1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 01 Jul 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 362       Contents:> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS)> Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions Re: Floating point questions+ Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:53:17 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) 9 Message-ID: <YpWdnceqM59U_jjZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- < >> From: dooleys@snowy.net.au [mailto:dooleys@snowy.net.au]  >> Sent: June 29, 2006 7:25 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com: >> Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans  >> (Oracle and VMS)  >>@ >>> The bigger question might be "Can the Customers and Vendors 
 >> afford the ; >>> resources and effort associated with the QA testing of   >> their application7 >>> with the 10-20 monthly *security* (not bug) OS and   >> supporting utilities 4 >>> patches associated with Linux and Windows OS's?" >>> C >>> [RH Security site lists approx 7-20 security patches per month] E >> The answer is that software suppliers can always do QA and testing G >> (often of variable quality) if they have a significant market share. G >> I have little experience of applications on linux, but most software  >> suppliersF >> will run regression tests for major versions of windows and service	 >> packs. ; >> As regards security patches, the software suppliers get   >> windows updatesH >> at the same time as their customers, so the customer just has to hope >> that C >> nothing breaks, and if it does, uninstall the most recent patch! H >> In practice, there is significantly more benefit than pain in keeping
 >> up to date I >> with security patches, my experience is that most application software  >> will  >> just continue to work.  > F > If there are only a few security patches per year, this might be theJ > case. However, when the OS platform you choose has 5-20 security patchesC > *per month*, that is not the case as can be seen by the following  > examples:  > H > Personal case in point - approx 6 weeks ago, after applying one of theE > latest Windows patches, all the data in my laptop encrypted folders C > became unavailable. It looks like the patch corrupted a local key B > somehow. Even after MS acknowledging it was an issue, no fix wasH > provided and I had to restore the data from my backups (luckily I only@ > lost a week or two of info that I was able to get by without). > I >> (I have also seen this occur in vms environments, application software C >> would be regression tested for vms version upgrades, or compiler C >> upgrades, but a mandatory patch could be applied to a production = >> system - as long as a system disk backup was taken first!)  > G > What would your company management say if you went to them and stated J > this application regression testing for OS security patches was going toC > be a monthly effort because the platform chosen has 5-20 security H > patches per month? The new application upgrade functionality etc wouldH > have to take a lower priority and hence will delay even further future > application roll-outs? > I > My point is that for some reason the impact on resources and scheduling J > associated with regression testing required for monthly security patches@ > seems to get lost on many who do not have extensive operationsH > backgrounds. Also, the huge business impact of Cust data being exposed: > seems to get little attention when OS religion kicks in. > D >>> In addition, can the Cust afford to deal with HR security issues@ >>> associated with hackers getting access to Cust and employee  >> personnel	 >>> data?  >>> G >>> For some vendors and Cust's implementing IT systems, this is a huge @ >>> consideration - especially since the focus going forward is  >> web based& >>> services for end users or clients.F >> Yes this is a major risk with an organisation's HR/Payroll, but theF >> methods of securing these systems is much the same, irrespective of >> the operating system in use.  > E > No, the difference is that the scale and number of monthly security H > patches is a significant risk to the organization as it becomes almostD > impossible to stay current with so much monthly regression testing > required.  > > >>> As an example, how much longer would you deal with a bank  >> or firm who= >>> just sent you a letter stating that under the State law,   >> they needed to H >>> inform you that all the personal financial, home address and contact7 >>> information they had on you is now on the Internet? , >> Personally it would not bother me at all! > A > Ask those who have had to deal with identity theft, credit card H > violations, or sensitive health information being exposed if they feel > the same way.  > @ >>> While no platform is 100% secure, imho, it stands to reason  >> that putting 9 >>> your HR system on a platform that has 10-20 security   >> patches *per month*@ >>> (e.g. Linux - Windows is similar) is obviously placing your  >> firm at a: >>> higher risk than a platform that has much, much fewer  >> security issues. 8 >> and that is why vms runs x% of HR systems  worldwide. >> and what is x? 2? 3? 3 >> vms may be an excellent choice for some systems, % >> but HR/payroll is not one of them.  >> Phil  >> > F > I guess it is a matter of opinion as imho, due to the sensitive dataG > they hold, HR systems have high security and depending on the time of J > the month, high availability requirements. If a Cust can get over the OSI > religion, putting these types of applications on OS platforms that have F > 5-20 *security* patches per month does not seem logical or have much > business sense to me.  > 
 > Regards  >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant  > HP Services Canada > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax: 613-591-4477  > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom > (remove the DOT's and AT)  > 6 > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.  I My only question for all is, "Why would a payroll system be connected to  : anything?".  If it ain't connected, it cannot be accessed.  $ Ok, maybe network printers and such.  I My advice for many years, after I wrote a payroll system and was exposed  F to all the headaches, is to go to the bank or ADP or such and pay the B $.50 or whatever a check and let the professionals do the payroll.  E I'm betting their systems with sensitive customer information aren't  G connected to the internet, or even local intranets.  No need to do so.   They have a single job.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:54:45 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) 9 Message-ID: <YpWdncaqM5-9-TjZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote:m > In article <44a48679$0$67260$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:  >> Main, Kerry wrote: H >>> I guess it is a matter of opinion as imho, due to the sensitive dataI >>> they hold, HR systems have high security and depending on the time of L >>> the month, high availability requirements. If a Cust can get over the OSK >>> religion, putting these types of applications on OS platforms that have H >>> 5-20 *security* patches per month does not seem logical or have much >>> business sense to me. H >> Who would be stupid enough to put the payroll system directly on the  >> Internet? > H > The same ones who do payroll calculations using floating point to take* > advantage of the built-in decimal point.   Not so!    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:31:48 +0200 / From: Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) ; Message-ID: <f16df$44a56e14$50db5015$29790@news.hispeed.ch>    Dave Froble wrote: > K > My only question for all is, "Why would a payroll system be connected to  < > anything?".  If it ain't connected, it cannot be accessed. >   E Timesheet, clock card, and productivity bonus systems. But then I am  G talking about my payroll experience when everything was on VTs (or IBM  & 3270s) and later, only on an intranet.    & > Ok, maybe network printers and such. >   8 LOL! I can tell you a story about that; but not here :-)  K > My advice for many years, after I wrote a payroll system and was exposed  H > to all the headaches, is to go to the bank or ADP or such and pay the D > $.50 or whatever a check and let the professionals do the payroll. >   = My first IT job was on accounts and payroll; punch cards etc.   I The payroll cost an awful lot of time to implement, and took up 1.5 to 2  I days per week of solid operational time on what was essentially a single  = user batch machine (ICL). My conclusion is the same as yours.   G For my then junior salary (~3% P.a. of the capital cost of the system,  B let alone running costs), we could have easily farmed out the 650 E payslips per week and saved all that computer time for better things.   H At the same time we were running a full year's worth of account through H that system as a parallel run. Simply put - we could have utilized that $ system much better for the business.   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jun 2006 12:51:38 -0700- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) C Message-ID: <1151697098.464413.265320@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>    Paul Sture wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: > > L > > My only question for all is, "Why would a payroll system be connected to> > > anything?".  If it ain't connected, it cannot be accessed. > >  >   E It could be connected to many things, but that doesn't mean it is has  to be insecure.     