1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 18 Sep 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 519       Contents: Re: aircraft fuels/ Re: any configuration files need to be changed! 
 Re: Backup Re: BOOTP booting of VXT 2000? Re: BOOTP booting of VXT 2000?. cancel <9m3jtQP253z1@eisner.encompasserve.org> Curious about QIO$CONFIGURE  DCPS and LaserWriter 16/600  DEC 3000-600 won't power up  Getting back to the CPU wars... 7 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit 7 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit 7 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit 7 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit # Re: I am Adam H. Kerman your master $ Impact of WTC on HP disolving Compaq Re: Javac on VMS Re: Javac on VMS Re: memory channel RE: memory channel Re: memory channel- Re: MicroVAX 3500/3600/3800 boot ROM contents # Re: NETSCAPE 6(.1)NEXT on OpenVMS ? 3 Re: new free utilities again (upd 10 & 11/sep/2001( ? New G5 (was Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills)  OpenGL 1.2 on OpenVMS/Alpha  Re: OT Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center 1 Re: Passing arguments to Dec C program at runtime 1 Re: Passing arguments to Dec C program at runtime + Press release - secured technology products / Re: Press release - secured technology products 2 Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills2 Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills2 Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills2 Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills2 Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills Remote Job Submission Tracking, Re: VMS Itanium port speeded up. Tru64 dies., Re: VMS Itanium port speeded up. Tru64 dies.' Re: Why continue with OpenVMS / Compaq?  Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: WTC and High Availabilty Re: WTC and High Availabilty  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:43:03 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: aircraft fuels ' Message-ID: <3BA6A6A7.8F62CAA0@fsi.net>    Bob Koehler wrote: > ] > In article <3BA3A35F.AE54B4A8@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  > I > > I would think this depends how much gas is mixed with the lower-grade 
 > > jet fuel.  > G >    The presence of any jet fuel in an aircraft not designed for it is < >    cause for that aircraft to be grounded until corrected.  E I would think that the fault for not discovering such a blunder until @ startup, run-up or the take-off roll would lie with the pilot inH command. If you've done a proper fuel sample during your pre-flight, theC tell-tale odor (or possibly even color!) of the fuel should raise a  responsible pilot's suspicions.   H Then again, I've had my license since '83, I am not presently current onD any of my ratings and still don't have 100 hours total time, so what hell do I know...    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:06:33 +0530 $ From: "upadhyaya" <ups@hotvoice.com>8 Subject: Re: any configuration files need to be changed!1 Message-ID: <jaAp7.292$YP.10413@news.cpqcorp.net>    Hi,   +  On both the machines we have Motif V1.2-4.   
 With regards, 	 Upadhyaya    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:19:00 GMT ) From: rob.buxton@wcc.govt.nz (Rob Buxton)  Subject: Re: Backup 0 Message-ID: <3ba692bd.15860896@news.wcc.govt.nz>  < Yep, the Compaq product Storage Library System will do this.< May be a bit too costly / overkill for what you want though.      8 On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:02:04 +0200, "Hoogenboom, Martin"( <M.Hoogenboom@groothandel.opg.nl> wrote:   >Hi, >  >I have a simple question:C >Is it possible to backup a disk from one system, across a network, , >to a tape unit connecte to another system ?/ >If yes, how what needs to run on the systems ?  > < >Both systems are standalone Alpha's running OpenVMS 7.2-1H1 >  >TIA,  >Martin Hoogenboom   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:26:59 +0200 ( From: "Joris Pragt" <pragtich@yahoo.com>' Subject: Re: BOOTP booting of VXT 2000? 0 Message-ID: <9o5mbd$riq$1@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl>  @ "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message) news:3BA635F7.B27A860E@cableinet.co.uk...  > E > just checking, but have you installed the VXT software on the bootp  > host?  >   K VXT software? Do you mean the boot image for the x-terminal? Yes, I have it I installed (found a link to vxt2000.sys somewhere in groups.google.com) in G the tftp root. But if the file were to be absent, I should still see an J attempt to fetch it in my logs/IP traffic, shouldn't I? I'm not seeing anyD response that indicates that the VXT is reacting to the BOOTP reply.     Thanks for the input,    joris    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:52:45 +0200 ( From: "Joris Pragt" <pragtich@yahoo.com>' Subject: Re: BOOTP booting of VXT 2000? 0 Message-ID: <9o5nro$sg1$1@dinkel.civ.utwente.nl>   Go figure...  H You muck around for a whole day to get the thing working, follow all theF instructions, test everything, but no go. And the minute you post your) problem to the groups, it starts working! L Problem is, I'm not sure what I changed. I re-entered the configuration lineH in the /etc/bootptab (irix) and removed a demonstration line that was inJ that file. I switched from dhcp_bootpd to bootpd in the /etc/inittab (thisL is IRIX 6.5 on an SGI Indigo R4000). Swapped the network cables around a few times, reset the nvram (again). & Not sure what was the key change here.   Ah well, I'm a happy guy.    Sorry to have bothered you,    Joris    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 23:25:00 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 7 Subject: cancel <9m3jtQP253z1@eisner.encompasserve.org> 3 Message-ID: <rwgMIMauVAxY@eisner.encompasserve.org>   . cancel <9m3jtQP253z1@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:41:00 +0930 / From: Mark Daniel <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> $ Subject: Curious about QIO$CONFIGURE/ Message-ID: <3BA68304.4ACD0A4A@wasd.vsm.com.au>   @ VMS 7.3 process obvious on clustered systems but not standalone.  E A  $SHOW SYSTEM  lists a single, multithreaded process QIO$CONFIGURE.   ?   20400205 QIO$CONFIGURE  HIB  13  76  0 00:00:00.15  164  28 M   + A  $SHOW SYSTEM/FULL  lists three processes   ?   20400205 QIO$CONFIGURE  HIB  13  76  0 00:00:00.15  164  28 M !   20400405                     13 !   20400605                     10   > Note that there is no UIC shown against these (unlike "normal" processes).   G A  $SHOW PROC/CONT/ID=  on each of these shows the standard fields with  an image of just     QIO$CONFIGURE.EXE   G Just out of curiosity can someone provide a bit of background on this.   TIA.   --  # Non sinere illegitamus carborundum.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:47:14 -0500 1 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> $ Subject: DCPS and LaserWriter 16/6008 Message-ID: <9o5nhi$765$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com>  D Has anyone got an Apple LaserWriter 16/600 to work with DCPS (v2.0)?  G Went to Apple's site to see if above supports raw IP and came up empty.    Dave...    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:27:01 -0400 , From: Stephen Eickhoff <operagost@email.com>$ Subject: DEC 3000-600 won't power up( Message-ID: <3BA686C5.7060406@email.com>  I I have one of these babies that hasn't been turned on for at least three  F years. I don't even get any lights or fans when I flip the switch. Is D there some sort of power interlock I should be looking for? Failing C that, can anyone give me hints on swapping the power supply from a  D working 400 I have into this unit? I think the extra speed would be 	 worth it.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:25:27 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> ( Subject: Getting back to the CPU wars...( Message-ID: <9o6i93$fjf$1@pyrite.mv.net>  J The Inquirer had some interesting things to say about Hammer vs. Itanic in  ' http://www.theinquirer.net/16090104.htm   J And an HP engineer (Jim Hull) familiar with McKinley and its road maps hasA verified in comp.arch discussions that the McKinley core won't be K significantly changed in Madison or Deerfield (save for process shrinks and C increased cache size) and had this to say about 32-bit performance:   K "As for x86 performance on McKinley, the topic wasn't even mentioned in the F IDF presentation except for an "IA-32 Decode and Control" block in the cornerL of the McKinley Block Diagram slide.  You may draw your own conclusions from this."  I Still sounds as if Itanic's future is still up for grabs, rather than the . shoo-in Compaq (and HP) would like to believe.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:25:25 GMT + From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> @ Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit) Message-ID: <u8zfdisk9.fsf@earthlink.net>   - Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:  >  > 1) ims hot standby > 2) automated operation  A common term (at least in mainframe) has been RAS ... reliability, ? availability, and serviceability. As RAS of core technology has A significantly improved over the last 30-40 years ... attention to = outages has shifted to monitoring, service level aggreements, @ geographic disaster survivability (i.e. replicated clustering atC geographic distances) and people mistakes (aka automated operator &  operations).  ? in the area of monitoring & SLAs ... all errors and outages are ? actually monitored in detail, (industry) reports generated, and / contracts based on such features are standard.    A One indication of whether something is interesting technology RAS D feature and/or really part of nuts & bolts business is whether thereF is industry-wide monitoring and reports of RAS information (as well as0 people paying serious attention to the reports).  D One example I know about involved some software I wrote once. One of@ the new mainframes had been out for a year ... and there is thisB industry wide service that gathers from customers the RAS/(LOGREC)F files and publishes reports. For this new mainframe they expected thatC there would be something like 3-5 total errors of a particular kind B across all machines for for all customers over a period of a year.@ The industry reports showed that there was in fact a total of 15D errors of this particular kind across all machines for all customersB for a period of a year (not per machine & not per customer ... all machines at all customers).   ? Turns out that sometime in the past I had written some software E simulation support for doing "channel I/O extension" of mainframe I/O F over telco links. When certain types of uncorrected telco transmissionE errors occured, the software simulation would emulate this particular D kind of error. They were able to track down some customers that wereF running channel I/O extension software and account for the extra 10-12D errors that had shown up in the industry reports. Also, the softwareB simulation code was changed to report a different kind of emulated error condition.     random ras references:A http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#7 Why Do Mainframes Exist ??? A http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#8 Why Do Mainframes Exist ??? 3 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#16 middle layer > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#18 IBM 4381 (finger-check)8 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#27 Mainframes & Unix8 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#28 Mainframes & Unix8 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#33 Mainframes & Unix/ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#14 Galaxies ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#23 Fear of Multiprocessing? 4 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#16 Old Computers? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#34 why is there an "@" key? E http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#38 1968 release of APL\360 wanted 5 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#87 1401 Wordmark? < http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#145 Q: S/390 on PowerPC?F http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#155 checks (was S/390 on PowerPC?): http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#184 Clustering systemsR http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#207 Life-Advancing Work of Timothy Berners-LeeD http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#64 distributed locking patents: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#83 Ux's good points.5 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#77 write rings i http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#58 360 Architecture, Multics, ... was (Re: X86 ultimate CISC? No.) H http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#15 360/370 instruction cycle timeH http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#16 360/370 instruction cycle timeN http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#27 Could CDR-coding be on the way back?d http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#22 Disk caching and file systems. Disk history...people forgetd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#26 Disk caching and file systems. Disk history...people forgetX http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#33 Where do the filesystem and RAID system belong?X http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#41 Where do the filesystem and RAID system belong?X http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#42 Where do the filesystem and RAID system belong?< http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#19 FW: History Lesson. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#20 HELPJ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#25 what is interrupt mask register?V http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#46 anyone have digital certificates sample codeQ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#41 Where are IBM z390 SPECint2000 results? W http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#15 Medical data confidentiality on network comms G http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#4 Extended memory error recovery ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#44 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid ^ 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#52 Compaq kills Alpha7 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#63 Blinkenlights d http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#41 Withdrawal Announcement 901-218 - No More 'small machines'd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#43 Withdrawal Announcement 901-218 - No More 'small machines'v http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#52 misc loosely-coupled, sysplex, cluster, supercomputer, & electronic commerceE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#16 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0 E http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#23 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0 A http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#43 Disaster Stories Needed E http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#45 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0 D http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#5 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0] http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#13 HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit      --  H Anne & Lynn Wheeler   | lynn@garlic.com -  http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:50:04 -0700 0 From: "Brig Campbell" <brig.campbell@unisys.com>@ Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit- Message-ID: <9o5nkr$e4i$1@mail.pl.unisys.com>N  8 "Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message# news:usndoic9e.fsf@earthlink.net...f, > jeffreyb@gwu.edu (Jeffrey Boulier) writes: > >eH > > HP does, or did resell Stratus' fault tolerant boxes, which probablyK > > explains the confusion. Stratus had moved from the i860 to the PA-RISC.s ItJ > > sells their own HP-UX systems, along with their proprietary VOS (which has L > > some similarities to Multics), FTX, a fault tolerant Unix (well, it usedF > > to sell them; I think FTX is now dead), and lately Windows NT/2000 > > systems. > E > wasn't HP also trying to sell sequoia ft in the early '90s. ibm wasa: > marketing s/88 during this period ... a logo'ed stratus. >   J Yes, being that Stratus and Sequoia were in the same area, they were quiteE competitive.  After IBM started OEM'ing the s/88 from Stratus, HP andEL Sequoia got together for an OEM deal.  HP took an equity stake in Sequoia asH well.  I don't believe HP sold anything but a few development platforms.  J Stratus has significant success in the Telco/banking space and Sequoia wasK unable to crack that market.  Sequoia did quite well with an implementationCJ of the PICK database, similar to MUMPS and equally fanatical.  I think theL Sequoia platform was a little more elegant but Stratus had a good system and; was a much more mature and seasoned marketing organization.   I At that time, both Stratus and Sequoia platforms were based on 68K but asWD part of the HP investment, Sequoia committed to PA-RISC for the nextF generation.  Also playing a role, but behind the seen, was Toshiba whoI licensed the Sequoia technology and I believe was designing a SPARC basedeG version.  IIRC, Status had selected i960(?) and bounced around a couplel4 times including PA-RISC after the demise of Sequoia.   -brigs Sequoia employee #58   > --I > Anne & Lynn Wheeler   | lynn@garlic.com -  http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:51:11 -0700r3 From: Kevin Strietzel <kevin_strietzel@stratus.com> @ Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit+ Message-ID: <3BA6623F.8D8675C0@stratus.com>    Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:, > jeffreyb@gwu.edu (Jeffrey Boulier) writes:K > > Forgot about the s/88. I've heard about them, but know next to nothing. ' > > What operating system did they run?  > T > it was a straight stratus system that had been logo'ed by ibm and called the s/88.  G There were some shenanigans with slightly different software versions. eF There was a time when IBM's O/S version numbers were five or six lowerE than Stratus' numbers.  And I *think* System/88 software reported IBMeC hardware feature numbers instead of Stratus hardware model numbers.b  B > i believe there were some issues with stratus (& other) salesmenE > competing with ibm salesman for the same customers with essentially0G > the same machine ... and then whether it was a "stratus" machine that:A > went in or a "s/88" machine that went in and which salesmen goto	 > credit.:  F I'm told that there was a time when Stratapeople pretended to work forH IBM when talking with IBM's customers.  This stopped before I joined the company, though.   --Kevind   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:45:12 -0700t3 From: Kevin Strietzel <kevin_strietzel@stratus.com> @ Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)exit* Message-ID: <3BA660D8.9D60CD3@stratus.com>   Douglas Siebert wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote:I > > dollars of annual revenue to Tandem.  Then the speaker mentioned that,H > > HP had no fault tolerant products of its own.  But that is as far as > K > HP bought Stratus in the mid 90s, they sell fault tolerant products, justIK > not under the "HP" name.  If they quit the market, that's news to me.  HPsH > even put some lockstep hardware in PA-RISC (similar to what Compaq wasL > adding to the 21364) which it was assumed was for the Stratus line, though3 > presumably it would be moved to IA-64 eventually.-  B To followup this and some other comments about Stratus, where I'veC worked for the last 9 years....  See http://www.stratus.com for the  official marketing blather.j  B Stratus was founded about 1980 partly on the principle that it was? possible to package standard processors to make highly reliable-A fault-tolerant systems.  This was supposed to be cheaper than the F more-custom approach that Tandem took.  Stratus' proprietary operatingA system (VOS) has significant Multics heritage, due largely to ther founders' backgrounds.  C The early processors were based on Motorola 68K.  IBM sold these as 
