1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 10 Mar 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 136       Contents: Re: 164LX and 21164 question( Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions( Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions( Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: Carly's feedback link  Re: CLI question for HP reps DHCP on WE1. Re: DHCP on WE1. Re: DHCP on WE1.P Re: ECC (was IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly	vs. IBM  monopo) Re: hp DECforms V3.3 Product Announcement  Lightweight TCP/IP stack? / Re: Linus trashes Itanium - he's scared of VMS! / Re: Linus trashes Itanium - he's scared of VMS! , Local port number for an incoming connection< Re: Maximum Record Size Error (BUCKET - CLUSTER SIZE detour)< Re: Maximum Record Size Error (BUCKET - CLUSTER SIZE detour)A Re: Moving from Multinet to TCP/IP Services (LAT/NTY/TNA devices)  Re: MS Virus2 Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnet2 Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnet2 Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnet2 Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnet Re: Northern Light kaput. * Re: Open VMS Laser Printing and Overlaying  Re: OpenVMS on Itanium Questions  Re: OpenVMS on Itanium Questions  Re: OpenVMS on Itanium QuestionsP Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retai1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants 1 RE: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants ) Re: Programmatic telnet taking forever!!! ) Re: Programmatic telnet taking forever!!! 3 Re: SCSI cluster disk thrashing between connections P Re: SIMH 2.10-4 released: major bug fixes to PDP-8, PDP-11, VAX, PDP-15, InterdaP Re: SIMH 2.10-4 released: major bug fixes to PDP-8, PDP-11, VAX, PDP-15, Interda TCPIP: bug or feature  Re: TCPIP: bug or feature  Re: TCPIP: bug or feature  Re: TCPIP: bug or feature  Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix: Re: UNIXy freeware for VMS (was: CLI question for HP reps)G Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses G Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses G Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses $ Re: VMS Mail wastebasket folder name Re: why buy new ? . Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ?. Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ?. Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ?- Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-( - Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-( - Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-(   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 05:10:46 -0800) From: P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU (Patrick Young) % Subject: Re: 164LX and 21164 question = Message-ID: <55f85d77.0303100510.249ddf24@posting.google.com>   f Dan Foster <dsf@globalcrossing.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb6mklj.1si.dsf@gaia.tf.roc.gblx.net>...  M > I'm thinking about getting a 164LX for personal hobbyist use to run OpenVMS M > 7.2-1 on it, fully well knowing its unsupported status and no guarantees on J > how well anything may work, and how picky the device drivers and console< > will be about supported devices, etc. That's fine with me.  A I've had an OpenVMS PC164 here at home for a couple of years now. D *LOVE* it. I received the motherboard only, so built the system fromB the ground up in a PC box using an ATX power supply. I rewired theD power supply to use a standard 240V power switch at the front of theE box to also switch the powerboard with the printer and monitor (these H MB AFAIK do not know about the 5V standby switch on arangement like with ATX PC)   C I'm using my PC164 OpenVMS system with Mozilla to type this message + now. The LX variant I am not familiar with.   F > The system in question currently has a SRM V5.8-1 console installed;J > OpenVMS PALcode V1.21-2 and Digital UNIX PALcode V1.23-2. It is known toM > boot, install, and run almost all of the known OSes although the seller has # > not personally tried it with VMS.   K I kind of have a go at the Digital/Compaq/HP folks about SRM when I can :-) ! I hope they don't hate me for it.   G While 100% better than PC BIOS crap, the device support varies, and the A syntax of the commands have a weirdo mixed VMS/UNIX syntax. Often D new device support for older systems is ignored (and I can't see the reason for it???).   > L > It would also have a LK461-AA, possibly a DE500-BA, possibly a KZPBA-CA orM > similar SCSI controller, and two 4.3 GB 68 pin UW SCSI 7200 RPM low profile L > HVD/SE hard drives, and I don't recall what the video card was offhand. My  D My LK46W-A2 died a couple of weeks ago - we are in a salty area nearF the ocean. This is a good quality kbd made by Cherry, however the linkB to the F3 keypad key and the column of keys below it seems to haveH "rusted out" being near the fold down foot. Makes eve in EDT keypad modeA (or EDT) a bit hard, so I am using a Compaq PC kbd for now (yuk).    G > The 21164-P8 CPU was designed for NT; will it not boot into VMS? Do I L > absolutely have to have a 21164-KC CPU to boot and run VMS? The reason why  I The difference is the firmware required. Window(tm) requires ARC where as E Tru64/OpenVMS need SRM. Some systems will only accept one firmware at A a time. Many others will accept both and you can select using the B set os type command at the SRM console, or the menu option in ARC.  I > I ask was because I was curious if this was a technical limitation or a K > marketing feature code/pricing thing. The implications being that if this   K OpenVMS engineering is not keen on placing artificial marketing limitations B on products to stop them working. Intraserver who supply some SCSI controllers are, however.    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:35:31 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 1 Subject: Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions 3 Message-ID: <3TUo7LPA$ouq@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <BA9166C7.5C4A%JCam90502@jcameron.com>, Jeff Cameron <JCam90502@jcameron.com> writes:H > I have heard that the Itanium will support either Little Endian or Big > Endian memory addressing.  >  > 1. Is this true?  D    Itanium supports either end data addressing, instructions must be    stored little-endian.   > 2. If so, how is this done?   C    Fairly simple to cross the address wires with a few gates, but I %    don't know what they choose to do.   - > 3. How is it changed from one or the other?   G    On Itanium it's a per-process bit.  Big-endian will not be supported 
    under VMS.   D > 4. Are the addressing bounderies on 64 bit quad-words, or smaller?      I think it's byte.   E > 5. In OpenVMS, how big will a page of memory be, same as the Alpha?   E    Good question.  But if you already have code that calls $getsyi to B    find the page size it should still work.  Alpha was supposed toF    use multiple pages sizes over generations.  I would not assume that)    the page size on IPF will be constant.    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 10:24:38 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 1 Subject: Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions 3 Message-ID: <YvKP6diIyELl@eisner.encompasserve.org>   q In article <3TUo7LPA$ouq@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: b > In article <BA9166C7.5C4A%JCam90502@jcameron.com>, Jeff Cameron <JCam90502@jcameron.com> writes:I >> I have heard that the Itanium will support either Little Endian or Big  >> Endian memory addressing. >>   >> 1. Is this true?  > F >> 5. In OpenVMS, how big will a page of memory be, same as the Alpha? > G >    Good question.  But if you already have code that calls $getsyi to D >    find the page size it should still work.  Alpha was supposed toH >    use multiple pages sizes over generations.  I would not assume that+ >    the page size on IPF will be constant.  >  	 9 	The TLB has to be fast.  Fast implies small (or you walk ; 	a larger structure, you are slower.  Trade-offs).  Here is + 	a good link to explain the pain of caches:   8 http://user.it.uu.se/~eh/courses/dark/slides/mem-ho2.PDF  ' 	I'm  sure there are better references.   < 	Point is as memories get larger and larger page sizes must B 	increase or you run the risk of being slow on your memory access.   				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 10:42:04 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 1 Subject: Re: Another OpenVMS on Itanium Questions 3 Message-ID: <I3wDK8TzZkMp@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <YvKP6diIyELl@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: s > In article <3TUo7LPA$ouq@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: c >> In article <BA9166C7.5C4A%JCam90502@jcameron.com>, Jeff Cameron <JCam90502@jcameron.com> writes: J >>> I have heard that the Itanium will support either Little Endian or Big >>> Endian memory addressing.  >>>  >>> 1. Is this true? >>  G >>> 5. In OpenVMS, how big will a page of memory be, same as the Alpha?  >>  H >>    Good question.  But if you already have code that calls $getsyi toE >>    find the page size it should still work.  Alpha was supposed to I >>    use multiple pages sizes over generations.  I would not assume that , >>    the page size on IPF will be constant. >>   > 	 ; > 	The TLB has to be fast.  Fast implies small (or you walk = > 	a larger structure, you are slower.  Trade-offs).  Here is - > 	a good link to explain the pain of caches:  > : > http://user.it.uu.se/~eh/courses/dark/slides/mem-ho2.PDF > ) > 	I'm  sure there are better references.  > > > 	Point is as memories get larger and larger page sizes must D > 	increase or you run the risk of being slow on your memory access. >   < 	Sorry.  Even worse than that.  You not only run the risk of= 	being slow on memory access but more critically, you run the @ 	risk of slowing down L1 access!  See the reference.  So that is( 	why a fast TLB is absolutely essential.   				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:06:09 -08001 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) " Subject: Re: Carly's feedback link= Message-ID: <857e9e41.0303100806.10a5afea@posting.google.com>   C Well JF, I have had a chance to speak to both Carly and to Scott. I C found both of them to be very reasonable and approachable.  I think E this is just an education process since they had very little exposure  to VMS prior to the merger.   E In my opinion the technical details of VMS, while important to us and @ this newsgroup are not necessarily their top priority.  Customer& satisfaction is their number one goal.  B And like I tell my daughter, "its not what you say its how you sayE it". So in writting to either of them I would focus on what they hear  not what you feel.  
 Warm Regards,  Sue         g JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3E6BFEDB.770D1F13@vl.videotron.ca>... ! > re: Carly coming to comp.os.vms  > P > Sue reports to Gorham who reports to Marcello. Has anyone ever spoken directly/ > to Carly ? Would they be fired for doing so ?  > N > You must add in the useless overhead layer called Stallard who think all VMSP > customers will eventually migrate to HP-UX.  This makes it even harder for any, > pro-VMS Digital employees to reach Carly.  > P > It is very possible that Carly only gets messages filtered by Stallard. But we > don't know that. > M > If some of the Digits were to give us an indication of whethert the pro-VMS I > digits have direct access to Carly, or whether Stallard is a brick wall O > through which no pro-VMS message can get through, then we would have a better  > idea of the problem. > P > If we know Stallard provides a wall neither marcello nor Gorham can go throughL > without losing their jobs, then perhaps our direct complaints to Carly mayJ > alert her to the fact that one of her lapdogs iosn't giving her the fullL > story. But if Gorham and MArcello do have some subtle plan to get Carly toV > realise the potential for VMS, then our interference may have some negative impacts. > M > Marcello knows that there are some VMS supporters at the customer level who N > are fully willing and capable of doing stuff, either covert or overt.  It isI > up to him and Gorham to make use of that capability if he/they want to.    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:15:02 -08001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) " Subject: Re: Carly's feedback link= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0303100815.15c74c53@posting.google.com>   g JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3E6BFEDB.770D1F13@vl.videotron.ca>... O > Has anyone ever spoken directly to Carly ? Would they be fired for doing so ?   2 No, of course they wouldn't be fired for doing so.  E I haven't had occasion to send e-mail to Carly Fiorina (but certainly B wouldn't be afraid to do so).  I have exchanged e-mails with Scott1 Stallard, though, and found him to be responsive.   N > You must add in the useless overhead layer called Stallard who think all VMS. > customers will eventually migrate to HP-UX.   B This perception about Scott Stallard is based on one obscure quoteE right after the merger.  People in pre-merger HP have been learning a F lot about OpenVMS and its value since then, and things have changed asA a result.  I saw a recent e-mail that showed that while reviewing D presentations, Scott Stallard now makes sure that OpenVMS content is! included.  So he's not the enemy.    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:28:03 +0100 (MET) 9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> " Subject: Re: Carly's feedback link; Message-ID: <01KTD8BADD5Q9H1MPS@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>   G > In my opinion the technical details of VMS, while important to us and B > this newsgroup are not necessarily their top priority.  Customer( > satisfaction is their number one goal.  C Well, part of customer satisfaction is having the feeling that the  G vendor knows the technical merits of the products it sells (or, in the  " case of VMS, allows to be bought).  I Someone mentioned here recently that HP planned to make a big VMS splash  D at CeBit (the largest computer fair in the world, held in Hannover, G Germany) this year.  A few years ago I was there, in fact a few months  E before I bought a new ALPHA.  At the time I was checking out prices,  I features etc and thought "while I'm here, might as well see what the DEC  G (it was DEC then---whoops, sorry, Digital) salesmen have to say".  DEC  F had the largest stand at the fair except I think for IBM.  I was told G that DEC isn't developing VMS anymore internally and that Digital Unix  F and NT on ALPHA were the future.  I pointed out that VMS could run on A the hardware they had on display (running a two-rider motorcycle  F simulation) and the salesman said "this is not VMS, this is high-end,  this is unix".  E To be fair, when I mentioned this here a few days later, I did get a  D phone call a few weeks later from someone from marketing at DEC who  actually apologised.  3 Of course, I didn't believe what the salesmen said.   E However, if I didn't know better and if I wanted to buy not one ALPHA E but a hundred, and the salesman said "forget VMS, unix and NT are the E future", then I might have checked out offerings for NT and unix from E other vendors, perhaps from the IBM stand a few meters away where the - salesmen seemed to know what they are doing.    E It would be an interesting experiment for a technically knowledgeable > person (say, a reader of comp.os.vms) to disguise himself as aF decision-maker type (i.e. put on a suit and bumble around) and see if H the "sales pitch" for VMS is any better at CeBit this year.  Best would F be to secretly videotape the conversation.  Hoff has said a few times G "what was the name of that salesman", which I assume is akin to "bring  G me the head of that salesman".  I wonder what ever comes of this.  Are  E such incompetent salesmen fired or reprimanded?  (Hence it's nice to  I have a videotape; any salesman who says to a customer "go away" when the  F customer says up front he wants to buy a product will have no trouble - putting a different spin on the conversation.    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:41:10 +0100 (MET) 9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> " Subject: Re: Carly's feedback link; Message-ID: <01KTDB74LR9E9FRD0S@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>   M > > Your enemies just have to do ONE THING to sabotage your dreams entirely,  J > > even if you produce some "commitments" from HP: bring in a witness whoL > > states "yeah, right, these same guys told me a few years ago that NT on E > > ALPHA was the future; we invested millions and are now orphaned".  > I > I seriously doubt any customer ever "invested millions" in NT on Alpha.   E I don't know.  I heard from a reliable source that someone did invest C quite a lot in such a configuration---my WILD GUESS would be on the D order of 2 million (not just hardware, but also software developmentF etc)---specifically because "NT on Alpha" was what DEC offered as the  best platform.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:47:34 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> " Subject: Re: Carly's feedback linkJ Message-ID: <Wc4ba.201651$UXa.192715@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0303100815.15c74c53@posting.google.com... = > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message + news:<3E6BFEDB.770D1F13@vl.videotron.ca>... F > > Has anyone ever spoken directly to Carly ? Would they be fired for
 doing so ? > 4 > No, of course they wouldn't be fired for doing so. > = > I haven't had occasion to send e-mail to Carly Fiorina (but 	 certainly D > wouldn't be afraid to do so).  I have exchanged e-mails with Scott3 > Stallard, though, and found him to be responsive.  > B > > You must add in the useless overhead layer called Stallard who
 think all VMS / > > customers will eventually migrate to HP-UX.  > D > This perception about Scott Stallard is based on one obscure quoteE > right after the merger.  People in pre-merger HP have been learning  a E > lot about OpenVMS and its value since then, and things have changed  asC > a result.  I saw a recent e-mail that showed that while reviewing F > presentations, Scott Stallard now makes sure that OpenVMS content is# > included.  So he's not the enemy.     D Perhaps he isn't the enemy, but he would be doing existing customers= and prospective new customers a huge favor by advertising and % marketing VMS widely and effectively.   E The existing customers would get warm fuzzies seeing proof that there E is a serious attempt at expanding the VMS market, thereby making them C more certain that VMS will be around long enough for the guys who'd E like to back it claw their way up the promotion ladders by making the 9 'right decision' in keeping VMS alive at their companies.   @ The new prospects will see no/fewer defections from VMS to otherE things by the existing customer base, and see and hear what it's like = to have reliable compute, perhaps for the first time in their F careers/company history. That would do more to make HP have a positiveC image with those new customers than the recent batch of 'image' ads F that I saw air for the first time in connection with the Australian F1E Grand Prix this past weekend, none of which mentioned VMS or reliable $ computing as far as I can recollect.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:54:18 -0400 0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>" Subject: Re: Carly's feedback link/ Message-ID: <3E6CC336.CAE2EFCB@vl.videotron.ca>    Sue Skonetski wrote: > E > Well JF, I have had a chance to speak to both Carly and to Scott. I E > found both of them to be very reasonable and approachable.  I think G > this is just an education process since they had very little exposure  > to VMS prior to the merger.   M Sue, if the stories that VMS was the most profitable product at Compaq and it L is what saved Compaq's butt are true, there is no excuse for Carly not beingK aware of VMS's potential. And Carly should have seen through her interviews D and teams that Comapq was squandering the very product that gave itsN sustinance. It is called due diligence, and in this takeover, she had *plenty* of time to get that done.   G > In my opinion the technical details of VMS, while important to us and B > this newsgroup are not necessarily their top priority.  Customer( > satisfaction is their number one goal.  N If Carly doesn't understand VMS, then she needs to be told the areas whene itsM technical abilities differentiate it from the rest of the pack and where this  should be leveraged.    N What I am not sure of is whether Carly in interested in growing the company inI the best way, or whether she wants to grow in in a specific way (wintel + 7 IA64) which may not be the most profitable way to grow.   J If her mind is set on helping Gates and Groves instead of HP shareholders,N then there is really not much we can do exceot point this out to shareholders.   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:08:46 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) % Subject: Re: CLI question for HP reps 3 Message-ID: <JPKMFmXRru+8@eisner.encompasserve.org>   j In article <AM1aa.401$U32.23482@news.uswest.net>, "Michael D. Ober" <obermd-@-alum-mit-edu-nospam> writes: > That said, VMS doesn't have a I > large market share and restricting yourself to it is also limiting your  > potential future employment.  
  Yeah, right.    D > As a freeware author I find it very, very annoying when someone isL > complaining about freeware.  Useful and correct software is hard to write,N > and when someone is doing so and giving it away, you don't have any right toF > complain about it.  You do have a right to not use it.  Constructive> > feedback with suggestions for improvement are always useful.  H    I'll complain about anything I damn well feel like complaining about,@    and poor user interfaces will reamin near the top of my list.   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 05:26:03 -0800! From: oscar@mroscar.co.uk (Oscar)  Subject: DHCP on WE1. = Message-ID: <7c07dbc5.0303100526.1fb6c23e@posting.google.com>    Hi all,   B I am using an alphaserver DS10, which has 2 network ports and I amC trying to get the second port to run a DHCP server (the 1st port it ? talking to the house network and the second is a little private ( network talking to some control devices)  	 Versions: 5 Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.1 9 on a COMPAQ AlphaServer DS10 466 MHz running OpenVMS V7.3   A I have configured WE0 to talk to the house network and WE1 to the C first address of the range I want to use, plugged the laptop into a C switch connected to WE1 and set an apropriate IP address - they can  ping each other, no problems.   E I enable, configure and start DHCP with a range of IPs for the second 6 network but try as I might I cannot pick up an address   I am at a loss...   F Are there any known problems with DHCP binding to the WE1? or anything  else I should be looking out for   (I freely admit I am dumb)   Cheers for help    Oscar    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:44:26 -0400 0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> Subject: Re: DHCP on WE1. / Message-ID: <3E6CC0E6.6980154C@vl.videotron.ca>    Oscar wrote:D > I am using an alphaserver DS10, which has 2 network ports and I amE > trying to get the second port to run a DHCP server (the 1st port it A > talking to the house network and the second is a little private * > network talking to some control devices)  K Is the second ethernet device controlling a different subnet than the first  one ?   L In the main "server/security" tab, there is the IP ranges. YOu define the IPN address of the DHCP server, the subnet and the IP range. This would have to beM the IP address of the host on the second ethernet device for the DHCP server. M You can also define a subnet tab thatc ontains all the goodies to be supplied / when a DHCP request is received on that subnet.   	 Question:   K The online help says that we should consult the http://www.join.com for the M full documentation. However, that web site no longer exists in the context of E a software company. Does anyone know where this can be obtained now ?   G > I enable, configure and start DHCP with a range of IPs for the second 8 > network but try as I might I cannot pick up an address   Have you looked at the logs ?    ------------------------------   Date: 10 MAR 2003 17:29:26 GMT4 From: karcher@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu (Carl Karcher) Subject: Re: DHCP on WE1. 6 Message-ID: <10MAR03.17292648@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu>  9 In a previous article, oscar@mroscar.co.uk (Oscar) wrote:   D ->I am using an alphaserver DS10, which has 2 network ports and I amE ->trying to get the second port to run a DHCP server (the 1st port it A ->talking to the house network and the second is a little private * ->network talking to some control devices) ->  7 ->Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.1 ; ->on a COMPAQ AlphaServer DS10 466 MHz running OpenVMS V7.3  ->  C ->I have configured WE0 to talk to the house network and WE1 to the E ->first address of the range I want to use, plugged the laptop into a F ->switch connected to WE1 and set an appropriate IP address - they can ->ping each other, no problems.  ->  G ->I enable, configure and start DHCP with a range of IPs for the second 8 ->network but try as I might I cannot pick up an address ->  H ->Are there any known problems with DHCP binding to the WE1? or anything" ->else I should be looking out for  F To get more information in the tcpip$dhcp_run.log file, you'll want to0 define the logical TCPIP$DHCP_LOG_LEVEL to be 2:  & 	$ define/system TCPIP$DHCP_LOG_LEVE 2  C You may see messages such as  "network not administered by server". D If that's the case then you will need to upgrade to TCPIP V5.3 ECO2.# The release notes for ECO2 mention:   &  ECO O   3-OCT-2002      Alpha and VAX            Problem:   C          A multihomed DHCP client is unable to configure interfaces :          other than the primary after starting TCPIP v5.3.  D I've not tried ECO 2 yet but I've seen this same problem on 5.3 ECO1F with a multi-homed host. Unfortunately there's no way to tell the DHCP% server to use a particular interface.    --G -- Carl Karcher, Waisman Computing Services, Waisman Center, UW-Madison 7 --                karcher.nomorespam@waisman.wisc.edu      ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:15:53 -0500 * From: "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid>Y Subject: Re: ECC (was IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly	vs. IBM  monopo : Message-ID: <pan.2003.02.20.17.02.30.65664@nospam.invalid>  5 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:42:03 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:    > "J. Clarke" wrote:; >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:32 -0500, Julian Thomas wrote: ' >> > J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>  >>  - >> > may have used oatmeal boxes, old string, E >> > and new, used, and recycled electrons to say (at least in part):  >> >G >> >> Whether a PC has ECC or not is buyer's choice.  Nearly all server D >> >> and workstation class machines can support it if the purchaserD >> >> chooses to put in the appropriate RAM modules.  Some "desktop"D >> >> and consumer machines can support it as well.  The machine I'mC >> >> using right now has ECC "from the CPU cache out to memory and  >> >> back again"  >> >D >> > These days there are very few motherboards for Thunderbird thatE >> > offer ECC. Epox 8k7a seems to be almost the only one, and that's  >> > not widely available. >>  C >> Any of the 762 boards will support ECC.  The 761 chipset has the D >> necessary support however vendors seem to not enable it.  TroubleC >> with AMD is that most of the vendors are targetting the consumer A >> market, not the workstation/server market, and in the consumer C >> market for those who even know that ECC exists, it is considered B >> to be undesirable because there is an infinitesimal performance6 >> penalty that might cost a tenth of an FPS in Quake. > C > And also the 'saving' of approximately 10% of the memory cost, to D > be repaid many times over the first time something is destroyed by > any memory failures.  R Sometimes.  But remember, some of these are the folks who run RAID 1 and shell outJ 700 bucks for a Vapochill or Prometeia phase-change cooler in the hopes of running their P4 at 3.5 GHz.  C > I would almost rather buy day old hamburger that has been kept in 
 > the sun.   --   --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net # (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 07:57:00 -08001 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) 2 Subject: Re: hp DECforms V3.3 Product Announcement= Message-ID: <857e9e41.0303100757.5698f708@posting.google.com>    Jack,   F I know that you spoke to the product mgr this morning but for the restA of the newsgroup here is the office response from Rick McLaughlin   C HP DECforms is a valuable part of the OpenVMS layered product suite  and now E includes the right to use the DECform Web Connector product. DECforms = is being ported to the OpenVMS Industry Standard 64 platform.    8 Your product enhancement suggestions are always welcome.   + Thank you for your interest in HP DECforms.     Rick McLaughlin  DECforms Product Manager rick.mclaughlin@hp.com            p ack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:<UGQaa.8231$s75.4665434@twister.columbus.rr.com>...< > I guess if an HP employee is recommending other solutions ) > than Web Connector must truly be dead !  >  >  > Main, Kerry wrote:	 > > Jack,  > > 6 > > Re: web enabling existing host based applications. > > # > > A few alternatives to consider:  > >  > > Ericom: , > > http://ebusiness.ericom.com/iOpenVms.asp, > > http://ebusiness.ericom.com/indexWap.asp > >  > > Dataglider: . > > http://www.dataglider.com/news/press4.html4 > > http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html > >  > > Regards, > >  > >  > > Kerry Main > > Senior Consultant   > > Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.% > > Consulting & Integration Services  > > Voice: 613-592-4660  > > Fax   : 613-591-4477  > > Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom1 > >     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s) # > > OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:51:03 +0000 (UTC)   From: Cthulhu <spambox@rlyeh.it>" Subject: Lightweight TCP/IP stack?( Message-ID: <b4imqn$j9$2@kadath.deep.it>   The choice, with OpenVMS/VAX:    	DEC TCP/IP 5.1  	Multinet last release 	TCPware last release   G I'm working on hobbyist systems, and they are quite old now. I like the F IP failover feature in Multinet, but I also like to know which is moreE advisable for a low-mem system (a uVAX 3400 with 20MB of RAM, maybe a  3100 with 8MB).    Thanks!   