F > Timesheet, clock card, and productivity bonus systems. But then I amH > talking about my payroll experience when everything was on VTs (or IBM( > 3270s) and later, only on an intranet. >  >   D Having written and supported payroll software that runs in-house andD also software that feeds third-party providers for (more-than-a-few)F years, and still am, I can say that the cost of doing payroll in-houseG vs. out isn't really much different, and often the cost of out-sourcing F payroll is greater. However, the problems inherent with payroll (wrongG information, late reporting, "forgot to tell you",...) are often easier + and cheaper to deal with in-house than out.   C So we're clear, in-house vs. out-source doesn't have to do with the F location of the computer or who owns the software; it's where the workB is done and where the checks are printed. Tax reporting and filing doesn't factor in, either.  E Basically, all of the employee data maintenance must still be done by C someone in-house; pay raises, hires & fires, changes in deductions, F classification, marital status, name et al. Whether they're done on anG in-house computer, manually written up, or keyed into a remote station, ( they still take the same amount of work.  B There must be some pre-check audit performed, whether by generated@ report or manual totaling and crossfooting, and someone needs toB approve the audit before checks are printed (or direct deposit ACH records are generated).   A Time clock transactions that feed or can be imported into payroll E reduce the cost of doing P/R in-house. The need to move time and cost C data into a production/job cost system increases the amount of work  that *must* be done in-house.   G Choosing the wrong payroll service is usually easier to correct (unless C nobody read the contract) than choosing the wrong payroll software. ) Either will be disruptive to the company.   D Of course, the size of the company and the level of in-house abilityF will determine much. If no one has the desire or ability to understandG basic bookkeeping or can read a withholding tax table, then the company F should let someone else do it all. Most companies, even small ones, doF have someone who can do the work. In-house capability should be one ofE the most determinant factors when deciding in-house vs. out-source of 	 anything.    JMHO (not that you asked;-)    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jun 2006 15:06:05 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) 3 Message-ID: <nOUaYkpJDkNM@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <YpWdnceqM59U_jjZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:   K > My only question for all is, "Why would a payroll system be connected to  
 > anything?".   F Because connecting systems to networks has become a kneejerk reaction.E For one thing, without a network it is harder to load those antivirus D tables.  The fact that you don't need those antivirus tables is lost in the mist.  K > My advice for many years, after I wrote a payroll system and was exposed  H > to all the headaches, is to go to the bank or ADP or such and pay the D > $.50 or whatever a check and let the professionals do the payroll.  D No company should do its own payroll.  There is too much human risk.  G > I'm betting their systems with sensitive customer information aren't  I > connected to the internet, or even local intranets.  No need to do so.   > They have a single job.   < I am betting they _are_ connected (not that they should be).   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:20:51 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) 9 Message-ID: <_bKdnQgifpbCGzjZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@libcom.com>    Doug Phillips wrote: > Paul Sture wrote:  >> Dave Froble wrote: L >>> My only question for all is, "Why would a payroll system be connected to> >>> anything?".  If it ain't connected, it cannot be accessed. >>>  > G > It could be connected to many things, but that doesn't mean it is has  > to be insecure.  >  > G >> Timesheet, clock card, and productivity bonus systems. But then I am I >> talking about my payroll experience when everything was on VTs (or IBM ) >> 3270s) and later, only on an intranet.  >> >> > F > Having written and supported payroll software that runs in-house andF > also software that feeds third-party providers for (more-than-a-few)H > years, and still am, I can say that the cost of doing payroll in-houseI > vs. out isn't really much different, and often the cost of out-sourcing H > payroll is greater. However, the problems inherent with payroll (wrongI > information, late reporting, "forgot to tell you",...) are often easier - > and cheaper to deal with in-house than out.  > E > So we're clear, in-house vs. out-source doesn't have to do with the H > location of the computer or who owns the software; it's where the workD > is done and where the checks are printed. Tax reporting and filing > doesn't factor in, either. > G > Basically, all of the employee data maintenance must still be done by E > someone in-house; pay raises, hires & fires, changes in deductions, H > classification, marital status, name et al. Whether they're done on anI > in-house computer, manually written up, or keyed into a remote station, * > they still take the same amount of work. > D > There must be some pre-check audit performed, whether by generatedB > report or manual totaling and crossfooting, and someone needs toD > approve the audit before checks are printed (or direct deposit ACH > records are generated).  > C > Time clock transactions that feed or can be imported into payroll G > reduce the cost of doing P/R in-house. The need to move time and cost E > data into a production/job cost system increases the amount of work  > that *must* be done in-house.  > I > Choosing the wrong payroll service is usually easier to correct (unless E > nobody read the contract) than choosing the wrong payroll software. + > Either will be disruptive to the company.  > F > Of course, the size of the company and the level of in-house abilityH > will determine much. If no one has the desire or ability to understandI > basic bookkeeping or can read a withholding tax table, then the company H > should let someone else do it all. Most companies, even small ones, doH > have someone who can do the work. In-house capability should be one ofG > the most determinant factors when deciding in-house vs. out-source of  > anything.  >  > JMHO (not that you asked;-)  >   A I won't disagree with anything you wrote.  However, a particular  0 experience caused me to turn my back on payroll.  I I was gathering specs at a customer site.  As you mentioned, they wanted  H to gather time data, having employees clock in and off each job.  I was G suggesting various methods on how to do that, and wasn't communicating  F very well with the customer.  Finally the guy just came out and said, H "We cannot put any type of data collection device on the factory floor. F   The employees will just tear them off the wall and smash them."  In I shock, I replied that such an employee should be immediately fired.  The  + response, "The union won't let us do that."   C Ok, not really totally on topic, but my shock was such that I just  H didn't want to be involved is such activity.  Might have been better if F the customer had just said "no data collection on the factory floor", H but no, they had to let me suggest multiple solutions before telling me  there was no solution.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jun 2006 13:39:16 -0700- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) C Message-ID: <1151699956.162955.178690@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > Doug Phillips wrote:?   .. a bunch of stuff about in-house vs out-house (:-) payroll.   J > I was gathering specs at a customer site.  As you mentioned, they wantedI > to gather time data, having employees clock in and off each job.  I was H > suggesting various methods on how to do that, and wasn't communicatingG > very well with the customer.  Finally the guy just came out and said, I > "We cannot put any type of data collection device on the factory floor. G >   The employees will just tear them off the wall and smash them."  In J > shock, I replied that such an employee should be immediately fired.  The- > response, "The union won't let us do that."  >   G Ahh, yes. Union shops. I've had some interesting experiences with Union D shops. I won't say anything more because like the old saying; If you3 can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.   D > Ok, not really totally on topic, but my shock was such that I justI > didn't want to be involved is such activity.  Might have been better if G > the customer had just said "no data collection on the factory floor", I > but no, they had to let me suggest multiple solutions before telling me  > there was no solution. >   ' Believe me, I can sympathize with that!    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:25:59 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> G Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) , Message-ID: <44A5CF1E.B9AC30C8@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:I > "We cannot put any type of data collection device on the factory floor. D >   The employees will just tear them off the wall and smash them."   H Just inject some RFID chip under their skin while they are asleep on theH job :-) And then just buy off-the shelf inventory management software toE log employee location by the minute. Put RFID readers inside factorty ? door frames, at bathroom and cafeteria  entrances and alongside C corridors. Then at end of month, you send a detailed report to each G employee to detail their full activity during that month :-)  Heck, you G could even say that employee X spent  16 minutes chatting with employee  Y at corridor location XYZ.   