INFO-VAX Sun, 09 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 492 Contents: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Re: SOAP, WSIT, I'm LOST, sort of... Re: Stuck at a console Re: Utility for finding memory leaks in C on VMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:05:39 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson writes: >On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote: >> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: >>>>> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>>>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes: >>>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob >>>>>>> Koehler) wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes: >>>>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for >>>>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind." >>>>>>>> But he did change his mind. He sent his only son to implement the >>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ... >>>>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel >>>>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right >>>>>>> now before your very eyes ... >>>>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then >>>>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion. >>>>> Not true. >>>>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action. >>>> No it doesn't. >>> And I disagree. >>> >>> $ dict predetermined >>> 3 definitions found >>> >>> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 >>> [gcide]: >>> >>> Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. >>> {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre- >>> + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.] >>> 1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale. >>> [1913 Webster] >>> >>> 2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom. >>> [1913 Webster] >>> >>> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]: >>> >>> predetermined >>> adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a >>> predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}] >>> >>>> For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined >>>> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't >>>> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the >>>> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial >>>> conditions and laws of the Universe. >>>> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about >>>> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of >>>> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system). >>> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined. >>> >>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not >>> predetermined before the sim is run. >>> >> >> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our >> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The > >Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external >variables. > In computer programs random number generators do not truly generate random numbers they generate pseudorandom numbers using a seed. So long as the inputs used to generate the seed are the same the same random number will be generated. You could also use a physical external process to generate random numbers but again this would not usually be truly random. To get something many would regard as truly random you would need to use quantum processes. (However as I mentioned in a previous post any relativistic quantum theory would define simultaneity of spatially separated events differently for observers moving relative to each other and hence would for any theory which posited a single consistent universe - ie excluding the many-world and similar theories - have to require a fixed pre-determined future for the Universe.) David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> result was "foredoomed." It was "set in advance" and we can trace the >> logic back to the beginning and see how the result was obtained. >> What's your disagreement? That we didn't know the result in advance? >> The definition does not require us to read the future, only the past. >> > > >-- >Ron Johnson, Jr. >Jefferson LA USA > >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:32:14 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <4obEi.295402$5y.136665@newsfe18.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: >On 09/07/07 07:09, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: >> In article , Ron Johnson writes: >>> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote: >>>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: >> [...] >>>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not >>>>> predetermined before the sim is run. >>>>> >>>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our >>>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The >>> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external >>> variables. >> >> A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity. The result is >> still preset. > >Who uses seeded PRNGs anymore? > >I don't know how VMS does it, but /dev/random on Linux returns true >randomness based on randomness in the motherboard. > Which itself is not truly random. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> But yes, introducing a random oracle into an deterministic automaton >> can result in a non-deterministic automaton. > > >-- >Ron Johnson, Jr. >Jefferson LA USA > >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:53:35 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson writes: >On 09/07/07 09:25, Bob Koehler wrote: >> In article <...>, JF Mezei writes: >> >>> Everything reacts >>> according to some logic. "Random" simply means that we have not yet >>> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left instead >>> of the right. >> >> 1) Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how >> this thread got here. So I won't ask that anyone's god follow logic >> or the laws of physics. >> >> 2) The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they say >> "this CANNOT be done". There are testable consequences of that >> statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and experiments >> have shown them to be true. > >For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of >the semiconductor era. "Physics just won't let us make transistors >any smaller!!!!" > But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law. Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a technology problem. Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current knowledge of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean that a method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed of light but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, wormhole etc David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors. > >-- >Ron Johnson, Jr. >Jefferson LA USA > >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:44:12 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <000901c7f2ef$e3c25da0$ab4718e0$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk [mailto:david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk] > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:54 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) > > In article , Ron Johnson > writes: > >On 09/07/07 09:25, Bob Koehler wrote: > >> In article <...>, JF Mezei writes: > >> > >>> Everything reacts > >>> according to some logic. "Random" simply means that we have not > yet > >>> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left > instead > >>> of the right. > >> > >> 1) Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how > >> this thread got here. So I won't ask that anyone's god follow > logic > >> or the laws of physics. > >> > >> 2) The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they > say > >> "this CANNOT be done". There are testable consequences of that > >> statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and > experiments > >> have shown them to be true. > > > >For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of > >the semiconductor era. "Physics just won't let us make transistors > >any smaller!!!!" > > > But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law. > Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a > technology > problem. Perhaps we have not reached the limits of that technology yet. St. Andrews once again has come through with a possible breakthrough, especially in nano scale ideas. This is the kind of stuff that could lead to transistors that insulated themselves from each other. (Think superconducting transistors that don't get hot... :) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/06/nlevitate106 xml -Paul >Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. > The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current > knowledge > of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean > that a > method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed of > light > but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, > wormhole etc > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University > > > >And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors. > > > >-- > >Ron Johnson, Jr. > >Jefferson LA USA > > > >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. > >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:51:08 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <001a01c7f114$74840ec0$994614ac@domina.fom>, "Rudolf Wingert" writes: >In article , Ron Johnson > writes: >>On 09/04/07 12:30, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>> In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>> ultradwc@gmail.com writes: >>[snip] >>>>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> 1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29 >>>> >>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for >>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind." >>>> >>> So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the >>> modifications made in the New Testament can not be valid because God >>> can never change his mind ? So for instance Christians should all be >>> eating only Kosher food and all men should be circumcised. >> >>a) - Jesus is/was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Law. Now that >>Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Law and expiated our sin >>(instead of the temporary propitiation via animal blood), we live under >>Grace, not Law. > >Hello did you read 1. Mose 9.1-7. Here God says: you can eat all what you >want, but without his blood. I was a bit thrown by the Mose abreviation I usually refer to that as Genesis 9.4 where God is talking to Noah and his sons "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat". >In the later days, God did change this for >Israel. Leviticus chapter 11 God instructing Moses and Aaaron. >I think, that this was necessary to prevent his folk for some >illnesses. They did not have the same possibilities like we (Trichinen, >etc). This restriction was helpful instruction, not a law. How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you know better, and a Law ? I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed. >So God did not >change his mind. He did help his folk to survive. > David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >Best regards Rudolf Wingert > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 16:34:08 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <000901c7f2ef$e3c25da0$ab4718e0$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk [mailto:david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk] >> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:54 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) >> >> In article , Ron Johnson >> writes: >> >On 09/07/07 09:25, Bob Koehler wrote: >> >> In article <...>, JF Mezei writes: >> >> >> >>> Everything reacts >> >>> according to some logic. "Random" simply means that we have not >> yet >> >>> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left >> instead >> >>> of the right. >> >> >> >> 1) Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how >> >> this thread got here. So I won't ask that anyone's god follow >> logic >> >> or the laws of physics. >> >> >> >> 2) The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they >> say >> >> "this CANNOT be done". There are testable consequences of that >> >> statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and >> experiments >> >> have shown them to be true. >> > >> >For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of >> >the semiconductor era. "Physics just won't let us make transistors >> >any smaller!!!!" >> > >> But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law. >> Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a >> technology >> problem. > >Perhaps we have not reached the limits of that technology yet. St. Andrews >once >again has come through with a possible breakthrough, especially in nano >scale >ideas. This is the kind of stuff that could lead to transistors that >insulated >themselves from each other. (Think superconducting transistors that don't >get >hot... :) > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/06/nlevitate106 >xml > Where's the catch ? As reported this sounds like a mechanism for extracting useful energy from the vacuum ie zero-point energy. Our only future energy problems would be to do with storage and transmission. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > >-Paul > >>Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. >> The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current >> knowledge >> of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean >> that a >> method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed of >> light >> but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, >> wormhole etc >> >> David Webb >> Security team leader >> CCSS >> Middlesex University >> >> >> >And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors. >> > >> >-- >> >Ron Johnson, Jr. >> >Jefferson LA USA >> > >> >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. >> >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:55:36 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189356936.547395.272920@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 7, 5:27 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > >On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote: > >> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden > >>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of > >>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash > >>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.] > > >>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the > >>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person > >>> blows a feather with his breath. > > >>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of > >>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine." > > >>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd. > > >> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite > >> reaction." > > >> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding, > >> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions. > >> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples? > > How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction? > > > > A more precise statement of the third law can be found there: > > "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: > or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, > and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is > as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your > finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a > stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally > drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same > endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much > towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will > obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the > other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the > motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the > mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, > toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, > not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to > say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, > because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities > made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the > bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in > the next scholium." > > Hope that helps. > > (For some reason, your post shows up in google groups but is not > accessible. So, I've copied it from elsewhere and replied to my post.) This third law has now been generalized to the law of conservation of momentum. (In non-relativistic kinematics, the momentum of a body is the product of its mass and velocity.) This generalization is needed to cover electromagnetism and quantum processes. For example, when an atom emits a photon, there is a reaction force (recoil) on the atom. But there is no force on the photon. Yet momentum is still conserved. Additionally, electromagnetic fields have momentum which can be exchanged with physical bodies. This is like when conservation of mass and conservation of energy were merged into one. The former became "subsumed" (if that's the right word) into the latter. AEF AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:12:27 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189357947.437267.200770@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 11:51 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article <001a01c7f114$74840ec0$99461...@domina.fom>, "Rudolf Wingert" writes: > >In article , Ron Johnson > > writes: > >>On 09/04/07 12:30, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >>> ultra...@gmail.com writes: > >>[snip] > > >>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>> 1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29 > > >>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for > >>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind." > > >>> So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the > >>> modifications made in the New Testament can not be valid because God > >>> can never change his mind ? So for instance Christians should all be > >>> eating only Kosher food and all men should be circumcised. > > >>a) - Jesus is/was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Law. Now that > >>Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Law and expiated our sin > >>(instead of the temporary propitiation via animal blood), we live under > >>Grace, not Law. > > >Hello did you read 1. Mose 9.1-7. Here God says: you can eat all what you > >want, but without his blood. > > I was a bit thrown by the Mose abreviation I usually refer to that as > Genesis 9.4 where God is talking to Noah and his sons > > "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat". > > >In the later days, God did change this for > >Israel. Changed how? Please provide specific sources. > > Leviticus chapter 11 God instructing Moses and Aaaron. There are other parts of the Pentateuch that discuss dietary restrictions, including the forbidding of eating blood. See Leviticus 7:27, 17:10, and 17:11, e.g. > > >I think, that this was necessary to prevent his folk for some > >illnesses. They did not have the same possibilities like we (Trichinen, > >etc). This restriction was helpful instruction, not a law. So you mention an illness you claim they didn't have to worry about. I don't see how that helps make your point. > > How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which you > can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you know > better, and a Law ? > > I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are > perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed. The Jewish dietary laws are indeed laws, not suggestions (except in Reform Judaism, perhaps -- I think