 	sceltamente,  	   Cthulhu    --     Vado dove nessuno giungeB Per strade deserte abitate da spettri         http://www.rlyeh.it/G Vado nel Nulla, per cogliere l'Essenza.       <cthulhu(at)rlyeh(dot)it>    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:10:36 +0000 ' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 8 Subject: Re: Linus trashes Itanium - he's scared of VMS!( Message-ID: <3E6CB8FC.9@nospamn.sun.com>   Bill Todd wrote:M > "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> ; > wrote in message news:3E687FF9.8090808@nospamn.sun.com...  >  >> >>Bill Todd wrote: >>& >>>"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" >>) > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>6 > < >>>wrote in message news:3E676E7F.9000201@nospamn.sun.com... >>>M >>>I >>>>Bill Todd wrote: >>>> >>>>( >>>>>"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" >>>>* >>><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> >>>d> >>>>>wrote in message news:3E65EBAF.9030805@nospamn.sun.com... >>>> >>>... >>>d >>>l >>> J >>>>>>Well no not quite, implimenting Itanium 2 in a 130 nanometer process0 >>>>>>should decrease the die size to ~314 mm^2. >>>>>f >>>>>oL >>>>>There's no need to guess in this matter:  Intel has already stated thatE >>>>>Madison's die area is 374 mm^2.  That, however, includes 6 MB ofu >>>>	 > on-chip  >  >>>L3e >>>V >>> L >>>>>cache compared with McKinley's 3 MB:  since the cache consumes about 35J >>>>>mm^2/MB, if McKinley were shrunk to 130 nm its die area would thus be >>>> >>>about >>>o >>>f >>>>>269 mm^2. >>>>>S >>>>% >>>>I am guessing just as much as you  >>>e >>> A >>>No, you're guessing (incorrectly), while I'm reporting Intel'sf >> > statements >  >>>about its own chip. >>>f >>? >>So you are, but the chip you are refering to isn't Itanium IIe< >>so you are still just guessing on the basis of a different+ >>IPF chip with more cache and core tweaks.o >  > K > Madison is McKinley, with a process-shrink (and increased clock rate) andrN > twice as much cache.  No other substantive changes.  The only possibility isL > that Madison with only 3 MB of on-chip cache might even be a bit *smaller*G > than the 266 - 269 mm^2 that I calculated, because with less cache toR@ > accommodate a more efficient overall layout might be possible. >  >   @ Not necessarely since you don't know what the gate switch length will be for Madison.  > And Intels own roadmap for IPF explicitly says that the larger= cache size on Madison is only one of the changes to the chip.   : Of course the others could be faster clock smaller process= size but there doesn't seem to be any official Intel documentN& that says that that is all Madison is.  4 So it would appear that you are still just guessing.    : My calculation was based on the die size reduction for the7 same processor design with the same transistor count ase4 it moved from Intels 180 to 130 nanometer processes.    L > As noted above, it's the same design.  So it's effectively McKinley in 130 > nm, save for the added cache.8 >   / Nope that isn't what Intels documentation says.d  < http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/pdf/prod/itanium/wp022001.pdf  / >  So the relationship between Madison die sizeC > 7 >>in 130 nanometer and Itanium II die size if it was toe9 >>be built in 130 nanometer is just a guess on your part.e >>; >>Don't dress it up with sience Bill there isn't any there.q >  >  > Idiot. >   # Really !! Just guessing again I see    regardso Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 11:15:10 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)c8 Subject: Re: Linus trashes Itanium - he's scared of VMS!3 Message-ID: <uBJ9VwRZJuB7@eisner.encompasserve.org>S  R In article <3E6CB8FC.9@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes: >  >  > Bill Todd wrote:   >> sL >> Madison is McKinley, with a process-shrink (and increased clock rate) andO >> twice as much cache.  No other substantive changes.  The only possibility is-M >> that Madison with only 3 MB of on-chip cache might even be a bit *smaller*0H >> than the 266 - 269 mm^2 that I calculated, because with less cache toA >> accommodate a more efficient overall layout might be possible.2 >> t >> o > @ > And Intels own roadmap for IPF explicitly says that the larger? > cache size on Madison is only one of the changes to the chip.a >  	Where is that info?   > M >> As noted above, it's the same design.  So it's effectively McKinley in 130e  >> nm, save for the added cache. >> e > 1 > Nope that isn't what Intels documentation says.a > > > http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/pdf/prod/itanium/wp022001.pdf >   < 	The only reference to Madison in that article states fasterF 	communication and larger cache for Madison.  The faster communication? 	could be an artifact of increased clock.  There isn't anythingr 	definitive in that reference.   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:18:00 +0100e9 From: "Bernard Giroud" <bernard.giroud@creditlyonnais.ch>e5 Subject: Local port number for an incoming connection 4 Message-ID: <3e6cbb86$0$26862$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   Hi all,g  ; I need to get the local port used by an inbound connection;m5 it seems that a qio call with a IO$_SENSEMODE with p3e< set should do the trick. However when I try I get a SSFAIL ?  & Any idea or code fragment that works ?   THX++l   -- Bernard Giroud? Crdit Lyonnais (Switzerland) SA (company code: creditlyonnais) ) email: firstname.lastname@company_code.chf   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:38:18 -0500 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>E Subject: Re: Maximum Record Size Error (BUCKET - CLUSTER SIZE detour)U2 Message-ID: <57ucnbhF7-By3fGjXTWcow@metrocast.net>  3 "hein" <hein_news@eps.zko.dec.com> wrote in message.$ news:3e6bec3f@usenet01.boi.hp.com... >pH > "Daryl Jones" <jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >   ...3  8 > > This will reduce wasted space inside the RMS bucket. > G > Not true, as others mentioned, and the correction was still not quited right.  J Since I wasn't able to find any discrepancy between my correction and your explanation, I'm curious...    ...k  > > On the bucket-size versus cluster-size verus waste argument: > H >     While disk file allocation clusters themself are invisible to RMS,L >     their effect on file extents is visible. RMS performs EXPLICIT extents@ >     for indexed files and keeps track of the allocated blocks.K >     RMS will NOT start a new bucket unless it fits in the current extent.yG >     RMS will avoid a near certain split IO by allocating a new extenteF >     and starting the new bucket in there if it did not entirely fit.  K And as I noted in cases where the next extent is not *virtually* contiguoussJ with the existing one (which would usually occur only in multi-area files,J though if you guys ever implemented the 'add an index later' facility thatG could cause it as well) it would simply not be possible to so 'split' aM& bucket across the old and new extents.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:27:43 -0500p9 From: Hein van den Heuvel <hein_netscape@eps.zko.dec.com>-E Subject: Re: Maximum Record Size Error (BUCKET - CLUSTER SIZE detour)r/ Message-ID: <3E6CAEEF.C495FDE9@eps.zko.dec.com>:   Bill Todd wrote:  5 > "hein" <hein_news@eps.zko.dec.com> wrote in messagee  J > > "Daryl Jones" <jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >   > ...J: > > > This will reduce wasted space inside the RMS bucket.P > > Not true, as others mentioned, and the correction was still not quite right. >IL > Since I wasn't able to find any discrepancy between my correction and your > explanation, I'm curious....  P Hi Bill, I had no problem with your explanations. Much impressed. Right on after all those years.P The RMS on-disk structure has basically not changed (it probably should change a little, but will not).O My comment was more towards Daryl, who's correction reply you also commented on    Daryl wrote:: > Making the RMS bucket an integral number of Disk Cluster4 > has nothing to do with small extensions of a file!  K It does. If you make large extentions, as suggested by tuning 101, then thed cluster sizeK becomes totally, utterly irrelevant. With small extentions the cluster sizesJ starts to play a silly role in the form of the wasteage Daryl pointed out.  L The only time I have been able to measure the effect of clustersize was in a contrived experiment.0O I was playing with striped virtual disks on SWXCR controllers where there was ahN suggestion for very small chunk sizes (locked at 8KB for the initial releases) and a relatively slow back-end.qK I wanted to test a large file convert and actually wanted each bucket to bel* served by 2 (or 3) disk, but not 3 (or 4).I So I wanted to aligned each bucket to start exactly on a controller chunkhO boundary and I wanted each bucket to be an exact mutliple (2 or 3) of the chunkeL size. This can be done by using a cluster size being a multiple of the chunkN size. An other tricky part is the mis-alignement that RMS causes by having theJ prologue in area-0 (as Bill also wrote). I solved that by putting the root- bucket in area 0 and the main data in area 1.lL Anyway, with all those precautions in place a bucket size of 48 with a chunk? size of 16 (and any cluster size being a mutliple of 16) workedaL better than a cluster size of 50 or 55, but only marginally so and 63 workedP better still even though it would be severely 'fragemented' at the stripe level.  N Oh how I wished the max bucket size could have been a nice round 64, but alas.  O Also, daryl keeps on mentioning 'integral' multiple. If I had nothing better torM do than tweak the bucket size based on the cluster size then I'd be satisfied-N with 'nice big common factors'. A cluster size of 9 and bucket size of 6 or 12O will work out fine also as they frequently 'lign up' (ignoring the first bucket P skew for now). A chance game. Picking different but 'prime' sizes will garantueeJ they will rarely lign up and increase the odds of waste and split-io after external file fragmentation.  - btw... in one of the replies you (Bill) wrote G >  if only because there may be multiple bucket sizes in a single area.o  P This is not correct. areas have a single bucket size. Some might even argue thatD the sole purpose of multipel areas is to have mutliple bucket sizes.   Is the horse dead yet?   Cheers,  Hein..                 >g >l > ...e > @ > > On the bucket-size versus cluster-size verus waste argument: > >aJ > >     While disk file allocation clusters themself are invisible to RMS,N > >     their effect on file extents is visible. RMS performs EXPLICIT extentsB > >     for indexed files and keeps track of the allocated blocks.M > >     RMS will NOT start a new bucket unless it fits in the current extent.lI > >     RMS will avoid a near certain split IO by allocating a new extentoH > >     and starting the new bucket in there if it did not entirely fit. >sM > And as I noted in cases where the next extent is not *virtually* contiguous L > with the existing one (which would usually occur only in multi-area files,L > though if you guys ever implemented the 'add an index later' facility thatI > could cause it as well) it would simply not be possible to so 'split' at( > bucket across the old and new extents. >i > - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 00:42:12 -08004 From: francesco.gennai@iat.cnr.it (Francesco Gennai)J Subject: Re: Moving from Multinet to TCP/IP Services (LAT/NTY/TNA devices)< Message-ID: <72f5654.0303100042.5cf0130a@posting.google.com>  ` "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3E6BF2FE.35DBFF08@fsi.net>...  > I continue to prefer Multinet, but I think that UCX is next to be a good alternative.   For example:9 what about UCX IPV6 support and BIND 9.x implementation ?r  8 I have successfully connected an OpenVMS alpha server onA the IPV6 backbone and successfully configured the BIND9/IPv6 dns.n   http://www.6net.org/  	 Francescou   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 23:02:18 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> Subject: Re: MS VirusoD Message-ID: <20030310152643.70BC9141.NOFFLE@momos.conceptual.net.au>  ! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:z  @ > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMENGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom" > Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:  A > >There was a post the other day about a virus masquerading as atA > >patch from Microsoft.  Just got it here.  If I don't recognizetD > >mail, I read it with vms mail, otherwise Outlook.  Here's what it
 > >looks like   lG > There's a difference between a Micro$oft patch and a Micro$oft virus?i   The virus works. r   -- y< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.l@                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:05:16 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>a; Subject: Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnet,' Message-ID: <3E6CA9AC.5040306@MMaz.com>r   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  a >In article <185469fe.0303091219.30123db1@posting.google.com>, riper56@hotmail.com (arik) writes:  >e >  l >l? >>I from my searching I saw somethings that are not clear to mee( >>what is PathWork, how does it help me? >>     >> >kG >Pathworks implements (among other things) DECnet on Microsoft Windows.  >l >  l >  >>can I do it without PathWork?r >>     >> >t3 >You could write your own implementation of DECnet.c >b >    >h+ >>I have no other option but to use decnet.- >>     >> >0G >Unless another poster comes up with an alternate DECnet implementations6 >(or you write your own), then you must use Pathworks. >  . >3H Did he ever state why it 'had to be DECnet?'  Is it perhaps that DECnet G is the only stack he has running on VMS?  If so, an open source method  H would be to get CMU/IP up and running and then use Samba.  It would not : be elegant and it has it's blemishes, but it does work...   @ Realistically, Process's TCP stacks are not expensive and using G something like TCPware and Samba could be done fast and on the cheap...    Barry    --    @ Barry Treahy, Jr  *  Midwest Microwave  *  Vice President & CIO   A E-mail: Treahy@mmaz.com * Phone: 480/314-1320 * FAX: 480/661-7028t   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:12:37 -0500n' From: Chris Olive <nospam@raytheon.com>r; Subject: Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnetp< Message-ID: <VY1ba.123$35.886@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>   Don Sykes wrote: > 
 > arik wrote:w > H >>well, this is what i need to do, but I dont know exactly how to do it.? >>I from my searching I saw somethings that are not clear to me-( >>what is PathWork, how does it help me? >>can I do it without PathWork?  >>+ >>I have no other option but to use decnet.m >> >>thank you for your help. >  > E > PathWorks is a Compaq/HP product that can be used for sharing files I > transparently accross O/S's. It must be installed on both systems and Iw > think it's still costs $$. rE > I'm curious though, why don't you have other options? (I'm thinkinge* > NFS). What are you trying to accomplish? >   I Presumably because he's not running any other stack on the server side...s   Christ -----a Chris Olivel Systems Consultant' Raytheon Technical Services Corporation  Indianapolis, IN  * email: olivec(AT)indy(DOT)raytheon(DOT)com   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 10:17:47 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e; Subject: Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decneti3 Message-ID: <XtyNmkxIDHaO@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  U In article <3E6CA9AC.5040306@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:   . > Did he ever state why it 'had to be DECnet?'  G I would _like_ to think it is management being sensible about security,n2 but it could also be strong configuration control.  I It could also be just that he has no influence over the owners of the VMSnF system.  But at any rate the requirement was stated in the post, which2 is much better than many inquiries in comp.os.vms.   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com>i; Subject: Re: newbie: connect to vms from win2k using decnete0 Message-ID: <b4ilgg$9d5$1@sparta.btinternet.com>   Hi,o  F Pathworks client has a *very good* socket DLL that allows you to use aB familiar TCP/IP API with DECnet. On the VMS side you can implementL transparent or non-transparent task-to-task communication. (In your socket()K call, specify AF_DECnet instead of AF_INET and the "type" as SOCK_SEQPACKET " and the "protocol" as DNPROTO_NSP)  L The rest pretty much doesn't change. EXCEPT YOU CAN SEND RECORDS! Yes lovely* *RECORDS*!!! with lovely record boundries.   Regards Richard Maher.  8 PS. You can also send 16 bytes of OOB data instead of 1.  + arik <riper56@hotmail.com> wrote in messagel7 news:185469fe.0303091219.30123db1@posting.google.com...sH > well, this is what i need to do, but I dont know exactly how to do it.? > I from my searching I saw somethings that are not clear to mev( > what is PathWork, how does it help me? > can I do it without PathWork?( >c+ > I have no other option but to use decnet.m >w > thank you for your help.   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:17:29 -0800& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)" Subject: Re: Northern Light kaput.= Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0303100917.7f0ad3db@posting.google.com>   k Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com> wrote in message news:<3E6BB517.8E32BDE7@firstdbasource.com>...- > J > As I understand it The "free" search portion of NorthernLight ended moreC > than a year ago.  The technology was sold to Divine as a tool foroF > companies to pay for special research request.  Evidently, the "pay"I > portion was more than most companies wanted pay or the overall businessH( > model was flawed in it's expectations.  F Thats right.  I still had it bookmarked as my home page simply for theF headlines and stock info, partly inertia and partly because of the VMSE back end that I approve of.  I bought a couple articles over the lastW: year, but we never even investigated becoming subscribers.   Rich   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:14:50 -0800& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)3 Subject: Re: Open VMS Laser Printing and Overlaying,< Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0303100914.97d7727@posting.google.com>  f "Jerry Alan Braga" <jabraga@flanagan.ca> wrote in message news:<WC4aa.36$7b6.82267@news.on.tac.net>...K > Is it possible with VMS to create overlay printing of text of images thateL > will then print on a laser based printer.  We are trying to phase out someB > of our print printed forms and we were hoping that we could then > H > 1. Scan the image and save on our VMS server as a binary image format., > 2. Create a text file via our applicationsL > 3. Merge these two objects and print to the laser printer where every pageB > of the text file would overlay exactly on the scanning document. > N > Can this be done with VMS only via DCPS and others or do I require a layered7 > product of some sort.  And if so what are my options?l >  > Thanks in advance   D We print MANMAN forms to LaserJets by creating the PCL code to printC the static form information (boxes, lines, headers, addresses, etc; A graphics are only used for logos), putting that PCL into a device A control library for the specific printer(s) and setting the forms B (f.ex) MMVERTPO to have (f.ex) /PAGE_SETUP=VERTPO (the name of theA VERTPO PCL module in the library).  You do need to tweak the form 2 definitions in other ways, but thats basically it.  D To print a check, MANMAN prints to the selected queue /FORM=MMCHECK,E for invoices /FORM=MMINVOICE, etc, where each form has PAGE_SETUP set B to the matching PCL file in the device control library.  Since theE actual data always prints in the same (default) line printer font andxC size, it prints in the correct location for each form because thatsi just where the text falls.   Rich Jordan    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:18:42 +0100 (MET)d9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>e) Subject: Re: OpenVMS on Itanium Questionso; Message-ID: <01KTCZXHZ41U9FRD0S@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>   H > The electricians and plumbers have it made because their work can't be3 > sent offshore. Programming work is another story.m > E > Makes you wonder whether a 'blue-collar' trade wouldn't have been aeG > better choice...in-transit charges, overtime, union 'protection', not F > having to learn a new paradigm every 4 or 5 years, all the 'surplus'C > material you could take from the job-site to finish your own home- > with.-  G One cannot recommend highly enough the wise thoughts on this, and many f? other issues, from Cliff Stoll in his book "High-Tech Heretic: kF Confessions of a Computer Contrarian".  Also good is the classic "The  Cuckoo's Egg".   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:30:54 GMTo& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>) Subject: Re: OpenVMS on Itanium Questionsc/ Message-ID: <yk1ba.128$Ps2.25@news.cpqcorp.net>    Jack Patteeuw wrote: > H > 1) Much of VMS and VMS applications is built around the old VAX CALLG C > and CALLS instruction.  IIRC, Alpha handled these as PAL code (a eJ > multiple instruction sequence that can not be interrupted).  I have not K > heard of anything similar to PAL in the Itanium architecture, so how are t! > CALLG and CALLS being handled ?a  C As Larry said, CALLG/CALLS were not PAL calls on Alpha.  They just gF expand into multiple instruction sequences (just like JSB, RET, etc.) F The only Alpha PAL call that has anything to do with 'call/return' is  for REI.  G On Itanium, all of these Macro-32 instructios (CALLS, CALLG, JSB, RET, nF RSB, etc.) just turn into multiple instruction sequences with nothing I special about them (other than conforming to the Calling Standard on how eK they build/destroy frames).  On Itanium, REI becomes a system service call.h   > F > 2) VMS has 4 access modes (IIRC), kernel, executive, supervisor and E > user.  (Again, IIRC) VAX and Alpha are the only architectures that  H > implement 4 modes in hardware.  How is this being handled on Itanium ? >  >   G Yes, Itanium (and as Larry mentioned recent IA32s as well) has 4 modes.   D Also, technically, on the Alpha, the 4 modes are a PAL code concept F rather than a hardware feature.  The Tru64 PAL code just has user and  kernel for instance.   -- s John ReaganF' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leadera Hewlett-Packard Company8   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:28:11 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)e) Subject: Re: OpenVMS on Itanium Questionsi3 Message-ID: <wSvd+wl71GjW@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  l In article <vuIaa.7922$s75.4130332@twister.columbus.rr.com>, Jack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com> writes:< > I have had my head buried in "other" OSes for many months A > now, but I do know that VMS has "officially" booted on Itanium.  > < > I have 2 technical questions about the port that may have = > already been answered long ago.  If so just give me a link.u > > > 1) Much of VMS and VMS applications is built around the old > > VAX CALLG and CALLS instruction.  IIRC, Alpha handled these ? > as PAL code (a multiple instruction sequence that can not be 0= > interrupted).  I have not heard of anything similar to PAL D: > in the Itanium architecture, so how are CALLG and CALLS  > being handled ?   A  VMS on Alpha does not heavily use CALLG/CALLS, it uses the Alpha   calling standard.  =  VMS on Itanium uses the Intel calling standard, except wheren%  slightly modified to meet VMS needs.s  7 > 2) VMS has 4 access modes (IIRC), kernel, executive, )< > supervisor and user.  (Again, IIRC) VAX and Alpha are the > > only architectures that implement 4 modes in hardware.  How $ > is this being handled on Itanium ?  H  Nope, Since 80386, Intel proc4essors have implemented 4 modes.  Itanium9  does, too. What's missing is some of the combinations of G  outer-mode-read/innter-mode-write page protection that VMS uses.  IIRC H  VMS engineering is planning to provide both a no-code-change-but-slower+  fix, and a full-speed-but-code-change fix.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:49:19 +0000n' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancylY Subject: Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retai-. Message-ID: <3E6CB3FF.1070701@nospamn.sun.com>  : Kerry only you could inject a GS1280 performance benchmark6 result into a discusion about Compaq/HP's inability to; justify the performance claims they made for the GS160/320.l  9 And trust you to try to reintroduce the TPC-C results fort4 the GS320 which if you hadn't forgotten are actually7 evidence for the prosecution not the defense since theya1 prove that there is a big NUMA performance issue.   5 Had you forgotten that you used a cluster in a box toi get decent performance.i  3 And had yopu also forgotten that this is one of thee2 reasons why Sun doesn't do TPC-C, because the kind2 of tuning method used by indevidual companies such< as Compaq has degrade the value of the benchmark as a whole.  : You are as always tremendous value but not to your allies.   Regardst Andrew Harrisoni Main, Kerry wrote: > Tim, > 7 > <<< .  And I'm afraid, you just lost the argument.<<<  > H > If you have been lurking for awhile, then you know that no matter whatE > evidence HP puts up, Andrew is going to counter with his own fud tooD > counter it. That's fine - he's a competitor and that is his way of( > promoting his own companies products.  > B > Case in point - he asks where are some performance numbers. Ok -J > http://www.sap.com/benchmark/index.asp?content=http://www.sap.com/benchm > ark/sd2tier.asp  > J > Sun - 1,789,000 dialog steps per hr - 72 cpu Sunfire 15K Oracle 9i - Feb