 System/88.  H About 1990, the company started working on Intel i860-based systems, andD also started playing in the UNIX arena with an SVR4 port called FTX.  H A few years later, the company switched to HP's PA-RISC, and after a fewD more years started playing in the HP-UX arena.  Current VOS and UNIXF products are all based on PA8500 and PA8600, though some real fossilesH are available used.  We do have joint marketing/sales/support agreements with HP for HP-UX systems.  F In 1998, Ascend Communications bought Stratus, and a few months later,G Lucent bought Ascend.  In early 1999, between those two events, part ofm: Stratus was spun off, and is now privately held as StratusE Technologies.  We have joint engineering agreements with Lucent.  ThehG company's headquarters is DEC's old world headquarters (*not* the mill)t in Maynard, MA.   B Just this past summer, we started shipping Pentium-something-basedF "ftServer" systems running Windows2000.  We have joint agreements with
 NEC on those.e  B Current products include the ftServer systems with Windows2000 andG Continuum systems with HP-UX or VOS; we'd probably sell somebody FTX if  they really wanted it.  > Over the years, Stratus has absorbed a lot of people from DEC,? Honeywell, and Bull, as well as a fair number with Prime and DG0 backgrounds.  G Clustering vs hardware-fault-terant systems....  As others pointed out,eD Stratus-style systems require reboots for operating system upgrades,E which kills long-term availability numbers.  But there are many shopsnH that can handle a little scheduled downtime, but can't handle any duringC production hours; stock exchanges are in this category (though even C they're going 7x24).  It's possible to design a redundant system to(C "unfold" into two separate systems, then upgrade the two (or three)c> parts independently; some Stratus hardware has been capable of; unfolding, but in that state it's one non-redundant system.u  C Traditional Stratus sytems are "Pair & Spare", essentially DMR withhH self-checking parts.  CPU boards are self-checked by using two identical9 microprocessors on one board, and comparing their outputs2F clock-by-clock.  So in practice, there are four physical CPUs for each> logical CPU.  Memories used ECC for checking.  Traditional I/O> processors are lockstepped P&S, but newer ones have a failover> mechanism.  This is still the technology in Continuum systems.  F The ftServer systems, on the other hand, are available as real DMR andH TMR, not P&S.  The voters and on-module diagnostics attempt to determine what broke.s  @ Certainly, as some note, good environment and administration areH critical to availability.  Good hardware and software reduce the risk ofH Stupid SysAdmin Tricks, but can't prevent problems.  One thing I hate isG when a customer calls in the morning and says, "Our application startedOA acting weird last night, so we rebooted the system.  Tell us what 
 happened."   --Kevin0  G [Written with NearCompleteDisregard(tm) of servicemarks and trademarks,h0 all of which belong to their respective owners.]   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 15:20:25 -0700$ From: warlordism@yahoo.com (Warlord), Subject: Re: I am Adam H. Kerman your master< Message-ID: <a917bc99.0109171420.a2769b7@posting.google.com>  B Did you mommy buy you a new computer?  It is not nice to make suchF statements on the net.  The net is filled with child molesters, nazis,C and devil worshippers, each one more psychotic than the next.  SomebD may take offense at your posting and take revenge.  Using well honedD internet skills, they will find out who you actually are.  Then, oneE night, when your parents are away, you will find some drooling maniac-> standing over you.  They will probably start small, perhaps by@ removing your toes with a bolt-cutter or burning them off with aD lighter.  Or a combination of the two.  Then it gets worse.  PerhapsA you can have your mommy return the computer and get you a scootern instead.   The Warlord    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:39:09 -0400l- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>v- Subject: Impact of WTC on HP disolving Compaq , Message-ID: <3BA65F5D.281DEABB@videotron.ca>  H With the drop in share prices and the continued drop of the Compaq shareM prices, are there thresholds below which one can assume that HP will wake up, : smell the coffee and drop its plans to assimilate Compaq ?  , Or is that now past the point of no return ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:45:39 GMTu' From: zeeb@java.zko.dec.com (Jeff Zeeb)e Subject: Re: Javac on VMS 1 Message-ID: <Dpsp7.282$YP.10362@news.cpqcorp.net>c  F In article <3ba5dd95$1@hcwe67>, "Jakob Erber" <erberj@post.ch> writes: |>Hello, |> |>we are using |> |>GDC006>java -version |>java version "1.2.2-3"N |>Classic VM (build J2SDK.v.1.2.2-3:10/31/2000-08:52, native threads, jit_122) |> |>on VMS 7.2-1 AXP |>N |>For some reason the java compiler seems to return a error status, even if it |>compiled succesfully:  |>' |>GDC006>javac AbleitungInSIC_Bank.javao |>GDC006>sh sym $status  |>  $STATUS == "%X10000000"u |>  B The status returned from javac indicates the number of errors thatD it encountered while compiling your source.  So, if you mask off theG inhibit message bit, you have a status of 0, e.g. 0 compilation errors.cC This behavior is not consistent with VMS error codes, but it is thet$ behavior that Sun defined for javac.   --	 Jeff ZeebL zeeb@zko.dec.com  N "Daddy, my crayon doesn't work.  It needs a new battery" - Matthew (age 2 1/2)4 while trying to use a white crayon with white paper.   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Sep 2001 19:52:48 GMT5 From: no_spam_lewis@lumina.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis). Subject: Re: Javac on VMSa( Message-ID: <9o5kag$50c$1@top.mitre.org>   koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <dErCaImxb2p3@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 17 Sep 2001 08:49:45 -0500:oG >In article <3ba5dd95$1@hcwe67>, "Jakob Erber" <erberj@post.ch> writes:r >>  ( >> GDC006>javac AbleitungInSIC_Bank.java >> GDC006>sh sym $status >>   $STATUS == "%X10000000" >cA >   There are lots of problems using Java with MMS.  The above issC >   probably due to the relationship between Java, C++, and C.  ThelD >   current standard for C states that returning 0 means the status = >   is good, 1 means the status is bad, and other numbers are D >   implementation dependent.  An intentional error causes javac to  >   return %X10000001. > F >   The 1 near the left is the inhibit message bit which tells DCL notI >   to print "%NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000" after success, oreF >   "%SYSTEM-S-NORMAL, normal successful completion" after error (that >   would be confusing). > H >   You'll probably have to tell MMS to ignore errors and use a rule forF >   java compilation that checks $status and acts on it according to C >   conventions.  H The standard for the Java compiler is that the status code returned is aL count of the errors generated.  Last I checked, Compaq told me they were notH planning on "fixing" this any more than they have (by adding the inhibit bit).  p  H I wrote a command procedure and a MMS rule to get around the problem.  I< hope they're short enough to post without irritating people.  6 $! /* JAVAC.COM Keith Lewis  4-FEB-2000 14:12:17.56 */ $! $! Wrapper for javac command.  $! $! javac := $java$javact
 $ set noon0 $ javac 'p1' 'p2' 'p3' 'p4' 'p5' 'p6' 'p7' 'p8' 0 $ error_count = '$status' .and. .not. %x10000000  $ status = 2				! NONAME-E-NOMSG9 $ if error_count .eq. 0 then status = 1	! SYSTEM-S-NORMALd
 $ exit statusr   JAVA.CLASS :4         @local:[com]javac $(JAVAFLAGS) $(MMS$SOURCE)  + --Keith Lewis              klewis@mitre.org/ PGP key available.         #> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:03:50 GMTn& From: "john nixon" <jnixon@cfl.rr.com> Subject: Re: memory channel > Message-ID: <qOrp7.161481$aZ.28738000@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>  G I thought I was told that memory channel is not supported on the 2100s.l  4 "D.Webb" <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message% news:9o5ct0$gj3$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk...pK > In article <h02p7.271$d44.397345@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>, "Tom/, Simpson" <simpsont@xxx.mediaone.net> writes:K > >We had many unexplained system crashes on our 2 node ES40 cluster, aboutr oneoH > >a month.  The crash dump analysis always seemed to indicate somethingI > >related to memory channel operations, but nothing solid.  The hardware  was K > >replaced, still problems.  It got to the point that management was readyp toE > >throw Compaq out and find another hardware vendor.  Finally CompaqL admittedK > >that there were other customers with similar configurations have similarrK > >problems.  They purchased and installed a memory channel hub and we have0 notl  > >had a crash since last March. > >/L > >Although I have not checked, I would expect that "hubless" configurationsL > >are no longer on the supported configuration list (at least for OpenVMS). > >t > >Regards,i > >Tom >/K > I am running a hubless memory channel configuration with two 2100s. Never0 hadl > any problems.i >b > David Webb > VMS and Unix team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University >  >e >s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:52:17 -050060 From: arturo saavedra <arturo.saavedra@wcom.com> Subject: RE: memory channel.C Message-ID: <MOEAJKGGEIMGCCPEPJBHKEBJFJAA.arturo.saavedra@wcom.com>?   maybe that's why it works ;)   -----Original Message-----+ From: john nixon [mailto:jnixon@cfl.rr.com]i( Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:04 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comn Subject: Re: memory channeln    G I thought I was told that memory channel is not supported on the 2100s.   4 "D.Webb" <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message% news:9o5ct0$gj3$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk...rK > In article <h02p7.271$d44.397345@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>, "Tomp, Simpson" <simpsont@xxx.mediaone.net> writes:K > >We had many unexplained system crashes on our 2 node ES40 cluster, aboute one H > >a month.  The crash dump analysis always seemed to indicate somethingI > >related to memory channel operations, but nothing solid.  The hardwaret was K > >replaced, still problems.  It got to the point that management was readyf toE > >throw Compaq out and find another hardware vendor.  Finally Compaq. admittedK > >that there were other customers with similar configurations have similarAK > >problems.  They purchased and installed a memory channel hub and we haver noto  > >had a crash since last March. > >cL > >Although I have not checked, I would expect that "hubless" configurationsL > >are no longer on the supported configuration list (at least for OpenVMS). > >. > >Regards,1 > >Tom >iK > I am running a hubless memory channel configuration with two 2100s. Nevert hadw > any problems.n >0 > David Webb > VMS and Unix team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University >t >2 >T   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:59:26 +0100t1 From: Steve Reece <SYSTEM@ipl.demon.co.nospam.uk>1 Subject: Re: memory channelr6 Message-ID: <3BA68E5E.4B933B37@ipl.demon.co.nospam.uk>  C I installed a pair of AlphaServer 4100 5/600 systems at my previous G employers back in December 1998 using OpenVMS Alpha v7.1-1H2 and the MCeF I devices (the earliest version) with CCMAA-BA host adapters.  The twoB systems are in a virtual hub configuration with just the one cable. between the two cards - one card in each host.B Since the systems were installed it is safe to say that the memoryD channel configuration has not given one day of trouble.  It has been very reliable.  G Memory channel has an inherent problem at the present time in which oneeG side goes to sleep at high load.  My understanding is that this problemoD will not be fixed as gigabit ethernet should provide equal or better- performance with greater distance capability.e  ( As ever, YMMV, as may your patch levels.   Steve.     arturo saavedra wrote: >  > maybe that's why it works ;) >  > -----Original Message------ > From: john nixon [mailto:jnixon@cfl.rr.com]n* > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:04 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coml > Subject: Re: memory channel  > I > I thought I was told that memory channel is not supported on the 2100s., > 6 > "D.Webb" <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message' > news:9o5ct0$gj3$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk...eM > > In article <h02p7.271$d44.397345@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>, "Tom . > Simpson" <simpsont@xxx.mediaone.net> writes:M > > >We had many unexplained system crashes on our 2 node ES40 cluster, about  > onecJ > > >a month.  The crash dump analysis always seemed to indicate somethingK > > >related to memory channel operations, but nothing solid.  The hardwaree > wasaM > > >replaced, still problems.  It got to the point that management was readyo > toG > > >throw Compaq out and find another hardware vendor.  Finally Compaqe
 > admittedM > > >that there were other customers with similar configurations have similarnM > > >problems.  They purchased and installed a memory channel hub and we havee > note" > > >had a crash since last March. > > >eN > > >Although I have not checked, I would expect that "hubless" configurationsN > > >are no longer on the supported configuration list (at least for OpenVMS). > > >u
 > > >Regards,l > > >Tom > >fM > > I am running a hubless memory channel configuration with two 2100s. Nevern > hade > > any problems.o > >h > > David Webb > > VMS and Unix team leader > > CCSS > > Middlesex University > >1 > >1 > >0   -- rG "A shadow fell over her face; clear, as if the composure were rent likelE a veil.  And her lips parted, but only with a short intake of breath.5A Then she said, 'Well, then you are right.  Indeed, we are even.'"(% 		Louis, "Interview with the Vampire"o   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:42:46 GMTo2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)6 Subject: Re: MicroVAX 3500/3600/3800 boot ROM contents1 Message-ID: <q7up7.286$YP.10352@news.cpqcorp.net>i  e In article <10tpptcssoume71id4h217hfvohj501lnr@4ax.com>, Bob Supnik <bsupnik@nauticusnet.com> writes:w ../ :What's critically missing at this juncture is:o :a> :- KA650/KA655 boot rom code, binary dump or preferably source  F   FWIW, I've the Mayfair code, it is VMB and some bootstrap drivers.  F   (Copies of the Seahorse, Mayflower, and Mayfair ROM contents -- the E   source code for the ROMs for the KA610 (KD32), KA630, and KA650 -- tH   all exist in the OpenVMS VAX source code control library here in ZKO.)  ) :- RQDX3 (MSCP) programming specificationh  J   Donno if that ever got released.  There was only a very limited release F   and very limited availability of the MSCP specifications (before theG   materials were withdrawn), and copies of the MSCP specifications are 5*   rather hard to find outside the company.    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:01:52 GMTa2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman), Subject: Re: NETSCAPE 6(.1)NEXT on OpenVMS ?1 Message-ID: <kpup7.289$YP.10420@news.cpqcorp.net>a  U In article <3ba0b5b6@news.kapsch.co.at>, eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER) writes:e8 :AFAIK, I once read an COMPAQ 'official' statement about :-? :	"NETSCAPE V6 will - when finished - be available for OpenVMS"  :eE :because of the efforts of the MOZILLA/Seamonkey for OpenVMS project.   8   The Netscape folks changed their management structure.   E :Now, NETSCAPE V6.1 (Note: I don't count NETSCAPE V6.0 as a browser -sD :I call it bullshit) is out for some platforms, but not for OpenVMS.  :What now ? Am I too impatient ?  E   Mozilla is the basis for Netscape, and the OpenVMS versions are the(   latest available.M  D :Or is the fact, that MOZILLA 0.9.3 mostly doesn't run at all on allF :my test systems (ok, I did a upgrade from 0.9.2 which ran way better;F :and I still need to do a fresh install of 0.9.3 and see if that makesD :a difference) and the fact, that MOZILLA still doesn't support JAVAF :on OpenVMS the great block on the road to NETSCAPE V6.x for OpenVMS ?  C   I covered this in my presentation at CETS.  There are two updatesnF   for Mozilla and Java that are required to get this to work: Mozilla D   0.9.4 and Java 1.3.1.  The work on the OpenVMS version of Mozilla H   0.9.4 is done and pending release, and Java 1.3.1 is also approaching 7   release.  These are within a month or two of release.e  F :Remember, NETSCAPE V3 is no longer 'supported' and so we are left nowA :with freeware (LYNX, MOSAIC, ?) or betatests (MOZILLA) browsers.i  #   Welcome to the open-source world.   ? :Colin, do you know of new 'official' Q statements regarding a   :WWW VMS browser ?  D   We are providing Mozilla, and will be supporting it.  For details,F   see:  http://www.openvms.compaq.com/ebusiness/Technology.html.  From