the Reform movement relaxes the dietary restrictions somewhat, maybe just the meat and milk rule, I'm not sure). > > >So God did not > >change his mind. He did help his folk to survive. No mention of poisonous fruit, etc., to avoid. > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University>Best regards Rudolf Wingert AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:25:37 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <000801c7f306$70081640$501842c0$@com> [snip snip snip] > >> But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law. > >> Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a > >> technology > >> problem. > > > >Perhaps we have not reached the limits of that technology yet. St. > Andrews > >once > >again has come through with a possible breakthrough, especially in > nano > >scale > >ideas. This is the kind of stuff that could lead to transistors that > >insulated > >themselves from each other. (Think superconducting transistors that > don't > >get > >hot... :) > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/06/nlevit > ate106 > >xml > > > Where's the catch ? As reported this sounds like a mechanism for > extracting > useful energy from the vacuum ie zero-point energy. > Our only future energy problems would be to do with storage and > transmission. > We will get there eventually, if we don't manage to kill ourselves off with politics first. This however, seems to me to be a ways off from creating zero-point energy. Travis Taylor might disagree though, as he made a pretty good SF yarn out of a similar idea. :) > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University > > > > >-Paul > > > >>Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. > >> The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current > >> knowledge > >> of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean > >> that a > >> method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed > of > >> light > >> but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, > >> wormhole etc > >> > >> David Webb > >> Security team leader > >> CCSS > >> Middlesex University > >> > >> > >> >And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors. > >> > > >> >-- > >> >Ron Johnson, Jr. > >> >Jefferson LA USA > >> > > >> >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. > >> >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:36:44 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189359404.670691.115710@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 12:44 pm, "Joe H. Gallagher" wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: > > davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > > >> Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem. > > > I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed > > limits :-) > > > Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be > > able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The > > propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which > > remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy > > that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able > > to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will > > require an infinite amount of energy. > > > HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the > > speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing > > throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ? Yes. You're thinking Newtonian mechanics here. In relativity, the relationships between energy, momentum, and speed are different. For non-relativistic speeds (speeds small compared to the speed of light, say, less than 10% of c), the relationships reduce to the familiar Newtonian ones. (Even at 10% the speed of light, gamma [the factor by which things get "weird" (relativistic)] is only 1.005.) At 1km/h below the speed of light (or any other speed, for that matter), any additional energy used to speed up your spaceship will increase the kinetic energy of the ship by that amount (minus inefficiencies), but the speed will still not exceed c. > YES! According to Einstein's Theory, the effective mass of the ship > will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly > increase the speed (velocity) up to or greater than the speed of light. > > m[effective mass] = m[mass at rest]/sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2) or m = m_0 * gamma where gamma is the gamma I eluded to above. > > where v is the apparent velocity, c is the speed of light, sqrt is the > square root, and "**2" means squared. The main result of trying to go > faster is that it gets "heavier". The effective mass goes infinite for > all objects with non-zero rest mass as they approach the speed of light. The increased effective mass comes from the energy you put into the space ship to make it go faster. > [Photons have zero rest mass; they can 'travel' at the speed of light.] > > So far, there have been no non-quantum (i.e. macroscopic world - things > the size of space ships as opposed to sub-atomic particles) > contradictions to this part of Einstein's theory. The special theory of relativity has been verified to very high precision. Note that GPS signals require relativistic corrections to work properly. > > In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a > > H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just > > enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water > > would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it > > takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h, > > accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount > > of energy. > > Joe > Ph. D. in Physics > University of Colorado, 1969 AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:02:56 -0700 From: ja Subject: Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Message-ID: <1189339376.951651.133170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> The topic of Report Writers for OpenVMS comes up from time to time. I happened to come across this Web page http://www.synergyde.com/products/development_tools/core_tools.aspx and was wondering if anyone had experience with the software? Cheers, john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:01:30 -0700 From: ja Subject: Re: SOAP, WSIT, I'm LOST, sort of... Message-ID: <1189339290.152921.65520@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Anyone interested in a gSOAP kit for OpenVMS, Alpha or Integrity, should send an email to brett.cameron(AT)hp.com and john.apps(AT)hp.com with as much detail as possible and specifying whether Alpha or Integrity. NOTE: whilst Brett and I work for HP, this kit is currently provided on a 'as is' basis and is