Jihad needs scientists

In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <esij9m$9en$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]

Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication
of
error but there is a point that I would like to make here.

Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we
called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the
electronics used related to disk drives today.

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this.


This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because
the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware
pathways was the trade off.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.

Speed is uninteresting if you don't have a way to get the
bits from here to there. Having more than one path
allows the system to keep functioning even if one of the
pathways breaks.

/BAH

 

In article <esju3h$1a4$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <esjjt0$8ss_003@s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esij9m$9en$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[......]
And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this.

This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because
the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware
pathways was the trade off.

Not providing a buggy whip holder in a car is the same sort of trade off.

Giving the buggy whip to the back seat driver still makes
the whip useful.

Having multiple disks connected to a single disk drive controller
electronics gives absolutely no advantage and a few disadvantages.

I know that one can have multiple structures on one drive. Has
the need of having one structure on multiple drives gone away?

/BAH

 

In article <63ec8$45ed7ba8$4fe701c$6223@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.


More proof that you are clueless.


I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go
when the only way people can do their finances is via
computers systems installed in their abodes.

It is an advance not unlike many before this.

It is a dangerous advance if no thinking is done. There
isn't much thinking going on. We certainly are not
breeding people capable of thinking about both things:
computer systems and banking.

/BAH

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <esij9m$9en$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:


In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:


In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:


In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]


Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication

of

error but there is a point that I would like to make here.

Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we
called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the
electronics used related to disk drives today.

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this.


This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because
the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware
pathways was the trade off.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.


Speed is uninteresting if you don't have a way to get the
bits from here to there. Having more than one path
allows the system to keep functioning even if one of the
pathways breaks.

Ah yes, redundancy means something different to us than
it does to the Brits.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <63ec8$45ed7ba8$4fe701c$6223@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:



Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.


More proof that you are clueless.


I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go
when the only way people can do their finances is via
computers systems installed in their abodes.

It is an advance not unlike many before this.


It is a dangerous advance if no thinking is done. There
isn't much thinking going on. We certainly are not
breeding people capable of thinking about both things:
computer systems and banking.

History teaches us that we are, unfortunately, reactive
instead of being pro-active when it comes to these things.

The "think" signs should have been "think ahead" signs.

 

In article <esjvn9$1a4$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <esjofk$8qk_001@s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esikk3$9en$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eshe41$8qk_001@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <eshcs5$l1t$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eshaf7$8ss_001@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
tape. And that was a PITA because a checksummed directory of the
tape was never precisely accurate because the checksum of the
first file (the checksummed directory of itself) always changed .

It was one of those neat CATCH-22 problems that I liked to think
about. It reminded me of those three-way mirrors in the clothing
store's dressing rooms. It was turtles all the way down.

A checksum isn't the best way to do it if but assuming a checksum is
used,
the problem of the checksum including its self was solved years ago.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

Not with the spec I had. Remember that the
directory of the tape had to be the first file on that tape.

No problem. Was the contents you intended to put in the directory known
before you started to write.

Sure. But you are missing the requirement that the DIR file
was a checksummed directory of the _tape_, not of the
contents of the tape before it was saved.

If you know what you intend to write onto the tape, figure out what the
checksum will be and then write the tape as you intend there is no extra
effort needed.

That does not give you a checksummed directory of the physical
tape you just made. All the handwaving and blustering you
are doing still does not satisfy the requirement.

If so this is falling off a log simple.

I am aware of that one. This was a directory of the tape,
not the files of the disk before they were copied to the
tape.

If you intend to put the files onto the tape and can do so you can also
figure out what the directory should look like before hand. This is so
simple that it doesn't need further discussion.

You still are not getting the fact that the directory of the tape
had to be on the tape--not a directory of the files on disk
soon to be copied to the tape.

The issue of what to do if you can't be sure about how much will really
fit onto the tape is worthy of further discussion if you want to know how
to solve that one.

I know more about how to fit stuff on small tapes than you will ever
encounter. Tape fitting still has nothing to do with the requirement
of a directory of the tape prepended to the files we distributed
on that tape.

[....]

You are not solving the problem I was talking about.

I didn't solve it. It was solved by others long long ago. You can't see
the solution without further help so I will include that help below.


Hint: what do write you when you haven't done the checksum yet? What do
you write after you have done it.

The medium was magtapes. They are not random access writable media.

Think about the questions. I gave you a huge hint as to how to do it.

You are talking about checksumming the files on the disk. That
was not the purpose of the directory file. This directory file
had to be done on the tape.