   the URL:          What is Mozilla?c  O      Mozilla is the name given to the Web browser source code that was releasedoN      in January 1998 by Netscape Communications Corporation to the open sourceJ      organization mozilla.org. Mozilla.org is providing Netscape and otherO      interested parties with a browser. America Online, which acquired NetscapeeN      Communications, commercialized this mozilla.org browser, added additionalN      proprietary features, and released it as Netscape 6. OpenVMS Engineering M      is currently porting mozilla.org's browser to OpenVMS. Our plans are to bL      port and release mozilla.org's baselevel releases and then release the 4      commercial quality Mozilla Version 1.0 product.      N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:45:31 GMTo2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)< Subject: Re: new free utilities again (upd 10 & 11/sep/2001(1 Message-ID: <%9up7.287$YP.10415@news.cpqcorp.net>i  a In article <3b9dc660.92367026@cetus.cc.uniud.it>, franco.brunetta@libero.it (F. Brunetta) writes:h  E :FID, a simple utility to get a file name starting from its FID (Fileh :       Identification  number)d  .   Also see the DCL command DUMP/IDENTIFIER=fid    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 16:12:44 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)rH Subject: New G5 (was Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills)* Message-ID: <9o5lfs$3ui$1@lisa.gemair.com>  F In related news, Motorola/IBM continue to push 64 bit computing to new levels of performance:  3 	http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/21692.html   5 Will someone explain to me again why Alpha had to go?o  O In article <9o5ka7$1ka$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:. >h/ >"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message 4 >news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEPNDEAA.tom@kednos.com...> >> So, who is the partner?  Will they synthesize a flow graph?0 >> Are they going to use any of your FX!32 code? > @ >Hmmm.  Anton is now at Transmeta:  do they need cash right now? >y >- billi >s >> >> Tom >> >> > -----Original Message-----l? >> > From: Fred Kleinsorge [mailto:kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com]t- >> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:32 AMr >> > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com@ >> > Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills >> > >> >L >> > It is a very well defined project, and we have a partner who is skilled >in M >> > the specific area.  It makes perfectly good sense to do this project, invL >> > this way.  It does not say that we couldn't do it ourselves, it is just >a> >> > better use of our resources to have this done externally. >> > >> > >> >E >> > David Mathog wrote in message <3BA61606.276ABF15@caltech.edu>... M >> > >The inquirer reports that Compaq has had to go third party for an Alphar >> > >to IA64 binary >> > >translator.  See >> > >0 >> > >   http://www.theinquirer.net/16090103.htm >> > >L >> > >It says a lot about the foresight and competence of Digipaq managementM >> > >that a company which was once the undisputed leader in this field, that6F >> > >once brought us VEST and FX!86,  can no longer muster the skillsK >> > >internally to translate from its currently supported processor to the2I >> > >one it claims to be staking its future on.  Compaq has virtually no1M >> > >technological jewels left to pawn, and they are doing an incredibly badv, >> > >job of holding onto skilled employees. >> > >I >> > >The longer that Curly beats the Compaq drum the less it sounds like0J >> > >music to my ears, and the more it sounds like a monkey banging on an >> > >empty tin can. >> > > >> > >Regards, >> > > >> > >David Mathog >> > >mathog@caltech.edu >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >o >c   -Jordan Hendersont jordan@greenapple.comr   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 00:43:03 +0200Z4 From: Petros Dafniotis <petros.dafniotis@bluewin.ch>$ Subject: OpenGL 1.2 on OpenVMS/Alpha* Message-ID: <3BA287F7.A4090112@bluewin.ch>  E I see that I only have GL 1.1 on my alpha XP1000. I am running v7.2-12F and I am certain that I have installed all patches (Graphics v4.00 for? example).. I would like to use OpenGL 1.2 from Fortran 9X and C.H environments. What choices do I have there? Do I need to get/install theD Mesa3D package from the FREEWARE50? Do I need to install the OpenVMS* v7.3? BTW, is the latter better in OpenGL?  6 Thank you for your patience and replies. Kind regards, Petros ---a Petros Dafniotis, PhDt Senior Research Engineer.0   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:34:04 -0400i' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>b& Subject: Re: OT Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <9o5j4m$gm$1@pyrite.mv.net>0  - <Steve.Spires@yellgroup.com> wrote in messageu) news:00256ACA.00518E8C.00@quegw01.btyp...mH > Contact:   Tel: 3063  -  IS - Infrastructure, 1st Floor, Bridge Street Plaza. >  > K > Hmmm. Yes, I think I'm an idiot in as much as I've somehow replied to onepL > message and attached another, which makes what I've said look a bit odd in theN( > context of what was included below it. >rL > Although let's hope that those who you wish to see engage in dialogue have ag; > longer string than yourself when misunderstandings occur.c  H I hope so too, and have tried to myself.  Not always successfully, but I still try the next time.  J Unfortunately, you chose to (apparently) respond to a post where for aboutL the third time I had explained the difference between what I had been sayingH and the kinds of things you suggested I was saying.  This suggested thatJ either you were willfully continuing to misinterpret me or hadn't bothered$ to read what you were responding to.   >OJ > And because I have lost both a brother and a cousin to terrorism in this countryjK > I feel I can ask the questions that I did. You may not agree, and I guess' you  > won't.  K If indeed you hadn't encountered my attempts to clarify my statements aftereF similar misinterpretations by others, then a request for clarificationK wasn't unreasonable - even without the added impetus of your personal loss. I But since I think I've (re-)explained my position adequately elsewhere invG these threads, I'll let those (which you may now have read) do the job.-   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:27:42 -0400l' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9o5f89$qcd$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "Jordan Henderson" <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message$ news:9o4vfb$ueq$1@lisa.gemair.com...   ...   < > What all this analysis omits is the real and valid role ofK > the sanctions in depriving the terrorist networks of much needed funding.m  L Sorry:  we don't have the right to disrupt economies for tens of millions ofI people around the world just to try to make sure they're all too poor ford. any of them to contribute funds to terrorists.   >o= > I'm of the opinion that the current terrorist adversary has,7 > unreasonable demands with which we cannot compromise.   J So what?  No one has been talking about compromising with the unreasonableJ demands of existing terrorists:  the suggestion has been that talking withK people with legitmiate grievances is the way to help keep more of them from B becoming terrorists, and perhaps reduce the motivation of existingB terrorists who became such because of those legitimate grievances.  
   Iraq hasF > demonstrated their willingness to flaunt the International communityA > in continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction (chemical,eE > biological AND nuclear).  Saddam also funds international terrorismaB > with what oil money he can scrounge through back door deals with	 > Jordan.s  C Exactly:  *that's* the kind of problem we can, and should, be doing0H something effective about.  He's made us look like bumblers for the pastH decade because we didn't want to make the effort to really deal with theJ aftermath of Desert Storm:  I don't blame us for being sick of him, but inF retrospect we've spent a lot more effort *not* being effective than itL likely would have taken to fix the problem, militarily or otherwise, when he> started ignoring the provisions of the cease-fire resolutions.   > B > I shudder to think of how the terrorists could be armed with the? > tens of Billions that Iraq could doubtless contribute, not too> > mention the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq could more< > easily develop themselves, should the sanctions be lifted.  I What you should be shuddering at is how much damage could be done withoutsF much funding at all.  As for Iraq, that's an identifiable problem withL identifiable solutions (one of them being that if it doesn't comply with theL cease-fire resolutions you actively force it to rather than use sanctions to 'encourage' it to).e   > A > In this scenario, I view the people of Iraq to be hostiges of a 2 > monster who uses them as a public relations ploy  D Indeed.  And we not only let him, but in a real sense support him by; supplying a policy he can so easily twist to his advantage.c    whileA > plotting the death of tens of millions in Israel, Kuwait, Saudi C > Arabia and the US.  We are no more at fault for the privations ofsC > the Iraqi people as we are for the death of civilians that Saddam G > forced to live right next to, sometimes on top of, important militaryn > targets during the Gulf War.  F Yes, we are:  while we made major efforts in the war to avoid civilianJ casualties and strike accurately, we're doing exactly the reverse with theK sanctions (which have little military or strategic value but do disrupt them' economy to the detriment of civilians).    >S# > Make no mistake about our policy.u  I I'm not:  it's a policy of obstinacy in the face of demonstrated failure.   "   The sanctions could be lifted inA > short order would Saddam end his support of world terrorism andiF > open his society up to verification that weapons of mass distruction! > were no longer being developed.s  H OK, it's now been clear for years that the sanctions haven't, and won't,  cause that to happen.  Now what?  #   It is Saddam's intransigence thata > keeps the sanctions in place.   I No, it's *our* intransigence that keeps them in place even though they'ret+ not doing the job they were designed to do.e   >eG > You appeal to our policy makers to compromise with the valid concernsiF > of middle class Arabs who support the terrorists (often unwitingly),C > and then go on to suggest that we provide a bonanza of support asi? > part of the compromise.  Doesn't seem like good policy to me.   J The bonanza of support we're already providing is the inexhaustible supplyK of recruits caused by our unwillingness to address (and indeed collusion in . causing) real distress for millions of people.   >@H > In fact, any talk of reviewing policy or compromise at this time seems: > to me to run the danger of encouraging future terrorism.  K I'd suggest that Tuesday's events should have amply demonstrated to us that J terrorism is already more than adequately encouraged:  it's time to review' the policies that already encourage it.s   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 14:58:08 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)r( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center* Message-ID: <9o5h40$rpm$1@lisa.gemair.com>  O In article <9o5f89$qcd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:  >a= >"Jordan Henderson" <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in messagei% >news:9o4vfb$ueq$1@lisa.gemair.com...a >i >... >a= >> What all this analysis omits is the real and valid role ofeL >> the sanctions in depriving the terrorist networks of much needed funding. >eM >Sorry:  we don't have the right to disrupt economies for tens of millions oflJ >people around the world just to try to make sure they're all too poor for/ >any of them to contribute funds to terrorists.2 >s  N We have that right as long as they insist on contributing funds to terrorists N and insist on creating weapons of mass destruction.  It's called self defense.   >>> >> I'm of the opinion that the current terrorist adversary has8 >> unreasonable demands with which we cannot compromise. >hK >So what?  No one has been talking about compromising with the unreasonableiK >demands of existing terrorists:  the suggestion has been that talking withoL >people with legitmiate grievances is the way to help keep more of them fromC >becoming terrorists, and perhaps reduce the motivation of existingDC >terrorists who became such because of those legitimate grievances.7 >4 >  Iraq haslG >> demonstrated their willingness to flaunt the International communityrB >> in continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction (chemical,F >> biological AND nuclear).  Saddam also funds international terrorismC >> with what oil money he can scrounge through back door deals withM
 >> Jordan. >aD >Exactly:  *that's* the kind of problem we can, and should, be doingI >something effective about.  He's made us look like bumblers for the pastnI >decade because we didn't want to make the effort to really deal with the K >aftermath of Desert Storm:  I don't blame us for being sick of him, but in G >retrospect we've spent a lot more effort *not* being effective than itaM >likely would have taken to fix the problem, militarily or otherwise, when heh? >started ignoring the provisions of the cease-fire resolutions.- >i  C We can?  I fail to see any International multi-lateral support for lF enforcing the cease-fire resolutions, eliminating Suddam nor shutting 1 down his access to backdoor deals through Jordan.-  H In fact, Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states appear to be willing to D give their support only as long as we do NOT do any of these things.  F I can only imagine the outrage, focussed on the US specifically, if we9 were to undertake unilateral measures to do these things.7   >>C >> I shudder to think of how the terrorists could be armed with the,@ >> tens of Billions that Iraq could doubtless contribute, not to? >> mention the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq could more = >> easily develop themselves, should the sanctions be lifted.  >oJ >What you should be shuddering at is how much damage could be done withoutG >much funding at all.  As for Iraq, that's an identifiable problem withtM >identifiable solutions (one of them being that if it doesn't comply with thefM >cease-fire resolutions you actively force it to rather than use sanctions toe >'encourage' it to). >t   "not much funding at all"?  L Let's see, Bin Laden had an inheritence of $300 Million.  Saddam contributesN tens of millions.  Kudafy contributes millions.  Then, there are contributionsK coming from all over the Arab world, including sizeable contributions from  A many sympathizers in the Gulf States with considerable resources.A   >>B >> In this scenario, I view the people of Iraq to be hostiges of a3 >> monster who uses them as a public relations ploy  > E >Indeed.  And we not only let him, but in a real sense support him byo< >supplying a policy he can so easily twist to his advantage. >r > whileoB >> plotting the death of tens of millions in Israel, Kuwait, SaudiD >> Arabia and the US.  We are no more at fault for the privations ofD >> the Iraqi people as we are for the death of civilians that SaddamH >> forced to live right next to, sometimes on top of, important military >> targets during the Gulf War.r > G >Yes, we are:  while we made major efforts in the war to avoid civilianWK >casualties and strike accurately, we're doing exactly the reverse with the L >sanctions (which have little military or strategic value but do disrupt the( >economy to the detriment of civilians). >  >>$ >> Make no mistake about our policy. >wJ >I'm not:  it's a policy of obstinacy in the face of demonstrated failure. >i# >  The sanctions could be lifted in B >> short order would Saddam end his support of world terrorism andG >> open his society up to verification that weapons of mass distructionr" >> were no longer being developed. >eI >OK, it's now been clear for years that the sanctions haven't, and won't,u! >cause that to happen.  Now what?  >n  G It's not clear to me that the sanctions haven't slowed his activities. S? Perhaps you have access to some information that I've not seen.e  $ >  It is Saddam's intransigence that  >> keeps the sanctions in place. > J >No, it's *our* intransigence that keeps them in place even though they're, >not doing the job they were designed to do. >s >>H >> You appeal to our policy makers to compromise with the valid concernsG >> of middle class Arabs who support the terrorists (often unwitingly),fD >> and then go on to suggest that we provide a bonanza of support as@ >> part of the compromise.  Doesn't seem like good policy to me. >fK >The bonanza of support we're already providing is the inexhaustible supplyiL >of recruits caused by our unwillingness to address (and indeed collusion in/ >causing) real distress for millions of people.> >r  C It's sad that Saddam is using his people as an excuse and as a kindyC of human shield for his activities, but I don't agree that lifting i? the sanctions would stop him, and that's what's important here.   B Negotiation experts all agree that you never give in based on whatE may or may not happen to hostiges, and that's exactly what the peoplen of Iraq are, hostiges.   >>I >> In fact, any talk of reviewing policy or compromise at this time seemsf; >> to me to run the danger of encouraging future terrorism.o >cL >I'd suggest that Tuesday's events should have amply demonstrated to us thatK >terrorism is already more than adequately encouraged:  it's time to reviewe( >the policies that already encourage it. >e  F Do you really think we can get the terrorists to stop by compromising?C If we released the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam completed his hE nuclear weapon development, would he not be tempted to use it becauseaI we had become nice guys?  Your assurances that the support for terrorism nK will evaporate if we were to meet just this certain set of current demands o is reminiscient of Chamberlain.C  G I'm not opposed to a thorough review of our foreign policy, but it musttF be done extremely discreetly with no obvious submission to the currentD terrorist demands if we are to avoid future terrorism.  Lifting the 8 sanctions on Iraq is one of bin Laden's current demands.   >- bill- >l >> >F   -Jordan Henderson[ jordan@greenapple.comz   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:46:30 -0400-+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>d( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center+ Message-ID: <9o5nfn$1i7$1@bob.news.rcn.net>t  8 "Phil Mendelsohn" <mend0070@tc.umn.edu> wrote in messageB news:Pine.SOL.4.20.0109162047510.14236-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu...+ > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, John Saunders wrote:t > @ > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message% > > news:3BA504C8.43BDC5D2@fsi.net... 2 > > > How can we back down now without encouragingL > > > others to commit crimes against humanity similar to those which caused5 > > > the sanctions to be imposed in the first place?> > >lI > > Well, actually David, we could blame Iraq for funding the WTC attack,> finishI > > the job of mopping it up and disposing of its current government, and> then. > > we could drop the sanctions. Works for me. >tE > That could get messy, when it is shown that the U.S. originally setmK > Hussein up in business in the first place, sometime around the depositionp > of the Shah of Iran.    That's already public knowledge. --
