better stability after just a few years.
>>
>
>I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard which
>is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a new
>operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
So was Cutler's. He had his own ideas about what an OS should
do. None of them delievered efficient computing services that
the customer wanted.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
After a long battle with technology, Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr>, an earthling, wrote:
> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>> kernel for 30 years.
>
> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
> better stability after just a few years.
Perhaps, but Linus and crew didn't have to start from not knowing what
Unix "ought" to look like, and had the perspective of being able to
look back at 20-odd years of the things that went well and badly with
Unix.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || ·@' || 'acm.org';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
If at first you don't succeed, try duct tape. If duct tape doesn't
work, give up.
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
> problems with
> interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
processes) in MacOS. That's the one error in design in MacOS I
identified in version 1.0 that they've dragged all along for 20
years. (And I bet that if they did not make it, AAPL would be $50-$80
now, and they'd have at least 40%-50% of market share). Instead,
they've wasted resources, CEOs and CTOs for 10 years before the NeXT
take over.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
In comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
>> problems with interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and
>> Unix boxes.
>
> No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
> virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
> processes) in MacOS.
It was my impression that the Motorola 68000 CPU, upon which the
original Macintosh was based, did not support memory management in
hardware. At least, that's usually given as the reason that portable
Unix systems such as NetBSD will "never" run on the earlier 68k (or,
for that matter, 8086 or 80286) chips.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:57:03 +0000 (UTC), "Karl A. Krueger"
<········@example.edu> wrote:
>In comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>>> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
>>> problems with interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and
>>> Unix boxes.
>>
>> No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
>> virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
>> processes) in MacOS.
>
>It was my impression that the Motorola 68000 CPU, upon which the
>original Macintosh was based, did not support memory management in
>hardware.
That's what I remember, but wasn't there an MMU available as a
separate chip?
> At least, that's usually given as the reason that portable
>Unix systems such as NetBSD will "never" run on the earlier 68k (or,
>for that matter, 8086 or 80286) chips.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
··························@att.net
* Karl A. Krueger (········@example.edu)
...
> It was my impression that the Motorola 68000 CPU, upon which the
> original Macintosh was based, did not support memory management in
> hardware.
That is not the problem; one can do memory management and multiple
address spaces in external hardware as well. But the MacOS architecture
obviously wanted to be all in one address space, as did the early
windows versions. This makes GUI easier and networking and fault
isolation harder, but it's a valid tradeoff. :-)
What you can't do with the 68000 is virtual memory management
because that requires the processor to save the state of
execution in the middle of an instruction when needed data
is not physically in memory. 68020 and upwards provided that
feature, and the Sun 3/50 used a 68020 and a proprietary memory
management unit mainly consisting of two fast SRAMs to get
virtual memory support.
I don't know whether the 68000 already had user and supervisor
mode which is also (besides an MMU) a prerequisite for completely
jailing user programs.
Andreas
--
np: 4'33
Andreas Krey <··········@gmx.de> wrote:
+---------------
| I don't know whether the 68000 already had user and supervisor
| mode which is also (besides an MMU) a prerequisite for completely
| jailing user programs.
+---------------
Yes, it did. The original Fortune Systems box used a 68000 to run
a hybrid ATT-v.7/BSD-4.1a kernel. It "completely jailed" user programs,
as you put it. Though, as others have noted, since the 68000 could not
recover from arbitrary bus faults (SIGSEGVs), we were only able to
provide whole-process swapping, not general paging.
But as a consequence of this limitation, we were able to use a *much*
simpler external MMU, basically a four-segment base/limit style (think
of a PDP-10 with 4 segs instead of 2, or a PDP-11/44 with 4 instead of 8)
built out of 4x4 register files (74S670's, IIRC) instead of the expensive,
fast SRAMs Sun later used on their 68020 box.
-Rob
p.s. The four segments were text, data, "extra", and stack, equally
dividing the virutual address space, with the limits growing up from
the beginning of the segment for text & data and down from the end
for "extra" and stack. [In case you're wondering, "extra" was used
for various & sundry purposes: System-V shmem; for mapping /dev/mem
or /dev/kmem for kernel debugging; mapping hardware into user-mode
drivers; and similar stunts.]
