INFO-VAX Mon, 10 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 493 Contents: Re: DECServer 700 help Re: DECServer 700 help 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: Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Re: Stuck at a console Re: VMS License Plates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:48:53 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: DECServer 700 help Message-ID: <46E44015.3FFC3273@spam.comcast.net> bakermo wrote: > > OK - it's been a while since I worked with a DECServer 700 so I wonder > if anyone can please give me some advice and/or help? > > I am trying to configure a reverse LAT port from an Alpha GS140 to a > DECServer 700. I have a 4800 baud clock signal that will go into the > DECServer on port 7 and have VMS get the signal on LTA7. When you say "4800 baud clock signal", do you mean that the dat being sent to the serial port appears at a buad rate of 4800, or are you saying that the clock is a SYNCHRONOUS serial interface (which the DECserver-700 does not support, AFAIK)? > The clock is ansi characters in the format: > > 203:00:00:02B > > I have looked at this signal on a VT320 on a crash cart and it is OK. > (4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity). The cable is connected via a > null modem into port 7 of the DS700. > > Here's how the server port is configured: > > Port 7: (Remote) Server: RAQ1TS > > Character Size: 8 Input Speed: 4800 > Flow Control: XON Output Speed: 4800 > Parity: None Signal Control: Disabled > Stop Bits: Dynamic Signal Select: CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR > > Access: Remote Local Switch: None > Backwards Switch: None Name: PORT_7 > Break: Local Session Limit: 4 > Forwards Switch: None Type: Ansi > Default Protocol: LAT Default Menu: None > Autolink Timer One:10 Two:10 Dialer Script: None > > Preferred Service: None > Authorized Groups: 0-255 > (Current) Groups: 0-255 > > Enabled Characteristics: As John M. pointed out, you'll want "Stop bits" to be 1, in all likelihood. Also, you indicated above "4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity". So, "Stop bits" should indeed be 1. However, note you indication of "XON". Does this not conflict with the port setting (hardware flow control)? > I have three systems that are all configured the same (all with > DS700's) and none work. I would think that eliminates a hardware > error. Configuration issue, most likely. -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:48:15 GMT From: bakermo Subject: Re: DECServer 700 help Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:48:53 -0500, David J Dachtera wrote: >bakermo wrote: >> >> OK - it's been a while since I worked with a DECServer 700 so I wonder >> if anyone can please give me some advice and/or help? >> >> I am trying to configure a reverse LAT port from an Alpha GS140 to a >> DECServer 700. I have a 4800 baud clock signal that will go into the >> DECServer on port 7 and have VMS get the signal on LTA7. > >When you say "4800 baud clock signal", do you mean that the dat being sent to >the serial port appears at a buad rate of 4800, or are you saying that the clock >is a SYNCHRONOUS serial interface (which the DECserver-700 does not support, >AFAIK)? 4800 BAUD rate > >> The clock is ansi characters in the format: >> >> 203:00:00:02B >> >> I have looked at this signal on a VT320 on a crash cart and it is OK. >> (4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity). The cable is connected via a >> null modem into port 7 of the DS700. >> >> Here's how the server port is configured: >> >> Port 7: (Remote) Server: RAQ1TS >> >> Character Size: 8 Input Speed: 4800 >> Flow Control: XON Output Speed: 4800 >> Parity: None Signal Control: Disabled >> Stop Bits: Dynamic Signal Select: CTS-DSR-RTS-DTR >> >> Access: Remote Local Switch: None >> Backwards Switch: None Name: PORT_7 >> Break: Local Session Limit: 4 >> Forwards Switch: None Type: Ansi >> Default Protocol: LAT Default Menu: None >> Autolink Timer One:10 Two:10 Dialer Script: None >> >> Preferred Service: None >> Authorized Groups: 0-255 >> (Current) Groups: 0-255 >> >> Enabled Characteristics: > >As John M. pointed out, you'll want "Stop bits" to be 1, in all likelihood. >Also, you indicated above "4800 baud, XON, 1 stop bit, noparity". So, "Stop >bits" should indeed be 1. > >However, note you indication of "XON". Does this not conflict with the port >setting (hardware flow control)? How so? > >> I have three systems that are all configured the same (all with >> DS700's) and none work. I would think that eliminates a hardware >> error. > >Configuration issue, most likely. TSM_SVR_RAQ1TS> sh po 7 status Port 7: (Remote) Server: RAQ1TS Access: Remote Current Service: Status: Connected Current Node: 5RAQ1B Sessions: 1 Current Port: LTA7 Input XOFFed: No Output Signals: DTR RTS Output XOFFed: No Input Signals: RXD I am begining to think it is the null modem adaptors not wired correctly. I have found my DECServer 700 manual (they are RJ45 connectors) with the pin definitions. Tomorrow morning I will have a look and see. Thanks to all who have replied! bakermo bakermo@swbell.net.yourpants email replies remove .yourpants ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:11:46 +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 <000801c7f306$70081640$501842c0$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" writes: > >[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. :) > If you can levitate something against gravity then you increase it's potential energy. That potential energy can then be put to work by allowing the object to fall. The implication of the article is that the levitation is the result of the casimir force rather than any energy directly input into the system indeed it only seems to involve use of a lens. Hence either 1) something is being glossed over eg it requires much more energy to hold the lens in place than would be required to lift the object directly or 2) this is a mechanism for extracting useful energy from the vacuum. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > >> >> 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 11:28:44 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189362524.833509.315480@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 6, 10:59 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article , > Ron Johnson writes: > > > On 09/06/07 07:51, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >> In article , > >> Ron Johnson writes: > >>> On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >>>> In article <1189040986.731316.175...