 John Saundersv jws@ma.ultranet.come   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:31:16 GMT>3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>>( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center/ Message-ID: <3BA66B7B.E063DE9A@cableinet.co.uk>    Jordan Henderson wrote:s >     > O > We have that right as long as they insist on contributing funds to terroristsiP > and insist on creating weapons of mass destruction.  It's called self defense. >   rF ahem, you are aware that the IRA has been funded by US citizens in the past,e yes?   --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  s  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of S! my employers or service provider.1   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:55:38 GMTr3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>d( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center/ Message-ID: <3BA67131.8E5CBB38@cableinet.co.uk>    Jordan Henderson wrote:c > 1 > In article <3BA66B7B.E063DE9A@cableinet.co.uk>,e7 > Tim Llewellyn  <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:e > >V > >7 > >Jordan Henderson wrote: > >> > >? > >>R > >> We have that right as long as they insist on contributing funds to terroristsS > >> and insist on creating weapons of mass destruction.  It's called self defense.  > >> > >:I > >ahem, you are aware that the IRA has been funded by US citizens in the  > >past, > >yes?  > >g > 9 > Sure.  I'm against it and I think it should be illegal.o > I > Of course, there's a practical element to the appropriate response, no?TI > It's not like economic sanctions by the UK could possibly deprive those F > US citizens of their ability to supporting the IRA, is it?  It wouldE > more likely be more damaging to the UK economy to attempt to impose  > sanctions on the US. >   B jordan, this is just the sort of attitude that causes such massive. resentment of the USA in less fortunate areas.  ' of course, practically you are correct.s   regardsc   > >--   > >Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk > > E > >Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those ofl$ > >my employers or service provider. >  > -Jordan Henderson  > jordan@greenapple.coma   -- e Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  e  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of g! my employers or service provider.l   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 17:52:19 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)s( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center* Message-ID: <9o5raj$e1k$1@lisa.gemair.com>  / In article <3BA66B7B.E063DE9A@cableinet.co.uk>,'5 Tim Llewellyn  <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:  >e >s >Jordan Henderson wrote: >> e >  >>  P >> We have that right as long as they insist on contributing funds to terroristsQ >> and insist on creating weapons of mass destruction.  It's called self defense.( >> x > G >ahem, you are aware that the IRA has been funded by US citizens in thew >past, >yes?w >v  7 Sure.  I'm against it and I think it should be illegal.-  G Of course, there's a practical element to the appropriate response, no?@G It's not like economic sanctions by the UK could possibly deprive those8E US citizens of their ability to supporting the IRA, is it?  It would rC more likely be more damaging to the UK economy to attempt to imposet sanctions on the US.     >--   >Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk   >nD >Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of " >my employers or service provider.   -Jordan Henderson  jordan@greenapple.coma   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:07:57 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> ( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9o5s59$5dk$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "Jordan Henderson" <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message$ news:9o5h40$rpm$1@lisa.gemair.com...J > In article <9o5f89$qcd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote: > >i? > >"Jordan Henderson" <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in messagee' > >news:9o4vfb$ueq$1@lisa.gemair.com...p > >s > >... > >o? > >> What all this analysis omits is the real and valid role of E > >> the sanctions in depriving the terrorist networks of much neededt funding. > >tL > >Sorry:  we don't have the right to disrupt economies for tens of millions ofL > >people around the world just to try to make sure they're all too poor for1 > >any of them to contribute funds to terrorists.k > >  >lD > We have that right as long as they insist on contributing funds to
 terroristsG > and insist on creating weapons of mass destruction.  It's called self  defense.  J Bullshit.  That's equivalent to saying we have the right to wipe out everyK worshiper of Islam (or pick some other world-wide community *some* of whosesL members might be sympathetic) on the planet just to make sure they might notF contribute to some terrorist.  If you don't understand that, you don't; understand simple logic, and we might as well stop talking.    ...h  
 > >  Iraq has I > >> demonstrated their willingness to flaunt the International communityuD > >> in continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction (chemical,H > >> biological AND nuclear).  Saddam also funds international terrorismE > >> with what oil money he can scrounge through back door deals witho > >> Jordan. > >sF > >Exactly:  *that's* the kind of problem we can, and should, be doingK > >something effective about.  He's made us look like bumblers for the pasteK > >decade because we didn't want to make the effort to really deal with theoJ > >aftermath of Desert Storm:  I don't blame us for being sick of him, but inI > >retrospect we've spent a lot more effort *not* being effective than iteL > >likely would have taken to fix the problem, militarily or otherwise, when heA > >started ignoring the provisions of the cease-fire resolutions.t > >a >oD > We can?  I fail to see any International multi-lateral support forG > enforcing the cease-fire resolutions, eliminating Suddam nor shuttinge3 > down his access to backdoor deals through Jordan.  >eI > In fact, Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states appear to be willing totF > give their support only as long as we do NOT do any of these things. >iH > I can only imagine the outrage, focussed on the US specifically, if we; > were to undertake unilateral measures to do these things.g  K Then I guess that if we don't just want to throw up our hands and admit the J defeat that already in fact exists (like, where are the inspectors who areB supposed to be in Iraq?  and what about the billions of dollars inI uncontrolled smuggled oil?  and the continual *military* pot-shots at our I planes patrolling the no-fly zones as if we were still at war rather thaneG ensuring the compliance of a defeated foe?) we'll just have to go abouttI finding some effective solution for which we *can* generate such support.iL And generating it may indeed take effort on our part.  But our failure to doI so in no way justifies continuing the existing ineffective (and damaging)  policy.h   >r > >>E > >> I shudder to think of how the terrorists could be armed with thehB > >> tens of Billions that Iraq could doubtless contribute, not toA > >> mention the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq could mored? > >> easily develop themselves, should the sanctions be lifted.e > >eL > >What you should be shuddering at is how much damage could be done without > >much funding at all.r   ...    >d > "not much funding at all"? >(B > Let's see, Bin Laden had an inheritence of $300 Million.  Saddam contributes  > tens of millions.r  L So much, then, for the effectiveness of the sanctions in yet another area in! addition to those I listed above.   =   Kudafy contributes millions.  Then, there are contributionssL > coming from all over the Arab world, including sizeable contributions fromC > many sympathizers in the Gulf States with considerable resources.-  K And when you think that the WTC attack could have been financed by merely aaG single moderately wealthy individual, the amazing thing is that there'ss5 still a building left standing anywhere in the world.o  L I guess maybe all that money isn't going to terrorism after all.  Or maybe aK lot of those terrorists are in fact good, greedy capitalists bleeding theirsL donors and pocketing the results.  Or I suppose they could all be completely incompetent.  K Think about how much financing Tim McVeigh had.  You can't dry up financial.J backing anywhere nearly enough to stop *major* terrorist acts:  you need a better way.o   ...u  H > It's not clear to me that the sanctions haven't slowed his activities.A > Perhaps you have access to some information that I've not seen.o  K Proving a negative is not just difficult but unnecessary:  given the amountwB of damage they've caused to Iraqi civilians by economic disruptionK (certainly aided by Saddam, but it wouldn't exist if the sanctions didn't),aG the onus is on those who support continuing the sanctions to prove thatiI they're effective in some way that justifies them.  In fact, the U.N. hastK some very definite policies on the need to justify 'collateral damage' evena in a war, let alone after one.   ...e  E > It's sad that Saddam is using his people as an excuse and as a kindnD > of human shield for his activities, but I don't agree that liftingA > the sanctions would stop him, and that's what's important here.h  H What's important here is that the sanctions *don't* stop him but insteadG give him a source of support.  Remove the sanctions, and you remove hisaG incentive (and ability) to twist them to keep his people in misery as ar propaganda tool..r   > D > Negotiation experts all agree that you never give in based on whatG > may or may not happen to hostiges, and that's exactly what the peoplep > of Iraq are, hostiges.  L I suspect a lot of people base their thinking on such stupidity.  Let's see:H if I take some hostages and demand that you *don't* shoot the President,/ what does that kind of 'logic' cause you to do?i  L People without the intelligence, patience, or stamina to evaluate situationsK on their merits really like such pat answers.  But their popularity doesn'te make them correct.   >I > >>K > >> In fact, any talk of reviewing policy or compromise at this time seemsm= > >> to me to run the danger of encouraging future terrorism.  > >gI > >I'd suggest that Tuesday's events should have amply demonstrated to usw thatF > >terrorism is already more than adequately encouraged:  it's time to review* > >the policies that already encourage it. > >s >iH > Do you really think we can get the terrorists to stop by compromising?  H Let's try this one more time, in case you just joined this discussion or% have a *really* short attention span:o  K No one, anywhere, any time in this discussion has talked about compromisingqL our principles in any way - just about reviewing policies that we *ought* toI be reviewing *anyway* and respecting the right of people to hold opposingoK viewpoints enough to be willing to talk with them in a serious manner until F some meeting of the minds can be reached (i.e., as long as necessary).  D > If we released the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam completed hisG > nuclear weapon development, would he not be tempted to use it because  > we had become nice guys?  G Gee, I was sort of under the impression that there wasn't all that much G standing in the way of completing that development anyway, now that therI inspectors have been gone for years.  Isn't *that* more what we should be % worrying about in this specific area?s  K Read some of the innumerable studies over the past six years describing thefG failure of the sanctions and possible ways to fix them, for God's sake.n  0   Your assurances that the support for terrorismL > will evaporate if we were to meet just this certain set of current demands! > is reminiscient of Chamberlain.   H It's always easy to find a derogatory comparison if you're willing to be superficial enough.a  G 1.  In the current situation I'm suggesting that we simply consider notdJ doing certain things ourselves that are already considered dubious even byI many of our friends, rather than that we look the other way while someonee0 does something like annex an unwilling neighbor.  L 2.  In the current situation I'm suggesting that we eliminate the terroristsH making the demands (rather than negotiate with them in any way), and sitK down and talk with *others* in the hope that by doing so we can help 'drain 7 the swamp' that might otherwise breed future terrorism.d   >tI > I'm not opposed to a thorough review of our foreign policy, but it mustuH > be done extremely discreetly with no obvious submission to the current8 > terrorist demands if we are to avoid future terrorism.  H In other words, we should allow terrorist actions to prevent or delay us) from doing what we otherwise ought to do.   C I don't think so.  There's plenty of evidence that policies lead toaK terrorism.  There's no evidence that I've ever heard of that policy reviewshK lead to terrorism:  mostly, they just seem make people afraid of seeming sot8 incompetent that it took an atrocity to open their eyes.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:44:03 -0500s1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>i( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA6A6E3.F3D5CC32@fsi.net>t   Tim Llewellyn wrote: >  > "David J. Dachtera" wrote: > >a > > Phil Mendelsohn wrote: > > >t/ > > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, John Saunders wrote:m > > > D > > > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message) > > > > news:3BA504C8.43BDC5D2@fsi.net...g6 > > > > > How can we back down now without encouragingP > > > > > others to commit crimes against humanity similar to those which caused9 > > > > > the sanctions to be imposed in the first place?i > > > > T > > > > Well, actually David, we could blame Iraq for funding the WTC attack, finishR > > > > the job of mopping it up and disposing of its current government, and then2 > > > > we could drop the sanctions. Works for me. > > >pI > > > That could get messy, when it is shown that the U.S. originally setiO > > > Hussein up in business in the first place, sometime around the depositionu > > > of the Shah of Iran. > >tH > > At that time, world events was about as far from me as married life.) > > Now, I'm in the thick of both of 'em.e > >tJ > > Knowing that now sort of explains his recalcitrant obstinance, but not > > his cruelty. > I > you did know that one of Britain's main export destinations for sheeps'n/ > brains before the BSE crisis was Iraq, David?n > F > It was scrapie in the sheep that got the cows, and possibly the rich > arabs. >  > :-)e   *CHORTLE* Good one!!!r   -- n David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemsu http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/o   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:47:42 -0500t1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>r( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA6A7BE.C3B40924@fsi.net>s   Bill Todd wrote: > [total snippage] >  > - bill  > Well, this has descended below my preferred level of civility.   So, I'll bow out at this point.1  0 Take care, everyone - and may God keep you safe.   -- l David J. Dachterac dba DJE Systemso http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:27:16 -0500t1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>w( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA6B104.62EA1D2B@fsi.net>e   Nige White wrote:f > o > "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message news:<ICKn7.135$YP.7041@news.cpqcorp.net>...rO > > But here we are.  The violence that "perhaps" we could have helped to stop, M > > is now at our doorstep.  If we believe that Bin Ladin is the culprit, the P > > answer is simple - tell Kabul that they have 48 hours to deliver him alive -K > > or preferably dead - or be prepared for something that will make Desertm8 > > Storm look like a picnic.  The same goes for Saddam. >  > OK, sounds great.h > F > First step. Establish a land base. You might have to fight a nuclear) > equipped country (Pakistan) to do that.u  @ Does Pakistan have ballistic missile submarines? We have them...   ) > AH, OK then nuke them to the stone age,l  G No - nuke them to a vapor and/or fine powder. That's why they're called H "weapons of MASS destruction" ... and before anyone clicks <Reply>, yes,F I know mass is neither created nor destroyed, it's simply converted toE another state (to liquid or gas from a solid or liquid, for example).a  D Fans of the History Channel may recall images of mere shadows etchedH forever into concrete where bodies and vegetation once stood between theG wall and the nuclear blast in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those people D and plants were not "nuked into the stone age", they were nuked into+ oblivion. That's what nukes are all about. 1   Welcome to the real world, Neo.    > and you would have to do thatc > to 15 or so other countries.  H The world had hoped that Japan would have been the example for all time.F That impression was blown to hell last Wednesday. I put it to you that> it's time for a reminder - with perhaps a bit of relish so the: impression will last longer than 55 or so years this time.  