Did you control what was written onto the tape or did some random
generator determine it. If you controlled what went onto the tape, you
knew before you wrote the first byte what all the bytes were going to be
so the figuring out of the checksum was not really a problem.

There would be too much of a time gap between getting the disk
checksums and saving the files to the tape. In addition,
a customer who restores a file can do a compare with the
file he has on his disk with what we actually put on the tape.

It helps to know when (within the process of saving, distribution,
restoring, looking and using) a file was corrupted. A customer
can tell immediately if the file was bad originally (our problem
fix) or became bad during shipment (his and our problem to fix)
or restoring (his problem to fix).

The problem
is that you couldn't see how to make the checksum correct when the file
that contained the checksum had to be included in the checksum.

Since the contents of the directory file will always change (checksummed
file's checksum is the thing that will never be a constant),
there will never be an accurate directory of the tape. However,
no customer's system needed to use the directory-of-the-tape file's
checksum to verify their restores.

A checksum is a simple sum where carried out of th etop of the word are
discarded. For this reason you can take advantage of the observation
that:

A+B+C+D+E+F+G+0+0 == A+B+C+D+E+F+G+(-H)+H

The checksum is not changed if two changes that cancel each other are
made.

This is not a very good sanity check.

With binary data it is very easy to implement this by simply
writing the values. If you need work in ASCII doing the (-H) part is only
slightly trickier.

Before:
*Please ignore this line: ZZZZ
The checksum is = 0000

After:
*Please ignore this line: ZXYZ
The checksum is = 0210

See how the compensating change means that we can figure out a checksum
and then put it in without changing the very thing we just calculated.
Your problem was solved years ago. Doing the same on CRC based checking
requires a more complex routine for doing the compensating change but the
method still works.

Some people even came up with cute ways to hide the compensating changes
so that it wouldn't look like anything funny was being done.

That is not how we used checksums when packaging our materials.
The program our customers used to get a checksum had to match
the program we used to get the checksum we reported.

I
always used the one implemented in our DIRECT program. I'm talking
about storing a file whose contents changes with each previous
save. Remeber that a checksummed directory of the tape also has
to include the file that contains the checksummed directory of the
tape.

Like I said solved years ago.

No, it is a problem that cannot be solved.

See above.

I'd never let you package our stuff. You are more interested
in fakery than in ways to assist customers to analyze stuff
that goes wrong.

Note that the obvious "solution" was to put the directory of the
tape in a saveset at the end of the tape. But that was unacceptable
because the customers did not need to have to read to the end
of a serious of save sets (which could involve more than one
tape) in order to "see" what was new and ID the beware files.

It was also a goal, to minimize the number of times they had
to physical pass the tape on a reel over the heads in order
to restore what we shipped.

On some sites, bit inspections were very rigorous.

/BAH


/BAH

 

In article <6b713$45eeac9c$4fe77f4$13950@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <esij9m$9en$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:


In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:


In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:


In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]


Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication

of

error but there is a point that I would like to make here.

Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we
called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the
electronics used related to disk drives today.

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this.


This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because
the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware
pathways was the trade off.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.


Speed is uninteresting if you don't have a way to get the
bits from here to there. Having more than one path
allows the system to keep functioning even if one of the
pathways breaks.

Ah yes, redundancy means something different to us than
it does to the Brits.

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.

/BAH

 

In article <158be$45eead75$4fe77f4$13972@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <63ec8$45ed7ba8$4fe701c$6223@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:



Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.


More proof that you are clueless.


I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go
when the only way people can do their finances is via
computers systems installed in their abodes.

It is an advance not unlike many before this.


It is a dangerous advance if no thinking is done. There
isn't much thinking going on. We certainly are not
breeding people capable of thinking about both things:
computer systems and banking.

History teaches us that we are, unfortunately, reactive
instead of being pro-active when it comes to these things.

You don't have to tell me about this one. Mess prevention
is done by only a few. I don't think it is in the hardware
of 99.9% people to be able to think about all consequences of
any action or inaction.

This thread is a very good example.

The "think" signs should have been "think ahead" signs.

Such as "think ahe
a
d"

/BAH

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.

We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

 

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Now I suggest that you count the pathways and the number of "nodes"
required to keep the appearance of extreme capacities and
infallibility.

What the fuck do you think I've been talking about? Single pathways
cannot be used in network (that's why it has the root net in it).
The same thing is true with computer systems.

/BAH

 

[krw]

In article <pn3su29ue4de7i91aeemgi225h2b2go3lb@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:09:04 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Dimbulb, SATA drives are one per cable. There is no Master/Slave,
nor Cable Select (what you're attempting simper on about).