 > 10, 2003D > HP - 1,393,000 dialog steps per hr - 32 cpu GS1280 Oracle 9i - Jan	 > 27/2003n > J > Given Oracle charges per cpu, I'd say the GS1280 does ok. Note the datesI > of release. Sun felt they needed to have a bigger number, but needed 72d! > CPUs to get that bigger number.  > E > And even his age old argument about the GS320 - still on the top 10 H > single system TPC, while Sun has 0 entries on the TPC list. Reference:J > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=nonclus > ter&version=5. >   G > Now, Andrew will respond with but, but, but .. And so it continues...  > 	 > Regards  >  >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultantt > Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.# > Consulting & Integration Servicess > Voice: 613-592-4660c > Fax   : 613-591-4477 > Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom/ >     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)>! > OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM  >  > -----Original Message-----8 > From: Tim Walls [mailto:timwa@stamford.snowgoons.com]  > Sent: March 7, 2003 7:11 PMi > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComoE > Subject: Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release forc > Marveland Alpha Retain Trust >  > : > In article <mqnh6vsel43b1vpf9usq1g05nhpc4oc2kb@4ax.com>,+ > 	jlsue <jlsuexxxz@screaminet.com> writes:  > H >>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:07:14 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 0 >><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >>F >>Typical Andrew useless response.  Still saying that I have to prove C >>that the GS160s perform well on some apps, while he still hasn't mH >>proven his contention that it won't perform well for any apps.  What a >  >  >>crock. >  > J > No offence, but I speak as an independent observer who's been lurking inD > this group for quite a while...  And I'm afraid, you just lost the > argument.r > C > Jesus, what is it with you guys?  (That is, HP+Cpaq et al.)  As awD > customer, I'd kinda expect you to jump at the chance to prove yourE > product performs well.  This whole "if you don't think our stuff isuG > great it's obviously because you're ignorant - go on, prove me wrong"sH > attitude is just one reason why I won't be spending my company's moneyG > on your kit.  Which is a crying shame, because I have a great deal ofe5 > respect for DEC and the engineers who produced VMS.  > F > I find it depressing because I think competition is a good thing forJ > development.  But you aren't competing - you're clinging on to a rapidlyC > shrinking customer base while trying to pretend it doesn't matteroC > because the people on 'your' side are somehow better, and so more I > important, than everyone else on 'their' side.  But eventually everyonepD > on 'your' side is going to be dead, and by then it'll be too late. >  > <Sigh> > 
 > Regards,I > Tim.  (A lurker, who lurks because he respects VMS - but has no respect , >        at all for its vendor right now...) >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:02:59 -0500m* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants2 Message-ID: <T6acnd8WRskq2_GjXTWcpw@metrocast.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageD news:3rSaa.213650$Zr%.178929@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... >u7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagen. > news:iwidnbasiOQAIvajXTWcoQ@metrocast.net... > >t? > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagee; > > news:b096a4ee.0303090902.60368320@posting.google.com...a > > >o= > > > Uh, the PLO was founded in 1964, three years before they > "occupation".y > > > Can you explain that?t > >oA > > Well, their name just *might* provide a clue.  In 1964, their. > objective wasuG > > still to retake Israel itself - land which was in a very real sense = > > 'occupied' but from which a large portion of the previouso > inhabitants hadi0 > > been evicted rather than oppressed in place. >l >a > Bill,h >hE > Arabs living in the pre-partition Palestine either chose to stay ineG > the newly formed Israel, or they chose to leave in 1948-49....in both-E > cases it was of their own free will. It was not an eviction, as youn > seem to suggest.  F Mea culpa:  "I'm an engineer, Jim, not a historian."  However, while aH willingness to embrace the existing Arab population reflects well on theK Israelis (or it could have been a precondition imposed by the U.N., if theywH had an inkling that perhaps this was not quite as much a 'land without aL people' as they had claimed), it does not erase the wrong, at least for thatG portion of the Arab population which did not care to be so embraced andeJ wanted their lives to continue as before rather than under a new (and very different) regime.   > C > The majority of those that left did so under the premise that theMH > surrounding Arab nations would re-mount an offensive against Israel inE > short order and that many of those that left wanted to take part in2E > that offensive. That those who left Israel were 'disenfranchised or H > shortchanged' by the surrounding Arab nations by not again mounting anD > offensive against Israel for many years has nothing to do with the& > actions of the government of Israel.  > Agreed:  that disappointment was certainly not Israel's fault.   >/H > I don't know the full extent of the political situation within Israel,D > but it is my understanding that Arbs living inside of Israel carryC > Israeli passports and have the right to vote, the right to attend F > schools, and conduct business, exactly the same as any other IsraeliE > citizen, Jewish or otherwise. That hardly constitutes oppression of  > those that remained.  J That portion of my comment referred to (and contrasted with) the plight ofL those in the Occupied Territories, who are indeed 'oppressed in place'.  ButI if indeed the Arabs who elected to remain in Israel in 1948 were accordedrG full citizenship, then they were certainly not oppressed in that sense,gD though they still were forced to choose between living under the new circumstances or leaving.e   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:55:38 +0100r9 From: Jan-Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derholm?= <aaa@aaa.com>e: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants' Message-ID: <3E6A66DA.43790126@aaa.com>M  G Wasn't Santa Claus, who have been windsurfing between Canada and the US 	 each yearoG for a long time, stopped this last Christmas by the US coast gard using/ 11/9 as an excuse ? Jan-Erik Sderholm.e   JF Mezei wrote:c > O > Canada should threathen to throw snowballs over the border to attack the USA.1   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:07:11 -0400s0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants/ Message-ID: <3E6C47AE.C68C37BB@vl.videotron.ca>_   Jan-Erik Sderholm wrote:  > I > Wasn't Santa Claus, who have been windsurfing between Canada and the US: > each yearrI > for a long time, stopped this last Christmas by the US coast gard usingm > 11/9 > as an excuse ?  N That is correct. He was entering teh USA illegally without papers. He was sentN to jail and later released.  (This was a guy un a Santa Claus suit windsurfingG across a river that borders Canada-USA, as he had done for many years).p  M The worst offense is still the canadian who was TRANSITING through JFK on histN way to Canada who was arrested and then illegally sent to Syria and accused ofJ something resulting in him being in prison, without the candain governmentM being advised, and without proper diplomatic process for deportation. The guyeG was travelling on a canadian passport from a vacation spot in the southeJ meditareanean and returning to Ottawa to get back to wrok while his family stayed an extra week there.     E And enough people disapeared from US immigration offices that AmnistymJ International setup booths in front of US immigration offices to take downL names of poeple going in, complete with whom to contact should they not comeN out. A few canadian citizens residing and working in the USA with a green cardJ showed up at the immigration offices followuing the call to "register" andL even though all their papers were in order and they were legally in the USA,K they were arrested and sent to jail because some civil servant decided somesL paperwork was not right. One of them, on how way to work as a senior managerM at a big database firm decided to stop at immigration office to inquire if heeK needed to do any paperwork/register, they decided he was late in showing up J and sent him to jail without legal recourse or access to lawyer. It wasn'tN until the employer called hom to find out why he hadn't showed up at work thatL the wife started to worry and called the police to declare a missing person,M at which point she was told her husband had been arrested and sent to jail ina southern california.  J This my american friends is the type of government you have elected. FolksK with legal paper to live and work in the USA, of canadian citizenship, withgG homs and families in teh USA , being arrested and sent to jail when the - voluntarily show up at an immigration office.c  N These are the types of stories one would have expected in the soviet union, orN perhaps in south american dictatorship countries. BUT THEY ARE HAPPENING EVERY$ DAY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:05:17 -0500o* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants2 Message-ID: <4WGdnVnFsczv7PGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>  ; "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messageu7 news:b096a4ee.0303092143.5b734c0e@posting.google.com...o7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageo. news:<iwidnbasiOQAIvajXTWcoQ@metrocast.net>...? > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagee; > > news:b096a4ee.0303090902.60368320@posting.google.com...'; > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messager3 > >  news:<9tSdnaaN1qrxAfSjXTWcog@metrocast.net>...AC > > > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message ? > > > > news:b096a4ee.0303070733.4e2ec2e2@posting.google.com...s? > > > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 3 > >  news:<a5idnRM8DszJYvqjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>...iG > > > > > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message C > > > > > > news:b096a4ee.0303061429.13ad17fc@posting.google.com...m   ...a  9 > > > > > >  Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.o# > > > > > > > defeated the Taliban.F > > > > > >aC > > > > > > Nor did they solidify into a nation.  And the tentatives
 government	 > >  thate > >  wetL > > > > > > installed is now criticizing us for not following through on our > >  promises ofJ > > > > > > continued involvement for the second time:  just as we dropped > >  AfghanistanI > > > > > > like a hot potato after helping what later became the TalibanT kick > >  out > >  theJ > > > > > > Soviets, we're 'way shy of the kind of support we promised the > >  currentI > > > > > > government, and they're specifically suggesting that if we doh the 	 > >  same 
 > >  thingF > > > > > > in Iraq (as Bush now seems to be suggesting in response to queries:
 > >  about > >  howF > > > > > > much all this will cost) there'll be major problems there.	 > > > > >a. > > > > > They're lucky we helped them at all. > > > >aJ > > > > You have a reasonably broad poll to that effect?  They, after all, are  > >  theK > > > > ones who get to decide whether our net effect was beneficial (i.e.,  > >  whetherJ > > > > they were 'lucky'), not us:  in the absence of reliable input from their F > > > > side, your statement sounds rather arrogant (and, regrettably,	 typically  > > > > American). > > >@G > > > We helped them kick the Soviets out. I don't see how that was not0 > > > beneficial.  > > I > > Since the end result was Taliban rule, I'd say that assessment was atr leastT > > questionable.o >U> > Well, it's not like we knew the Taliban would be the result.  L Doesn't matter what we knew:  what matters is assessing whether helping themK kick out the Soviets was ultimately beneficial, as you suggested above.  IfeH it was, then we might have some legitimate claim to some gratitude (yourI original point, in case you had forgotten how this sub-thread began), but K since it turned out not so well (not that we intended that:  we just didn'tnL bother to stick around to ensure a better outcome) your point seems blunted.  	  The wererD > invaded by the Soviets, and we helped them turn back the invasion. > Normally that's a good thing.   J Really?  We, after all, invaded too and kicked out the existing governmentJ (the Taliban):  would someone else have been doing them a favor by kicking us out and restoring it?  I There's at least a fair chance that most Afghans didn't give a hoot about G the Soviets one way or another, but would just have preferred things toeH quiet down for once in their history.  We certainly didn't do anyone who felt that way a favor.   >u > > ' > > > Maybe we shouldn't have bothered.y > >rH > > Your phrasing suggests that we 'bothered' out of the goodness of our hearts,aI > > when in fact we couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan itself (as  was G > > rapidly made clear after our real goal was met), just about our own- > > perceived interests. > H > No, we didn't do it for the Afghans in particular. It seems to me thatB > we did it to help contain Communism both for our benefit and theF > world's in general. Look at Communism in N. Korea. It's unbelievablyG > awful. And Soviet Communism was pretty bad, too. It seems to me to bes> > a good goal to try to prevent more of that. Even the best ofC > intentions can have unexpected and undesirable consequences. It'siH > pretty easy with hindsight, which one never has at the time of action, > of course.  I The time that was the most problematic was not the time of action but therJ aftermath.  IIRC the possibility that Afghanistan would revert to a feudalL society with no real government was hardly unknown at that time:  this is ofK course a great recipe for internal disaster, but once the Soviets were gonea we just didn't care.   >yI > > > I have a feeling that we'd have this Islamic fundamentalism to dealoL > > > with even if the U.S. didn't do all the bad things you claim it did. I; > > > can't prove it, but you can't prove otherwise either.d > >IH > > However, since proof *does* exist (and not only in the form of 9/11) that aK > > lot of people around the world hate us, and since there are some pretty J > > clear reasons for this which have been advanced, the onus is on you toJ > > provide credible alternative reasons rather than just claim "Well, you can'tt; > > *prove* it" like the tobacco companies did for so long.o >WH > A lot of people believe a lot of silly things. Sorry, being a majority > doesn't make them right.  H Sorry, but your comment indicates that you need to reread the discussionC that you were responding to:  it had nothing to do with any kind ofdF 'majority', and you completely failed to address the issue of relative% evidence (which you yourself raised).d   >nH > > Absolute certainty is extremely rare in this world, but that doesn't cause I > > total inability to act on less than complete information:  if it did,tG > > nothing would ever get done.  That's in fact the rationale Dubya isiK > > attempting to use for invading Iraq, but the problem is that he doesn'tr evenC > > have anything like the *preponderance* of evidence on his side.l > G > Then what is his motivation? He is risking his very presidency on it.a  > There must be something to it.  G Either he just wants to be reelected (and there's no conceivable reasonrH people would reelect him other than this escalating 'war on <whatever>',H since his foreign and domestic agendas are in tatters), or he has boughtI into the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et al. 'New American Century' doctrineoK hook, line, and sinker (which states that Iraq should be taken care of withnI or without the approval of the U.N. as a matter of U.S. geopolitical - as F distinct from defense - interest that is largely unrelated to the U.N.E demands, though they are still, however, being used in the attempt to H provide a fig-leaf of legitimacy for the war even though the U.N. itself doesn't want it).    >  > >p > > >aK > > > > > > > > Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else.  We, as  > > > >  foreignersc > > > >  toyI > > > > > > > > Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its ownh
 > >  borders,c > > > >  ore > > > >  usingH > > > > > > > > banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the others
 > >  hand, > > > >  the
 > > > >  USA, I > > > > > > > > with the death penalty, is really in no position to arguei that > > > >  Saddam: > > > >  has nohE > > > > > > > > right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.  > > >  > > > It's not the same. > >lL > > You're right:  it's not the same.  But neither is it entirely different:H > > aren't we after all the only major Western nation that still has the death D > > penalty, and if so doesn't that move us at least one step in the	 directiongE > > of Saddam (leaving aside the institution of military tribunals ton
 substituteJ > > for otherwise required judicial process, recent discussions of whetherE > > torture may be justified in interrogating prisoners, etc. - whichn
 activitiesK > > hardly seem likely to promote the free and democratic values around thet, > > world which we profess to hold so dear)? >  > But it's different enough.  L Not for my taste, it isn't:  our current direction in these areas alarms and disgusts me.  *  BTW, I am against the death penalty, even& > though I believe some do deserve it.  I That's in no way sufficient to justify it, if only because of the radical)I differences in opinions about who 'deserves' it.  I think the pair in the L White House deserves it more than most and possibly all people on death row, for example.     I am against it because I thinkD > there is too much of a chance that innocent people will or alreadyH > have been killed. And it causes too much trouble. Life without parole,B > maybe in solitary confinement in extreme cases, would be better.  L Indeed it would.  A major additional problem IMO with the state taking livesJ *as a punishment* is that there's always another option available (such asL life without parole) that can protect society every bit as much.  Given thatK there's always an alternative, electing to put someone to death anyway setsrK a rather bad example for individuals, who are encouraged by law not to kill  when an alternative exists.o   >iG > So you're saying that if someone steals your land, you have the rightt > to go and kill them?  G I'd say you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to get itaL back, though of course in civilized situations you just appeal to the properH authorities and they get it back for you via the legal process (i.e., noA force on your part is necessary).  Unfortunately, the options the L Palestinians have for force (let alone legal remedies) are severely limited.  /  But that would be the death penalty, which you B > are against, except, of course, for Palestinian suicide bombers.  L Are you really incapable of distinguishing between the actions a state takesJ upon a criminal already in custody (i.e., a situation over which they haveI complete control and can handle whatever way is most appropriate) and thenG actions individuals (or states) take while engaged in an armed conflict0I (where there's precious little control and one just does the best one can9 while trying to survive)?m  K The death penalty is a punishment handed out (or preferably not handed out)aI by some constituted authority in a controlled manner.  Getting killed in,pK e.g., the course of an armed robbery is something entirely different, as iscE getting killed in an armed conflict (which includes suicide bombing).    ...t  J > > Had the current level of anti-war protest - very specifically, protestI > > against action in the absense of U.N. sanction - emerged a few monthsr agosJ > > rather than been lulled by Dubya's apparent willingness to involve the U.N.K > > in the process, we would probably not be where we are today but insteads haveC > > built up a consensus for action *in parallel with* the militarya	 build-up:cG > > same amount of military pressure, but vastly more unified political L > > pressure.  Saddam appears willing to allow Iraq to be attacked if in theI > > process this will isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world, and soe faraE > > his plan seems to be succeeding considerably better than Dubya's.  >aF > I never thought that Bush cared much about the U.N. He only involvedG > them hoping to get them on his side to reduce potential opposition to-D > his plans. If the protestors thought otherwise, they were foolish.G > Actually, I thought this was pretty obvious from the start. You couldrH > tell he was thinking "All right, I'll try to get the U.N. in on this".E > I'm not sure, but I think he's always said that the U.S. will do it  > alone if it has to.I  L He certainly has since about late last summer, anyway.  And it may have beenJ naive to suspect that this was just a bargaining tactic aimed at obtainingI U.N. approval (or even just aimed at getting the U.N. to start taking the>I matter seriously:  if that was the goal, I could even approve of it if itaI weren't for how bad it made us look in the eyes of the rest of the world,tI who had every reason to take him at his word).  But the idea that America ? would actually *commit* such an overt act of aggression without L international approval (especially with Colin Powell so clearly committed toK that approval and seemingly having the upper hand in Administration policy)mD was certainly hard for *me* to accept, and I doubt that I was alone.   ...m  L > > > It has been found that previous inspections were flawed. Why are theseH > > > any better? I find it hard to believe that Saddam has given up his > > > nuclear ambitions. > >eJ > > If such unsupported suspicions were justification for war, there would nevero > > be any peace anywhere. >4@ > Haven't the defectors told us about the nuclear plans? I don'tF > remember specifically what they said. Also, I'm not so sure they are > so unsupported.b  3 Then become better informed before arguing further.r    > > > > > > > That's not enough? > > > > > >sG > > > > > > No, it's not.  Not after decades of supporting regimes thatn oppresse
 > >  theirD > > > > > > citizenry (because doing so suits our own interests) and propping up 	 > > > > >-@ > > > > > So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified? > > > > I > > > > I'm saying they were understandable:  there were causes for them,t andm
 > >  those@ > > > > causes would not have existed had our behavior been more considerate.K > > > > Whether they were justified is a subjective judgement and much moreT > >  subject > > > > to debate. > > >uK > > > Let's see, we protected Osama's homeland from Iraq. Yes, I think thatn* > > > deserves a retailiatory attack! NOT. > >fJ > > Iraq's threat to Saudi Arabia was hypothetical.  Our military presence thereh
 > > was real.u >dH > And wasn't one of the, if not the, major complaint of Osama, that holyH > land was defiled by the mere presence of American troops? For this, we= > are to somehow see justification for the 9/11 attacks? Huh?o  J Religious reasons can be very strong ones in the faithful.  You don't haveG to agree with their importance, but it's clearly unwise to minimize it..   >  > > > >  Are you for > > > > > real?  > > > >lL > > > > Indeed I am.  And the terrorists are even more real:  despising them
 > >  won'tK > > > > make them go away, but understanding their motives and eliminating,. to > >  theJ > > > > degree we can reasonably do so, the causes for them would at least help.( > > >rL > > > I didn't say despising them will make them go away. DON'T PUT WORDS IN > > > MY MOUTH.g > >mI > > Perhaps 'despising' was not the best word to use.  By asking "Are you6 for.K > > real?" you suggested that my position was so far out on the fringe thatp itF > > didn't matter.  My point is that the very real attacks of 9/11 and	 elsewherenK > > prove that such positions *do* matter, regardless of what you may think, ofJ > > them:  you may not agree with them, but you ignore them at your peril. >s< > Who said to ignore them? Their motives? They hate America.  * And, as noted, with understandable reason.  	  They aree > envious of America.   