NOT supported by HP in any way whatsovever. Having said that, we will be more than happy to hear about support requirements once you have tried out the kit. On Sep 8, 11:36 pm, Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote: > Michael Anderson wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:42:16 -0700, ja wrote: > > >> Jan-Erik, > > >> -- gSOAP, which Bob Gezelter mentioned, is probably the way for you to > >> go as 1) it is a full-blown Web Service implementation offering both > >> client and server functionality, i.e., VMS acts both as client and > >> server whereby WSIT only acts as a server; 2) it is written entirely > >> in 'C', thus fitting nicely into your current environment; 3) it runs > >> on Alpha and Integrity. It would not be hard at all to integrate it > >> into OSU or, use the mod_gsoap module for Apache which we have just > >> finished porting. > > >> -- Windows Servers, or more correctly put, Microsoft, has plenty of > >> software to make the use of Web Services more or less transparent to > >> the user and even developer, be it from MS Office, a program, or > >> whatever. > > >> -- the Java environment offers many ways of processing Web Service > >> requests > > >> -- as do the 'P' (Perl, Python, PHP) languages > > >> -- the reason there is not support for the OBJ2IDL.EXE utility on > >> Alpha is, as Bob already pointed out, due to the fact that the format > >> of an object file on Alpha is not standard and therefore very hard to > >> use to obtain the interfaces of the compiled program. On Integrity the > >> format is well documented and it is therefore easy to parse the file > >> and obtain the interfaces. It should be pointed out that the result of > >> OBJ2IDL.EXE on Integrity can be used equally well on Alpha > > >> Cheers, John > >> PS: despite my Martinelli car parked in the HP car park, please feel > >> free to contact me directly as I do, occasionally, actually try and do > >> productive work:-) > > >> On Sep 7, 4:43 pm, Jan-Erik S=F6derholm > >> wrote: > >>> Jeffrey H. Coffield wrote: > >>>> Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote: > >>>>> To add the the picture, this "new" interface is ment > >>>>> to complement the current that is a simple mail based > >>>>> communication. The "other side" simply sends a mail > >>>>> to a specific user, using an agreed on subject with a > >>>>> datafile ZIP'ed and attachede using standrad MIME format. > >>>>> On the VMS system ("my" system) this mail is taken care > >>>>> of using DELIVER/MPACK/MUNPACK/UNZIP and the datafile > >>>>> is finely FTP'ed over to an IBM mainframe to be stored > >>>>> into a central DB2 database. The mainframe interface is > >>>>> not the target right now. > >>>>> Now, some users would like to have an alternative to > >>>>> this mail based communication. FTP has been discussed. > >>>>> WEB Services was also mentioned. And that's why I was > >>>>> asking. > >>>>> OK, I have to dig a little more into this. > >>>>> As you said, one of the problems with open source > >>>>> stuff is that it might be hard to find a consistant > >>>>> set of documentation... > >>>>> Jan-Erik. > >>>> If the "other side" is a person, why not put up a web page with a fi= le > >>>> upload? If the "other side" is a program, then some change would hav= e to > >>>> be made since it currently sends a e-mail. That can usually be switc= hed > >>>> to cURL to do the post. The web page on your side is the same. > >>>> Jeff Coffield > >>> No, the other side are different client application. And they'd > >>> like to use the latest busniess buzz-words, of course. Whatever > >>> that looks good in the data sheets. :-) And it should be a fully > >>> automated setup. No manual intervention in any part. > > >>> So, the *BEST* solution for *me*, is one where the client can use > >>> WEB services (or whatever "new" tools they like) and I can > >>> continue with the same hardware/VMS/OSU setup. > > >>> I do not now what tools there are on Windows servers, but WEB Services > >>> was mentioned as one that they'd look at as interesting. > > >>> Now, I guess I need some XML tool to receive and decode whetever > >>> the WEB Servicesa/SOAP tools at the client creates, right ? > > >>> Jan-Erik.- Hide quoted text - > > >>> - Show quoted text - > > > I strongly recommend gSOAP which you can use from C or C++ cURL also > > has it uses on OpenVMS but for non SOAP related web stuff. > > > SOAP messages when you start using things like WS-Security etc. > > becomes impossible to generate by hand you must use tool kits like > > gSOAP. With gSOAP you can do both client and server stuff with out a > > lot of pain. > > > gSOAP also is really high performance much better than any java based > > stuff further you do not need to load up your system with the JVM etc. > > and try and get this running. If you need to distribute software to > > clients you only need send a single EXE and not require tons of > > layered products be loaded. In fact although gSOAP requires OpenSSL > > when using HTTPS you can statically link in OpenSSL and avoid loading > > OpenSSL on the customer system. > > Right, everything sounds just perfect. > Just missing a good link to a kit for VMS now. > Yes, I have googled around, but found nothing > specificaly speaking about VMS. > > Jan-Erik.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 13:22:09 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: Stuck at a console Message-ID: Hein RMS van den Heuvel writes: >On Sep 7, 8:17 pm, kiwi-red wrote: >> Hi >> >> Will typing a boot command for an AXP 4100, I accidentally hit a wrong key >> Now my machine I think is waiting for me to type something extra but I >> don't know what it is. Any suggestions? >Try an other, now closing, quote? >> P00>>>halt >> CPU 0 is halted >> P00>>>b -fl 3,`1 >> _> >I've never seen it, but it looks like a continuation. >The thing being continued has to be the `1 ... waiting for an other ` That would make sense. The console is a micro Unix shell of some sort. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:02:16 +0200 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: Utility for finding memory leaks in C on VMS Message-ID: Williams, Arlen wrote: > We have a program that must have a memory leak, but we can't find it. > Any suggestions as to what we can use to find it? We can't recreate it > in our test systems, it just shows up in our production system. If the code is written in C, I have a wrapper for memory (de-)allocation routines to find leaks. You can find it at http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/memtrc.zip HTH, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.492 ************************