D Having nukes is one thing. Having the balls to use them is something else entirely.    > End of the world, free or not!  . So prophecy says. Let it be as the Lord wills.  B Someone I know and respect once said that a "loving God" would notA permit the suffering of a loved one. By that same logic (shut up, @ Bill!), a loving God would not permit the events we witnessed onH Tuesday, Nazi Germany or other attrocities against humanity committed by	 humanity.h   > It is not that simple.  F Indeed. Perhaps it's time for all of us to shut up and let God Be God,E rather than expecting Him to live up (or down, as the case may be) top our expectations.n  D As it says in Desiderata, "No doubt, the universe is unfolding as it should."   Bitter medicine, at times.   -- n David J. Dachterau dba DJE Systemsy http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/r   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:30:34 -0500e1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>n( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA6B1CA.588954A7@fsi.net>.   Nigel Arnot wrote: >  > > Israel Raj T wrote:e > > > [snip]H > > > ... the 0.5 million children who have died in Iraq due to American7 > > > sanctions depriving them of food and medications,  > >c > > Corrections: > >r# > > 1. UN sanctions, not "American"@ > >gI > > 2. The sole blame for this lies with the recalcitrant despot dictatoryL > > who holds his own ambitions higher than the lives of those he is trusted > > to govern. > > J > > Saddam knows how to lift the sanctions - but he never will. The deathsJ > > and plight of his people weigh on his shoulders alone - no one else's. > >( > > Get *REAL* clear on that!e > M > Get even more real clear. He doesn't even need to get the sanctions lifted.I > K > There's absolutely nothing in the UN sanctions to stop him buying food orlI > medicines. He deliberately starves and kills his own people so that hiss) > propaganda machine can blame us for it.S  B Get clearer still on this: UN sanctions were imposed not to deposeH Saddam, but to force him to permit UN inspections in an effort to ensure= that the vanquished were not rebuilding their weapons of massn destruction.   -- r David J. Dachterai dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/-   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:51:11 -0400B' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>:( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9o6g8u$eqk$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3BA6B104.62EA1D2B@fsi.net...a   ...<  H > Indeed. Perhaps it's time for all of us to shut up and let God Be God,G > rather than expecting Him to live up (or down, as the case may be) to: > our expectations.a  J Unfortunately, there are a bunch of idiots out there who seem to feel theyJ have the right to *play* God and rain down indiscriminate terror.  Any whoL actually start to do so need to be stopped, and if that takes killing all ofK them - whether they be terrorists or world leaders like our own - so be it.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:59:02 -0400k' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>a( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9o6gni$f2c$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3BA6B1CA.588954A7@fsi.net...e   ...g  D > Get clearer still on this: UN sanctions were imposed not to deposeJ > Saddam, but to force him to permit UN inspections in an effort to ensure? > that the vanquished were not rebuilding their weapons of masso > destruction.  L And since they're accomplishing that goal so perfectly, we couldn't possibly consider changing them.   K (Incidentally, economic sanctions were originally imposed immediately after I Kuwait was invaded as a punitive response.  They were then modified afteroJ Iraq was defeated to attempt to ensure compliance with multpile provisionsG of the cease-fire agreements - including reparations to Kuwait, weapons.G inspections and clean-up, etc.  But after a while the U.S. took it upondF itself to ensure that they would persist until Saddam was ousted.  TryL learning something about this subject before you presume to shoot your mouth off again.)    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:32:22 GMTt2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman): Subject: Re: Passing arguments to Dec C program at runtime1 Message-ID: <GZtp7.285$YP.10285@news.cpqcorp.net>i  k In article <cUfm7.66500$c8.33316946@news1.denver1.co.home.com>, "ClaudeVMS" <claudevms@freevms.org> writes:l  L :Real VMS programmers would include calls to the CLI$ functions and create aJ :VMS comformant command structure for their program. Argc and Argv are so  :very 'nix like.  L   I will assume that this posting is not a troll, though other and differingL   inferences and particularly differing requirements are obviously possible.  N   The stdarg mechanisms (argc, argv, etc) are available across a wide variety J   of platforms, and will provide the mechanisms necessary to provide basicE   argument passing for this and many other applications.  The stdarg iL   mechanism -- directly, or using getopt or similar -- is simpler to create L   and to maintain than are the CLI$ mechanisms -- particularly for the folksM   used to C and not to OpenVMS programming.  The use of the stdarg mechanism lK   also trades off the need to configure the DCL$PATH logical name (OpenVMS hK   V6.2 and later) or a DCL foreign command symbol against the need to link  M   in or SET COMMAND load in a DCL verb definition, and (if the CLI callbacks fD   are chosen over stdarg or similar) obviously also introduces code J   portability restrictions.  These and other site-specific considerations 2   may or may not be applicable to any environment.  7   I regularly use these and various other mechanisms.  m  N   Which particular mechanism -- CLI callbacks or stdarg or HTML forms or Java M   code or otherwise -- is most appropriate depends on the particular goal(s) eK   and the particular application(s) and the particular application user(s).     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:07:08 -0500u1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>w: Subject: Re: Passing arguments to Dec C program at runtime' Message-ID: <3BA69E3C.C405A9DF@fsi.net>r   Hoff Hoffman wrote:l > [snip]  ' Hoff!!! How very good to hear from you!'   -- l David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemsn http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/t   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:28:40 -0400s2 From: "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com>4 Subject: Press release - secured technology products1 Message-ID: <Y8sp7.281$YP.10293@news.cpqcorp.net>a  3 I had a chance to see this at CETS very impressive.t   suet      H SyntheSys Technologies Announces The Successful Release Of Their Secured# Technology Products At Compaq CETS.   : 14 September, 2001; Boca Raton, FL. SyntheSys TechnologiesG (www.synthesysusa.com <http://www.synthesysusa.com> ), a Privately heldtG company based in Boca Raton, released their range of secured technologypD products at the Compaq CETS Show in Anaheim CA. September 9th-14th .  L SyntheSys Technologies received great support from both attendees and CompaqE Representatives because of the sophisticated range of secure productseI available for immediate delivery to Compaq OpenVMS customers. Through ourdF partnerships with XBS21 Security Business Systems AG (www.xbs21usa.com: <http://www.xbs21usa.com>), JabCast, Inc. (www.jabcast.comI <http://www.jabcast.com>) and IMSure Network, Inc. (www.imsurenetwork.comcK <http://www.imsurenetwork.com>) "SyntheSys Technologies is proud to deliverhC a unique set of tools to allow Compaq to expand it's excellence anduJ leadership in the field of secure systems products and integration" statesJ Peter Letizia the President of SyntheSys Technologies. These tools includeC Biometric Scanners and Crypto Processor Smart Cards, Secure InstantoJ Messaging Technology And Secure B2B/B2C transactional eCommerce Solutions.E The Crypto Processor Biometric Smart Cards and devices (keyboard withtJ fingerprint scanner and smart card reader) can be used as a standalone, orF integrated into a wide range of user identification and authenticationI applications i.e. (eGovernment, eBusiness, eHealth-HIPAA and eEducation).eG The Crypto Processor Cards are unique in the fact that the scanning andeD processing of the fingerprint is done entirely on the card providingK positive identification of the individual at the time the authentication is J required. An integrative part of the solution is the digital signature forH transaction processing, 2048 bit encryption algorithms and operating theI trust center. "This solution secures that the user keeps control of theirpJ own identification. No one else including the government has access to hisJ or her personal information. They are only the beneficiaries of the proven1 identification.," states XBS21 CEO Peter Canaris.*  J JabCast, Inc., offers a secure instant messaging server application on theJ Compaq Open VMS Operating System. The JabCast system is interoperable withG other popular Instant Messaging systems such as AIM, ICQ and Yahoo. ThetI incorporated presence management system identifies through which device alI user is accessing the system and routes the information accordingly. ThisaJ provides mobility and the opportunity to integrate with other messaging orF data providers easily. The JabCast system provides message encryption,D server security, and "path hiding" which provide additional securityI measures for enterprise level users. JabCast CEO Howard Ryan: "JabCast isgD committed to the continued development of scalable Instant MessagingI solutions. Our current range of servers address the needs of business andrH personal messaging alike that can be used in small private environments,J scaling up to an enterprise with worldwide offices and mobile workforces."  L IMSure Network, Inc. provided fully secure B2B, B2C and transactional engineA software using the Compaq Open VMS Operating System. A NationwideeI fulfillment solution was also presented through this relationship. IMSureyJ Network, Inc. is an end-to-end eCommerce company that has created a robustI software infrastructure or "backbone" for the purpose of facilitating andoB supporting business-to-consumer and business-to-business eCommerceH transactions. IMSure's products are available through IMSure's eCommerceC Service Provider (ESP) program or as enterprise level software. The K enterprise level transactional software is cross-platform-capable and worksi@ in conjunction with Compaq's Open VMS, NT, or Compaq Tru64 UNIX.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:36:59 -0500r1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>t8 Subject: Re: Press release - secured technology products' Message-ID: <3BA6B34B.BEB4C0A0@fsi.net>d   Sue Skonetski wrote: > 5 > I had a chance to see this at CETS very impressive.a  E AH, SUE! Good to see you're well, also! I was concerned about you ando5 your colleagues, not knowing your schedules and such.w   -- o David J. Dachterao dba DJE Systemsn http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/v   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:16:15 -0400m- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> ; Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills-, Message-ID: <3BA64BF5.5ED5C622@videotron.ca>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > L > It is a very well defined project, and we have a partner who is skilled inJ > the specific area.  It makes perfectly good sense to do this project, inK > this way.  It does not say that we couldn't do it ourselves, it is just a ; > better use of our resources to have this done externally.   K Is that partner made of of ex Digital employees who had participated in theA VEST and/or FX!32 projects ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:54:05 -0400o' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>h; Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skillse( Message-ID: <9o5ka7$1ka$1@pyrite.mv.net>  . "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message3 news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEPNDEAA.tom@kednos.com...a= > So, who is the partner?  Will they synthesize a flow graph?u/ > Are they going to use any of your FX!32 code?   ? Hmmm.  Anton is now at Transmeta:  do they need cash right now?e   - bill   >i > Tom  >i > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: Fred Kleinsorge [mailto:kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com], > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:32 AM > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com,? > > Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skillsr > >e > >nK > > It is a very well defined project, and we have a partner who is skilledt inL > > the specific area.  It makes perfectly good sense to do this project, inK > > this way.  It does not say that we couldn't do it ourselves, it is justw aa= > > better use of our resources to have this done externally.e > >  > >n > >iD > > David Mathog wrote in message <3BA61606.276ABF15@caltech.edu>...L > > >The inquirer reports that Compaq has had to go third party for an Alpha > > >to IA64 binary  > > >translator.  See1 > > >4/ > > >   http://www.theinquirer.net/16090103.htmm > > >tK > > >It says a lot about the foresight and competence of Digipaq managementfL > > >that a company which was once the undisputed leader in this field, thatE > > >once brought us VEST and FX!86,  can no longer muster the skillsaJ > > >internally to translate from its currently supported processor to theH > > >one it claims to be staking its future on.  Compaq has virtually noL > > >technological jewels left to pawn, and they are doing an incredibly bad+ > > >job of holding onto skilled employees.1 > > >1H > > >The longer that Curly beats the Compaq drum the less it sounds likeI > > >music to my ears, and the more it sounds like a monkey banging on ani > > >empty tin can.  > > > 
 > > >Regards,e > > >@ > > >David Mathogr > > >mathog@caltech.edu7 > > >. > > >w > > >r > >> > >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:46:05 -0000 - From: wspencer@ap.nospam.org (Warren Spencer)a; Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skills 7 Message-ID: <911FA16DEwarrenspencer1977@207.126.101.97>   F billtodd@foo.mv.com (Bill Todd) wrote in <9o5ka7$1ka$1@pyrite.mv.net>:   >t/ >"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message.4 >news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEPNDEAA.tom@kednos.com...> >> So, who is the partner?  Will they synthesize a flow graph?0 >> Are they going to use any of your FX!32 code? >l@ >Hmmm.  Anton is now at Transmeta:  do they need cash right now? >e >- bills  K They are certainly wizards at decoding binaries.  And Intel put a big dent cI in their market with their lower-power, higher-clock offerings of late.    They could indeed be hurting.e   ws   -- r   Warren Spencer' Senior Software Engineer (not a writer)  The Associated Press  L ** My employer does not necessarily agree with my statements - neither do I  **   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:58:11 -0400e  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>; Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skillsr4 Message-ID: <1010917175732.881A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  % On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Bill Todd wrote:u   > 0 > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message5 > news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEPNDEAA.tom@kednos.com... ? > > So, who is the partner?  Will they synthesize a flow graph?l1 > > Are they going to use any of your FX!32 code?e > A > Hmmm.  Anton is now at Transmeta:  do they need cash right now?i   Anton = ABC?   > - bill >  > >a > > Tom  > >5  > > > -----Original Message-----@ > > > From: Fred Kleinsorge [mailto:kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com]. > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:32 AM > > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComsA > > > Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skillsv > > >" > > >nM > > > It is a very well defined project, and we have a partner who is skilled  > inN > > > the specific area.  It makes perfectly good sense to do this project, inM > > > this way.  It does not say that we couldn't do it ourselves, it is justm > a ? > > > better use of our resources to have this done externally.B > > >  > > >t > > >eF > > > David Mathog wrote in message <3BA61606.276ABF15@caltech.edu>...N > > > >The inquirer reports that Compaq has had to go third party for an Alpha > > > >to IA64 binary, > > > >translator.  See  > > > >r1 > > > >   http://www.theinquirer.net/16090103.htmf > > > >fM > > > >It says a lot about the foresight and competence of Digipaq management-N > > > >that a company which was once the undisputed leader in this field, thatG > > > >once brought us VEST and FX!86,  can no longer muster the skillseL > > > >internally to translate from its currently supported processor to theJ > > > >one it claims to be staking its future on.  Compaq has virtually noN > > > >technological jewels left to pawn, and they are doing an incredibly bad- > > > >job of holding onto skilled employees.c > > > >tJ > > > >The longer that Curly beats the Compaq drum the less it sounds likeK > > > >music to my ears, and the more it sounds like a monkey banging on ant > > > >empty tin can.  > > > >. > > > >Regards,m > > > >w > > > >David Mathogs > > > >mathog@caltech.edue   --   John Santoso Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:41:14 -0400r' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>n; Subject: Re: Q goes 3rd party for binary translation skillso( Message-ID: <9o5u3l$678$1@pyrite.mv.net>  - "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in messagel. news:1010917175732.881A-100000@Ives.egh.com...' > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Bill Todd wrote:U >a > >n2 > > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message7 > > news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEPNDEAA.tom@kednos.com...tA > > > So, who is the partner?  Will they synthesize a flow graph?o3 > > > Are they going to use any of your FX!32 code?p > >wC > > Hmmm.  Anton is now at Transmeta:  do they need cash right now?d >y > Anton = ABC?  ) If the 'C' stands for 'Chernoff', anyway.o   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:22:43 -0700:. From: Jack Trachtman <Jack.Trachtman@vmmc.org>' Subject: Remote Job Submission Trackinge( Message-ID: <3BA63F73.B45A286F@vmmc.org>  F We use BMC's Control-M product to submit and track jobs on our largest VMS system.fD But we have two smaller system than run only a few jobs and it's not cost effective toh license them for the product.t  8 I've been trying to come up with a simple process where:  D 1) A job run by Control-M would submit a remote job AND get back the batch number asr an audit trail  A 2) The remote system would somehow return its final status to thel Control-M host where it  could be picked up.d  F Instead of detailing the various ideas I've tried (which seem much too kludgey), I'm wondering $ if others have suggestions.   Thanks   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:52:08 GMTg2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)5 Subject: Re: VMS Itanium port speeded up. Tru64 dies.A1 Message-ID: <cgup7.288$YP.10286@news.cpqcorp.net>    In article <y4d74w505k.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:0 :Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: :tH :> Mark Gorham's slides indicated the first early adopters release wouldI :> have DECnet Phase IV (he paused expecting applause) but no clustering.nI :> They are hedging about support (as distinguished from code) for triplei :> architecture clusters.n :dH :Quite to the contrary - having triple-architecture clusters is good for :exposing the bugs.e  G   I covered this in my presentation as well -- the "fun" here involves iH   testing and support.  I do not presently know of any technical reason H   why an OpenVMS VAX, OpenVMS Alpha, and OpenVMS Itanium node could not L   coexist in the same cluster.  I do know that we will be targeting OpenVMS G   Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium systems for our testing, and are presently 2D   evaluating customer requirements for triple-architecture clusters.  E   I'll see if I can get copies of the presentations onto the website.7  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:21:26 -0400i  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>5 Subject: Re: VMS Itanium port speeded up. Tru64 dies. 4 Message-ID: <1010917180814.881B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ( On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Hoff Hoffman wrote:   > In article <y4d74w505k.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:2 > :Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > :oJ > :> Mark Gorham's slides indicated the first early adopters release wouldK > :> have DECnet Phase IV (he paused expecting applause) but no clustering.lK > :> They are hedging about support (as distinguished from code) for triple6 > :> architecture clusters.n > :aJ > :Quite to the contrary - having triple-architecture clusters is good for > :exposing the bugs.e > I >   I covered this in my presentation as well -- the "fun" here involves sJ >   testing and support.  I do not presently know of any technical reason J >   why an OpenVMS VAX, OpenVMS Alpha, and OpenVMS Itanium node could not N >   coexist in the same cluster.  I do know that we will be targeting OpenVMS I >   Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium systems for our testing, and are presently tF >   evaluating customer requirements for triple-architecture clusters. > G >   I'll see if I can get copies of the presentations onto the website.-  B Not speaking for my company, but just personal opinion...  I'm not? sure if we will port our products to IPF, but if we do, we willmA certainly want a triple-architecture cluster (i.e. add an Itanium-A to our existing 1-VAX/2-Alpha cluster.)  There is little prospect A that ALL our VAX customers will have either gone away or migratedeB to Alpha in the next 2 years, and we will probably need to supportB all 3 architectures for a considerable time.  We will want to keep( our single source library, not clone it.  A I don't know if many production shops are in a similar situation, > but I think lots of software providers are.  We could probably? live with limitations that a production shop might not tolerateg? (e.g. not being able to share a SYSUAF.DAT between a VAX and an-A IPF, or having to run multiple queue managers, etc.) but we wouldi@ definitely need cluster disk serving across all 3 architectures, distributed lock manager, etc.   -- 2 John Santose   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:36:10 +0100 1 From: Steve Reece <SYSTEM@ipl.demon.co.nospam.uk>c0 Subject: Re: Why continue with OpenVMS / Compaq?6 Message-ID: <3BA67ADA.5924576A@ipl.demon.co.nospam.uk>  E I think there's an important point being missed here and it's the keyaH (IMHO) to the whole of the investment cycle throughout the economy since
 the 1980s.  H Up to the start of the 1980s there was an ethos of invest today, get theG payback on that investment the day after tomorrow.  Industry thrives ondC this.  It's how mechanical engineering concepts make their way into  products and on to the market.  F Since the start of the 1980s though the tide has changed to short termH thinking.  I'm not sure if it was a new breed of accountants or what but? everything now has to back back within twelve months, 18 at the.H outside.  If this sale will keep me solvent until the end of the presentA accounting horizon then I'm going to make the sale, regardless ofeD whether it will send my company over the edge at the end of the next< accounting horizon after this one.  Can any UK residents say5 "privatization", "tax cuts" and "what future income"?g  G So, Compaq may sell parts of the business or give away the crown jewelsd@ but it's all ok because the accountants only think of short termH consequences.  Besides, why should they think of any more than that whenF they'll be off sunning themselves on some carribean island by the time/ it all falls down around the managements' ears?    Steve.   Alan E. Feldman wrote: > g > Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<vsbnot80uf3ehqnl1vv24gf8r9f65r9lfl@4ax.com>...eE > > On 28 Aug 2001 14:19:03 GMT, dQdelQlutrQX@XQXentQeract.com wrote:  > >iJ > > >Why not stay on OpenVMS?  I really don't care what chip is underneath > [snip]C > > >Old Basuto proverb (according to Robert Ruark in _Something ofrJ > > >Value_): "When a man does away with his traditional way of living andH > > >throws away his good customs, he better first make sure that he has) > > >something of value to replace them."i > > > H > > >So I say: start new projects on VMS/Alpha now.  And assume that the- > > >future is uncertain, which it always is.n > >aG > > If I argued that logic internally I'm not sure how long I'd keep my F > > job. There is a big difference between uncertain but with no majorH > > changes ahead and uncertain because the whole of ex-DEC Compaq seemsH > > to be being sacrificed bit by bit to prop up Compaq's loss making PC2 > > operations and keep Microsoft and Intel happy. > G > Why would CPQ sacrifice ex-DEC bit by bit if that is what is proppingoE > up their PC losses? I mean, if you're in danger of falling, but aretG > being saved by a rope, you don't slowly nibble away at that rope, now 8 > do you? (If you meant something else, please clarify.) > C > As for making MS happy, I don't think CPQ PC's with AOL front ands > center makes MS very happy.J > H > > VMS is the best general purpose operating system available but it isJ > > not WIntel and it is not Linux. Compaq would rather see it go away but$ > > they want that to happen slowly. > + > WHY?! Why do they want to see it go away?p > G > Sidebar: Speaking of PC sales, based on some previous posts, Compaq'stG > advertising budget for PC sales is *double* their losses on the same!a >  > [snip] >  > Disclaimer: JMHO > Alan E. Feldmand > afeldman@gfigroup.comw   --  G "A shadow fell over her face; clear, as if the composure were rent likeeE a veil.  And her lips parted, but only with a short intake of breath. A Then she said, 'Well, then you are right.  Indeed, we are even.'"n% 		Louis, "Interview with the Vampire"s   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 12:45:50 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)m Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <frPO8Nk$pnXu@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  \ In article <9o58kd$dmm$1@lisa.gemair.com>, jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson) writes:5 > In article <ZyPc$l7g60aj@eisner.encompasserve.org>,0. > Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote:S >>In article <3BA50E48.7C1F318@virgin.net>, Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:s >>>  >>M >>> I don't think that's the plan. Unless Bush is bluffing with Oscar winning M >>> acting then I believe what he says. This is all out, multi-year war. Only S >>> question. What's next and how soon? Is that what America really wants? A chance-: >>> to replay Vietnam on a global scale. I hope I'm wrong. >>C >>	You had congress micro-managing the Vietnam conflict.  Again, ifmD >>	it hadn't been for Congress halting bombing during Christmas 1968F >>	North Vietnam was ready to buckle.  Revisionist history perhaps but3 >>	I believe that came out of the North's archives.  >> > H > Revisionist indeed.  The US did force North Vietnam to "buckle" under D > bombing and the mining of HaiPhong (sp?) harbor, only for them to 2 > "unbuckle" and take the South a few years later. > F > I trust the word of Col. Hackworth, the most decorated soldier in USE > military history, over today's armchair Generals.  There was simplydB > no way that the US was going to win that war over the long term. >   M Unphased, on December 18, 1972, President Nixon unleashed the largest bombing-M campaign of the entire war.  This time, though, he placed virtually no limitsoN on the targets.  He allowed the military to bomb areas they had long requestedC to hit.  Known as the "Christmas Bombing," for 11 days B-52 bombersrK unmercifully hit roads, railways, power stations, radar installations, fuelhO depots, and other areas with such force that 500,000 people had to be evacuatednN from Hanoi alone.  Nixon stopped the bombing on Christmas day, but immediatelyH resumed it the next day. Nations around the world cried foul.  The North. Vietnamese returned to the negotiating table.   O On January 23, 1973, a cease fire was signed in Paris that essentially mirrorediJ the agreement of October, 1972.  This time, though, President Thieu had noI choice but to sign it.  The Americans were leaving and this agreement wasiM presented as the best we could get.  President Nixon and Henry Kissinger alsosN assured President Thieu that we would continue to aid the South Vietnamese andN that if the agreement was violated by North Vietnam that we would respond withO help.  On January 27, 1973 a formal agreement was signed and the war was over. u  O Sadly, Lyndon Johnson never saw the end of the war that drove him from office.  K In one history's ironies, former President Johnson who had done so much fornL civil rights and fought so hard to win the war with Vietnam, but was treatedL unfairly with mindless chants of killing kids, died on January 22, 1973, one day before the cease fire. h  B On March 29, 1973 the last American troops withdrew from Vietnam.   G 	Whether or not the North would have surrendered is of course senselessoC 	to debate.  But surely a few more months of bombing would have putt! 	off the victory for a few years.    				Robn   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:56:10 -0400p' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>r Subject: Re: World Trade Center ( Message-ID: <9o5gtk$rgf$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:0IBsni3OQIfa@eisner.encompasserve.org... 8 > In article <3BA50129.BECA07AB@dplanet.ch>, John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> writes:   ...-  I > > Would sir like his next terorist attack to be biological or nuclear ?a >oA > I don't prefer flavors.  But whoever does whatever they do theyy? > will surely understand that we will be hard after them and it.8 > will no doubt be far worse than anything they do here.  L Oh, really?  The numbers from Tuesday suggest that they're currently leadingF in the body count by well over two orders of magnitude (and since theyI killed themselves Tuesday, I'm not sure we can take credit even for thosee 19).  H Now, we can certainly kill a lot more people than they can if we put ourH minds to it, but unless the people we kill are terrorists the terroristsL really won't be all that upset - in fact, that could be what they want us toA do, since it will generate more support for them and less for us.s  L Do you have any idea how difficult it will be to kill 5,000 terrorists (justG to even Tuesday's score) without killing far more non-terrorists in thesL process?  And if we kill non-terrorists, can they really be considered to go' on our scorecard rather than on theirs?H  G You really are an idiot, Rob.  Fortunately, you're an idiot without theeI power to put your genocidal ideas into action.  If people with more powerB2 start to do so, we'll just have to eliminate them.   - bill   >s > Rob  >s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:07:13 -0400r' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Centeru( Message-ID: <9o5hic$s91$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message) news:3BA6243F.55111B86@cableinet.co.uk...O   ...   I > no, more a realist:-), Interesting article in the Independent suggested]H > that goading the US into military intevention in the middle east wouldH > be one of the only ways to topple pro-western rule in Saudi etc, which > is Bin LAden's stated goal.   H That puts a specific reason to something (deliberate provocation, ratherG than just 'making a statement') that a lot of people have been thinking  about in a general sense.s   >s8 > Is it true internal news in the USA is being censored?  L That would surprise me a bit:  I just don't think our news organizations areL that cooperative.  They sure aren't reporting any internal questioning of ofI leadership's stated goals, but that may just be because "America unites!"AF makes a better story than something more balanced (not that it's clear' there's a great deal of dissent - yet).t  L I'm still waiting to see whether it turns out that we shot down the plane inI Pennsylvania, as Alan suggested there's some evidence we may have.  I saw J one post on a message board about Army helicopter activity in the vicinityL of the plane at the time, but there was so much incorrect information flying: around that I'm not sure how much credence to place in it.   - bill   >a	 > regards  > -- > Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  >nD > Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of# > my employers or service provider.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:11:16 -0400s' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e Subject: Re: World Trade Centere( Message-ID: <9o5hpu$sj8$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:0cJioxHVYUGP@eisner.encompasserve.org... J > In article <y4y9neumyy.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,I Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:c1 > > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:l > >eB > >> Knee jerk?  Consider the facts that Bin Laden was responsible@ > >> for the WTC bombing, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and nowB > >> a very wicked act of ramming the WTC towers and the Pentagon. > ><L > > Really? I mean, evidence that would even remotely stand up in a court of law?E > > Or just allegations by some (likely US) government agency, citingh sources thatK > > cannot be revealed due to national security concerns? AFAIK, he has notT takena" > > responsibility for those acts. > >n > I > Or course he hasn't.  But members of his organization were responsible.-  K I guess that means that while we're going after bin Laden we should also gohJ after most of our surviving past U.S. presidents for a lot of the CIA (and8 other) activity that's taken place over the years, then.   - bill   >t > Robt   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:13:15 -0400m' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>o Subject: Re: World Trade Centerr( Message-ID: <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org...a   ...b  A > The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in somet > countries.  D Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 14:23:37 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)  Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <KVsXSKVOUlEN@eisner.encompasserve.org>d  R In article <9o5gtk$rgf$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:0IBsni3OQIfa@eisner.encompasserve.org...u9 >> In article <3BA50129.BECA07AB@dplanet.ch>, John McLeanm > <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> writes: >  > ...n > J >> > Would sir like his next terorist attack to be biological or nuclear ? >>B >> I don't prefer flavors.  But whoever does whatever they do they@ >> will surely understand that we will be hard after them and it9 >> will no doubt be far worse than anything they do here.i > N > Oh, really?  The numbers from Tuesday suggest that they're currently leadingH > in the body count by well over two orders of magnitude (and since theyK > killed themselves Tuesday, I'm not sure we can take credit even for thoset > 19). >   @ 	So we are counting a little early?  And why should a body count- 	enter into it?  That's Vietnam era thinking.m 	lJ > Now, we can certainly kill a lot more people than they can if we put ourJ > minds to it, but unless the people we kill are terrorists the terroristsN > really won't be all that upset - in fact, that could be what they want us toC > do, since it will generate more support for them and less for us.- > N > Do you have any idea how difficult it will be to kill 5,000 terrorists (justI > to even Tuesday's score) without killing far more non-terrorists in the-N > process?  And if we kill non-terrorists, can they really be considered to go) > on our scorecard rather than on theirs?c > I > You really are an idiot, Rob.  Fortunately, you're an idiot without theiK > power to put your genocidal ideas into action.  If people with more power 4 > start to do so, we'll just have to eliminate them. >   G 	I'm an idiot?   Back to you and the lady from California... 520 versuswA 	2.  A casual observation would be that somehow your views aren'tg/ 	in line with the majority...  but I digress.  d  ? 	What makes you think I would suggest we "kill a terrorist" foro@ 	every American?  What I am reading (note:  I am not making this 	up) is the following:  K http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Military_Options010914.html   O "We are entering into a campaign against terrorism that has to be sustained andlO broad and effective," Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told reporters L at a Pentagon briefing. "You don't do it with just a single military strike.  