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
# That is not the problem; one can do memory management and multiple
# address spaces in external hardware as well. But the MacOS architecture
# obviously wanted to be all in one address space, as did the early
# windows versions. This makes GUI easier and networking and fault
# isolation harder, but it's a valid tradeoff. :-)
Not really. It was known to be a problem from the first Multi-Finder. The original
Macs only ran one application at a time, and had to halt and return to Finder to
run another. That continued till the Multi-Finder in system 6 (or 5?), and
officially enshrined in system 7. By that time Apple already knew it was dead
end operating system and started and aborted a number of successors, and continued
warnings that all the low level interfaces would disappear Real Soon Now. Even
implementing on the PPC caused all sorts of compatiability problems.
On the other hand I'm still running 68K programs on MacOSX.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
I have no idea what you just said.
I get that alot.
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> In comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> >> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
> >> problems with interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and
> >> Unix boxes.
> >
> > No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
> > virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
> > processes) in MacOS.
>
> It was my impression that the Motorola 68000 CPU, upon which the
> original Macintosh was based, did not support memory management in
> hardware. At least, that's usually given as the reason that portable
> Unix systems such as NetBSD will "never" run on the earlier 68k (or,
> for that matter, 8086 or 80286) chips.
That's not exactly true. There are some small problems with the
instruction set, but at the time Motorola sold 68000, they sold PMMU
and SMMU (segmented MMU) for it, and there was 68000 based
unix workstations.
Actually, the segmented MMU would have been a perfect match to the
Memory Management of the MacOS.
The problem was that they started with a 6809 and 64KB in mind for the
Macintosh...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> wrote:
# In comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
# > "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
# >> Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
# >> problems with interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and
# >> Unix boxes.
# >
# > No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
# > virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
# > processes) in MacOS.
#
# It was my impression that the Motorola 68000 CPU, upon which the
# original Macintosh was based, did not support memory management in
# hardware. At least, that's usually given as the reason that portable
# Unix systems such as NetBSD will "never" run on the earlier 68k (or,
# for that matter, 8086 or 80286) chips.
It needed an extra chip until about the 68020. Mac system 7 had a form of
virtual memory; there are Linux and BSD versions that are advertised to
run on the 68020 or later.
MacOSX still has cruft from 1984 system 1, but now it's the outer layers
on top of the Unix kernel calls instead of Posix functions layered on
top of cruft.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Raining down sulphur is like an endurance trial, man. Genocide is the
most exhausting activity one can engage in. Next to soccer.
In article <··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> > Note the Mac OS 10 / Darwin uses a unix kernel because of all the
> > problems with
> > interoperabillity OS 9 had with talking to Windows and Unix boxes.
>
> No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
> virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
> processes) in MacOS. That's the one error in design in MacOS I
> identified in version 1.0 that they've dragged all along for 20
> years. (And I bet that if they did not make it, AAPL would be $50-$80
> now, and they'd have at least 40%-50% of market share). Instead,
> they've wasted resources, CEOs and CTOs for 10 years before the NeXT
> take over.
NeXT took over Apple. Yes, that is the way it was except for the fiscal
realities.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
John Thingstad wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in
> developing muliuser / mutitasking operating systems between
> them. The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet
> really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed
> with it's kernel for 30 years. But the modular arcitecture
> and the microkernel are new ideas in OS design and should in
> time lead to a more extensible OS than unix.
The original NT (3.0) was well designed, but slow on the hardware
of the time. Then MS got to work increasing module connectivity
and reducing reliability. This is the usual premature
optimization bug, together with planned obsolescence. The result
is an unmaintainable mess.
--
Some similarities between GWB and Mussolini:
a) The strut; b) Making war until brought up short:
Mussolini: Ethiopia, France, Greece.
GWB: Afghanistan, Iraq.
In article <·················@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <··········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>John Thingstad wrote:
>>
>.... snip ...
>>
>> These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in
>> developing muliuser / mutitasking operating systems between
>> them. The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet
>> really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed
>> with it's kernel for 30 years. But the modular arcitecture
>> and the microkernel are new ideas in OS design and should in
>> time lead to a more extensible OS than unix.
>
>The original NT (3.0) was well designed, but slow on the hardware
>of the time. Then MS got to work increasing module connectivity
>and reducing reliability.
V3? I thought V4 was their last good one before they started to
put apps into execmode.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
·········@aol.com writes:
> V3? I thought V4 was their last good one before they started to
> put apps into execmode.
3.51 was the last good one.
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> ·········@aol.com writes:
>
>
>>V3? I thought V4 was their last good one before they started to
>>put apps into execmode.
>
>
> 3.51 was the last good one.
Amen to that. 4.0 introduced lots of New! Features!