 Probably not.d  .  They have been taught that America is full ofD > infidels who must be destroyed so they can set up a strict Islamic > world.  L Debatable:  while America *is* indeed full of infidels from their viewpoint,J I don't think Islam is aggressive in converting let alone eliminating such8 people - as long as they leave the true believers alone.  =  These are people who insist that their religion is the rightr9 > one and everyone else must either convert or be killed.7  B Pure bullshit on your part:  learn something about Islam and about terrorists.o   ...o  > > >  If we can take actions that will reduce the number of newJ > > > terrorist recruits, I'm all for them. But those already in the causeD > > > are hopeless and nothing we can do short of destroying them orC > > > capturing them will stop them from committing more terrorism.o > > I > > Since you don't seem to have a clue about the detailed motivation for L > > terror, it's not clear why you think you understand terrorists nearly to thebH > > degree that your last sentence suggests.  However, since the actions mostL > > likely to reduce the inclination of people to become terrorists are alsoK > > probably those most likely to reduce the motivation of already-existingf( > > terrorists, I'm not sure it matters. >sH > Sorry, I don't believe it. And I'm getting tired of the insults. Maybe& > it's you who are getting sophomoric.   No, I'm just blunt.h    If you have to insult me withE > "you don't seem to have a clue", then you weaken your own argument.b  D Not at all:  it's simply an observation (and one that applies rather frequently).  G Your sincerity is clear, but your thought processes are often decidedly, muddled.  G > I'm trying to stay above that. All right, maybe I let a few sneak in.h5 > I apologize for that. I will endeavor to do better.    OK:  so will I.p   > E > Anyway, I still find it very hard to believe that anything short ofrE > converting America to a Taliban-like state will stop any current Al  > Qaeda members.  K Well, that's certainly the view Dubya would like to sell people.  But since I I know of no evidence whatsoever to support it (nor any line of reasoningeG that would), I'm inclined to consider it pure poppycock:  if we did nothG dramatically impact Islamic countries, I suspect that Al Qaeda wouldn'teG bother us at all (as, in fact, they don't bother most other non-Islamic  countries in the world).   >'K > > > > > > Israel's occupation and, worse, settlement activities for threes > >  decades< > > > > > > despite the condemnation of the world community.	 > > > > >rB > > > > > It was the Arabs fault that there even is an occupation. > > > >oG > > > > Really?  Their fault for attempting to retake the land that wasu taken 	 > >  fromaG > > > > them in 1948?  I'm afraid you have a bit of a blind spot there.o > > >nE > > > Uh, remember the, uh, UN? That organization you seem to find soEK > > > important? It was they who divided the land into a Jewish state and ao > > > Palestinian state. > >nF > > So they erred in that case:  nobody's perfect, but it doesn't mean they're2H > > generally useless either.  And after an additional half-century they shouldC > > have learned at least a bit more about how to handle the world.I > ) > So maybe they erred in this case, also.t  J Ah, but their inaction - even if it is in fact not the ideal course - doesJ not in any way give the U.S. the right to step in in their stead:  we onlyL have the right to self-defense (which our intelligence agencies have clearlyK stated is not apparently at issue here), or the defense of other nations if I they're attacked, or (IMO) the defense of internal populations threatenedl) with genocide - none of which apply here.f   >e > >oJ > > *Who* was responsible for the land-grab really doesn't change the fact thatI > > trying to get it back was understandable and defensible, which was my  point. >iG > I don't know the full history of that stupid piece of land. I do knowsD > that the Jews have been probably the most persecuted people on theG > planet. And after WWII they said ENOUGH! Is it so terrible for such aeF > people to obtain, via the UN, a small parcel of land that was once aE > very small part of their ancient homeland, after what the world hasm > done to the Jews?   L Yes, it is - if that act involves taking it from someone else.  The Jews, of@ all people, should understand this, and in fact many of them do.  K Quite possibly no one involved in the creation of Israel was *deliberately*/H persecuting the native Arabs - they just didn't consider them important.E The subsequent half-century has proved that this was an error of somenG significance.  Without presuming to suggest exactly how the creation ofuH Israel could have been handled better, I feel certain that it could have7 been - but no one thought the Arabs merited the effort.    >eG > BTW, we could redraw quite a few borders. We could give the U.S. backeE > to the native Americans. I'm sure Europe would look different, too."= > And probably the rest of the world. So why focus on Israel?t  F AFAIK once Israel was created no one but the Arabs themselves proposedH redrawing it back out of existence.  But the fact that the Arabs did getE screwed in the process makes many people sympathetic to their current I demands not to get screwed again in the area of the Occupied Territories,pJ now that they have expressed willingness to give up their claims to Israel proper.s   > I > > > Can you explain how you totally disregard the UN for that, but findu? > > > them so important, or is the word, convenient, now? HMMM?  > >uH > > While I just did so above, I'm getting a bit tired of the sophomoric nature > > of some of your responses. >e > That's your opinion. >,F > Now, come on. You found it very important to include the UN for thisG > Iraq thing. Then you belittle it for Israel because *your* opinion is & > different. I find that inconsistent.  L Then you haven't been paying close enough attention.  The reason the U.N. isI important in the case of the proposed war on Iraq is because the U.S. hasgK *no* legitimate justification for invading Iraq on its own.  So whether theoK U.N. is right or wrong (however you might define those) on the issue of the G war itself is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the U.S.n# should invade without its approval.a  I By contrast, in the case of the creation of Israel it is the propriety ofvK the U.N.'s actions rather than the propriety of the U.S.'s actions which isn	 at issue.d   >c > > > >  And it is theE > > > > > Palestinians' fault that they don't have their own country.f > > > >fI > > > > They had had what they needed:  why would they care about gettingn lines 	 > >  on ae > > > > map in exchange? > > >uK > > > Uh, the PLO was founded in 1964, three years before the "occupation".s > > > Can you explain that?i > >iK > > Well, their name just *might* provide a clue.  In 1964, their objectiveb wasiG > > still to retake Israel itself - land which was in a very real senseeI > > 'occupied' but from which a large portion of the previous inhabitantsh hade0 > > been evicted rather than oppressed in place. > C > But you said the Palestinians were happy that they had their lands > between 1948 and 1967.  L No, I did not.  I said that they were happy with the land they had had priorK to 1948.  When that land (Israel proper) was taken from them, being offeredfH a 'country' in return (i.e., lines on a map which meant nothing to them)K would not have seemed very good compensation.  And by the same token, beingaJ offered a country today probably doesn't seem good compensation for givingL up some of the Occupied Territories:  they likely feel that giving up Israel proper was plenty.   >k > >x > > >n > > > >: > > > >  They could = > > > > > have had one in 1948, but they went to war instead.  > > > >nH > > > > Funny how some people get upset when you grab the land they were living > >  on. > > >iI > > > Well, your venerable UN said that was the right thing to do. And itd  > > > was a small piece of land. > >uJ > > So if I come along and take your house away, do you just grin and bear it4 > > because it is just a small piece of real estate? > F > It's a little more complex than that. Some claim that the Arabs told? > the Palestinians to leave and let the Arab armies destroy theuG > just-born state of Israel after which they could return. Some counteroH > that argument, though. I don't know what the real truth of this is and > you probably don't either.  K That's correct, as John just pointed out.  But it remains true that placingaC the Palestinians in that situation in the first place was not just.i   >r/ > >  Smaller than the pre-1967 Israel. They hade. > > > the rest, but chose war and lost it all. > > I > > They chose to try to take back what had been theirs.  Who won the ward doesD > > not affect the legitimacy of that goal, nor legitimize permanent
 occupation > > of *more* land as a result.e >d. > It wasn't theirs, it was under British rule.  J So your house isn't yours, it's under American rule?  And if Dubya decides@ to give it to someone else you won't have any problem with that?   >  > >: > > >0 > > > >  From 1948 to 1967C > > > > > they didn't care that they didn't have their own country.i > > > >w0 > > > > See above:  they just wanted their land. > > >>& > > > See above, PLO, founded in 1964. > >iI > > I guess you really didn't understand, after all:  'their land' in ther abovepK > > context was *Israel*.  There's a clear parallel in civil law:  the factd thatK > > you may have been given stolen property by the party who stole it in noi wayuK > > confers any title to that property (even if you paid for it) - it stills- > > rightfully belongs to the original owner.  >eG > Well, it depends how far back you go in time. Go back far enough, andsH > it was Jewish land. And why aren't you complaining about all the other< > stolen land in the world? You are focusing on Israel. Why?  E My problems with Israel are almost all post-Rabin.  Before Rabin, thecI situation was an unstable mess that was at least largely not the fault of J Israel (or the Palestinians).  Rabin helped cut through that mess toward aB solution, about the fairest one could imagine - and Arafat and the5 Palestinians seemed to find his proposals acceptable.u  I Then Rabin was killed and Israel drew back from his proposals rather thanoD simply completed them.  To be blunt, Israel not only allowed Rabin'sL assassin to succeed in his aims (which was disgusting) but took advantage ofH the event to become greedy (this was also disgusting, because it clearlyH assumed the ability to use its superior force to obtain a better bargainK with the Palestinians than it had already agreed to, now that Rabin was out- of the way).  J Since then, Israel has continued its occupation, increased its oppression,G and to a large degree met atrocity with atrocity.  This last is neitherDL sensible (it just escalates the violence) nor responsible:  by virtue of itsJ vastly superior power (compared with individuals) a state has the ability,D and the responsibility, not to meet criminal behavior with similarly criminal behavior.   >WI > > I don't advocate returning Israel to the Palestinians *now*, and as Iw noted H > > they also appear willing to accept that as long as they get back the other  > > land taken *after* 1948. >6B > I don't believe it. They appear to want to take the whole thing.8 > Sometimes it appears that they just want to kill Jews.  G What they *want* is an end to the occupation (well, I'm sure they would J *like* Israel back as well, but they've agreed to pass on that if they canG get it out of the occupied territories).  But since they have no way tohL obtain this goal by conventional military means, in the absence of agreement' by Israel all they can do is kill Jews.    >e > > > >  If the ArabshL > > > > > hadn't forced Israel into a war in 1967, there'd be no occupation. > > > > I > > > > And if Israel hadn't been carved out of land that the donors werer not,	 > >  freeo' > > > > to give, there'd be no problem.e > > >tL > > > The UN did it. Had the Arabs accepted the decision of the UN, accepted5 > > > Israel's right to exist, there'd be no problem.n > >iL > > The U.N. decision (including Israel's 'right to exist') was an arbitrary onelI > > by a very newly-established body still finding its feet.  It was easy  foraI > > the great powers to accept and support the decision because it didn'tn affectL > > them (save to assuage some of the collective guilt for what had happened toI > > the Jews under Hitler and to which many of them had turned a somewhatt blinduL > > eye for so long).  It was a lot harder for the people evicted from theirL > > land to accept, and they responded in an entirely understandable manner. >l, > Well, it's controversial who ejected them.  G Nonetheless, their homeland was taken to establish a new state (perhaps L worse, a religious state with under a religion other than their own).  ThoseK who found that acceptable may not have had any problem, but clearly a great " many did *not* find it acceptable.   >h > >i > > >iK > > > > > If the Palestinians had made as good an offer to Israel as IsraeloC > > > > > under Ehud made to them, and if Israel responded with thei
 equivalentC > > > > > of an intifada, wouldn't you be pretty angry with Israel?r > > > >iH > > > > Not in the slightest:  it's the roles and their history that are< > > > > significant, not the specifics of who occupies them. > > > >t > > > >  Hmmm? Oh,H > > > > > but turn the tables and somehow you still find Israel to be at fault. > > > > E > > > > Funny how you assume the issue is about ethnicity rather thanc issues.p > >  ButJ > > > > it does give some insight into Israeli hard-line thinking (or what > >  passese > > > > for it). > > >wG > > > FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD! Israel offered them a country. A negotiating I > > > starting point. They could have bargained for something better. But6F > > > they attacked! So I guess according to you and them the IsraelisI > > > should just pack up and leave, or just commit suicide. yeah, that'ss > > > what you seem to want. > > L > > It doesn't matter what I want (or what you want).  What the PalestiniansK > > seem to want (and what seems reasonable to me) is for Israel to get outM ofE > > the territory it occupied since 1948 in return for a cessation ofdL > > hostilities and relinquishing of the claim to the land of Israel proper. NoL > > one is asking the Israelis to 'pack up and leave' from Israel itself any, > > more:  that's just right-wing hyperbole. > > > If they only bombed the settlements, you would have a point.   I have a point anyway.  	  But theys > also bomb pre-1948 Israel.  L Of course they do:  it's a war, and carrying it to the home of the occupyingK force is likely to be considerably more effective than limiting it to theirc	 own soil.n  *  Also, Palestinian maps show all of IsraelF > as part of the future state of Palestine. All you seem to care aboutH > is what the Palestinians want. Suppose they want all the riches of theC > world? Should we give that to them? What they want means nothing.N  K I guess that's true, if you're willing to get used to suicide bombings (andeK other terrorist activity) in perpetuity.  Otherwise, you might want to giveuI their desires a bit more consideration (which would also improve Israel'seH somewhat tarnished image in much of the world, should it care about such things).   ...   2 > >  People like you want negotiations. THAT WAS AJ > > > NEGOTIATION AND IT WAS RESPONDED TO WITH VIOLENCE!!! What more couldG > > > Israel do except self-destruct? After countless wars by the ArabsoD > > > against Israel, I say they are entitled to defendable borders. > >pG > > And I say that they wouldn't need to worry nearly so much about theA natureJ > > of their borders (which are of course reasonably defendable regardless ofL > > where they're drawn in this day and age) if they took the land for peaceD > > deal that has been on the table since Rabin nearly completed it. >r? > Are you actually blaming the Palestinians here for something?    Nope.   	  Sorry, I.$ > missed your point. Who are "they"?   'They' are Israel.   >t	 > >  Yes,d@ > > > you conveniently forget all the Arabs wars against Israel. > >yK > > IIRC Israel started both the 1967 and the 1973 wars, so the 'countless'  warsK > > by the Arabs against Israel at least technically seem to be confined toe the E > > single one in 1948 (at least I think there was one then) - thougho
 there's anL > > excellent chance that they would have started at least one of the others if( > > Israel hadn't attacked preemptively. >tD > I find it hard to believe that Israel "started" these wars without@ > good reason. But that's just my opinion. I don't have detailedE > knowledge of these wars. But I do think that Egypt made some ratheriG > offensive moves if not actual attacks in the 1973 war. Wait a minute.tF > ISTR that Egypt attacked ON Yom Kippur. That's why it was called theD > Yom Kippur war. So I belive it was Egypt who attacked. And in 1967G > didn't the Arabs blockade the Gulf of Aqaba? Is not a blockade an act 	 > of war?-  L Beats me - I just remember that Israel started the shooting war, though as IH said there wasn't much doubt that shooting would have begun soon anyway.   >r > >  > >  How can youL > > > negotiate with people like these, who respond to peace offers with the > > > Intifada round II? > >eF > > You *really* don't get it.  A peace offer which doesn't adequately addresseH > > the issues for which you're fighting is merely a capitulation, so of courseI > > you don't accept it.  And you use whatever means are available to you3 (whichI > > in this case is *precisely* the Intifada) to continue the fight untilw$ > > something acceptable is offered. >AB > Well, when your country is attacked by suicide bombers, don't be5 > surprised if such country responds like Israel did.3  J Er, we *were* attacked by suicide bombers (in planes), and, unfortunately,K we *did* react very much as Israel did (and I was surprised, and dismayed).>  
  The intifada % > doesn't seem to have done any good.o  $ Give it time:  it's only just begun.     It solidified the right wing inG > Israel. It turned most doves into hawks. And it resulted in worseningnG > of the Palestinians situation. No, I don't think it was justified and # > I don't think it was a good idea..  E I'll remind you once again that no one's opinion matters here but thelL Palestinians':  if *they* think it's the right approach, it *will* continue.   ...   H > > Relinquishing their claim to Israel proper (i.e., to a great deal of whatJ > > was *their* land) is a *major* concession that reflects the reality of overJ > > a half-century of use and development by Israel.  Demanding the return ofL > > the rest of *their* land, which in no comparable way has Israel invested in,s > > is hardly unreasonable.  > H > I haven't heard of this relinquishing. And if they did, I suspect it's	 > a ruse.o  ( Fine attitude:  get used to the bombers.   > L > > > > > Yeah, there were complaints about the offer Ehud made to them. But itJ > > > > > is controversial just what these problems were. Even so, had theG > > > > > Palestinians accepted it it would have been the best thing to  happen > > > > > to them in decades.e > > > > I > > > > And that's a *good* thing?  Rather, it's a sad commentary on whath > >  they've- > > > > had to put up with for those decades.s > > >t' > > > Uh, the status quo is any better?, > >iF > > That's their decision to make.  And it's pretty clear that they're willingdL > > to continue the status quo until they feel that they have been offered a > > just alternative.s >t= > If everyone insisted on total justice, it would be mutually E > incompatible and there would be constant war resulting in even lessr1 > justice. Sometimes you just have to compromise.e  G They're more than willing to:  Israel can keep the land within its 1948dJ borders rather than give it *all* back.  And since it's not clear that theF OTs are of any real importance to Israel as a nation, that's not a bad# compromise from Israel's viewpoint.o   >w > >n" > >  They could have had their ownC > > > country and an end to the "occupation". How is that not good?  > > J > > My strong impression is that they were offered an end to *some* of theK > > occupation in return for relinquishing their claim on the *rest* of the  landI > > occupied since 1967 and 1973.  If so, I can easily see how that would  not be > > acceptable.  >aG > So anytime anyone finds something unacceptable, instead of bargainingeB > for something better, they should send in the suicide bombers. I- > thought you were against the death penalty.t   You're very confused again.r   ...y  
 > >  Oh, IH > > > see, it is not the ideal, uptopic solution, so better to wallow inF > > > misery than accept a less than perfect offer. Sorry, I don't buy > > > reasoning like that. > >rH > > You don't have to:  it's their decision whether that's acceptable or whetheraL > > the Intifada should continue.  And at least some people don't find their7 > > decision to continue the fight at all unreasonable.  > 9 > That doesn't mean they made a wise or justified choice.   A No, but neither are others' opinions in such areas very relevant.g   >l7 > > > >  And to respond to even a slightly flawed offeru > > > > > with suicide bombers?y > > > >.L > > > > Well, Israel *did* have the opportunity to fix the flaws, but wasn't > > > > inclined to. > > >vL > > > Just what the flaws were and even if they existed is controversial. WeJ > > > don't really know. Israel had the opportunity? They were attacked in( > > > response!!! That's an opportunity? > >tI > > Israel hasn't been 'attacked' since 1948, nor has an attack even beentL > > credibly threatened since 1973.  They could stop what you're choosing toI > > describe as 'attacks' (i.e., the Intifada) tomorrow by addressing thei$ > > concerns they failed to address. >y > Nonsense.e  J Your claim that Israel did not have the opportunity to fix the flaw in theK deal is what's nonsense:  as I noted, they could fix them tomorrow and haver peace the next day.    ...t   > > > >  What it8 > > > > > does is show what the Palestinians really are. > > > > J > > > > Yup:  unwilling to be pushed beyond a certain point, regardless of the 
 > >  cost. > > >l9 > > > You could just as well say that about the Israelis.o > > G > > No, you couldn't:  they are not an occupied people but an occupying, power.L > > What the Palestinians want is freedom; what the Israelis seem to want is > > their land.v > 9 > The Jews have been persecuted by the rest of the world.e  ? And this gives them some right to oppress others?  I think not.r    After WWIIsH > they said "never again" and realized that the only way to survive as aH > people was to establish their own country. Would it really have been a? > great injustice if Israel had it's initial allotment of land?n  - Wholly depends on how that land was obtained.n    YouC > can't have 100% justice for everyone. It's physically impossible.   J Not in this case:  just find some land that was either *really* unoccupied5 or that could be purchased and given to the Israelis.p   ...i   > > > >  They want to destroyeD > > > > > Israel. It still says so in the PLO's charter. IT SAYS SO! > > > >sI > > > > Well, at least it used to.  The PLO has stated repeatedly that it  wouldn	 > >  give  > > >hH > > > LAST I HEARD IT STILL DOES. HHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > >rJ > > The willingness to remove it is clear.  But while hostilities continue they > > have no reason to do so. > H > What willingness? There's no such thing. They have no reason to do so?E > Huh? Israel should bargain with a people who have clearly stated inlG > print, in that charter, that their primary goal is the destruction of C > the state of Israel? There's no asterisk that says "well, if theylE > would just be nice and fair to us, we'll be happy to live in peace,b > side by side with them".  - OK.  As I said, just get used to the bombers.e   >u > >e > > >tH > > > > up that goal if Israel would give up its occupation, which is in fact aG > > > > *major* concession (i.e., they're finally willing to relinquisht their 
 > >  claimJ > > > > to the land taken in 1948, as long as they get back the land taken > >  later). > > > L > > > Isn't this what was offered by Ehud? And they responded with violence. > >tE > > If that were the case, I'd have to reevaluate my feelings on thise matter.nJ > > But I don't believe that Barak offered more than partial return of the land > > taken after 1948.  >kE > Again you insist on 100% justice for Palestinians without regard toeC > anything else. Why do you focus on them? What about all the othert* > cases? The American Indian, for example.  F *If* the American Indians sought specific reparations for identifiableD injustices and resorted to terrorism if they failed to get them, I'dG sympathize with them as well:  even though most of those injustices aresL older than any living memory, our government should still be responsible forG correcting them.  Giving back most of our country is clearly infeasiblecG (some other reasonable reparations would have to be found), but I'm not F suggesting that Israel give back *any* of the 1948 land, just the OTs.   ...s   > > > >  though I have littletK > > > > > for the "settlers" who obviously don't help matters. I understand. howBK > > > > > people are not happy with the settlements. But it seems to me thei. > > > > > Palestinians are much more at fault. > > > >b  > > > > Other viewpoints differ. > > >i' > > > Yes, other viewpoints are biased.h > >rF > > Certainly no more than your own, and since you appear to be in the minorityB > > of world opinion in this matter arguably *less* than your own. >m. > Majority opinion does not imply correctness.  K In matters of degree of fault it's about the only metric one has.  And from J a technical standpoint it may actually *define* the concept of 'bias' (the point at issue here).i   ...p  C > > > > importance.  But even large portions of the American Jewish'
 population	 > >  (and J > > > > for that matter many liberal Israelis) are torn between loyalty to thec	 > >  ideahH > > > > of a Jewish state and horror at some of the things that state is doing. > > >rG > > > True, but for every bad Israeli deed there are hundereds of worsenJ > > > Palestinian deeds. No country is perfect, but people like you always6 > > > hold Israel, and Israel alone, to that standard. > >aJ > > The Palestinians are not a country, but an oppressed people.  As such, theyJ > > take what actions they can and many people around the world understandH > > though deplore the necessity.  Israel, by contrast, is a country, anI > > occupying power, and a military powerhouse:  it has the *capacity* tooK > > respond in a far more civilized and measured manner, and its failure toe do# > > so is the cause of the censure.i >,C > Only if they are willing to tolerate an endless string of suicidey
 > bombers.  G Again you don't get it:  they're going to have those *anyway* (at least J until they come to agreement about the OTs).  The only question is whetherE the state of Israel will act criminally in return and attract censure  thereby.   >e > >eJ > > Of course, since well over twice as many Palestinians have been killed byJ > > Israelis during the Intifada as the reverse, even your suggestion thatL > > Palestinians account for hundreds of atrocities for every Israeli one is > > absurd.n >c: > Well, that depends. The Israeli actions are retaliatory.   So are the Palestinian actions.e  