H And instead of firing your employees, you just enter their RFID tag intoF the shipping database and the next time they enter the wharehouse, theE shipping robots will automatically pick them up and bring them to a a . truck to be delivered to some bad customer :-)    C There have been lots of union problems with companies that tried to < implement time card schemes. I think there is a trust issue.  A Instead of counting each second of an employee's whereabouts with E technology, you could use building security logs to just decide if an + employee showed up to work that day or not.   C Another issue are IT workers who must account their every minute on G whatever project they are working on so that that time can be billed to H that department. That can be truly tiresome and that is where automation can come in handy.   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jun 2006 21:29:30 -0700 From: dooleys@snowy.net.auG Subject: Re: Education Ministry rethinks payroll plans (Oracle and VMS) B Message-ID: <1151728170.753344.258910@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   So the consensus seems to be+ "don't run payroll systems - it's too hard" 1 "don't provide employees with payslip information " over the internet - it's too hard"@ Millions of employees get paid via Windows or Linux/unix systems4 and can also check their payslips over the internet. Phil   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:02:23 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions 9 Message-ID: <6s-dnUASI6p3-DjZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> Not hard????  >>  >> What is the distance between:0 >>     70d0m0s E 70d0m0s N and 80d0m0s E 70d0m0s >> and now: 0 >>     70d0m0s E 10d0m0s N and 80d0m0s E 10d0m0s >>@ >> Somehow I have to believe the math needed to compute distanceC >> based on latitude and longitude is complex enough to not qualify  >> as "not hard".  :-) >  >  > The bible on this is at: > ) > http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm   5 Interesting page.  Interesting enough for a bookmark.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:03:56 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions 9 Message-ID: <6s-dnUMSI6rb-zjZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote:J >> I'm thinking it's probably interesting how you get stuff to work in any >> base other than 2.  > $ > Cobol does it with packed decimal.  F Uh... yeah... but, I've never seen a 'packed decimal' CPU.  Every one F I've seen uses only ones and zeros.  Yeah, binary, that's what that's  called.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:28:25 -0600 $ From: Jeff Campbell <n8wxs@arrl.net>% Subject: Re: Floating point questions 3 Message-ID: <1151691603_18661@sp6iad.superfeed.net>    Dave Froble wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:  >> Dave Froble wrote: K >>> I'm thinking it's probably interesting how you get stuff to work in any  >>> base other than 2. >>% >> Cobol does it with packed decimal.  > H > Uh... yeah... but, I've never seen a 'packed decimal' CPU.  Every one H > I've seen uses only ones and zeros.  Yeah, binary, that's what that's 	 > called.  > D Sure you have! 8-)  VAX (or PDP-11) with the CIS... ADDP, SUBP, etc.  
 Jeff Campbell  n8wxs@arrl.net      Q ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:47:50 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions = Message-ID: <44a571c8$0$67264$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    Rob Brown wrote:, > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Karsten Nyblad wrote: >  >> JF Mezei wrote:0 >>>> So you could theoretically have 8388607e255 >>>  >>> D >>> OK, read a bit more. 255 as exponent is a special value. (255 asH >>> exponent and 0 as fraction means "infinity".  So 254 is the highest 2 >>> exponent to be used. Still pretty high number. >>> ? >>> http://www.psc.edu/general/software/packages/ieee/ieee.html  >>I >> No you seem to think that the exponent denotes the potents of 10 that  G >> the mantissa should be multiplied with.  It does not.  The exponent  H >> denotes the potents of 2 that the mantissa should be multiplied with. >>C >> E.g.  You can get a precise representation of 31457 and 31457 *  % >> 2**200, but not of 31457 * 10**50.  > I > In fact, you can't even represent 31457 * 2**200, because the range of   > the exponent is -126 to +127.  >  > ! It can in the 8 byte IEEE format.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:50:04 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions = Message-ID: <44a5724e$0$67264$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    Dave Froble wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:  >> Dave Froble wrote: K >>> I'm thinking it's probably interesting how you get stuff to work in any  >>> base other than 2. >>% >> Cobol does it with packed decimal.  > H > Uh... yeah... but, I've never seen a 'packed decimal' CPU.  Every one H > I've seen uses only ones and zeros.  Yeah, binary, that's what that's 	 > called.  > I VAX,  IBM zSeries and Motorola 68000 all have support for packed decimal.