In article <················@mjolner.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, Brian Inglis
><············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
>> Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Andre Majorel wrote:
>>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>>> Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>>> hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>>> would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>>> including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>>> side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>>>
>>>>> DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>>>> Unix-style file handles ?
>>>
>>> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
>>> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
>>
>> MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>> NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>> Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
>> what causes the crashes!
>>
>
>You seeem misinformed.
>Microsoft swallowed up a team from DEC.
>The were developing a operating system called PRISM.
Which was Cutler's view of what VMS should be. Assuming
he hadn't change, this would not have delivered computing
system services to users.
>When the project was cancelled they quit DEC in protest.
>These peaple had more than a 100 years of experience in developing
>muliuser /
>mutitasking operating systems between them.
100 years total isn't much experience.
> .. The fact that the NT kernel is
>not
>entirely stable yet really shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has
>messed with
>it's kernel for 30 years.
PRISM is as old as Unix...actually older.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
In article <························@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"John W. Kennedy" <·······@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Andre Majorel wrote:
> > On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
> >>Andre Majorel <········@teezer.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
> >>>
> >>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
> >>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
> >>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
> >>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
> >>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
> >>
> >>DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
> >
> >
> > Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
> > Unix-style file handles ?
>
> Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
> been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
And they got beat to Unixhood (or UnixDoom) by Apple.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> writes:
> Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
It's VMS'ism !
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> writes:
| > Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
|
| It's VMS'ism !
+---------------
Well, originally, certainly, in the core of the kernel.
But there are plenty enough "Unixisms" in the rest of it!
[Go re-read "Worse is Better", then see if you don't agree...]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <················@hotmail.com>,
Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andre Majorel wrote:
>> On 2004-08-28, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>+---------------
>>>| $ telnet xahlee.org 80;
>>>| Trying 208.186.130.4...
>>>| Connected to xahlee.org.
>>>| Escape character is '^]'.
>>>| GET / HTTP/1.1
>>>|
>>>| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
>>>| Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:35:52 GMT
>>>| Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
>>>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>+---------------
>>>
>>>So are you complaining about the fact that his hosting provider
>>>preloaded RedHat Fedora with Apache 2.0 for him?
>>
>>
>> There is no shortage of Windows-based hosting companies, so why
>> didn't he go there ? Whatever your opinions, it's best to put
>> your money where your mouth is if you expect to be taken
>> seriously.
>>
>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
Good bitgod, no. AAMOF, Windows would be much improved if
it cut off its balls.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Who let that idiot back in?
On 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
...
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
On 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote:
>
> Unixism
>
"Isms", in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in
an "ism". He should believe in himself.
Ferris Bueller
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
I think I just hit the 'wall'.
rlol
On 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
> 200012
>
> Dear readers,
>
> Did you know that throughout history there's this thing called cult?
> It is a very interesting phenomenon. I don't have time to expound and
> teach, but will try to brief you.
>
> These cults, are often lead by a single person. They form a group as
> small as a dozen to multinational octopuses (such as
> Scientology). Their creed varies from the mild in appearance
> (Dianetics) to appalling (flat earth, extraordinary life-after-death,
> impinging apocalypse scenarios, militant anti-government conspiracy,
> diabolism with human sacrifices ...). Don't think that i'm citing from
> some arcane books buried in libraries. These are real, and not
> difficult to find in real life. Some of these cult leaders, are so
> able to totally wash their member's brain, as to have them
> autonomously swear and volunteer to die for the cause of the cult.
> Occasionally, you'll even see mass suicide.
>
> You know, the world is not made completely of rubes. Somebody
> somewhere, will observe this phenomenon and study or report it as
> is. Big brother organizations, such as the FBI, is keen on these and
> very interested in benefiting from social psychology themselves. They
> are recorded in books too. Ever wonder why the library houses so many
> cold volumes of paper? This is one contributing reason. You might be
> interested to verify that sometimes.
>
> These brain-washing phenomenon, are not limited to fanatical
> life-and-death or otherwise dire beliefs. You see it work in all
> manners of human thought in the general sense. From culture formation
> to fashion to commercialism. Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
> and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
> couldn't commit such a crime. You see, even if you are superman, you
> can only kill few at a time. You see, it is the people, people like
> you and me, who commit the killings willingly, by Hitler's
> teaching. You may say: "no, i won't ever do such stupid thing", well
> because you are very ignorant about social psychology. It is precisely
> innocent people like you and (not) me, who were lead by the radical
> leaders of supreme brain-washing abilities. The innocent mob were
> fervent in their leader's vision and beliefs to commit anything. You
> know the concept of war, right? We have two massive body of people
> committed to cut off other people's head or otherwise stick a knife in
> their bodies or bomb off an arm or leg. How did that happen? Well, it
> starts with patriotism for people like you and (not) me.