  And at leasti) > some of the deaths are their own fault.i  H The ratio would still be well over 2:1 even if *hundreds* of deaths were self-inflicted.y    Remember the ambulances thatsE > instead of carrying injured, actually carried more suicide bombers?   ? Hey, just 'cause they're oppressed doesn't mean they're stupid.l   >eG > If you're going to attack a country, you better expect a response andu6 > realize that there will be casualties on both sides.  E And if you're going to occupy a country you'd better expect the same.r   >eG > And when Israel retaliates, they attempt to kill only the terrorists.n  D No:  they attempt to kill the terrorists, and as few other people asL possible in the process.  If they truly attempted to kill *only* terrorists,K there would be almost no civilian casualties (but, of course, it would take  longer to get the terrorists).  E > They try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum (with perhaps oneo > exception event).n  J Even one such event is an atrocity.  And there have been considerably more	 than one.s  1  When the Palestinians attack, they *try* to kill F > civilians, even if some of the are Arabs! It is not the numbers, but0 > the motives, that prompted my statement above. >lG > That is a big difference. Israelis are trying to kill the terrorists.tG > The Palestinians are trying to kill all Israelis with maximum pain bys0 > putting nails and razors in the suicide bombs.  K That's guerilla war for you:  it's not pretty.  But the Israelis could stopo	 it today.h   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:16:08 +0000o' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy : Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants. Message-ID: <3E6C9018.8030703@nospamn.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:d > In article <3E6A0D64.5345873B@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes: >  >>Bill Todd wrote: >>G >>>You're really stretching on this one.  The show is aimed at the U.S.cA >>>audience, and is therefore about the FBI rather than the RCMP.n >>O >>Which comes back to the original point that US audiences do not consume stuffaL >>that originates from abroad in terms of TV/movies. They'll consume foreignH >>music as long as it is in english, with a few exceptions now and then. >>N >>Elsewhere in the world, folks have no problems consuming programming that isP >>set in various locations in the world. But the insular nature of the USA meansL >>that a self-perpetuated "only in the USA" mentality exists, and because itO >>exists, the big media outlets don't risk putting on foreign shows and becausenF >>they don't take that risk, the insular nature strenghtens even more. >>F >>Did you know that many of the most popular shows in the USA actuallyP >>originated abroad (Three's company, Who wants to be a millionaire etc etc) butP >>the USA decided to make their own copy instead of buying the existing show (in" >>the above cases, from england) ? >  > * > 	You are spinning in several directions. > A > 	First, it makes no sense to produce an American show overseas. : > 	Production costs would be unacceptable.  So if American? > 	producers find something that works overseas, sure they will 8 > 	buy the rights and produce it here, or where it makes, > 	sense to produce it.  That is why TorontoC > 	is becoming such a hot spot for production, costs are very good! A > 	Us insular arrogant Americans know about business, it appears:  >    Humm  ; Xena Warrior Princess or whatever the title is and Hercules 7 are both made in New Zealand but for a US audience. Newk9 Zealand isn't exactly a bus journey away from Los Angelese were the shows are commisioned.r   Regardsi Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:40:53 +0000 ' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyn: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants. Message-ID: <3E6C95E5.6010600@nospamn.sun.com>   Paddy O'Brien wrote: >  > * > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: > F > A nice and, to my knowledge, reasonably accurate description of the H > events that Andrew mentioned ... there were many others where (not to H > put down US, but as a European they do try to tell everyone that they J > won WWII unaided.  My father's cynical remarks were that they travelled E > around the liberated countries in trucks dishing out chocolate and eI > nylons for the obvious remuneration.  He did add, not all, but most of dC > the allied forces had warred for about 6 years with little break.n >   ? Hollywood helps a lot. I cannot remember the name of the recentt? film U something or other, which had heroic Americans capturing,E a German Enigma machine and thus winning the war. Looked historicallyrB accurate but was in fact based in real life on heroic Britains who0 captured an Enigma machine thus winning the war.    < >> Two British inventions were key in both the Uboat war and> >> the Battle of Britain, These were the Code Breaking program; >> at Bletchley Park which broke the Enigma Code and Radar.a >> > J > Alan Turing for one -- remind me of the other -- the bouncing bomb guy, E > didn't he also contribute to Radar?  And also I believe the author r1 > Dennis Wheatley was an army Major at Bletchley.a >   : Barnes Wallis invented the bouncing bomb. I don't think he< had anything to do with Radar. He also designed the illfated' R100 Airship and the Wellington Bomber.u  ; Watson-Watt another double barreled name invented the Radar ; as a means for locating aircraft though the origional ideas $ were for use in weather forecasting.   Regards  Andrew Harrison'   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:12:40 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) : Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants3 Message-ID: <THu+Se4KVezk@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  h In article <d7791aa1.0303070558.25c14065@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:  ? > not called for ... Iraq was probably behind both the OK. citys > and NY attacks  '    Yeah, I'll bet they killed JFK, too.n  D    Adding fantasy does not help justify the call for war on Iraq, it6    distracts from the facts and weakens the arguments.   ------------------------------   Date: 10 Mar 2003 14:21:56 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon): Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants6 Message-ID: <b4i724$1v9cvu$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>  3 In article <THu+Se4KVezk@eisner.encompasserve.org>, > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:j > In article <d7791aa1.0303070558.25c14065@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes: > @ >> not called for ... Iraq was probably behind both the OK. city >> and NY attacksr > ) >    Yeah, I'll bet they killed JFK, too.l > F >    Adding fantasy does not help justify the call for war on Iraq, it8 >    distracts from the facts and weakens the arguments.  D C'mon Bob.  He has never made the slightest bit of sense in anythingB he has said so far, why would anyone even consider his comments onH this subject worth any more comment than his comments on other subjects.   bill   -- 'J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:22:02 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) : Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants3 Message-ID: <7P3j49gkLpKu@eisner.encompasserve.org>d  b In article <3E6A9154.226A4A44@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes: > Don Sykes wrote:H >> But, I think this discussion is getting way off the mark. I don't see= >> how this supports the position of the myopic left on Iraq.e > N > Actually it doesn't. The insular nature of Americans means that because theyI > only ever hear one side of the story, especially when any opposition isiJ > silenced because any dissention would be labeled as "non-patriotic".  itH > become extremely easy for that one side to manipulate enough of the USI > population that polls will show support for a rogue government's plans.p  E    If that were true, I don't think we'd have heard so much about theaD    "damn liberal press" when the elder Bush was in office, nor wouldD    there be so much debate and demonstrations in the US now over the    impending war.g  F    We would not have folks telling me they are bothered by the French,H    our friends, trying to tell us we're doing the wrong thing, nor would?    we see Americans travelling to Iraq to act as human shields.e      a   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:04 -0000I* From: "Richard Brodie" <R.Brodie@rl.ac.uk>: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants, Message-ID: <b4i7l5$12ss@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>  5 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 0 news:b4i724$1v9cvu$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...  F > C'mon Bob.  He has never made the slightest bit of sense in anythingD > he has said so far, why would anyone even consider his comments onJ > this subject worth any more comment than his comments on other subjects.  C It's good to find that we have a consensus on something at least...r   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 07:54:35 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman): Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0303100754.5420e13e@posting.google.com>   d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<4WGdnVnFsczv7PGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>...= > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagey9 > news:b096a4ee.0303092143.5b734c0e@posting.google.com...n9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messages1 >  news:<iwidnbasiOQAIvajXTWcoQ@metrocast.net>...cA > > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messages= > > > news:b096a4ee.0303090902.60368320@posting.google.com...i= > > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagep1 >  news:<9tSdnaaN1qrxAfSjXTWcog@metrocast.net>...lE > > > > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messageNA > > > > > news:b096a4ee.0303070733.4e2ec2e2@posting.google.com...eA > > > > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageg1 >  news:<a5idnRM8DszJYvqjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>... I > > > > > > > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenE > > > > > > > news:b096a4ee.0303061429.13ad17fc@posting.google.com...b >  > ...f > ; > > > > > > >  Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.c% > > > > > > > > defeated the Taliban.i
 > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > Nor did they solidify into a nation.  And the tentativee
 >  governments > > >  thatU	 > > >  wenN > > > > > > > installed is now criticizing us for not following through on our >  promises ofL > > > > > > > continued involvement for the second time:  just as we dropped >  AfghanistanK > > > > > > > like a hot potato after helping what later became the Taliban  >  kicks
 > > >  out
 > > >  theL > > > > > > > Soviets, we're 'way shy of the kind of support we promised the
 >  currentK > > > > > > > government, and they're specifically suggesting that if we do  >  the > > >  samel > > >  thingH > > > > > > > in Iraq (as Bush now seems to be suggesting in response to
 >  queries > > >  about
 > > >  howH > > > > > > > much all this will cost) there'll be major problems there. > > > > > > 0 > > > > > > They're lucky we helped them at all.	 > > > > > L > > > > > You have a reasonably broad poll to that effect?  They, after all, >  are >  theM > > > > > ones who get to decide whether our net effect was beneficial (i.e.,e
 >  whetherL > > > > > they were 'lucky'), not us:  in the absence of reliable input from >  theirH > > > > > side, your statement sounds rather arrogant (and, regrettably, >  typically > > > > > American). > > > >eI > > > > We helped them kick the Soviets out. I don't see how that was notn > > > > beneficial.  > > >.K > > > Since the end result was Taliban rule, I'd say that assessment was att >  least > > > questionable.  > >h@ > > Well, it's not like we knew the Taliban would be the result. > N > Doesn't matter what we knew:  what matters is assessing whether helping themM > kick out the Soviets was ultimately beneficial, as you suggested above.  IflJ > it was, then we might have some legitimate claim to some gratitude (yourK > original point, in case you had forgotten how this sub-thread began), butrM > since it turned out not so well (not that we intended that:  we just didn't N > bother to stick around to ensure a better outcome) your point seems blunted.  5 Didn't they ask for our help to kick out the Soviets?i  5 I don't see why we are obligated to help them at all.h   >  >  The wereuF > > invaded by the Soviets, and we helped them turn back the invasion.! > > Normally that's a good thing.x > L > Really?  We, after all, invaded too and kicked out the existing governmentL > (the Taliban):  would someone else have been doing them a favor by kicking > us out and restoring it?   That's not the same.   > K > There's at least a fair chance that most Afghans didn't give a hoot aboutsI > the Soviets one way or another, but would just have preferred things to J > quiet down for once in their history.  We certainly didn't do anyone who > felt that way a favor.  " I believe they asked for our help.   >  > >  > > >t) > > > > Maybe we shouldn't have bothered.k > > >wJ > > > Your phrasing suggests that we 'bothered' out of the goodness of our
 >  hearts,K > > > when in fact we couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan itself (as  >  wasI > > > rapidly made clear after our real goal was met), just about our ownn > > > perceived interests. > >dJ > > No, we didn't do it for the Afghans in particular. It seems to me thatD > > we did it to help contain Communism both for our benefit and theH > > world's in general. Look at Communism in N. Korea. It's unbelievablyI > > awful. And Soviet Communism was pretty bad, too. It seems to me to be6@ > > a good goal to try to prevent more of that. Even the best ofE > > intentions can have unexpected and undesirable consequences. It'spJ > > pretty easy with hindsight, which one never has at the time of action, > > of course. > K > The time that was the most problematic was not the time of action but theoL > aftermath.  IIRC the possibility that Afghanistan would revert to a feudalN > society with no real government was hardly unknown at that time:  this is ofM > course a great recipe for internal disaster, but once the Soviets were gonel > we just didn't care.  F You're right. It was a bad idea not to stay and help more. But we mustD have underestimated the potential disaster; otherwise, we would have stayed.r   >  > >eK > > > > I have a feeling that we'd have this Islamic fundamentalism to deal N > > > > with even if the U.S. didn't do all the bad things you claim it did. I= > > > > can't prove it, but you can't prove otherwise either.b > > >kJ > > > However, since proof *does* exist (and not only in the form of 9/11)	 >  that abM > > > lot of people around the world hate us, and since there are some prettyhL > > > clear reasons for this which have been advanced, the onus is on you toL > > > provide credible alternative reasons rather than just claim "Well, you >  can't= > > > *prove* it" like the tobacco companies did for so long.  > >dJ > > A lot of people believe a lot of silly things. Sorry, being a majority > > doesn't make them right. > J > Sorry, but your comment indicates that you need to reread the discussionE > that you were responding to:  it had nothing to do with any kind ofyH > 'majority', and you completely failed to address the issue of relative' > evidence (which you yourself raised).   D You said "a lot of people hate us". OK, maybe it's not the majority,, but the "a lot" doesn't mean they are right.   >  > > J > > > Absolute certainty is extremely rare in this world, but that doesn't >  causeK > > > total inability to act on less than complete information:  if it did, I > > > nothing would ever get done.  That's in fact the rationale Dubya ishM > > > attempting to use for invading Iraq, but the problem is that he doesn'tl >  eveneE > > > have anything like the *preponderance* of evidence on his side.  > >iI > > Then what is his motivation? He is risking his very presidency on it.o" > > There must be something to it. > I > Either he just wants to be reelected (and there's no conceivable reasonsJ > people would reelect him other than this escalating 'war on <whatever>',J > since his foreign and domestic agendas are in tatters), or he has boughtK > into the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et al. 'New American Century' doctrine M > hook, line, and sinker (which states that Iraq should be taken care of withsK > or without the approval of the U.N. as a matter of U.S. geopolitical - aseH > distinct from defense - interest that is largely unrelated to the U.N.G > demands, though they are still, however, being used in the attempt toyJ > provide a fig-leaf of legitimacy for the war even though the U.N. itself > doesn't want it).s  C If he wants to be re-elected, why does he take such a big gamble ono this war without good reason?p   >  > >  > > >e > > > >HM > > > > > > > > > Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else.  We, asl > > > > >  foreignersd
 > > > > >  tolK > > > > > > > > > Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its ownn >  borders,m
 > > > > >  ore > > > > >  usingJ > > > > > > > > > banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the >  other >  hand, > > > > >  the > > > > >  USA, K > > > > > > > > > with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue  >  thath > > > > >  Saddam  > > > > >  has noaG > > > > > > > > > right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.l > > > >  > > > > It's not the same. > > > N > > > You're right:  it's not the same.  But neither is it entirely different:J > > > aren't we after all the only major Western nation that still has the >  deathF > > > penalty, and if so doesn't that move us at least one step in the >  directionG > > > of Saddam (leaving aside the institution of military tribunals to 
 >  substitute L > > > for otherwise required judicial process, recent discussions of whetherG > > > torture may be justified in interrogating prisoners, etc. - whichh
 >  activitiessM > > > hardly seem likely to promote the free and democratic values around the . > > > world which we profess to hold so dear)? > >  > > But it's different enough. > N > Not for my taste, it isn't:  our current direction in these areas alarms and > disgusts me.   OK.    > , >  BTW, I am against the death penalty, even( > > though I believe some do deserve it. > K > That's in no way sufficient to justify it, if only because of the radicaloK > differences in opinions about who 'deserves' it.  I think the pair in the   C I'm sorry, but I don't see your point here. My opinion is that some # deserve it. That's all I am saying.t  N > White House deserves it more than most and possibly all people on death row, > for example. > " >  I am against it because I thinkF > > there is too much of a chance that innocent people will or alreadyJ > > have been killed. And it causes too much trouble. Life without parole,D > > maybe in solitary confinement in extreme cases, would be better. > N > Indeed it would.  A major additional problem IMO with the state taking livesL > *as a punishment* is that there's always another option available (such asN > life without parole) that can protect society every bit as much.  Given thatM > there's always an alternative, electing to put someone to death anyway sets M > a rather bad example for individuals, who are encouraged by law not to killf > when an alternative exists.h >  > >mI > > So you're saying that if someone steals your land, you have the rightt > > to go and kill them? > I > I'd say you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to get it N > back, though of course in civilized situations you just appeal to the properJ > authorities and they get it back for you via the legal process (i.e., noC > force on your part is necessary).  Unfortunately, the options theWN > Palestinians have for force (let alone legal remedies) are severely limited.  F So vigilante killing is okay, but killing a mass murderer convicted in a court of law is not. OK.   > 1 >  But that would be the death penalty, which you D > > are against, except, of course, for Palestinian suicide bombers. > N > Are you really incapable of distinguishing between the actions a state takesL > upon a criminal already in custody (i.e., a situation over which they haveK > complete control and can handle whatever way is most appropriate) and therI > actions individuals (or states) take while engaged in an armed conflictSK > (where there's precious little control and one just does the best one can  > while trying to survive)?t   No.e   > M > The death penalty is a punishment handed out (or preferably not handed out) K > by some constituted authority in a controlled manner.  Getting killed in,lM > e.g., the course of an armed robbery is something entirely different, as istG > getting killed in an armed conflict (which includes suicide bombing).t   True.w   >  > ...r > L > > > Had the current level of anti-war protest - very specifically, protestK > > > against action in the absense of U.N. sanction - emerged a few monthsr >  agoL > > > rather than been lulled by Dubya's apparent willingness to involve the >  U.N.hM > > > in the process, we would probably not be where we are today but insteade >  have.E > > > built up a consensus for action *in parallel with* the militaryi >  build-up:I > > > same amount of military pressure, but vastly more unified political N > > > pressure.  Saddam appears willing to allow Iraq to be attacked if in theK > > > process this will isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world, and so  >  farG > > > his plan seems to be succeeding considerably better than Dubya's.  > > H > > I never thought that Bush cared much about the U.N. He only involvedI > > them hoping to get them on his side to reduce potential opposition todF > > his plans. If the protestors thought otherwise, they were foolish.I > > Actually, I thought this was pretty obvious from the start. You could J > > tell he was thinking "All right, I'll try to get the U.N. in on this".G > > I'm not sure, but I think he's always said that the U.S. will do it  > > alone if it has to.e > N > He certainly has since about late last summer, anyway.  And it may have beenL > naive to suspect that this was just a bargaining tactic aimed at obtainingK > U.N. approval (or even just aimed at getting the U.N. to start taking thetK > matter seriously:  if that was the goal, I could even approve of it if itdK > weren't for how bad it made us look in the eyes of the rest of the world,eK > who had every reason to take him at his word).  But the idea that America A > would actually *commit* such an overt act of aggression withoutoN > international approval (especially with Colin Powell so clearly committed toM > that approval and seemingly having the upper hand in Administration policy)eF > was certainly hard for *me* to accept, and I doubt that I was alone.   OK.    >  > ...q > N > > > > It has been found that previous inspections were flawed. Why are theseJ > > > > any better? I find it hard to believe that Saddam has given up his > > > > nuclear ambitions. > > >yL > > > If such unsupported suspicions were justification for war, there would >  never > > > be any peace anywhere. > > B > > Haven't the defectors told us about the nuclear plans? I don'tH > > remember specifically what they said. Also, I'm not so sure they are > > so unsupported.  > 5 > Then become better informed before arguing further.d   OK.o   > " > > > > > > > > That's not enough?
 > > > > > > >eI > > > > > > > No, it's not.  Not after decades of supporting regimes thatl
 >  oppress >  theirF > > > > > > > citizenry (because doing so suits our own interests) and >  propping up > > > > > >rB > > > > > > So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified?	 > > > > >tK > > > > > I'm saying they were understandable:  there were causes for them,h >  and >  thoseB > > > > > causes would not have existed had our behavior been more >  considerate.qM > > > > > Whether they were justified is a subjective judgement and much more 
 >  subject > > > > > to debate. > > > >oM > > > > Let's see, we protected Osama's homeland from Iraq. Yes, I think thatv, > > > > deserves a retailiatory attack! NOT. > > >oL > > > Iraq's threat to Saudi Arabia was hypothetical.  Our military presence >  there > > > was real.i > > J > > And wasn't one of the, if not the, major complaint of Osama, that holyJ > > land was defiled by the mere presence of American troops? For this, we? > > are to somehow see justification for the 9/11 attacks? Huh?r > L > Religious reasons can be very strong ones in the faithful.  You don't haveI > to agree with their importance, but it's clearly unwise to minimize it.   > It's perfectly legitimate to criticize it for what it is: evil
 silliness.   >  > >  > > > > >  Are you for > > > > > > real? 	 > > > > > N > > > > > Indeed I am.  And the terrorists are even more real:  despising them >  won'tM > > > > > make them go away, but understanding their motives and eliminating,  >  to  >  theL > > > > > degree we can reasonably do so, the causes for them would at least >  help. > > > > N > > > > I didn't say despising them will make them go away. DON'T PUT WORDS IN > > > > MY MOUTH.r > > >fK > > > Perhaps 'despising' was not the best word to use.  By asking "Are yout >  forM > > > real?" you suggested that my position was so far out on the fringe that  >  iteH > > > didn't matter.  My point is that the very real attacks of 9/11 and >  elsewhereM > > > prove that such positions *do* matter, regardless of what you may think  >  ofuL > > > them:  you may not agree with them, but you ignore them at your peril. > > > > > Who said to ignore them? Their motives? They hate America. > , > And, as noted, with understandable reason.   So why don't you go join them?   >  >  They are  > > envious of America.  >  > Probably not.l   We disagree.   > 0 >  They have been taught that America is full ofF > > infidels who must be destroyed so they can set up a strict Islamic
 > > world. > N > Debatable:  while America *is* indeed full of infidels from their viewpoint,L > I don't think Islam is aggressive in converting let alone eliminating such: > people - as long as they leave the true believers alone.  & But the Osama crowd is guilty of this.   > ? >  These are people who insist that their religion is the rightd; > > one and everyone else must either convert or be killed.h > D > Pure bullshit on your part:  learn something about Islam and about
 > terrorists.   E I wasn't blaming Islam and all Muslims. I was talking about Al Qaeda.r STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!:   >  > ...o > @ > > >  If we can take actions that will reduce the number of newL > > > > terrorist recruits, I'm all for them. But those already in the causeF > > > > are hopeless and nothing we can do short of destroying them orE > > > > capturing them will stop them from committing more terrorism.o > > >sK > > > Since you don't seem to have a clue about the detailed motivation forrN > > > terror, it's not clear why you think you understand terrorists nearly to >  theJ > > > degree that your last sentence suggests.  However, since the actions >  mostwN > > > likely to reduce the inclination of people to become terrorists are alsoM > > > probably those most likely to reduce the motivation of already-existingl* > > > terrorists, I'm not sure it matters. > >tJ > > Sorry, I don't believe it. And I'm getting tired of the insults. Maybe( > > it's you who are getting sophomoric. >  > No, I'm just blunt.r >   >  If you have to insult me withG > > "you don't seem to have a clue", then you weaken your own argument.o > F > Not at all:  it's simply an observation (and one that applies rather > frequently). > I > Your sincerity is clear, but your thought processes are often decidedly 
 > muddled. > I > > I'm trying to stay above that. All right, maybe I let a few sneak in.i7 > > I apologize for that. I will endeavor to do better.n >  > OK:  so will I.  >  > >lG > > Anyway, I still find it very hard to believe that anything short ofrG > > converting America to a Taliban-like state will stop any current Al  > > Qaeda members. > M > Well, that's certainly the view Dubya would like to sell people.  But sincekK > I know of no evidence whatsoever to support it (nor any line of reasoningpI > that would), I'm inclined to consider it pure poppycock:  if we did nottI > dramatically impact Islamic countries, I suspect that Al Qaeda wouldn'twI > bother us at all (as, in fact, they don't bother most other non-Islamicn > countries in the world).  > We disagree. So you're suggesting that we should help Al QaedaA resurrect the Taliban and give them dominion over the entire Arab A world, or even the entire world so that they'll leave us alone. Ii0 mean, that is what they want. They have said so.   >  > >eM > > > > > > > Israel's occupation and, worse, settlement activities for threer
 >  decades> > > > > > > > despite the condemnation of the world community. > > > > > >oD > > > > > > It was the Arabs fault that there even is an occupation.	 > > > > >oI > > > > > Really?  Their fault for attempting to retake the land that wasx >  taken >  fromAI > > > > > them in 1948?  I'm afraid you have a bit of a blind spot there.d > > > > G > > > > Uh, remember the, uh, UN? That organization you seem to find solM > > > > important? It was they who divided the land into a Jewish state and a  > > > > Palestinian state. > > >bH > > > So they erred in that case:  nobody's perfect, but it doesn't mean