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:47:16 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions , Message-ID: <44A5B803.81962F25@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote: > > The bible on this is at: > > + > > http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm  > 7 > Interesting page.  Interesting enough for a bookmark.     E Yeah, but remember who gave you that bookmark: Some idiot on weed and . whatever else I've been accused of :-) :-) ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:55:09 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions , Message-ID: <44A5B9DA.3E2BAE88@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:G > Uh... yeah... but, I've never seen a 'packed decimal' CPU.  Every one G > I've seen uses only ones and zeros.  Yeah, binary, that's what that's 	 > called.     H IBM 360 (and beyond) architecture had instructions for packed decimal. I5 remember being show how it worked but can't remember.   F Basically, 1,234 is stored as 2 bytes 0x12 and 0x34  so you add 4 bitsG at a time.  Can't remember how they dealt with the carry over (since it  is base 10).   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:13:29 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> % Subject: Re: Floating point questions 9 Message-ID: <jJ6dnXgU-pSJejjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: >>> The bible on this is at: >>> + >>> http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm 8 >> Interesting page.  Interesting enough for a bookmark. >  > G > Yeah, but remember who gave you that bookmark: Some idiot on weed and 0 > whatever else I've been accused of :-) :-) ;-)  I Let me form and utter my own stupid remarks.  When you deserve credit or  G praise I'll offer.  But I'll also be available when you do get on some   of that weed.  Works both ways.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:30:10 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 4 Subject: Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"?9 Message-ID: <fuydnZmiz9by8TjZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Paul Sture wrote:  > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:0 >> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14905 >> > F > Following the link from that page entitled "Microsoft: Please Don't  > Disable UAC":  >  > O > http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Please_Dont_Disable_UAC/1151441160   >  > I > "User Account Control, or UAC, is a fundamental security change coming  F > in Windows Vista and one of the most important additions to protect G > users from threats, Microsoft says. But the company is struggling to  0 > find a balance between security and usability. >  > ...  > G > In turn, new Vista users are left with a bad first impression of the  K > operating system and experts simply disable the feature altogether using  H > "msconfig." At the Windows Vista Beta 2 lab in May, almost the entire L > room said the first thing they do after installing Vista is turn off UAC." >  > Oh dear...  D The entire write-up is rather long.  I didn't read the whole thing. / However, I did find it interesting and amusing.   E A first reaction by an anti-MS bigot would be to agree that it's the  F most secure MS OS ever, as posted by another.  I'd say that as far as H security from internet intruders, MS-DOS might be a bit better.  (If it ( ain't connected, it cannot be accessed.)  I However, MS is putting some interesting things into the applications and  G the OS.  Having internet explorer run in a less priviledged (VMS term)  C environment is a step in the right direction.  Mainly because they  B started very wrong in the beginning with things running with full H control over the system.  Read this as 'fixing past mistakes'.  Most of G which are in the applications, and even more so operations, not the OS.   D Encription of the disk data is a nice feature.  I do think such was 6 possible on other systems, including VMS, in the past.  D However, as stated above, many users don't want security, they want E flashy pop-up types of things, and they don't want anything stopping  D them.  Gee, isn't that how we got to where we're at today?  MS will G provide a more secure 'possible' environment, but, bet that most users  ; won't benefit.  They'll find ways to turn off the security.   G For those who want, and are willing to use, security, there are things  E like VMS, where all the bloat MS is introducing isn't required.  All  G that's required is reasonable operational procedures.  Too many times,  
 bloat = bugs.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.362 ************************                                              4u',FbFU'ݦ'ny~yXΆx	M4l(RWZJlR	mFY@$,%౶:	Q\BZbjn-e͋	ןF@.%.FiǱ+ZQg2NGA<]
6eʹ4x:E#JcYȕDsw婢Kמ%z. PK   ,g'Tu  T   	 beos/zipup.hUT bV%8Mn0z|864F\4RH2$B-N<}WBB3ΊU܇݋(UfȱMh?[{,H%Jqyn{Pbrg٫ܬ D>SB9UL,`n@}
pAnjm#v1}
#I>1lgHJxt)Iz~)D[5|<t