C "It's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding thempO accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, endingd states who sponsor terrorism."    : 	Hammering sponsoring states... removing support systems.   C 	But you of course realize they have been thinking about what they ,6 	could do for at least 7 years (original WTC bombing).  D 	It is becoming ever clearer what they will do.  "Ending states that+ 	sponsor terrorism."  Their idea, not mine.    				Robg   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:39:33 +0200t& From: John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> Subject: Re: World Trade Centerh* Message-ID: <3BA65175.B56A71E0@dplanet.ch>   David Beatty wrote:h >  > <snip> >  > >iI > >No but the US should start to behave like a good citizen of the globalgI > >village and take steps to reduce the favouritism and arrogance in many ! > >foreign and domestic policies.b > > >     This is twice you have suggested that the U.S. treat all? > foreign countries equally.  Is this really what you want?  Dot; > you really want to put those countries that oppress theirl: > citizens on an equal footing with those that allow their9 > citizens more freedom?  Think about the implications ofT > that choice.  F I am well aware of the mplications of what I am saying and I put it to? you that persuadng countries be less oppressive through various,E inducements is a far more effective way of creating long-term peace. -E It's hearts-and-minds stuff, something that the US is not always keen  on.   SH Are you saying that Palestine should *not* be treated the same as Israel% ?  If so, please tell me exactly why.l   > H > >This is not simply a military thing either.  The Kyoto Agreement is aG > >good example of where the USA effectively told the rest of the worldeI > >that it didn't care what damage US polution did to the environment andoH > >to global warming.  This is not the hallmark of a good citizen of the > >global village. > B >     The Kyoto protocol was effectively killed by the U.S. SenateB > three years ago, President Bush simply and rightly put the final > nail in the coffin.a > D >     While the surface record has shown an increase in temperature,E > satellite data, weather ballon data, and proxy data (tree rings andsB > ice thinkness) have not.  Why do you suppose that is and what do+ > you think the most likely explanation is?'  E I thought the variation in climate was an aberration and I sneered at @ the people who thought the weather averages implied some kind ofG committment to deliver, but the problem is that the aberration has beenuH happening for the last 6 or 8 years.  Abnormal rainfalls and snowfalls -H much higher and much lower than the averages - has been the norm.  OzoneG layers have seriously diminished in the southern hemisphere.  ExcessivetF warming is melting the glaciers in Europe and in Iceland.  The climate1 in most parts of the world has seriously changed.   H US scientists were (IIRC) some of the first to warn about global warming7 and yet the US is refusing to take precautionary steps.5  fG > >Just because the USA is the biggest kid on the block it doesn't meant, > >that it shoul dforget to act responsibly. > D >     No arguement there.  Despite the U.S. mistakes, I think you'll> > find this country acts more responsibly that many would have > you believe.  F The problem appears to be that the USA does not know when to interveneF and when not to.  They should intervene in Israel-Palestine and shouldG have done in Rwanda but there are plenty of cases when they should haveA stayed well out.  D Take a look at http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/ for a number ofH articles about this, especially Stephen Zume's article entitled "Thought/ Not Vengance" and Michael Klare's "Asking Why".b    t > David R. Beattyn     John McLeane   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 14:45:49 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)n Subject: Re: World Trade Centerr3 Message-ID: <Mslpmt0kU088@eisner.encompasserve.org>   R In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org...y >  > ...  > B >> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in some
 >> countries.  > F > Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water. >   > 	For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:? 	internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defend ; 	or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf War ? 	as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't be s1 	targetted by countries that are more involved...    				RobP   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:38:22 -0400m' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>g Subject: Re: World Trade Centere( Message-ID: <9o5mta$18k$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:KVsXSKVOUlEN@eisner.encompasserve.org...'   ...h  @ > What makes you think I would suggest we "kill a terrorist" for > every American?-  + Oh, I don't know - possibly responses like:0  I > > Would sir like his next terorist attack to be biological or nuclear ?W >dA > I don't prefer flavors.  But whoever does whatever they do theys? > will surely understand that we will be hard after them and it.8 > will no doubt be far worse than anything they do here.  E If you say, "Oh, I meant that's how we will respond to *nations* thattJ sponsor terrorism, or even just fail to stamp it out with a religious zealD that's acceptable to us," then we get back to the question of how weF orchestrate such a response without killing a great many more innocentI civilians in those states than we kill terrorists or active supporters of  them.s  J It still doesn't work.  We need to find a better way.  And we need to takeF whatever steps are required to ensure that your way isn't implemented.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:47:32 -0400i' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Centera( Message-ID: <9o5nei$22q$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Mslpmt0kU088@eisner.encompasserve.org...bL > In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:h > >t< > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message1 > > news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org...o > >v > > ...s > >hD > >> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in some > >> countries.h > >gH > > Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water. > >g > ? > For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:e@ > internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defend< > or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf War? > as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't bea2 > targetted by countries that are more involved...  L Well, now think of that.  It seems that people may have reasons for becomingJ terrorists after all.  Now, if we seek to understand those reasons and tryK to start talking about how to find ways to eliminate some of them (the oneseJ where we're simply screwing up rather than doing something we really oughtL to in the way it needs to be done) and educate them about the rest, at least$ a lot of those reasons will go away.  L We don't have to become a 'do-nothing' country to accomplish this, just moreJ of a 'do nothing *wrong* (and if we fail, rectify the situation as soon asJ possible)' country.  And some things we aren't doing but ought to can also help.o   - bill   >a > Robt >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:03:39 -0400p+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Center + Message-ID: <9o5ofq$69l$1@bob.news.rcn.net>e  4 "Doug W." <dashw459@aol.comeatspam> wrote in message3 news:20010916210406.18757.00001371@mb-ch.aol.com...o' > the_bagbournes@btinternet.com  wrote:n >eJ > << Why cannot the US reign in Israel's agression? No, Palestine is not aI > country, but it is a nation. Some change of rhetoric, some criticism ofr the,J > heavy handedness of Israel's policies would do wonders in bringing about > more reason. >>s >eJ > The US has influence in Israel, but not the ability to reign in behavior atL > will.  One must have a better idea with a chance of success along with theL > power and ability to generate support from different groups.   Not an easyJ > task.  In the past the US has tried to promote peace in the Middle East. The5J > US does not have the power, influence or energy to solve every difficultH > problem.  This makes it a target when things go wrong.  Too often many partiesCG > feel they have been mistreated by the US whether it acts or does not.   E In this circumstance, we might be better able to flex our muscle. For B instance, some of the terrorist organizations have expressed theirL condolences on the WTC. That can be built upon. What if we can get HezbollahJ to quiet things down for a while? Then, what if we could get the PLO-typesH to understand we really mean "no terrorism of any kind", and get them toF chill for a while - perhaps in return for placing UN monitors in theirK cities, as they've asked? Doing that without Israeli permission should makeeL it clear to Israel that loss of US support is a possibility. We might not beJ able to get away with it politically under normal circumstances, but if weL first get the American people to agree to get rid of all terrorism, we mightD be able to get it done.We could then make it clear to Israel that weL consider the assasination of supposed terrorists with US-supplied weapons is very close to being terrorism.  K This, along with strong action taken against any terrorism in Israel or thebL Palestinian Authority lands, might effectively be the quiet period necessary2 for both sides to return to the negotiating table.   ... And then I woke up.e --
 John Saundersa jws@ma.ultranet.comh   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:33:31 GMTl3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>  Subject: Re: World Trade Center / Message-ID: <3BA66C03.2C00F920@cableinet.co.uk>    Bill Todd wrote: > B > "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message+ > news:3BA6243F.55111B86@cableinet.co.uk...s >  > ...3 > K > > no, more a realist:-), Interesting article in the Independent suggestediJ > > that goading the US into military intevention in the middle east wouldJ > > be one of the only ways to topple pro-western rule in Saudi etc, which > > is Bin LAden's stated goal.i > J > That puts a specific reason to something (deliberate provocation, ratherI > than just 'making a statement') that a lot of people have been thinkingo > about in a general sense.  >   yup, a very cogent case was put.   > >e: > > Is it true internal news in the USA is being censored? > N > That would surprise me a bit:  I just don't think our news organizations areN > that cooperative.  They sure aren't reporting any internal questioning of ofK > leadership's stated goals, but that may just be because "America unites!"tH > makes a better story than something more balanced (not that it's clear) > there's a great deal of dissent - yet).e  F I heard (from NYC) that internal news was not reporting peace protests
 inside NYC" that were reported here on Sunday.   > N > I'm still waiting to see whether it turns out that we shot down the plane inK > Pennsylvania, as Alan suggested there's some evidence we may have.  I sawrL > one post on a message board about Army helicopter activity in the vicinityN > of the plane at the time, but there was so much incorrect information flying< > around that I'm not sure how much credence to place in it.  F plausible, but wasn't that the plane where the passengers fought back?   regards  >  > - bill >  > >d > > regardso > > --! > > Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uke > >sF > > Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of% > > my employers or service provider.Y   -- n Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  t  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of  ! my employers or service provider.r   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:36:50 GMTu3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>t Subject: Re: World Trade Center / Message-ID: <3BA66CC9.557443E9@cableinet.co.uk>S   Rob Young wrote: >    M >         It is becoming ever clearer what they will do.  "Ending states thatn4 >         sponsor terrorism."  Their idea, not mine. >   aF hmmm, and just what exactly do you think they will put in their place?  F All this from a country without the balls to finish off Saddam Hussain properly) and put a democratic system in its place,t   jaht   -- n Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk     C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of a! my employers or service provider.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:26:26 -0400l' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>s Subject: Re: World Trade Center.( Message-ID: <9o5t7u$5ua$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message) news:3BA66C03.2C00F920@cableinet.co.uk...R >W >d > Bill Todd wrote:   ...   L > > That would surprise me a bit:  I just don't think our news organizations areaJ > > that cooperative.  They sure aren't reporting any internal questioning of ofrD > > leadership's stated goals, but that may just be because "America unites!"J > > makes a better story than something more balanced (not that it's clear+ > > there's a great deal of dissent - yet).: >-H > I heard (from NYC) that internal news was not reporting peace protests > inside NYC$ > that were reported here on Sunday.  E That's an important point:  I've watched a great deal of coverage andlK certainly didn't catch any mention of it - and while it doesn't fit in well @ with the "America unites!" theme that alone makes it newsworthy.  H But I was watching only intermittently, and could have missed it (anyone else see it?).   >n > > G > > I'm still waiting to see whether it turns out that we shot down the? plane inI > > Pennsylvania, as Alan suggested there's some evidence we may have.  Ie sawdE > > one post on a message board about Army helicopter activity in the  vicinityI > > of the plane at the time, but there was so much incorrect informations flying> > > around that I'm not sure how much credence to place in it. >rH > plausible, but wasn't that the plane where the passengers fought back?  L Yes, it's where they were at least planning to.  But Alan's post referred toK other supposed cell-'phone conversations that suggested an explosion and/ori possible intercept.a   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 18:35:15 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)h Subject: Re: World Trade Centerl3 Message-ID: <ifzN49hnDKyo@eisner.encompasserve.org>u  e In article <3BA66CC9.557443E9@cableinet.co.uk>, Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> writes:w >  >  > Rob Young wrote: >> 0 >  rN >>         It is becoming ever clearer what they will do.  "Ending states that5 >>         sponsor terrorism."  Their idea, not mine.n >>   >  yH > hmmm, and just what exactly do you think they will put in their place? >   B 	Put?  I don't think it will be similar to Japan post WWII.  These> 	folks don't want a whole lot to do with us.  At "least" Japan> 	understood the concept of surrender and for the most part was= 	quite grateful we didn't abandon them and quite the oppositeiC 	helped them rebuild and form a more democratic form of government.r  H > All this from a country without the balls to finish off Saddam Hussain
 > properly+ > and put a democratic system in its place,  >   0 	As others discussed here, that wasn't our call.   				Robu   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:15:35 -0500i1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: World Trade Centera' Message-ID: <3BA6A037.4C5E6EE1@fsi.net>v   Jan Vorbrueggen wrote: > / > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:r > G > >       Knee jerk?  Consider the facts that Bin Laden was responsibletE > >       for the WTC bombing, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and nowtG > >       a very wicked act of ramming the WTC towers and the Pentagon.w > O > Really? I mean, evidence that would even remotely stand up in a court of law? P > Or just allegations by some (likely US) government agency, citing sources thatO > cannot be revealed due to national security concerns? AFAIK, he has not takena  > responsibility for those acts.  E I had the radio portion of my Walkman on most of Tuesday. I thought I-F heard someone say that Islamic Jihad had taken "credit" for the atack.   -- a David J. Dachterac dba DJE SystemsW http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:36:09 -0500e1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>a Subject: Re: World Trade Center ' Message-ID: <3BA6A509.7CC7ACF6@fsi.net>    Nige White wrote:  > ` > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3BA4FB82.3BA452@fsi.net>...I > > For how long? Until the next terrorist( group) arises? ...and then wesH > > have to do the whole thing all over again, perhaps next time after aA > > strike on Chicago? ...Omaha? ...OK City (wouldn't *THAT* be ar > > "whammy"!)? ...DFW? ...LA? > % > You're talking like the terrorists,g  F Understanding one's enemy is the first and frequently best step toward defeating them.c  ! > like these things are an act oft > God, d   Hardly. Read it again.   > popping up here and there,  H Where ever our defenses are found to be vulnerable - hardly seems random now, eh?   > nobody's fault.t  E Quite the opposite. The courts in this country have declared time and G time and time again that the fault lies with the person who first losestC their temper, and *NEVER* with the person(s) who incited the anger.     > > nor have they [IRA] launched > > such an assault on the UK. > G > The IRA have launched many attacks on the UK, and have killed severalw > hundred people.e  H I don't recall the IRA ever flying a commercial airliner into BuckinghamH Palace, running a train at full speed into Waterloo Station or driving aG lorry (loaded with explosives?) into Windsor Castle or the cathedral att Winchester.d   F > The present government has taken brave, and in some areas, unpopular- > steps to resolve the causes of the problem.n  A Now they need to take the last step, but that's another OT threadd	 entirely.a   --   David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemse http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/p   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:40:23 GMTh) From: rob.buxton@wcc.govt.nz (Rob Buxton)h Subject: Re: World Trade Centerh0 Message-ID: <3ba6a3e1.20248996@news.wcc.govt.nz>  D On 17 Sep 2001 14:45:49 -0500, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote:  S >In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:  >> o; >> "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in messagee0 >> news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> s >> ... >> tC >>> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in somet >>> countries. >>  G >> Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water.  >> d >i? >	For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:v@ >	internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defend< >	or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf War@ >	as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't be 2 >	targetted by countries that are more involved... >a >				Rob >:C Nonsense, many of those countries just had a lower profile in these,