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> AEF writes: > >>>>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > >>>>>> In article , > >>>>>> Ron Johnson writes: > > >>>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article , > >>>>>>>> Ron Johnson writes: > >>>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural > >>>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical > >>>>>>>>> exercise for me. > >>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more > >>>>>>>> likely than their existence? > >>>>>>> Occam's Razor. > >>>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things" > >>>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the > >>>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). And > >>>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment. > >>>>>> But they are just today's notions. There are a lot of people who > >>>>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must > >>>>> be something very right about them. > >>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have > >>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now. > >>> But that's what science "does". > > >> I agree, but someone else said the above were absolutes. > > > They are wrong and I am right. ;) I was right about the fifth force!!! > > And so it goes with all science. And you wonder why ordinary people > might question something like Global Warming? Wishful thinking? Not wanting to sacrifice? Not wanting to spend money and effort on finding a solution? Not wanting to be duped? Skepticism? (Come up with some of your own!) None of these mean that AGW is bogus. > >>>> Or > >>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four > >>>> elements? > >>> And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only > >>> the most superficial) observation whatsoever. > > >> But it was all supported by "the scientific method" of the time. > >> You say they guessed and didn't support it, but they thought they > >> did, based on the knowledge and abilities of their time. Hindsight > >> is always 20-20. > > > And I'd say that they didn't have Science. > > Again, like I said, it's easy to do that when you look at the the > 5th century with 21st century eyes. The four elements are a result of philosophers, not scientists. These were guesses that seemed reasonable at the time. "In 1661, Boyle wrote that it was useless to _guess_ at what the basic substances of the world might be. One had to determine what they were by experiment." -- Atom, by Isaac Asimov. You don't need to compare eyes of different eras. If they didn't experiment, observe carefully, analyze the results to check the theory, it wasn't science. And the "fundamentalness" of elements is somewhat relative. In a sense the four elements (or five if you add aether) do more or less include everything observable at the time, in a rough sense. Then you get to atomism which has been proven correct. The atoms come in varities known as the (chemical) elements which are irreducible chemically. So it appeared they were "fundamental". But they weren't! With nuclear processes you can change one element to another (though it's very expensive per gram of converted element!). And of course it was found that atoms consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. So they weren't so fundamental at all. And even the protons and neutrons have been found to be composed of quarks. So it depends what you mean by "elements". (Please spare me the beaten- to-a-mushy-pulp Clinton "is" joke. :-) If by elements you mean the chemical elements, then yes, the four- or five-element theory was bogus. If you mean the most irreducible elements obtainable without restricting one to chemical processes, then even the current "elements" are not really fundamental elements and who knows if even quarks may ultimately turn out to have some structure (that is, be composed of yet more fundamental particles). Note that none of this subatomic stuff will have any effect on weather and climate forecasting!!! [...] > > >>>>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the > >>>>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain > >>>>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws > >>>>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could > >>>>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck. > > >>>>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe. > >>>> By today's science. The understanding of even atoms might be > >>>> different in 1000 years. > >>> Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons" > >>> as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works. > > >> As did "earth, wind, fire and water" 2000 years ago. But even then > > > But had too many holes. > > Well, not in the eyes of the "scientists" of the time. They were philosophers, not scientists. Did they do experiments to test their ideas as Boyle suggested? If not, it was not science. > >> some upstart was positing atomic structure, which, by the way, could > >> not be directly observed but could be infered. (Titus Lucretius Carus, > >> De Rerum Natura, c. 99 - c. 55 BCE) > > >>>>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff > >>>>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just > >>>>>> science fiction yesterday. So you really don't know those are laws, > >>>>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light. > > >>>>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are > >>>>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say. > >>>>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!! > >>>>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea. > >>>> So, you are supporting my argument. Someone else has already > >>>> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will > >>>> be a possibility. But our current understanding of science > >>>> says no. > >>> Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work". We just > >>> don't know how to implement it. > > >> Just look at this thread. We now have both "yes it can" and "no it > >> can't". Ah, the wonders of science. Well, let's not mix quotes and call it science. It appears based on current knowledge that certain things are very unlikely to happen. (I shouldn't have said never.) Trust me as someone who has actually performed experiments with relativistic particles and studied special relativity with fancy mathematics: Breaking the speed of light barrier looks really, really unlikely. I'd also put conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum on the list of really, really solid stuff. Yes, maybe there is some violation or modification coming, but I think it highly unlikely (remember beta decay!). Oh, add to that the Second Law of Thermodynamics! [...] > >>>>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants > >>>>>> to be God itself. Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion > >>>>> Example, please? > >>>> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want? > > >>>>>> in a way that conflicts. Reality (as usual) is quite different. > >>>>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years > >>>>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right! > >>>> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for > >>>> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from > >>>> their luxury condo. And, pretty much every other conflict can be > >>>> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there. > >>>> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history > >>>> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't > >>>> have an explanation. > >>> Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug, > >>> *humans* sweep it under the rug. > > >> And what is "science" other than the result of the actions of > >> humans? > > > I guess I'd counter that with "science the theory" vs. "science as > > practiced". > > Yeah, well theory never seems to translate well to practice but it is > the practice that we are supposed to accept as fact. Nonsense. QED has been extensively tested over a humoungous range of distances and energies and there is no known violation. Transistors work on principles of quantum mechanics, without which we wouldn't be posting this stuff. It is because of the theories of quantum mechanics and classical electromagnetism (among others) that we can have all the whiz-bang technology we have today. QM predicts the most unbelievable things. Yet it is the only way we know to explain a HUMONGOUS RANGE OF PHENOMENA. There is no phenomenon known that appears not to be ultimately explainable in terms of QM (except the problem of describing General Relativity (a gravitation theory) and QM in the same scheme -- yet few, if any, scientists doubt the existence of gravitons with spin 2 (spin being a purely QM concept) And again, this will not affect climate models!). ***** Please keep this in mind: It is the fact that most of our technology is based on established findings in science. And the fact that these technologies actually work as they're supposed to means that there must be something very right about these findings. ***** > >> I overhear students everyday talking about faking lab > >> results in order to "get the result the teacher wanted". Do you > >> really think that after developing this behavior during their > >> training they are going to miraculously adopt the true scientific > >> method when they leave here? Considering how many cases of faked When I did my optical pumping experiment in Grad Lab, I got great results. In my oral presentation to the class, someone remarked on what a nice line I had (my data was consistent with the theory). To that I jokingly quipped, "sometimes the laws of physics really are what it says in the book". (NOTE THAT I SAID ***JOKINGLY***.) Well, that aside, the not-so-good results many students get are probably due to impurities, bad equipment, bad technique, bad analysis. What do you expect of beginning students?! Experimental science is hard! It is in general quite difficult to set up a situation in which all necessary factors are under control. But when these experiements are done with great care, proper equipment, and proper analysis you don't have to fake anything. (There are also cases like indistinguishability of idenctial particles (say electrons) that I alluded to in previous posts. It is not that we measured them directly to be indistinguishable -- it is that distinguishable vs. non has vastly different results, which when checked prove indistinguishability. So certain things like this have easily checked consequences.) > >> results I read about everyday, I think the answer to that one is > >> rather obvious. Always remember, the most important result of any > >> scientific exploration, experiment or research is to keep the grant > >> money coming. The size of the grant is determined by the result, > >> not the opposite. This is part of my explanation for funding the fifth force research. I heard about experiments with copper balls floating in a barrel of water, drilling holes in arctic ice and "accurately estimating" the mass distribution of rocks and water near the hole and such. I was very skeptical. I was very vocal about it at the time. Had I known physicists often place bets on such things I would have done so and made a pile of money! Anyway, getting back on track, I suspected that the scientists weren't doing their error analysis properly. Then later we heard about the sixth force! It was supposed to be slightly attractive (the 5th was slightly repulsive) and at that moment I was even more certain I was right. The scientists underestimated their error bars, and their data was in the end all consistent with zero force, which is the correct answer. Why did this happen? Partly the jump-on-the-bandwagon effect. Partly an apparent chance for fame. Partly to get funding! But in the end, it turned out to be baloney and was properly abandoned, just like n-rays and cold fusion and phlogiston were. Scientists are only human and occasionally get carried away. But in the long run, good science wins out over bad. And the source of funding makes a difference. If gov't is funding basic research, this is usually not as big a problem as when a corporation with a vested interest in the outcome funds some research to make their products look better. Let's keep this in mind! > > Now you're sounding like a conservative denier of global warming!!! > > I don't deny the existence of global warming. I do deny the total > arrogance of a handful of men (who call themselves scientists) who > not only claim man is the major contributor but actually think man > has the power to do something about it. I have pointed out in the > past in one of these discussions a pair of interviews with the same > man at NASA who on one hand claimed we were accidentally changing > the climate of the earth and ont he other hand claimed we could not > terraform Mars because man doesn't have the power to change the > climate of a planet. Go figure. Uh, we don't have 6 billion people and their industries and products on Mars!!! I think that makes a difference, no? And the difference needed to make Mars livable is hugely bigger than Earth's global warming. Please keep in mind that the bulk of our atmosphere, if represented on a typcial globe, would be thinner than the paper on its surface. I can understand