 >  they'reJ > > > generally useless either.  And after an additional half-century they	 >  shouldsE > > > have learned at least a bit more about how to handle the world.  > >g+ > > So maybe they erred in this case, also." > L > Ah, but their inaction - even if it is in fact not the ideal course - doesL > not in any way give the U.S. the right to step in in their stead:  we onlyN > have the right to self-defense (which our intelligence agencies have clearlyM > stated is not apparently at issue here), or the defense of other nations ifaK > they're attacked, or (IMO) the defense of internal populations threatenede+ > with genocide - none of which apply here.i  D True, but you are implying that UN action *would* justify it. And if? you argue that, then you can't conveninetly put down the UN forp creating Israel.   >  > >  > > >cL > > > *Who* was responsible for the land-grab really doesn't change the fact >  thatgK > > > trying to get it back was understandable and defensible, which was mym	 >  point.l > >lI > > I don't know the full history of that stupid piece of land. I do knowsF > > that the Jews have been probably the most persecuted people on theI > > planet. And after WWII they said ENOUGH! Is it so terrible for such a H > > people to obtain, via the UN, a small parcel of land that was once aG > > very small part of their ancient homeland, after what the world hase > > done to the Jews?t > N > Yes, it is - if that act involves taking it from someone else.  The Jews, ofB > all people, should understand this, and in fact many of them do.  D So, you want to screw the Jews yet again. They could have shared the land in two states.i   > M > Quite possibly no one involved in the creation of Israel was *deliberately*dJ > persecuting the native Arabs - they just didn't consider them important.G > The subsequent half-century has proved that this was an error of somegI > significance.  Without presuming to suggest exactly how the creation ofiJ > Israel could have been handled better, I feel certain that it could have9 > been - but no one thought the Arabs merited the effort.e >  > >hI > > BTW, we could redraw quite a few borders. We could give the U.S. backnG > > to the native Americans. I'm sure Europe would look different, too.e? > > And probably the rest of the world. So why focus on Israel?f > H > AFAIK once Israel was created no one but the Arabs themselves proposedJ > redrawing it back out of existence.  But the fact that the Arabs did getG > screwed in the process makes many people sympathetic to their currentoK > demands not to get screwed again in the area of the Occupied Territories,yL > now that they have expressed willingness to give up their claims to Israel	 > proper.s       >  > > K > > > > Can you explain how you totally disregard the UN for that, but find A > > > > them so important, or is the word, convenient, now? HMMM?n > > >eJ > > > While I just did so above, I'm getting a bit tired of the sophomoric	 >  natureo  > > > of some of your responses. > >  > > That's your opinion. > >sH > > Now, come on. You found it very important to include the UN for thisI > > Iraq thing. Then you belittle it for Israel because *your* opinion ise( > > different. I find that inconsistent. > N > Then you haven't been paying close enough attention.  The reason the U.N. isK > important in the case of the proposed war on Iraq is because the U.S. hasiM > *no* legitimate justification for invading Iraq on its own.  So whether theoM > U.N. is right or wrong (however you might define those) on the issue of theaI > war itself is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the U.S. % > should invade without its approval.e  . Then why do you even bother mentioning the UN?   > K > By contrast, in the case of the creation of Israel it is the propriety ofsM > the U.N.'s actions rather than the propriety of the U.S.'s actions which iso > at issue.c >  > >. > > > > >  And it is theG > > > > > > Palestinians' fault that they don't have their own country.i	 > > > > >-K > > > > > They had had what they needed:  why would they care about gettingr >  lines >  on ao > > > > > map in exchange? > > > >nM > > > > Uh, the PLO was founded in 1964, three years before the "occupation".> > > > > Can you explain that?c > > >AM > > > Well, their name just *might* provide a clue.  In 1964, their objectivee >  wasI > > > still to retake Israel itself - land which was in a very real senseiK > > > 'occupied' but from which a large portion of the previous inhabitants  >  had2 > > > been evicted rather than oppressed in place. > >aE > > But you said the Palestinians were happy that they had their lando > > between 1948 and 1967. > N > No, I did not.  I said that they were happy with the land they had had priorM > to 1948.  When that land (Israel proper) was taken from them, being offered J > a 'country' in return (i.e., lines on a map which meant nothing to them)M > would not have seemed very good compensation.  And by the same token, beingaL > offered a country today probably doesn't seem good compensation for givingN > up some of the Occupied Territories:  they likely feel that giving up Israel > proper was plenty.   I quote you from above:l  K > > > > > They had had what they needed:  why would they care about gettingo >  lines >  on at > > > > > map in exchange?     >  > >i > > >o > > > >d	 > > > > >t > > > > >  They could>? > > > > > > have had one in 1948, but they went to war instead.s	 > > > > >cJ > > > > > Funny how some people get upset when you grab the land they were	 >  livingu >  on. > > > > K > > > > Well, your venerable UN said that was the right thing to do. And its" > > > > was a small piece of land. > > > L > > > So if I come along and take your house away, do you just grin and bear >  iti6 > > > because it is just a small piece of real estate? > >dH > > It's a little more complex than that. Some claim that the Arabs toldA > > the Palestinians to leave and let the Arab armies destroy theuI > > just-born state of Israel after which they could return. Some counter'J > > that argument, though. I don't know what the real truth of this is and > > you probably don't either. > M > That's correct, as John just pointed out.  But it remains true that placingmE > the Palestinians in that situation in the first place was not just.t  D Again you put Palestinians above all else and Israel below all else.   >  > >'1 > > >  Smaller than the pre-1967 Israel. They hadl0 > > > > the rest, but chose war and lost it all. > > >lK > > > They chose to try to take back what had been theirs.  Who won the war  >  doesrF > > > not affect the legitimacy of that goal, nor legitimize permanent
 >  occupatione! > > > of *more* land as a result.s > >c0 > > It wasn't theirs, it was under British rule. > L > So your house isn't yours, it's under American rule?  And if Dubya decidesB > to give it to someone else you won't have any problem with that?  B It's called eminent domain. Check out what Robert Moses did to NewE York. Should the displaced people there have taken up arms and foughti the NYC police, etc.?h   >  > >c > > >t > > > >  > > > > >  From 1948 to 1967E > > > > > > they didn't care that they didn't have their own country.i	 > > > > > 2 > > > > > See above:  they just wanted their land. > > > >n( > > > > See above, PLO, founded in 1964. > > >yK > > > I guess you really didn't understand, after all:  'their land' in thea >  aboveM > > > context was *Israel*.  There's a clear parallel in civil law:  the factn >  thatoM > > > you may have been given stolen property by the party who stole it in non >  wayM > > > confers any title to that property (even if you paid for it) - it still / > > > rightfully belongs to the original owner.b > >nI > > Well, it depends how far back you go in time. Go back far enough, andhJ > > it was Jewish land. And why aren't you complaining about all the other> > > stolen land in the world? You are focusing on Israel. Why? > G > My problems with Israel are almost all post-Rabin.  Before Rabin, the K > situation was an unstable mess that was at least largely not the fault ofrL > Israel (or the Palestinians).  Rabin helped cut through that mess toward aD > solution, about the fairest one could imagine - and Arafat and the7 > Palestinians seemed to find his proposals acceptable.t > K > Then Rabin was killed and Israel drew back from his proposals rather thanCF > simply completed them.  To be blunt, Israel not only allowed Rabin'sN > assassin to succeed in his aims (which was disgusting) but took advantage ofJ > the event to become greedy (this was also disgusting, because it clearlyJ > assumed the ability to use its superior force to obtain a better bargainM > with the Palestinians than it had already agreed to, now that Rabin was out) > of the way).  1 It is indeed terrible that Rabin was assasinated.-   > L > Since then, Israel has continued its occupation, increased its oppression,I > and to a large degree met atrocity with atrocity.  This last is neitherwN > sensible (it just escalates the violence) nor responsible:  by virtue of itsL > vastly superior power (compared with individuals) a state has the ability,F > and the responsibility, not to meet criminal behavior with similarly > criminal behavior. >  > > K > > > I don't advocate returning Israel to the Palestinians *now*, and as Ir >  notedJ > > > they also appear willing to accept that as long as they get back the >  other > > > land taken *after* 1948. > >oD > > I don't believe it. They appear to want to take the whole thing.: > > Sometimes it appears that they just want to kill Jews. > I > What they *want* is an end to the occupation (well, I'm sure they wouldeL > *like* Israel back as well, but they've agreed to pass on that if they canI > get it out of the occupied territories).  But since they have no way tosN > obtain this goal by conventional military means, in the absence of agreement) > by Israel all they can do is kill Jews.o  B They had a chance to bargain with Ehud's deal, which I thought wasD pretty good. And I may be wrong on this, but I thought it was betterA than Rabin's deal. But I don't know much about that deal. I can'teC believe you justify all this killing. They are deliberately killingh children. That's terrible.  B Why should anyone bargain while being attacked by suicide bombers?   >  > >  > > > > >  If the ArabsuN > > > > > > hadn't forced Israel into a war in 1967, there'd be no occupation.	 > > > > >oK > > > > > And if Israel hadn't been carved out of land that the donors werea >  not >  freel) > > > > > to give, there'd be no problem.o > > > >eN > > > > The UN did it. Had the Arabs accepted the decision of the UN, accepted7 > > > > Israel's right to exist, there'd be no problem.  > > >tN > > > The U.N. decision (including Israel's 'right to exist') was an arbitrary >  oneK > > > by a very newly-established body still finding its feet.  It was easym >  forK > > > the great powers to accept and support the decision because it didn'tt	 >  affecthN > > > them (save to assuage some of the collective guilt for what had happened >  to K > > > the Jews under Hitler and to which many of them had turned a somewhatl >  blindN > > > eye for so long).  It was a lot harder for the people evicted from theirN > > > land to accept, and they responded in an entirely understandable manner. > >o. > > Well, it's controversial who ejected them. > I > Nonetheless, their homeland was taken to establish a new state (perhapsbN > worse, a religious state with under a religion other than their own).  ThoseM > who found that acceptable may not have had any problem, but clearly a greate$ > many did *not* find it acceptable.   So, what's your point?   >  > >c > > >  > > > >sM > > > > > > If the Palestinians had made as good an offer to Israel as IsraelrE > > > > > > under Ehud made to them, and if Israel responded with the 
 >  equivalent0E > > > > > > of an intifada, wouldn't you be pretty angry with Israel? 	 > > > > >TJ > > > > > Not in the slightest:  it's the roles and their history that are> > > > > > significant, not the specifics of who occupies them.	 > > > > >T > > > > >  Hmmm? Oh,J > > > > > > but turn the tables and somehow you still find Israel to be at	 >  fault.9	 > > > > >0G > > > > > Funny how you assume the issue is about ethnicity rather thani
 >  issues. >  ButL > > > > > it does give some insight into Israeli hard-line thinking (or what	 >  passeso > > > > > for it). > > > >eI > > > > FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD! Israel offered them a country. A negotiating K > > > > starting point. They could have bargained for something better. ButeH > > > > they attacked! So I guess according to you and them the IsraelisK > > > > should just pack up and leave, or just commit suicide. yeah, that'sm > > > > what you seem to want. > > >@N > > > It doesn't matter what I want (or what you want).  What the PalestiniansM > > > seem to want (and what seems reasonable to me) is for Israel to get outn >  of G > > > the territory it occupied since 1948 in return for a cessation of.N > > > hostilities and relinquishing of the claim to the land of Israel proper. >  NoeN > > > one is asking the Israelis to 'pack up and leave' from Israel itself any. > > > more:  that's just right-wing hyperbole. > >t@ > > If they only bombed the settlements, you would have a point. >  > I have a point anyway. >  >  But they  > > also bomb pre-1948 Israel. > N > Of course they do:  it's a war, and carrying it to the home of the occupyingM > force is likely to be considerably more effective than limiting it to their  > own soil.   E Yes, it's effective in telling us they want to destroy all of Israel. D They don't even care that they also kill their own brothers like theF bombing at the university in which many Arabs were killed and injured.   > , >  Also, Palestinian maps show all of IsraelH > > as part of the future state of Palestine. All you seem to care aboutJ > > is what the Palestinians want. Suppose they want all the riches of theE > > world? Should we give that to them? What they want means nothing.a > M > I guess that's true, if you're willing to get used to suicide bombings (andoM > other terrorist activity) in perpetuity.  Otherwise, you might want to give K > their desires a bit more consideration (which would also improve Israel'seJ > somewhat tarnished image in much of the world, should it care about such
 > things).  A It's not what they want that counts. It's what's "fair", which iso9 subjective to some extent. I don't care what they "want".l   >  > ...  > 4 > > >  People like you want negotiations. THAT WAS AL > > > > NEGOTIATION AND IT WAS RESPONDED TO WITH VIOLENCE!!! What more couldI > > > > Israel do except self-destruct? After countless wars by the ArabseF > > > > against Israel, I say they are entitled to defendable borders. > > >uI > > > And I say that they wouldn't need to worry nearly so much about the 	 >  natureeL > > > of their borders (which are of course reasonably defendable regardless >  ofoN > > > where they're drawn in this day and age) if they took the land for peaceF > > > deal that has been on the table since Rabin nearly completed it. > >uA > > Are you actually blaming the Palestinians here for something?  >  > Nope.S >  >  Sorry, I'& > > missed your point. Who are "they"? >  > 'They' are Israel. >  > >n > > >  Yes,SB > > > > you conveniently forget all the Arabs wars against Israel. > > >oM > > > IIRC Israel started both the 1967 and the 1973 wars, so the 'countless'n >  warseM > > > by the Arabs against Israel at least technically seem to be confined tog >  theG > > > single one in 1948 (at least I think there was one then) - thoughf
 >  there's an N > > > excellent chance that they would have started at least one of the others >  ift* > > > Israel hadn't attacked preemptively. > > F > > I find it hard to believe that Israel "started" these wars withoutB > > good reason. But that's just my opinion. I don't have detailedG > > knowledge of these wars. But I do think that Egypt made some rathergI > > offensive moves if not actual attacks in the 1973 war. Wait a minute.iH > > ISTR that Egypt attacked ON Yom Kippur. That's why it was called theF > > Yom Kippur war. So I belive it was Egypt who attacked. And in 1967I > > didn't the Arabs blockade the Gulf of Aqaba? Is not a blockade an actn > > of war?a > N > Beats me - I just remember that Israel started the shooting war, though as IJ > said there wasn't much doubt that shooting would have begun soon anyway.   You're talking about 1967?   >  > >a > > >y > > >  How can youN > > > > negotiate with people like these, who respond to peace offers with the > > > > Intifada round II? > > >aH > > > You *really* don't get it.  A peace offer which doesn't adequately
 >  addressJ > > > the issues for which you're fighting is merely a capitulation, so of	 >  coursewK > > > you don't accept it.  And you use whatever means are available to youf	 >  (whichoK > > > in this case is *precisely* the Intifada) to continue the fight untila& > > > something acceptable is offered. > >cD > > Well, when your country is attacked by suicide bombers, don't be7 > > surprised if such country responds like Israel did.a > L > Er, we *were* attacked by suicide bombers (in planes), and, unfortunately,M > we *did* react very much as Israel did (and I was surprised, and dismayed).  >  >  The intifadat' > > doesn't seem to have done any good.U > & > Give it time:  it's only just begun.  B We shall see. It's certainly been a disaster in the short run. TheB result was to switch from Ehud to Sharon. Please explain to me howC that does any good for the Palestinians. At least Sharon is keepingh the bombers under control.   > " >  It solidified the right wing inI > > Israel. It turned most doves into hawks. And it resulted in worseningtI > > of the Palestinians situation. No, I don't think it was justified and % > > I don't think it was a good idea.s > G > I'll remind you once again that no one's opinion matters here but thenN > Palestinians':  if *they* think it's the right approach, it *will* continue.  C Then your opinion doesn't matter either, so why are you posting allt this?h  ? Evil people always think they have the right approach. So what?y   >  > ...d > J > > > Relinquishing their claim to Israel proper (i.e., to a great deal of >  whatfL > > > was *their* land) is a *major* concession that reflects the reality of >  overrL > > > a half-century of use and development by Israel.  Demanding the return >  ofhN > > > the rest of *their* land, which in no comparable way has Israel invested >  in, > > > is hardly unreasonable.  > >gJ > > I haven't heard of this relinquishing. And if they did, I suspect it's > > a ruse.a > * > Fine attitude:  get used to the bombers.  D Get used to the retaliations. How do you bargain with people who areF fighting you? You make an offer and they send in the bombers. Why thenF make any more offers? Make no offers, nothing. Make an offer, bombers.F Then, and I love this word, "re-occupy" their towns. The bombers stop.F Pull back, the bombers resume. Re-occupy, the bombers stop. Looks likeD a rewared cycle favoring re-occupation. This is your favored method? This is insanity.d   >  > >eN > > > > > > Yeah, there were complaints about the offer Ehud made to them. But >  itqL > > > > > > is controversial just what these problems were. Even so, had theI > > > > > > Palestinians accepted it it would have been the best thing tol	 >  happenl > > > > > > to them in decades.g	 > > > > >sK > > > > > And that's a *good* thing?  Rather, it's a sad commentary on whata
 >  they've/ > > > > > had to put up with for those decades.) > > > >h) > > > > Uh, the status quo is any better?s > > >iH > > > That's their decision to make.  And it's pretty clear that they're
 >  willingN > > > to continue the status quo until they feel that they have been offered a > > > just alternative.t > > ? > > If everyone insisted on total justice, it would be mutually G > > incompatible and there would be constant war resulting in even less 3 > > justice. Sometimes you just have to compromise.n > I > They're more than willing to:  Israel can keep the land within its 1948iL > borders rather than give it *all* back.  And since it's not clear that theH > OTs are of any real importance to Israel as a nation, that's not a bad% > compromise from Israel's viewpoint.   % So just give them whatever they want?   E Frankly, I'd be thrilled if Israel would withdraw from most or all of B the OT's, set up the best barrier they can, and say, "OK, you have4 your country. Leave us alone!" and see what happens.   But that candidate lost. n   >  > >r > > > $ > > >  They could have had their ownE > > > > country and an end to the "occupation". How is that not good?  > > >dL > > > My strong impression is that they were offered an end to *some* of theM > > > occupation in return for relinquishing their claim on the *rest* of the  >  land K > > > occupied since 1967 and 1973.  If so, I can easily see how that woulde	 >  not bes > > > acceptable.  > >tI > > So anytime anyone finds something unacceptable, instead of bargainingiD > > for something better, they should send in the suicide bombers. I/ > > thought you were against the death penalty.b >  > You're very confused again.h >  > ...w >  > > >  Oh, IJ > > > > see, it is not the ideal, uptopic solution, so better to wallow inH > > > > misery than accept a less than perfect offer. Sorry, I don't buy > > > > reasoning like that. > > >sJ > > > You don't have to:  it's their decision whether that's acceptable or
 >  whetherN > > > the Intifada should continue.  And at least some people don't find their9 > > > decision to continue the fight at all unreasonable.n > >p; > > That doesn't mean they made a wise or justified choice.u > C > No, but neither are others' opinions in such areas very relevant.t >  > >s9 > > > > >  And to respond to even a slightly flawed offern! > > > > > > with suicide bombers?g	 > > > > >aN > > > > > Well, Israel *did* have the opportunity to fix the flaws, but wasn't > > > > > inclined to. > > > > N > > > > Just what the flaws were and even if they existed is controversial. WeL > > > > don't really know. Israel had the opportunity? They were attacked in* > > > > response!!! That's an opportunity? > > > K > > > Israel hasn't been 'attacked' since 1948, nor has an attack even beenoN > > > credibly threatened since 1973.  They could stop what you're choosing toK > > > describe as 'attacks' (i.e., the Intifada) tomorrow by addressing ther& > > > concerns they failed to address. > > 
 > > Nonsense.u > L > Your claim that Israel did not have the opportunity to fix the flaw in theM > deal is what's nonsense:  as I noted, they could fix them tomorrow and have  > peace the next day.g >  > ...) >  > > > > >  What it: > > > > > > does is show what the Palestinians really are.	 > > > > >nL > > > > > Yup:  unwilling to be pushed beyond a certain point, regardless of >  the >  cost. > > > >e; > > > > You could just as well say that about the Israelis.  > > >lI > > > No, you couldn't:  they are not an occupied people but an occupyingc	 >  power.eN > > > What the Palestinians want is freedom; what the Israelis seem to want is > > > their land.w > > ; > > The Jews have been persecuted by the rest of the world.  > A > And this gives them some right to oppress others?  I think not.t > 
 >  After WWIIjJ > > they said "never again" and realized that the only way to survive as aJ > > people was to establish their own country. Would it really have been aA > > great injustice if Israel had it's initial allotment of land?l > / > Wholly depends on how that land was obtained.o >  >  YouE > > can't have 100% justice for everyone. It's physically impossible.c > L > Not in this case:  just find some land that was either *really* unoccupied7 > or that could be purchased and given to the Israelis.g >  > ...n >  > > > > >  They want to destroyeF > > > > > > Israel. It still says so in the PLO's charter. IT SAYS SO!	 > > > > >nK > > > > > Well, at least it used to.  The PLO has stated repeatedly that ite >  would >  give  > > > >aJ > > > > LAST I HEARD IT STILL DOES. HHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > >iL > > > The willingness to remove it is clear.  But while hostilities continue >  theya > > > have no reason to do so. > >iJ > > What willingness? There's no such thing. They have no reason to do so?G > > Huh? Israel should bargain with a people who have clearly stated ineI > > print, in that charter, that their primary goal is the destruction ofhE > > the state of Israel? There's no asterisk that says "well, if theypG > > would just be nice and fair to us, we'll be happy to live in peace,l > > side by side with them". > / > OK.  As I said, just get used to the bombers.h   Get used to more retailations.   >  > >  > > >  > > > >hJ > > > > > up that goal if Israel would give up its occupation, which is in	 >  fact a I > > > > > *major* concession (i.e., they're finally willing to relinquishe >  their >  claimL > > > > > to the land taken in 1948, as long as they get back the land taken
 >  later). > > > >jN > > > > Isn't this what was offered by Ehud? And they responded with violence. > > >iG > > > If that were the case, I'd have to reevaluate my feelings on thisa
 >  matter.L > > > But I don't believe that Barak offered more than partial return of the >  land  > > > taken after 1948.  > > G > > Again you insist on 100% justice for Palestinians without regard touE > > anything else. Why do you focus on them? What about all the other , > > cases? The American Indian, for example. > H > *If* the American Indians sought specific reparations for identifiableF > injustices and resorted to terrorism if they failed to get them, I'dI > sympathize with them as well:  even though most of those injustices aretN > older than any living memory, our government should still be responsible forI > correcting them.  Giving back most of our country is clearly infeasible I > (some other reasonable reparations would have to be found), but I'm noteH > suggesting that Israel give back *any* of the 1948 land, just the OTs.  = What exactly do you mean by 1948 land? Pre-1967 or pre war ofi
 independence?e   >  > ...  >  > > > > >  though I have littlepM > > > > > > for the "settlers" who obviously don't help matters. I understand  > how M > > > > > > people are not happy with the settlements. But it seems to me thet0 > > > > > > Palestinians are much more at fault.	 > > > > >e" > > > > > Other viewpoints differ. > > > > ) > > > > Yes, other viewpoints are biased.p > > > H > > > Certainly no more than your own, and since you appear to be in the
 > minorityD > > > of world opinion in this matter arguably *less* than your own. > >m0 > > Majority opinion does not imply correctness. > M > In matters of degree of fault it's about the only metric one has.  And fromrL > a technical standpoint it may actually *define* the concept of 'bias' (the > point at issue here).    We disagree.   >  > ...m > E > > > > > importance.  But even large portions of the American Jewish  > population > > >  (and L > > > > > for that matter many liberal Israelis) are torn between loyalty to > the  > > >  idea J > > > > > of a Jewish state and horror at some of the things that state is > doing. > > > >dI > > > > True, but for every bad Israeli deed there are hundereds of worsemL > > > > Palestinian deeds. No country is perfect, but people like you always8 > > > > hold Israel, and Israel alone, to that standard. > > >eL > > > The Palestinians are not a country, but an oppressed people.  As such, > theyL > > > take what actions they can and many people around the world understandJ > > > though deplore the necessity.  Israel, by contrast, is a country, anK > > > occupying power, and a military powerhouse:  it has the *capacity* totM > > > respond in a far more civilized and measured manner, and its failure to  > do% > > > so is the cause of the censure.   & Were they not oppressed before Israel?   > > E > > Only if they are willing to tolerate an endless string of suicide  > > bombers. > I > Again you don't get it:  they're going to have those *anyway* (at least L > until they come to agreement about the OTs).  The only question is whetherG > the state of Israel will act criminally in return and attract censure 
 > thereby. >  > >t > > > L > > > Of course, since well over twice as many Palestinians have been killed > byL > > > Israelis during the Intifada as the reverse, even your suggestion thatN > > > Palestinians account for hundreds of atrocities for every Israeli one is