>
> Now, back to topic. In the computing world, there're also bad seeds
> with colorful creed taking innocent mobs forming cults. The three
> principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
> Hubris. Yes?
>
> How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending truths. Education
> and rationalism. I'm starting my own cult to exterminate morons on
> this earth. Two things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
>
> --------
> This post is archived at
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/larry_wall_n_cults.html
>
> Copyright 2000-2004 Xah Lee. Verbatim Reproduction for non-commercial
> purposes is hereby granted provided proper credit is given.
>
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
> Larry Wall and Cults
> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
> 200012
>
> Dear readers,
>
[snip]
> Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
> and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
> couldn't commit such a crime.
Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
--Mac
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:59:08 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Mac
<···@bar.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
>
>> Larry Wall and Cults
>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>> 200012
>> Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
>> and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
>> couldn't commit such a crime.
>
>Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
Not quite, no comparison was made; see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1991Oct22.140831.23313%40eff.org
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:58:30 +0000, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:59:08 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Mac
> <···@bar.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Wall and Cults
>>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>>> 200012
>
>>> Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
>>> and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
>>> couldn't commit such a crime.
>>
>>Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
>
> Not quite, no comparison was made; see:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1991Oct22.140831.23313%40eff.org
Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
But if the comparison must be explicit, as you seem to be saying, then I
have to concede the point.
Best regards,
Mac
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:02:23 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Mac
<···@bar.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:58:30 +0000, Brian Inglis wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:59:08 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Mac
>> <···@bar.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:56:06 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Wall and Cults
>>>> (Lazyness, Impatience and Hubris)
>>>> 200012
>>
>>>> Surely you have heard of Adolf Hitler
>>>> and his atrocities of genocide? I must alert you, that a single person
>>>> couldn't commit such a crime.
>>>
>>>Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
>>
>> Not quite, no comparison was made; see:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1991Oct22.140831.23313%40eff.org
>
>
>Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
>tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
>cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
>
>But if the comparison must be explicit, as you seem to be saying, then I
>have to concede the point.
Google for the Godwin's Law FAQ on how to troll on Usenet, mention
Nazis, and not be caught by Godwins' Law.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
············@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
On Sunday, in article
<······························@bar.net> ···@bar.net "Mac"
wrote:
> Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
> tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
> cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
"Cautionary tale"???? Cautionary tale, my arse.
The post was the fuckwitted ramblings of a total raving looney; kill the
thread (and the original poster) and forget about it.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ···@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
> On Sunday, in article
> <······························@bar.net> ···@bar.net "Mac"
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
>>tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
>>cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
>
>
> "Cautionary tale"???? Cautionary tale, my arse.
>
> The post was the fuckwitted ramblings of a total raving looney; kill the
> thread (and the original poster) and forget about it.
>
Snicker. Definitely the most sensible suggestion I've seen so far.
regards
Steve
Steve Holden <·······@holdenweb.com> writes:
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, in article
>> <······························@bar.net> ···@bar.net "Mac"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
>>>tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
>>>cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
>> "Cautionary tale"???? Cautionary tale, my arse.
>> The post was the fuckwitted ramblings of a total raving looney; kill
>> the
>> thread (and the original poster) and forget about it.
>>
> Snicker. Definitely the most sensible suggestion I've seen so far.
That would of course make it a cautionary tale.
--
M�ns Rullg�rd
···@mru.ath.cx
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
>
> In the computing world, there're also bad seeds with
> colorful creed taking innocent mobs forming cults.
> The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness,
> Impatience, and Hubris. Yes?
>
> How can we prevent heinous cults then? Stop bending
> truths. Education and rationalism. I'm starting my
> own cult to exterminate morons on this earth. Two
> things are on the top of my agenda: Unixism and Perl.
You know... the original poster has a point...
After all, Perl programmers have been known to "use Curses", as
well as hex(), bless(), and sin(). (Which might lead him to believe
that Perl programmers will eventually pack() their belongings, split()
from their families , and join an isolated community where there is
nothing to do but study() until you die() (or your mind goes
"pop()"!).
Coincidence? (I think so!)
(Wow... Python advocacy has really taken a bizarre turn lately...)
-- J.
(My apologies if I offended any Python programmers. It was not my
intention to associate the Python community with the original poster.)