 conflicts C The U.S stands out in the Arab world because of its continuing highlE profile support of Israel which included walking out of the U.N. when- Israel was to be told off.  C New Zealand contributes to these escapades but has not yet been theb( target of an attack by fundamentalists.   ? We get attacked by "civilised" countries for protesting againste9 nuclear testing on our backdoor - Rainbow Warrior anyone?.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 22:19:45 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)r Subject: Re: World Trade Centere3 Message-ID: <Cd0iInpDqYcG@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  R In article <9o5nei$22q$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:Mslpmt0kU088@eisner.encompasserve.org....M >> In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 	 > writes:  >> >= >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in messages2 >> > news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> > >> > ... >> >E >> >> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in somem >> >> countries. >> >I >> > Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water.y >> > >>@ >> For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:A >> internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defends= >> or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf Warm@ >> as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't be3 >> targetted by countries that are more involved...l > N > Well, now think of that.  It seems that people may have reasons for becomingL > terrorists after all.  Now, if we seek to understand those reasons and tryM > to start talking about how to find ways to eliminate some of them (the onesaL > where we're simply screwing up rather than doing something we really oughtN > to in the way it needs to be done) and educate them about the rest, at least& > a lot of those reasons will go away. >   E 	You should have caught ABC's re-cast of John Miller's 1998 interviewt@ 	with OBL.  The quote I dropped out earlier today was from that.= 	OBL points out that American citizens are fair game, he doesd? 	not differentiate them from military.  Kill them wherever they  	are.'  = 	You prattle on about talk and education.  He views this as aeA 	religious jihad and Allah is nearly mentioned in every sentence.. 	c 				Robj  N > We don't have to become a 'do-nothing' country to accomplish this, just moreL > of a 'do nothing *wrong* (and if we fail, rectify the situation as soon asL > possible)' country.  And some things we aren't doing but ought to can also > help.o   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 22:39:39 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)r Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <veASkjCXaG4r@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  \ In article <3ba6a3e1.20248996@news.wcc.govt.nz>, rob.buxton@wcc.govt.nz (Rob Buxton) writes:F > On 17 Sep 2001 14:45:49 -0500, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) > wrote: > T >>In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: >>> < >>> "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message1 >>> news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org...n >>>  >>> ...t >>> D >>>> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in some >>>> countries.m >>> H >>> Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water. >>>  >>@ >>	For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:A >>	internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defendh= >>	or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf WareA >>	as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't be a3 >>	targetted by countries that are more involved...o >>	 >>				Robt >>E > Nonsense, many of those countries just had a lower profile in theset > conflicts   ( 	Which conflicts?  Which countries?  :-)   			Rob   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 22:35:52 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)  Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <a2gmhL9Uv7lX@eisner.encompasserve.org>:  R In article <3BA37292.C8E5989F@virgin.net>, Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes: >  >  > Tim Llewellyn wrote: >  >>? >> I actually hope Bush is smarter than he seems. For everyone.b >> > P > And, so far, he does seem to be handling things calmly and carefully under the > circumstances. > T > Noticed as well that when he was asked today if Bin Laden was the prime suspect heT > replied "he is what we would call *a* prime suspect". The caption at the bottom ofU > the screem immediately repeated "Bush says bin Laden *the* prime suspect". There istU > a very clear difference between the two and he, like Powell, was careful to make it S > despite what some networks report. CNN quoted him accurately however even if some  > other agencies did not.o >   B http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001320007-2001323303,00.html   TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18 2001   I         Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, said that British Intelligence had G         independently established bin Laden was the "prime suspect" fors;         the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.l   ...e  G 	The move cleared the way for UK forces to take part in military actioneE 	after Mr. Blair said at the weekend that Britain would be making itscD 	own judgment on who was responsible for the suicide attacks.  "ThatE 	assessment underlies the judgments we will be making in the days andn 	weeks ahead,"  Mr. Straw said.o   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:45:48 -0400d' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>h Subject: Re: World Trade Centera( Message-ID: <9o6fuo$eic$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Cd0iInpDqYcG@eisner.encompasserve.org...rL > In article <9o5nei$22q$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:o > >h< > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message1 > > news:Mslpmt0kU088@eisner.encompasserve.org... 9 > >> In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd"c <billtodd@foo.mv.com>t > > writes:s > >> >? > >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message 4 > >> > news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org... > >> >
 > >> > ... > >> >G > >> >> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in some- > >> >> countries. > >> >K > >> > Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water.. > >> > > >>B > >> For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:C > >> internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defende? > >> or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf WarcB > >> as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't be5 > >> targetted by countries that are more involved...e > >nG > > Well, now think of that.  It seems that people may have reasons forw becomingJ > > terrorists after all.  Now, if we seek to understand those reasons and try J > > to start talking about how to find ways to eliminate some of them (the onesH > > where we're simply screwing up rather than doing something we really oughtgJ > > to in the way it needs to be done) and educate them about the rest, at leasta( > > a lot of those reasons will go away. > >t >uF > You should have caught ABC's re-cast of John Miller's 1998 interviewA > with OBL.  The quote I dropped out earlier today was from that.i> > OBL points out that American citizens are fair game, he does@ > not differentiate them from military.  Kill them wherever they > are. >n> > You prattle on about talk and education.  He views this as aB > religious jihad and Allah is nearly mentioned in every sentence.  L I think I'll start calling you 'Andrew', Rob:  get backed into a corner, and you try to change the subject.  L Examine the sequence of interchanges above:  you made a statement, I invitedJ you to explain the reason behind it, you *did* offer an explanation (whichJ had absolutely nothing to do with religion, bin Laden interviews, etc.), IJ pointed out the logical consequences of your explanation - and you changedG the subject to something wholly unrelated to your original explanation.g   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Sep 2001 23:22:30 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)n Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <9m3jtQP253z1@eisner.encompasserve.org>v  R In article <9o6fuo$eic$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:Cd0iInpDqYcG@eisner.encompasserve.org... M >> In article <9o5nei$22q$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e	 > writes:t >> >= >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in messageb2 >> > news:Mslpmt0kU088@eisner.encompasserve.org...: >> >> In article <9o5htm$sjd$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" > <billtodd@foo.mv.com>n >> > writes: >> >> >i@ >> >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message5 >> >> > news:Q1vba+CN6Z+q@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >> >> >h >> >> > ...n >> >> >aH >> >> >> The incidents of terrorism are very low or non-existent in some >> >> >> countries.y >> >> >eL >> >> > Now, why do you suppose that is?  Maybe it's something in the water. >> >> >e >> >>sC >> >> For the most part, they are "do nothing" countries.  Meaning:,D >> >> internationally they lay low.  Have no help to offer to defend@ >> >> or chase off aggressors.  Weren't involved in the Gulf WarC >> >> as a recent example... etc.  Therefore, certainly wouldn't ben6 >> >> targetted by countries that are more involved... >> >H >> > Well, now think of that.  It seems that people may have reasons for
 > becomingK >> > terrorists after all.  Now, if we seek to understand those reasons and  > tryeK >> > to start talking about how to find ways to eliminate some of them (the  > onesI >> > where we're simply screwing up rather than doing something we reallyn > oughttK >> > to in the way it needs to be done) and educate them about the rest, atY > leastn) >> > a lot of those reasons will go away.s >> > >>G >> You should have caught ABC's re-cast of John Miller's 1998 interview B >> with OBL.  The quote I dropped out earlier today was from that.? >> OBL points out that American citizens are fair game, he doesmA >> not differentiate them from military.  Kill them wherever theya >> are.l >>? >> You prattle on about talk and education.  He views this as a C >> religious jihad and Allah is nearly mentioned in every sentence.h > N > I think I'll start calling you 'Andrew', Rob:  get backed into a corner, and  > you try to change the subject. > N > Examine the sequence of interchanges above:  you made a statement, I invitedL > you to explain the reason behind it, you *did* offer an explanation (whichL > had absolutely nothing to do with religion, bin Laden interviews, etc.), IL > pointed out the logical consequences of your explanation - and you changedI > the subject to something wholly unrelated to your original explanation.l >   A 	You offer a solution of "talk" and "education" to convince folksrC 	that decide to be terrorists.  Why aren't some countries attacked?0= 	Because they are "do nothing" countries.  They don't involve $ 	themselves outside their borders.    D 	Talking and educating?  Not happening.  OBL wants to kill AmericansC 	plain and simple because we set foot on Muslim soil basically.  We.B 	don't occupy Muslim countries, we interact with them.  He doesn't@ 	accuse us of much more than transacting business... and here is 	his edict:o  L "We with Gods help call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to beJ rewarded to comply with Gods order to kill the Americans and plunder their* money wherever and whenever they find it."  < 	He is a religious fanatic and the odds of him violating his@ 	beliefs are mostly non-existant.  Therefore, we certainly won't" 	be chatting him up any time soon.   				Robe   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:48:30 -0400e' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>h Subject: Re: World Trade Centerm( Message-ID: <9o6jka$gbs$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:9m3jtQP253z1@eisner.encompasserve.org...-   ...-  B > You offer a solution of "talk" and "education" to convince folks > that decide to be terrorists.   J Not exactly.  I suggest that we need to review policies that upset people,I talk with them to help us understand their point of view and to help themsG understand that we aren't just going to ignore it, change such policiesnK where they are flat-out wrong or of no importance, improve the execution oftC policies that are appropriate but may not be well-implemented, seekgK mutually-acceptable compromises in areas that reflect practical rather thanoK fundamental philosophical differences, and keep talking about any remainingtI points of contention to ensure that not only do we understand their viewsFA but that they understand the reasoning behind ours - because suchhK conversations not only sometimes eventually *do* reach unexpected agreement G but keep people engaged in a civilized manner rather than across battle. lines.  ; In other words, what we ought to have been doing all along.r  C Will this help keep *some* people from deciding they must resort to-B terrorism?  Indubitably.  Will it keep *all* people from doing so?1 Indubitably not - but neither will anything else.j   ...:  ( > Talking and educating?  Not happening.   Exactly.     OBL wants to kill Americans D > plain and simple because we set foot on Muslim soil basically.  WeC > don't occupy Muslim countries, we interact with them.  He doesn'tt5 > accuse us of much more than transacting business...o  J OBL was on the other side of the world last Tuesday.  His recruits did allK the damage, and there's evidence that at least some of them led life-styles J that were decidedly un-ascetic.  Remove the motivation of people like themH and you remove a very large part of the terrorist problem, regardless ofI what True Believers may think (and even some of them likely have somewhat  mixed motivatations).r   - bill   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:24:53 -0700 (PDT)t. From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br>% Subject: Re: WTC and High Availabiltyt@ Message-ID: <20010917182453.56624.qmail@web20207.mail.yahoo.com>   Do anyone really know:  7 How many OpenVMS sites  were running there (WTC) and=20e2 how many sites are working now ? How long time was$ spent to reconfigure the systems ???     Regardsn   FC=20l6 --- Keith Parris <keithparris_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:2 > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in2 > message news:<3BA2CEF8.34F67885@videotron.ca>.... > > Consider that trading at the exchanges was > halted/not started, so even ae1 > > company with a disaster tolerant machine thate > could have stayed up wouldn'tm6 > > really have had any advantage since that advantage > was useless as long as aso > > everything was shutdown. >=204 > There seems to be an implicit assumption here that > all businesses int5 > the WTC or area were related to exchanges.  Or thato > transactions onlyd2 > occur during normal stock-trading hours, Eastern > Daylight Time. >=203 > > Also, since trading had not begun, it is likely  > that the backups from theT2 > > previous nights still provided the most "up to! > date" image of the corporation.4 >=206 > Having to restore from backups entails some level of > risk in itself.=20, > What if the backups were flawed, or a tape
 > unreadable?> > C -------------------------------------------------------------------:6 > Keith Parris | parris at encompasserve dot org | VMS > consulting on:* > Clusters, Disaster Tolerance, Internals, > Performance, Storage & I/O     =3D=3D=3D=3D=3DyL =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3Dp F=E1bio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazill fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.brL =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3Dc  2 __________________________________________________- Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?e) Donate cash, emergency relief informationh7 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/t   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:37:12 -0400r- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>o% Subject: Re: WTC and High Availabiltyt, Message-ID: <3BA650DC.42BA7EBE@videotron.ca>   Keith Parris wrote:tF > There seems to be an implicit assumption here that all businesses inG > the WTC or area were related to exchanges.  Or that transactions onlybA > occur during normal stock-trading hours, Eastern Daylight Time.-  N True. And some transactions would have already occured due to the business day) starting when Europe opened for business.-  F > Having to restore from backups entails some level of risk in itself.8 > What if the backups were flawed, or a tape unreadable?  G A serious organisation would regularly check backup's integrity and them! ability to recover from disaster..  H What is unknown though is that while a corporation's core systems may beL backed-up (or duplicated in real-time), what about its non-core systems such, as office systems and departmental servers ?  J And in the case of banks who may have their corporate head offices in WallN Street, I beleive a few have their core data centres in suburbs (I know of oneM whose data centre is in brooklyn), so their main operation won't be affected.aJ However, consider how much business was being conducted on desktop PCs andI contracts that were beingf developped, emails received overnight etc thatt would have been lost.a  M Consider those whose PCs may not have been destroyed, but the building eitherdJ remains off-limits or will have to be torn down. And by the time those PCs+ might be rescued, their data will be stale.i   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.519 ************************