 > > > absurd.. > > < > > Well, that depends. The Israeli actions are retaliatory. > ! > So are the Palestinian actions.    That's your opinion.   >  >  And at least + > > some of the deaths are their own fault.t > J > The ratio would still be well over 2:1 even if *hundreds* of deaths were > self-inflicted.   C The ratio doesn't matter. You are denying the Israelis the right ofo
 self-defense.n   >  >  Remember the ambulances that G > > instead of carrying injured, actually carried more suicide bombers?e > A > Hey, just 'cause they're oppressed doesn't mean they're stupid.   A Seems like a dispicable tatic to me, and how was it a smart move?    >  > > I > > If you're going to attack a country, you better expect a response andu8 > > realize that there will be casualties on both sides. > G > And if you're going to occupy a country you'd better expect the same.r >  > >TI > > And when Israel retaliates, they attempt to kill only the terrorists.h > F > No:  they attempt to kill the terrorists, and as few other people asN > possible in the process.  If they truly attempted to kill *only* terrorists,M > there would be almost no civilian casualties (but, of course, it would taken  > longer to get the terrorists).  D Your playing games with words here and I'm not going to fall for it.; There was the incident where 13 Israeli soliders were goingr> door-to-door so as to kill *only* the terrorists, and they got7 ambushed instead. So one has to consider other options.e  F The Palestinians talk young people into blowing themselves up! This is1 your noble, just war? It sounds dispciable to me.o   > G > > They try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum (with perhaps oneo > > exception event).. > L > Even one such event is an atrocity.  And there have been considerably more > than one.o  F But they were not deliberate. The Israelis aim for the terrorists. The7 Palestinians aim for everyone. That's a big difference.   C I heard recently that Israel is the only country that treats failedhC suicide bombers in their hospitals with full care. Imagine what ther- Palestinians would do with a capured Israeli.    > 3 >  When the Palestinians attack, they *try* to killeH > > civilians, even if some of the are Arabs! It is not the numbers, but2 > > the motives, that prompted my statement above. > >iI > > That is a big difference. Israelis are trying to kill the terrorists. I > > The Palestinians are trying to kill all Israelis with maximum pain byl2 > > putting nails and razors in the suicide bombs. > M > That's guerilla war for you:  it's not pretty.  But the Israelis could stope > it today.p  6 They have pretty much brought it to a halt via Sharon.   >  > - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:37:41 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants3 Message-ID: <5x$YIag4sl2m@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  X In article <3E6C9018.8030703@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes: >  >  > Rob Young wrote:e >> In article <3E6A0D64.5345873B@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes:  >>   >>>Bill Todd wrote:  >>>wH >>>>You're really stretching on this one.  The show is aimed at the U.S.B >>>>audience, and is therefore about the FBI rather than the RCMP. >>>sP >>>Which comes back to the original point that US audiences do not consume stuffM >>>that originates from abroad in terms of TV/movies. They'll consume foreign I >>>music as long as it is in english, with a few exceptions now and then.  >>> O >>>Elsewhere in the world, folks have no problems consuming programming that is Q >>>set in various locations in the world. But the insular nature of the USA meansaM >>>that a self-perpetuated "only in the USA" mentality exists, and because itbP >>>exists, the big media outlets don't risk putting on foreign shows and becauseG >>>they don't take that risk, the insular nature strenghtens even more.o >>>oG >>>Did you know that many of the most popular shows in the USA actually Q >>>originated abroad (Three's company, Who wants to be a millionaire etc etc) but Q >>>the USA decided to make their own copy instead of buying the existing show (in # >>>the above cases, from england) ?c >>   >> l+ >> 	You are spinning in several directions.  >> eB >> 	First, it makes no sense to produce an American show overseas.; >> 	Production costs would be unacceptable.  So if Americane@ >> 	producers find something that works overseas, sure they will9 >> 	buy the rights and produce it here, or where it makeso- >> 	sense to produce it.  That is why TorontooD >> 	is becoming such a hot spot for production, costs are very good!B >> 	Us insular arrogant Americans know about business, it appears: >>   >  > Humm > = > Xena Warrior Princess or whatever the title is and Herculesp9 > are both made in New Zealand but for a US audience. Newp; > Zealand isn't exactly a bus journey away from Los Angelesb! > were the shows are commisioned.t >   > 	Right.  Makes sense to produce them there I guess.  Sorry for@ 	the obvious contradictions.  Point of course is that production= 	costs are very high in LA and NYC hence Toronto is a hotbed.,? 	A better clarification might include if using American actors, 9 	it makes little sense to produce overseas as you greatly A 	increase travel and housing costs.  I'm sure many NYC producers, = 	and actors shuttle to Toronto for production saving a ton ond
 	labor costs.e   				Robw   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:10:33 -0400l0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants/ Message-ID: <3E6CB8F7.A3A59F14@vl.videotron.ca>o   Bill Todd wrote:M > kick out the Soviets was ultimately beneficial, as you suggested above.  IfuO > it was, then we might have some legitimate claim to some gratitude <...>, butnM > since it turned out not so well (not that we intended that:  we just didn'tiN > bother to stick around to ensure a better outcome) your point seems blunted.  N When you look in the middle east, all too often, when the USA got involved, itN eventually turned sour.  USA installed the Shah of Iran, that turned sour. USAI helpes Israel, that is still sour. USA helped Iraq, that turned sour. And ? perhaps the same applies to all the dictators in south america.e  L Oh, and another good example: USA invaded Cuba, they rebelled against the USO puppet dictator (Batista) and put in their own Castro to rebel against the USA.u  L If you look at Iran, ever since the USA was kicked out, the government thereN went from extremist under Komheni, to a far more moderate system that is closeL to democratic. This happened without any visible USA intervention. And thoseG changes are far jmore likely to take root and further imporve than somefG artificially imposed government who tries to change things too quickly.     M I am not sure how the USA government works in terms of war powers, but i hopelH that the USA is aware that the minute it presses ahead with its invasionL against the UN wishes, it will be held responsible for the rebuilding of theK country, and that is going to be a process measured in years, not weeks. IfbN budget problems in the USA force it to pull back prematurely, the mess the USAJ will have left will be a great place for terrorist to take over and you'llL find a "Taliban" taking control of Iraq, which is exactly what all of Iraq's7 leaders want to avoid and why they are against any war.v   ------------------------------   Date: 10 Mar 2003 18:30:06 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon): Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants6 Message-ID: <b4ilje$20874e$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>   > F > You said "a lot of people hate us". OK, maybe it's not the majority,. > but the "a lot" doesn't mean they are right. >   J Let's keep this in perspective.  Even a majority doesn't mean their right.     bill   -- oJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:32:14 -0800e$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>: Subject: RE: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants0 Message-ID: <01C2E6F0.51C15740@sulfer.icius.com>  F While that is true, there's certainly enough of them right now that it) might be worth considering that they are.    Shanea   -----Original Message-----0 From: bill@cs.uofs.edu [mailto:bill@cs.uofs.edu]% Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:30 AMm To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt: Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants     > F > You said "a lot of people hate us". OK, maybe it's not the majority,. > but the "a lot" doesn't mean they are right. >   C Let's keep this in perspective.  Even a majority doesn't mean their  right.     bill   -- iC Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three  wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:43:18 -0500e! From: Jim Agnew <jpagnew@vcu.edu>o2 Subject: Re: Programmatic telnet taking forever!!!' Message-ID: <3E6CA486.BC322BB6@vcu.edu>    post appended...   JF Mezei wrote:  > , > Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:N > > This was the first thing I thought of in reading his post, but in the partM > > you snipped it says (or strongly implies) that the hangup is _before_ theeF > > username/password dialogue, not after.  If that's true, this isn't > > the problem. > P > Sorry, my ISP (whose days are numbered) has yet to post the original news item/ > (if ever) and I only saw the snippt I quoted.n   --  F "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"     post starts........... Group,  ? I have an application that logs into a vms box from a linux box F to run some vms programs... that's the short story. The longgggg story> is that the login takes about 30-45 seconds some times longer.  H I begin to think that the vms box is waiting for me to give it somethingC that will tell it that this is not a normal telnet session and theneC after a while it figures this is true and allows my script to logonr& with proper user/password combination.  A Can anyone tell me what it wants and what I have to pass to it tod satisfy its need?c  $ Thanks to all - from a total newbie.    ; #Joseph Norris (Perl - what else is there?/Linux/CGI/Mysql)r print @c=map chr8 $_+100,(6,17,15,16,-68,-3,10,11,16,4,1,14,-68,12,1,14,8,C -68,4,-3,-1,7,1,14,-68,-26,11,15,1,12,4,-68,-22,11,14,14,5,15,-90);r   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:48:27 -0400r0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>2 Subject: Re: Programmatic telnet taking forever!!!/ Message-ID: <3E6CC1D8.F0B83FB5@vl.videotron.ca>t  A > I have an application that logs into a vms box from a linux boxdH > to run some vms programs... that's the short story. The longgggg story@ > is that the login takes about 30-45 seconds some times longer.  N Ok. *perhaps*, I have not tested this, this has to do with telnet negotiations (who does the echoing etc etc).   L Have you tried sending a carriage retrn in the blind once the connection hasF been established, in the hopes of precipitating the Username: prompt ?   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 23:06:50 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>< Subject: Re: SCSI cluster disk thrashing between connectionsD Message-ID: <20030310152644.13304F28.NOFFLE@momos.conceptual.net.au>  / lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) writes:m  L > The problem only occurs when both hosts are attached to the SCSI bus.  TheN > terminators are on the cables (with Y-adapters), and I checked the adapters'N > SCSI IDs -- they are 14 and 15.  So I don't think there's a hardware problemL > with the cable or interface.  It's a fairly long cable but well within the > spec for differential SCSI.   A How many devs on the bus? You may need to move the controllers torA lower IDs, see the Cluster config manual for the horrors of this.w   -- n< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.w@                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:03:59 -0500d' From: John Sauter <J_Sauter@Empire.Net>,Y Subject: Re: SIMH 2.10-4 released: major bug fixes to PDP-8, PDP-11, VAX, PDP-15, Interdat8 Message-ID: <efvo6vc1crncq7l12psmbhm05i55lv1f5c@4ax.com>   John Sauter wrote:  1 The DN87, if I remember correctly, did DECnet and : served as a terminal concentrator.  If that is more useful4 to you, by all means use it.  I recommended the DN606 series because I had worked on it when I was with DEC.   Brian Inglis wrote:   @ Would only be useful if you could set it up talking to a process. running Hercules with simulated bisync lines.    John Sauter responded:  8 The DN60 series drove its bisync lines using the DUP-11,8 optionally assisted by the KMC-11.  You could use a null3 modem with synchronous clock to communicate between(6 two DN60s.  That's how we debugged before we got real   IBM hardware.  What is Hercules?%     John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)u   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:07:53 GMT " From: bugs@pu.net (Mark Hittinger)Y Subject: Re: SIMH 2.10-4 released: major bug fixes to PDP-8, PDP-11, VAX, PDP-15, Interdar, Message-ID: <dT1ba.29645$eG2.5342@sccrnsc03>  ) John Sauter <J_Sauter@Empire.Net> writes:t >John Sauter wrote: 2 >The DN87, if I remember correctly, did DECnet and; >served as a terminal concentrator.  If that is more usefule5 >to you, by all means use it.  I recommended the DN60h7 >series because I had worked on it when I was with DEC.o  D We had some DN87 boxes on our KL and they did have ANF-10 support on DMC-11 devices but not DECnet.  H There are also several other configurations of the -11 stuff that we canJ build for the simulators.  Everything has been recovered so we could build6 the other configurations (except perhaps WIZARD!). :-)  ) In chk11.p11 there are some symbols like:   3         ND      FT.D75,0        ; NO DC75 IN SYSTEMo3         ND      FT.D80,0        ; NO DN80 IN SYSTEMg3         ND      FT.D81,0        ; NO DN81 IN SYSTEM 3         ND      FT.D82,0        ; NO DN82 IN SYSTEMi3         ND      FT.D85,0        ; NO DN85 IN SYSTEMs3         ND      FT.D87,0        ; NO DN87 IN SYSTEMt4         ND      FT.87S,0        ; NO DN87S IN SYSTEM3         ND      FT.D20,0        ; NO DN20 IN SYSTEM 3         ND      FT.D22,0        ; NO DN22 IN SYSTEMu4         ND      FT.200,0        ; NO DN200 IN SYSTEM   Latero   Mark Hittinger bugs@pu.net    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:47:20 +0100 (MET)e9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>e Subject: TCPIP: bug or feature; Message-ID: <01KTD4ZK2IWE9H1MPS@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>a  H After a lot of experimenting, I have discovered the following behaviour.  F If I have two interfaces (i.e. created with TCPIP SET INTERFACE), thenC both accept incoming traffic, but outgoing traffic goes through the G default route, even if it is return traffic for an incoming connection.aG Needless to say, this renders the connection unusable.  A workaround is H to set an explicit route for the connection.  Of course, for an outgoingG connection I originate, I need an explicit route if I don't want to useeD the default gateway.  However, doing TCPIP SET ROUTE for an INCOMINGF connection appears rather absurd.  Also, it just reverses the problem,H i.e. connections from the argument of the SET ROUTE command through the H default gateway will no longer work, since their return traffic will go  out through the explicit route.a  B I have heard from someone who should know that the problem exists G whether one interface is a pseudointerface (as in my case) or both are  I real interfaces.  Also, I have heard that this wasn't a problem in older  , versions of UCX (yes, called UCX back then).  ; Is this change intentional?  If so, what is the motivation?s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:58:35 -0500e# From: sol gongola <sol@adldata.com>a" Subject: Re: TCPIP: bug or feature+ Message-ID: <3E6CD24B.4A4CA89B@adldata.com>    Phillip Helbig wrote:  > J > After a lot of experimenting, I have discovered the following behaviour. > H > If I have two interfaces (i.e. created with TCPIP SET INTERFACE), thenE > both accept incoming traffic, but outgoing traffic goes through thetI > default route, even if it is return traffic for an incoming connection.pI > Needless to say, this renders the connection unusable.  A workaround isnJ > to set an explicit route for the connection.  Of course, for an outgoingI > connection I originate, I need an explicit route if I don't want to use-F > the default gateway.  However, doing TCPIP SET ROUTE for an INCOMINGH > connection appears rather absurd.  Also, it just reverses the problem,I > i.e. connections from the argument of the SET ROUTE command through theiI > default gateway will no longer work, since their return traffic will goa! > out through the explicit route.e > C > I have heard from someone who should know that the problem exists H > whether one interface is a pseudointerface (as in my case) or both areJ > real interfaces.  Also, I have heard that this wasn't a problem in older. > versions of UCX (yes, called UCX back then). > = > Is this change intentional?  If so, what is the motivation?t  F TCPIP does not remember the route an incoming message took to arrive. I Therefore it does not know a specific route to take to send back a reply.u  B Outgoing messages (new or replies) go through the default gateway B unless another route is specified for that tcpip address/network.   C How do you set an incoming route? I though route settings were for wC outgoing messages. Incoming messages arrive at an interface and aret processed. c   solt   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:19:20 +0100 (MET)W9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>E" Subject: Re: TCPIP: bug or feature; Message-ID: <01KTDBWDZG0A9H1MPS@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>e  H > TCPIP does not remember the route an incoming message took to arrive. K > Therefore it does not know a specific route to take to send back a reply.h  C That makes sense in that it would explain why incoming traffic and dC outgoing return traffic are on different interfaces if it comes in n% through a non-default interface, but:   ,    o  this isn't always the case (see below)  G    o  what is the point in having more than one interface in this case?   D > Outgoing messages (new or replies) go through the default gateway D > unless another route is specified for that tcpip address/network.    OK.   E > How do you set an incoming route? I though route settings were for  E > outgoing messages. Incoming messages arrive at an interface and ares
 > processed.    A Either you are asking a rhetorical question, or you are seeing a n different behaviour than I am.   Let me expand a bit.  B The system in question is a hobbyist system at home.  I am in the E process of moving from one public, static IP address per machine via  A ISDN to private, static addresses on the LAN and via NAT/PAT one  - publicly visible, dynamic IP address via DSL.t  I For a transitionary time, I want to have BOTH working.  (It is necessary wE to have a transitionary time with both, rather than switching all at fE once; I just discovered that my Linksys router is blocking X-windows  E connections, though it shouldn't be.  If anyone has a Linksys router  = which works with port forwarding for X-windows, let me know.)i  H I thus created a pseudointerface on the VMS machine.  Since my public IPB addresses are x.y.z.200---x.y.z.208, I used the same range for theG 192.168.1.xxx pseudointerface, i.e. a /29 subnet.  (I don't know if it  I is a bug or feature that SET INTERFACE won't accept another network mask  " than what the real interface has.)  2 There is only one network card in the VMS machine.  B On the x.y.z network I have the ISDN router, which is the default H gateway.  On the 192.168.1 network, I have a DSL router.  Obviously, if H I want to connect to somewhere else via the DSL router, I have to set a I specific route.  The connection then works OK.  However, if I connect to aF the VMS machine from outside via the DSL router on the other network, G then the connection doesn't work since the return traffic goes through .D the default gateway, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT AN OUTGOING CONNECTION I H ORIGINATED, BUT RATHER RETURN TRAFFIC FOR AN INCOMING CONNECTION.  This I is where I think the bug is.  Now, if I have a specific route set up for  E the address from where the incoming connection comes, return traffic eG will go through that route, so in this case the connection will work.   G That is what I meant by "setting a route for an incoming connection".  eB However, if I do this, then incoming connections via ISDN from theI remote address for which there is an explicit route will no longer work, .G since the return traffic will then follow the explicit route, which is i not via the ISDN router.  F Thus, "Incoming messages arrive at an interface and are processed" is B not what I see, if "processed" means that a working connection is  established.  F (ON THE LAN, I have no problem with the pseudointerface.  Thus, I can G telnet back and forth between two VMS machines on the LAN (in the case  D of the other VMS machine, its REAL interface is 192.168.1.x).  This I makes sense since there is a route to the 192.168.1.200 network with the s machine itself as the gateway.)c  C It seems to me that if a connection comes in via interface A, then eB return traffic should also be via that interface, and NOT via the G default gateway.  If it is via another interface, then connections are  H established (i.e. TCPIP SHOW DEVICE will see them, and my phone company I will charge the ISDN costs to me), but they are not usable since the two n* data streams are via different interfaces.  D Of course, if I set the default gateway to the DSL router, then all F works fine, as expected.  So there is no problem with the DSL router,  NAT/PAT etc per se.    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:46:36 +0000 (UTC)f  From: Cthulhu <spambox@rlyeh.it>" Subject: Re: TCPIP: bug or feature( Message-ID: <b4imic$j9$1@kadath.deep.it>  : Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote:  I > then the connection doesn't work since the return traffic goes through kF > the default gateway, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT AN OUTGOING CONNECTION I J > ORIGINATED, BUT RATHER RETURN TRAFFIC FOR AN INCOMING CONNECTION.  This   7 This is the right behaviour of a standard TCP/IP stack.   F No matther where the connection cames from, when the stack has to sendC out a packet it looks in the routing table. If there is no specific C entry for the destination IP or its subnet, then it sends it to then default gateway.  D To do asymmetric routing within the same subnet you could try with aD router, or a ROUTED daemon, and check if they can keep traffic path.  G Oh, well, you could try to NAT all packets goings out on one interface,sB so they seems to came from the other one... this sound like a realH hackerish thing to do on a Linux box, don't know how to do on VMS (well,A I'm not really shure that such a thing could work even on Linux).t  : BTW, what the hell of a URL http://h71000.www7.hp.com/ is?   	cifratamente, 	   Cthulhu.   -- m   Vado dove nessuno giungeB Per strade deserte abitate da spettri         http://www.rlyeh.it/G Vado nel Nulla, per cogliere l'Essenza.       <cthulhu(at)rlyeh(dot)it>'   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:59:24 GMTi4 From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Subject: Re: unixi8 Message-ID: <qndo6v01jil8rq14h8fc0ujs7fe69qgcea@4ax.com>  9 On Thu, 06 Mar 03 10:59:13 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,p jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  * >In article <w1Uf0EQpJryo@elias.decus.ch>,. >   p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:G >>In article <b3sofh$rp0$2@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: - >>> In article <0PL33tx$iQG4@elias.decus.ch>, 1 >>>    p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:rI >>>>In article <b3qhii$nu2$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:i >>>>
 >>>><snip> >>>>D >>>>> Unix could suck eggs but people will still use it if, and only@ >>>>> if, they get the sources.  One of DEC's fatal mistakes was@ >>>>> to try to keep the "knowledge", a.k.a. sources, to itself;? >>>>> it was under the misconception that secrecy would protecthB >>>>> its investment and intellectual property.  This is one case ' >>>>> where the exact opposite is true.  >>>>>  >>>>C >>>>Memories of a DEC comms program back in the late 1970s here. ItpE >>>>could have saved us an awful lot of money but didn't work. We hadsE >>>>the source for at least some of it, but all the comments had been  >>>>stripped. Plain stupid IMO.  >>>>B >>> I don't believe that.  I would believe that the comments never >>> existed.   >>>  >>F >>This was a piece of RT11 macro which was supposed to talk to an IBM. >>F >>It appeared that someone had run an editing macro against the source? >>to search for a semicolon and then delete to the end of line.i >>H >>I don't remember the exact details, but the evidence convinced me that >>was what had happened. > D >The only reason (that I can think of) is that the IBM protocol usedA >to talk to the device was proprietary(sp?) and the last edit to dB >the source had to be stripping the documenation (which is rather ; >silly but then those lawyer-genrated edicts usually were).   ? IBM seemed to allow anyone to use their OS and protocols on anytA hardware; they provided source and documentation up the wazoo forc> all their products; a lot of 2780/3780 compatible devices were built and programs written.   9 Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canadae -- fF Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca),     fake address		use address above to reply@ abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com ? abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com dB abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com - abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam trapsr   ------------------------------  ! Date: Mon, 10 Mar 03 12:10:59 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com  Subject: Re: unix., Message-ID: <b4i21r$9u2$10@bob.news.rcn.net>  ) In article <ud6l16ebp.fsf@earthlink.net>, /    Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:t >jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:@ >> Nah, I wouldn't assume that.  Most IBM interfaces had to suck@ >> (sorry, Lynn).  I don't know why but it always seemed to take@ >> awful code written for a very long time to do anything IBMish> >> and that included talking to their systems.  I have no ideaC >> if the reasons were because IBM sucked or the corporate culturess/ >> of the two computing styles clashed or what.. >uD >the "official" communication interfaces were SNA ... there has beenD >some folklore that the complexity of those interfaces are result of? >project i was on as an undergraduate that has been blaimed fors9 >originating the PCM (plug compatible manufactor) market.d  : I wouldn't believe that folklore.  You seem the type that,/ once the bits are set, you don't redefine them.      > ? >Originally, in theory, FS was suppose to address that ... withsE >extremely advanced, sophisticated integration. When FS got canceled,tC >the individual product lines were left on their own.  The folklore < >sort of indiciates that complexity was then substituted for >sophisticated.O >OE >there was joke (from a number of places) that if an internal producthF >attempted to jmplement sna support according to the official internalB >sna specification it would never work (boca/s1 was one group thatE >complained bitterly about it). the only way to make something really D >work was reverse engineering & regression testing with real pu4/pu5 >operation.o  @ I have a very, very, very vaugue memory of specs getting changedA out from underneath.  But that might not be the IBM stuff at all.v   >pC >For a period, my wife was chief architect for amadeus (airline resuA >system for europe, and a couple us lines). she settled on x.25.    > Our people settled on x.25 too, grumbling all the way.  I just; never understood the comm biz well enough to figure out whyc; there was so much grumping.  If things were so bad, why user it?c   > .. the@ >internal sna crowd created such an uproar that they got my wife> >removed. it didn't do much good ... amadeus went x.25 anyway. >EA >earlier she had been conned into going to pok to be in charge oft@ >loosely coupled architecture .... where she originated/authoredF >"peer-coupled shared data" architecture ... which was totally counterF >to non-peer SNA paradigm. there were frequent battles between how farF >glasshouse datacenter operation could extend peer-to-peer before theyG >had to switch to non-peer sna. as fiber technologies appeared ...  