your being skeptical, but based on what you write about other parts of science I think you overdo it. > Tell me again why I should take anything scientists say without an > extremely large grain of salt. The only interest most of them have > in science is keeping the gravy train running and you don't do that > by saying "there is nothing here to examine". Because if that were appropriate, all our technology which does work, wouldn't work. Different levels of skepticism are appropriate for different parts of science. And context matters, too, of course. Let's not equate global warming research with general science. One is a very small part of the other. And even if global warming science is as bad as you say it is, it doesn't mean the rest of science is as bad. That's why! Hey, if there were "nothing here to examine" these scientists could always become string theorists! :-) Now, let me ask you this. Consider two worlds: A and B. And both worlds there is a consensus of scientists warning about AGW. But both worlds appear identical to the layperson. Now in world A there really is AGW, but in world B there isn't. Tell me, now, how you would differentiate between the two? I'd think that in world B there'd be some credible challanges to the AGW claims made by some reputable scientists somewhere. But what I've seen in these COV threads (I may well have missed it as I don't have the near-infinite time needed to have read them all!!!) is claims about thermometers being located next to chimneys, or immersed deep inside volcanos, or what not. I agree that one needs to be skeptical, but I do think you're overdoing it and not making a great case for it. BTW, I think the case for AGW is better than was the case for the fifth force. It is a difficult topic and hopefully we'll get it right, wheatever the correct answer is. AEF > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:00:55 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189364455.025269.295130@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 1:36 pm, AEF wrote: > 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. Yikes! that should be "alluded", of course. > > > > > 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 19:26:07 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189391167.243814.28320@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Sep 6, 7:46 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <1189041153.907079.21...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > AEF writes: > > > On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > > wrote: > >> Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > >> >>In article , > >> >> Ron Johnson writes: > > >> >>>But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural > >> >>>omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical > >> >>>exercise for me. > > >> >>Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more > >> >>likely than their existence? > > >> > Occam's Razor. > > >> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things" > >> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the > >> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). And > >> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment. > > >> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"! > > > In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of > > probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the > > places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle > > must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this > > which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux. > > Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the > idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere. :-) On a more serious note, in the development of quantum mechanics, it was necessary to come up with a suitable interpretation of the wave function. Max Born suggested that the absolute value squared of the wave function would represent the probability density of finding the particle. (You integrate this density over a given volume to determine the probability of finding the particle in the volume.) Naturally physicists needed to check that this was consistent with the fact that the particle must be somewhere. Also, they needed to check that a probability current density (or "flux") could be defined such that the flow of such into or out of any given volume would be matched by an equal change in the probability of finding the particle inside that volume. This was given the name "conservation of probability". If conservation of probability didn't hold, the given interpretation of the wave function would have to be rejected. This conservation equation comes in a differential form (for any given point) and an integral form (for finite volumes). (So I didn't quite give the full story in my previous post above -- apologies.) AEF > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:04:29 -0000 From: ultradwc@gmail.com Subject: Re: Report Writer for OpenVMS - has anyone tried SYNERGYde Message-ID: <1189375469.508016.248660@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 8:02 am, ja wrote: > The topic of Report Writers for OpenVMS comes up from time to time. I > happened to come across this Web pagehttp://www.synergyde.com/products/development_tools/core_tools.aspx > and was wondering if anyone had experience with the software? > > Cheers, john very good product ... resembles crystal reports ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:50:10 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Stuck at a console Message-ID: <46E44062.6EFE37C9@spam.comcast.net> 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? > > I could get the ops guys to turn the power off I guess > > P00>>>halt > CPU 0 is halted > P00>>>b -fl 3,`1 > _> > _> > _> 4100's do have a RESET button. Should do the trick for you. -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:21:36 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <7f31f$46e48e17$cef8887a$26437@TEKSAVVY.COM> VMS, the black sheep in the HP family. VMS, the child HP is ashamed of and won't include in its marketing. VMS: HP's problem child since it makes its other products look bad. VMS, the quiet operating system. VMS: No worries mate ! (our australian friends would understand this) Where Windows dreams to be in 10 years. Microsoft couldn't even copy it right. You know VMS is high quality. (*) (*) A lot of people have heard VMS is a high quality reliable OS with good documentation, but don't consider it because they don't know/think their app can run on it. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.493 ************************