the ? >processor group kept trying to push peer-to-peer into multipleiC >kilometer range before they had to officially bow to sna non-peer.i  6 Did these people meet with your wife in the same room? <snip>  = I don't know why, but this all reminds me of the politics of v DECnet vs. ANF-10.   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.g   ------------------------------  ! Date: Mon, 10 Mar 03 12:25:33 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.como Subject: Re: unix , Message-ID: <b4i2t5$9u2$12@bob.news.rcn.net>  8 In article <0d2n6v0s8vgkk2oudbtaac6b0fkfeshvm6@4ax.com>,1    David Powell <ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk> wrote:o. >In article <b4fh55$p01$7@bob.news.rcn.net>,  5 > jmfbahciv@aol.com  in alt.folklore.computers wrote:w >o+ >>In article <zDK30IqnVoaT@elias.decus.ch>, / >>   p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:eH >>>In article <b47ca1$ahj$9@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:. >>>> In article <w1Uf0EQpJryo@elias.decus.ch>,2 >>>>    p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:J >>>>>In article <b3sofh$rp0$2@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: >>> 	 >>><snip>e >>>i >>>>>>> F >>>>>>>Memories of a DEC comms program back in the late 1970s here. ItH >>>>>>>could have saved us an awful lot of money but didn't work. We hadH >>>>>>>the source for at least some of it, but all the comments had been" >>>>>>>stripped. Plain stupid IMO. >>>>>>>cE >>>>>> I don't believe that.  I would believe that the comments never. >>>>>> existed.  m >>>>>>   >>>>>eI >>>>>This was a piece of RT11 macro which was supposed to talk to an IBM.  >>>>> I >>>>>It appeared that someone had run an editing macro against the source B >>>>>to search for a semicolon and then delete to the end of line. >>>>> K >>>>>I don't remember the exact details, but the evidence convinced me thate >>>>>was what had happened.  >>>> aH >>>> The only reason (that I can think of) is that the IBM protocol usedE >>>> to talk to the device was proprietary(sp?) and the last edit to aF >>>> the source had to be stripping the documenation (which is rather ? >>>> silly but then those lawyer-genrated edicts usually were).l >>>> s >>> 2 >>>That _does_ sound a very plausible explanation. >>A >>That's the only one I can think of that makes sense; especiallyeG >>with the RT-11 guys....unless they got a VMS-shoulder-chip infection.eC >>I think the only guys who were saner than the RT-11s were the IASe >>guys.  >> >e5 >I've always found RT11 guys a pretty sane bunch. :-)   < <grin> ;-)  The IAS guys won points because I didn't have to< "prove" that, even though I sounded like a girl, I knew what? I was doing.  Those IAS guys also had a knack for understandingt? my question and answering it immediately without a very lengthyl explanation.     >t >;+nA >; Nevertheless, comment stripped sources were the norm for RT11.s@ >; There's even a specification for commentary in the RT11 MACRO> >; doc-set to facilitate automated stripping.  Like this para. >;-o >hF >DEC shipped sources with RT to allow resolution of hardware / monitor? >specific conditional assembly pseudo-ops, and for source levelaF >bug-fixes.  Why give away the commentary, when you can sell commented >sources separately?     That smells like VMS-infection.h  + > ..Just save a couple of DECtapes in every  >distribution kit, v  9 OOooooohhhhhhh....RT-11 shipped on DECtapes.  Oho!  There  was a shortage of that media.   3 > ...and make life easier for guys with entry-level F >systems to actually edit sources when needed.  It can be real fun andG >games to TECO a 250 block commented source on just a pair of 578 blocko   578 doesn't sound right.   > ..D >DECtapes and an 11/05.  Much easier with a 150 block stripped file:E >that's about as big as they came; I don't think that's an accident. e >a >Just my 2d's worth.  > I consider my hand slapped.  ;-)  It never occurred to me that; there was a maximum filesize limit to editing.  I bet RT-11r didn't have buffering I/O.  < So now we have three very good technical reasons without the! developers having to be bastards.r   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.h   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:31:37 GMTo+ From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>  Subject: Re: unixk) Message-ID: <uu1eb47fk.fsf@earthlink.net>r   jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:e< > I wouldn't believe that folklore.  You seem the type that,1 > once the bits are set, you don't redefine them.   @ according to folklore (as well as recorded anecdotes), a primaryE driver in FS was tight, sophisticated intergraiton between all of thepC components to address the emerging PCM (plug compatible manufactor)d? market. When FS was killed, the responsibility went back to theiF individual box organizations.  The folkloare and the appearance of theF (SNA) pu5/pu4 interface (vtam/3705ncp) is highly integrated, extermelyC complex, and tightly controlled (which may also account for some oft- the non-peer-to-peer characteristic as well).T  @ the project i worked on as an undergraduate has been blaimed for& originating the pcm controller market.   specific fs recorded anecdote:E http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#16 [OT] FS - IBM Future System   ? another anecdotes was that the amount of money/effort sunk intoiB (cancelled) FS would have bankrupted any other (computer) company.   misc. fs postings:3 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys    misc. pcm postings0 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm   -- a3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/  A Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htme   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:23:50 +0000 (UTC) 8 From: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Subject: Re: unix-- Message-ID: <b4iam6$nqo$3@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>0  H In article <b47d3b$ahj$12@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:+ >In article <b45f4m$6he$0@205.153.154.199>,s0 >   Patrick Scheible <kkt@itchy.serv.net> wrote:    G >>There's not one entity for all of Unix, but each of the BSDs and eachC> >>of the Linux distributions has a group babysitting its bits.  H >>Open source gives some protection to users against arbitrary decisionsF >>by companies.  Multiple open source versions of Unix gives even moreF >>protection.  Good ideas can get copied, while organizational failureA >>by one group still leaves other versions of Unix around.  Whilec@ >>converting wouldn't be painless, it would be easier than, say,! >>converting from TOPS-10 to VMS.m  < >Sigh!  I understand this.  None of these people will sign a< >contract with an interested user site to guarantee support.  @ Just off the cuff, IBM, Oracle, and Red Hat sell such contracts.   hawk -- >K Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaignnG dochawk@psu.edu  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700      \ /   against HTML mailcD These opinions will not be those of              X    and postings. 6 Penn State until it pays my retainer.           / \      ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:15:38 +0000 (UTC)s8 From: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Subject: Re: unixW- Message-ID: <b4ia6q$nqo$2@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>t  8 In article <168j6vghakh5k494puvjo9776jj6n07j17@4ax.com>,6 Brian Inglis  <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:    B >Had Apple built a Mac that could run TCP/IP, instead of LocalTalk> >and then EtherTalk, who knows which PC platform would be most >popular now?   E nah.  If Apple has proven *anything*, it's that if you build a bettert@ mousetrap, it's still possible to beat the world away from your 
 door . . .   :)   hawk   -- 	K Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaignoG dochawk@psu.edu  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700      \ /   against HTML mailwD These opinions will not be those of              X    and postings. 6 Penn State until it pays my retainer.           / \      ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:20:22 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)e Subject: Re: unix 3 Message-ID: <hvGxSQQKcEhO@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <3E6AF017.2010109@beagle-ears.com>, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:G > And in the case of IBM Federal Systems, the project group would buildiE > a system on the foundation most likely to work. In some cases, thatcB > might be a VAX/VMS system even though one might speculate that aB > Series/1 or a System/34 could possibly be tweaked to do the job.  D   Or they might demand that it be on IBM hardware and deliver an appH   that was almost completed on a VAX instead on a RISC 6000/AIX platform?   which never could hope to reliably handle the interrupt load.t   ------------------------------  ! Date: Mon, 10 Mar 03 14:58:47 GMTa From: jmfbahciv@aol.com  Subject: Re: unixs+ Message-ID: <b4ibsd$313$8@bob.news.rcn.net>a  - In article <b4iam6$nqo$3@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>,i<    hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:I >In article <b47d3b$ahj$12@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:t, >>In article <b45f4m$6he$0@205.153.154.199>,1 >>   Patrick Scheible <kkt@itchy.serv.net> wrote:a >  > H >>>There's not one entity for all of Unix, but each of the BSDs and each? >>>of the Linux distributions has a group babysitting its bits.a >sI >>>Open source gives some protection to users against arbitrary decisionsiG >>>by companies.  Multiple open source versions of Unix gives even moreeG >>>protection.  Good ideas can get copied, while organizational failureaB >>>by one group still leaves other versions of Unix around.  WhileA >>>converting wouldn't be painless, it would be easier than, say,e" >>>converting from TOPS-10 to VMS. > = >>Sigh!  I understand this.  None of these people will sign aa= >>contract with an interested user site to guarantee support.  > A >Just off the cuff, IBM, Oracle, and Red Hat sell such contracts.i  A But I didn't think their code is open source.  Or are they trying # to be in the software services biz?t   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:52:45 GMT + From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>r Subject: Re: unixt) Message-ID: <ur89f43oc.fsf@earthlink.net>e  + Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:oG > And in the case of IBM Federal Systems, the project group would buildlE > a system on the foundation most likely to work. In some cases, that B > might be a VAX/VMS system even though one might speculate that aB > Series/1 or a System/34 could possibly be tweaked to do the job. >-D > As a 3rd-party subcontractor, my employer was often invited to bidA > our VAX-compatible subsystems into an IBM-FSD bid for a Federalr@ > Agency. I was very impressed that IBM allowed FSD to bid basedE > on the customer's best interest rather than on what maximized IBM's  > participation percentage.   E FSD was more akin to a large (federal gov) system integrator ... thatc@ happened to be owned by IBM. There use to be a joke that the two largest activities at FSD was:  A 1) gml programming (aka writing RFI/RFP responses and contracts)   2) managing subcontracts  F when we were doing some of the HSDT (aka high speed networking) in theC mid-80s somebody suggested that it would be helpful that we get FSD-D input on what we were doing (since some of them had been involved inB things related to high speed). Now we had already done things likeE talk to nasa people in houston that were trying to figure out what toiD do about the space station ... which was going to have a 100mbit/secF downlink of continuous data (aka there was a continuous 100mbit/sec ofD data that didn't stop). Turns out it wasn't really a network problem> ... it was what to do with the firehose of bits coming at you.  C In any case, we thot, what the heck. We put together a presentation D and they reserved a room. FSD had 30 people show up and they dragged@ the presentation and Q&A out for a week. And then we never heardC anything more .... other than we got a bill from FSD for a 30 weeksi? worth of people time at fully loaded rate (they were under gov. D billing/accounting rules ... and they needed to bill 30 people for a week).  ( so the 3rd largest activity was probably  1 3) billing and accounting (conform to gsa audits)      -- -3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ 3A Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htmm   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:11:31 GMT ) From: Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net>  Subject: Re: unixR' Message-ID: <3E6CF108.3E55CE6B@ev1.net>e   "Dr. Richard E. Hawkins" wrote:g > : > In article <168j6vghakh5k494puvjo9776jj6n07j17@4ax.com>,8 > Brian Inglis  <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote: > D > >Had Apple built a Mac that could run TCP/IP, instead of LocalTalk@ > >and then EtherTalk, who knows which PC platform would be most > >popular now?t > G > nah.  If Apple has proven *anything*, it's that if you build a betteroA > mousetrap, it's still possible to beat the world away from your" > door . . . >  > :) >  And still stay in business...o     -- g? +-------------------------------------------------------------+h? |     Charles and Francis Richmond     <richmond@plano.net>   | ? +-------------------------------------------------------------+h   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:32:07 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)eC Subject: Re: UNIXy freeware for VMS (was: CLI question for HP reps)r3 Message-ID: <86BAAoKTy4NB@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  q In article <JPKMFmXRru+8@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: l > In article <AM1aa.401$U32.23482@news.uswest.net>, "Michael D. Ober" <obermd-@-alum-mit-edu-nospam> writes:  >> That said, VMS doesn't have aJ >> large market share and restricting yourself to it is also limiting your >> potential future employment.  >  >  Yeah, right.8 >  0E >> As a freeware author I find it very, very annoying when someone isoM >> complaining about freeware.  Useful and correct software is hard to write,.O >> and when someone is doing so and giving it away, you don't have any right torG >> complain about it.  You do have a right to not use it.  Constructivet? >> feedback with suggestions for improvement are always useful.  > J >    I'll complain about anything I damn well feel like complaining about,B >    and poor user interfaces will reamin near the top of my list.  B Anyone in the habit of creating VMS freeware is involved in makingA the constant decision to make more or make it better.  Presumably-B the only reason for making it public is for the benefit of others,- so they should be happy to hear the reaction.e  C Complaining about user interfaces certainly seems to fall under theFA heading "Constructive feedback with suggestions for improvement".    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 07:50:12 -0800) From: gary.morin@emergis.com (Gary Morin) P Subject: Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses= Message-ID: <4f886957.0303100750.35fbbf58@posting.google.com>   E Hans is correct.  It does not see itself as a Server and *no* licensetC group is valid.  Looks like I live with the errors or try the cablea> trick.  Is it as simple as putting an ohm meter on the monitor@ connectors (monitor off) to see what the values of the resistorsC should be?  It has been 30 years since I had an electronics class.  " Does anybody have any suggestions?  
   -- Gary   ` "Hans Vlems" <hvlems@iae.nl> wrote in message news:<b4fiat$1u8069$1@ID-143435.news.dfncis.de>...: > "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> schreef in bericht% > news:f+q05FFxmU8$@elias.decus.ch...yA > > In article <4f886957.0303070634.3c205e92@posting.google.com>,0. >  gary.morin@emergis.com (Gary Morin) writes:F > > > I have a VAXStation 4000-90 that I use without the display tube.G > > > Every time I boot the box it reports a console level error on the5L > > > graphics board.  Since I was tired of geeting the errors I removed theI > > > graphics card and when I rebooted all of the VMS licenses failed to A > > > load.  When I selected the "license requirements" option ineI > > > vmslicense.com it came back with a list that showed that no licensenJ > > > group is valid.  When I put the card back in everything loaded but I7 > > > still got the hardware boot error on the console.  > > >0 > >eH > > I believe that without the graphics board, VMS decides it's a serverB > > rather than workstation, hence requires server level licenses. > >e > [snip] >  > Paul,t > F > without the graphics card the VAX looses its identity and VMS cannotN > determine what it is. Because it cannot find a match, LMF decides that _all_N > license types are invalid. In another post in this thread (did that one findN > its way out?) I suggested to keep the board in and put a passive load on theK > three color outlets. That way the boards is fooled into believing there'sNF > still a monitor attached and will happily continue the boot process.J > I do not know what input impedance a monitor uses, but a single resistor > might do the trick.  >  > Hans   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:55:25 GMTD% From: Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net>LP Subject: Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses3 Message-ID: <slrnb6ohd9.g81.rivie@Stench.no.domain>a  H In article <b4fiat$1u8069$1@ID-143435.news.dfncis.de>, Hans Vlems wrote: > : > "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> schreef in bericht% > news:f+q05FFxmU8$@elias.decus.ch... @ >> In article <4f886957.0303070634.3c205e92@posting.google.com>,- > gary.morin@emergis.com (Gary Morin) writes:EE >> > I have a VAXStation 4000-90 that I use without the display tube.  >>G >> I believe that without the graphics board, VMS decides it's a serverDA >> rather than workstation, hence requires server level licenses.t >>F > without the graphics card the VAX looses its identity and VMS cannotN > determine what it is. Because it cannot find a match, LMF decides that _all_ > license types are invalid.  E Somewhere I once heard a rumor that what LMF was _really_ looking for > was the keyboard. I once stumbled across some folks that were D rack-mounting headless 4000/90s. They had a funky little compartmentD in their hardware for the keyboard, because they said LMF needed it. -- d
 Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:08:31 +0100 (MET) 9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>nP Subject: Re: VAXStation 4000-90 without graphics card will not load VMS licenses; Message-ID: <01KTD7Z0WAA09H1MPS@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>a  G > Hans is correct.  It does not see itself as a Server and *no* license E > group is valid.  Looks like I live with the errors or try the cableg@ > trick.  Is it as simple as putting an ohm meter on the monitorB > connectors (monitor off) to see what the values of the resistorsE > should be?  It has been 30 years since I had an electronics class. h$ > Does anybody have any suggestions?  G Some of the VAX(stations) think they're a workstation and not a server gF if a keyboard is plugged in.  I think there doesn't even have to be a / keyboard attached, just the plug in the socket.o   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:09:59 +0100 (MET)c9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>a- Subject: Re: VMS Mail wastebasket folder name ; Message-ID: <01KTCZMZJRLU9FRD0S@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>l  H > running under OpenVMS v7.2-1.  I have just noticed some behavior whichJ > I'm unsure is by design, or not.  When you set the name of a wastebasketJ > folder using mixed-case, the Mail API translates this to all upper-case,? > and writes this information to the mail file.  (Note that the J > wastebasket name is set per mail file, not per user.)  Is there a reason0 > for this, or is it a bug?  Here's an example:  >  > MAIL> SET WASTE "Trash"  > MAIL> SHOW WASTE' > The wastebasket folder name is Trash.i > MAIL> EXIT > $ MAIL > MAIL> SHOW WASTE' > The wastebasket folder name is TRASH.   G Personally, I don't mind all upper case, but this is a bug.  HELP says:c  E    If your folder name contains lowercase letters, spaces, or specialaD    characters, the folder name must be enclosed in quotation marks.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:50:46 -0500u, From: "Island" <dbturner@nospamislandco.com> Subject: Re: why buy new ?/ Message-ID: <v6p9j91cg6ej3b@news.supernews.com>a   yes...   www.hpaq.net   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:35:29 +0100e' From: JOUKJ <joukj@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl>h7 Subject: Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ?c2 Message-ID: <3E6C7881.6090203@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:K > The V1.3 release brings the X11 client and server up to X11R6.6.  It willlM > only be available on Alpha, and won't install on older versions of OpenVMS.aN > Until now, the client bits have always been built against V6.2 with very oldJ > compilers.  To take advantage of newer compilers and CRTL routines, thisI > just had to change.  Along with the upgrade comes features you may havee/ > missed - LBX, XAUTH and Kerberos for example.e > H Will this version also support the select function on X11-devices as is  done in many Unix's?                    Joukr   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Mar 2003 06:42:17 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)27 Subject: Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ?s3 Message-ID: <WjanwXEc4jRs@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <3E6C7881.6090203@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl>, JOUKJ <joukj@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl> writes: > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:L >> The V1.3 release brings the X11 client and server up to X11R6.6.  It willN >> only be available on Alpha, and won't install on older versions of OpenVMS.O >> Until now, the client bits have always been built against V6.2 with very oldoK >> compilers.  To take advantage of newer compilers and CRTL routines, thiseJ >> just had to change.  Along with the upgrade comes features you may have0 >> missed - LBX, XAUTH and Kerberos for example. >>  J > Will this version also support the select function on X11-devices as is  > done in many Unix's?  = Are you sure that is related to X11, vs. the C compiler/RTL ?e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:02 +0100r' From: JOUKJ <joukj@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl>n7 Subject: Re: [MOTIF V1.3] Someone already experiences ? * Message-ID: <b4i2ht$qtv$1@news.tudelft.nl>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:^ > In article <3E6C7881.6090203@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl>, JOUKJ <joukj@hrem.stm.tudelft.nl> writes: >  >>Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >>L >>>The V1.3 release brings the X11 client and server up to X11R6.6.  It willN >>>only be available on Alpha, and won't install on older versions of OpenVMS.O >>>Until now, the client bits have always been built against V6.2 with very oldhK >>>compilers.  To take advantage of newer compilers and CRTL routines, thisnJ >>>just had to change.  Along with the upgrade comes features you may have0 >>>missed - LBX, XAUTH and Kerberos for example. >>>  >>J >>Will this version also support the select function on X11-devices as is  >>done in many Unix's? >  > ? > Are you sure that is related to X11, vs. the C compiler/RTL ?nG As I understood it is both. Due to the structure of DecWindows the the h7 select function could not be programmed to do the task.n  	      Joukl   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:04:14 +0100n0 From: "labadie" <en_trajectant_a_mort@127.0.0.1>6 Subject: Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-(, Message-ID: <3e6c56ba$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  6 "Dan Foster" <dsf@globalcrossing.net> wrote in message/ news:slrnb6mu8q.1si.dsf@gaia.tf.roc.gblx.net....< > In article <<3E68C160.5912ED31@vl.videotron.ca>>, JF Mezei( <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote: > > Didier Morandi wrote:oH > >> a) most of the modules are programmed by different teams who followL > >> different GUI rules (screens layouts, position of buttons, exit buttons% > >> with different names, etc. etc.)w > >I> > > I knew SAP was bloated, but I had no idea is was that bad. >hL > That's the most charitable thing I've ever heard about SAP, including from
 the people) > who do the actual SAP module coding :-)  >kH > I have a friend who used to do SAP work for his manufacturing company. >eL > He is a smart man... can handle physics, art, music, computer programming,J > engineering, statistics, higher math (advanced calculus, etc), finances, > etc.  I In 1997 I went to work at Rhone-Poulenc Rorer (now known as Aventis sinceu the merge with Hoechst)eK I met again with an old friend of mine, who had studied chemistry. He had 2c! guys from SAP working for him, toi( "fine tune" (parametrer le systme) SAP.G My friend explained me that he knew next to nothing in computing (knowstB Word, Excel, but not more) and accounting, but stated that he knew< more than the 2 guys from SAP about computing or accounting!J The Sap guys were paid more than 1000 $ /day, had been there for more than- one year, and Sap was still not "fine tuned".aB A proof that Sap needed some more tuning: some material needed forK laboratory practices/tests was ordered by 50, instead of 1 or 2, because its wasa, not possible to order in smaller quantities.0 But thanks to SAP, you will save a lot of money./ And you will be with SAP for the next 50 years.    Regardse   Gerard   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:10:12 +0100u4 From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr>6 Subject: Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-(& Message-ID: <3E6C80A4.3090001@Free.fr>  $ Merci Grard, c'est rconfortant :-)   D.   labadie wrote: ../..61 > And you will be with SAP for the next 50 years.  > 	 > RegardsP >  > Gerard >  >      --  )     M O R A N D I   C o n s u l t a n t sb+ 19 chemin de la Butte 31400 Toulouse France:+ Tl: 33(0)6 7983 6418 Fax: 33(0)5 6154 1928t* http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr/morandigroup   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:36:12 GMTD# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>C6 Subject: Re: [OT] After two months of SAP training :-(J Message-ID: <g24ba.201448$UXa.147149@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  ; "labadie" <en_trajectant_a_mort@127.0.0.1> wrote in messageg& news:3e6c56ba$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...    	 ...<snip>t  D > A proof that Sap needed some more tuning: some material needed forB > laboratory practices/tests was ordered by 50, instead of 1 or 2,
 because it > wasa. > not possible to order in smaller quantities.2 > But thanks to SAP, you will save a lot of money.  1 > And you will be with SAP for the next 50 years.e  5 All the more reason to get SAP on VMS. Wilh all thosedC suckers....er..customers hooked on SAP, they may as well run a reals' operating system for the next 50 years.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.136 ************************	   Cthulhu.   -- m   Vado dove nessuno giungeB Per strade deserte abitate da spettri         http://www.rlyeh.it/G Vado nel Nulla, per cogliere l'Essenza.       <cthulhu(at)rlyeh(dot)it>'   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:59:24 GMTi4 From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Subject: Re: unixi8 Message-ID: <qndo6v01jil8rq14h8fc0ujs7fe69qgcea@4ax.com>  D.ӖKdNpBǙטz2f(COLb+|δ"n0<5D+%Bڤ\Q7f~.gcY>š(^gA1cJ,BDys&51kycj573V.|ߙ,tb\(Iż9Z)'Θ
_]1*6r1BlXk
YhŎ!)bCB(<ddv-ηkIAfyq3	 O5y>SՈ
WQaT>ϏrfLx)d1:]B	<I58 FZOY 
v89Lèb*N2t	rUt	TJVNؠ3=QMMvKRUtXf
~90/l?s*i__>z1o;&3zl:NXĔP>!	)"C	THiR5>e`c
mM߷eVCF+cq&&7<<!Ī[X6E5I5G$Ƚ_¼A/@BZz8%9 a	ZG ޅ|?ע(OWdW6l@2tQIWlw.]UtU@ĠB(KW@`uHUkEGT圮MxV
Xc_1 os|hN~Im
ABilq62W8A#bZ_&w-
]pz:,ѥtKFjPFca%-뇽ڐ) z m\T|g4xD,cMx5
{kOk÷!i8(4x
L>Jw5&
-M$V;Zj Vg1\wO&6=AkŋNj'6ȒS,I:DL,ԇ5U-L#zLPm">;O2EIF 	)}Y"2θM
T<}@wJŽFnG:eȑY]| sm
݄ޏ4[^KL(ڦp`} "BaƣWB-@(%@(`wch\4ȔnX1Iәm-lԠJdZ#C
ӉP~Χ3g{*řmlId_:v"J7HjNdܭdŭ0 . spS;=hgB?=	>dS|_EpyID%^mͳ
_X)[kM1w1nlxGBxlwuip(qH$beG!#jM9:9G4,q6bqd=#Z.C5ż/"h	E#	ى73@EUF