I meant UDMA. You know, that method you swore was controlled at the
motherboard.

Then say what you mean, Dimbulb. It's already hard enough to follow
your twisted logic and four-letter words to find anything worth
reading, without guessing what you're talking about.

Just so you know, the SERIAL ATA interface is ALSO tertiary to the
PCI bus.

Not necessarily (either ATA or SATA).

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Speed is and reliability are orthogonal, Dimbulb. "Reliability" is

always a relative term.

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esm9f6$8ss_002@s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <esju3h$1a4$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
Having multiple disks connected to a single disk drive controller
electronics gives absolutely no advantage and a few disadvantages.

I know that one can have multiple structures on one drive. Has
the need of having one structure on multiple drives gone away?

No, it hasn't gone away completely. There is a lot less need for logical
volumes to span multiple disks today. It is still done in cases where
something will be truly huge. It is also done in the name of speed where
the data must be moved on and off the disk at speeds that are impractical
for hardware.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <158be$45eead75$4fe77f4$13972@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
[....]

History teaches us that we are, unfortunately, reactive
instead of being pro-active when it comes to these things.

The "think" signs should have been "think ahead" signs.

The stock market tends to drive people in the direction of short term
thinking. The need to keep the stock price up today reduces the chances
that the needed extra computing power will be bought before the problem
becomes very obvious. We are currently living in a world that has become
brittle.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esmalk$8qk_001@s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <esjvn9$1a4$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
If you know what you intend to write onto the tape, figure out what the
checksum will be and then write the tape as you intend there is no extra
effort needed.

That does not give you a checksummed directory of the physical
tape you just made. All the handwaving and blustering you
are doing still does not satisfy the requirement.

Yes it does. Imagine it step by step.

(1)
You calculate the checksum of what you intend to put on the tape.

(2)
You put exactly what you intend onto the tape

(3)
You calculate the checksum of what you have put on the tape.

If the checksum at step (3) doesn't match the checksum at step (1), you
haven't written what you intended onto the tape. I am really surprised
that you can't see this.


[....]

If you intend to put the files onto the tape and can do so you can also
figure out what the directory should look like before hand. This is so
simple that it doesn't need further discussion.

You still are not getting the fact that the directory of the tape
had to be on the tape--not a directory of the files on disk
soon to be copied to the tape.

Why the devil can't you understand this!!!!!! Go back and look at what I
wrote above. I have told you how to do it when you know what will end up
on the tape. You were talking about tapes that will contain code to be
sent to others. If you don't know what that tape will contain, you are
not ready to make it.

I also pointed out but did not cover that there is a method for tapes
where the contents are not known before hand. The fact that you haven't
been able to understand the simple case makes it nonuseful to get into
that subject right now.

The issue of what to do if you can't be sure about how much will really
fit onto the tape is worthy of further discussion if you want to know how
to solve that one.

I know more about how to fit stuff on small tapes than you will ever
encounter. Tape fitting still has nothing to do with the requirement
of a directory of the tape prepended to the files we distributed
on that tape.

The tail end of this is wrong in a way that I won't try to explain to you
until you understand the simpler case. The start of it is evidence that
haven't yet understood the simple case.

[....]

You are talking about checksumming the files on the disk. That
was not the purpose of the directory file. This directory file
had to be done on the tape.

Did you control what was written onto the tape or did some random
generator determine it. If you controlled what went onto the tape, you
knew before you wrote the first byte what all the bytes were going to be
so the figuring out of the checksum was not really a problem.

There would be too much of a time gap between getting the disk
checksums and saving the files to the tape. In addition,
a customer who restores a file can do a compare with the
file he has on his disk with what we actually put on the tape.

So you now are suddenly talking about the more complex case. This has
also been solved. It isn't rocket science.

It helps to know when (within the process of saving, distribution,
restoring, looking and using) a file was corrupted.

So you didn't check your tapes before you sent them. (shutter)

The problem
is that you couldn't see how to make the checksum correct when the file
that contained the checksum had to be included in the checksum.

Since the contents of the directory file will always change (checksummed
file's checksum is the thing that will never be a constant),
there will never be an accurate directory of the tape. However,
no customer's system needed to use the directory-of-the-tape file's
checksum to verify their restores.

This is wrong in two way. The checksum can in fact be put in place after
all the data has been saved. The contents of the directory on the tape
doesn't change once the tape is created and is ready to ship.

A checksum is a simple sum where carried out of th etop of the word are
discarded. For this reason you can take advantage of the observation
that:

A+B+C+D+E+F+G+0+0 == A+B+C+D+E+F+G+(-H)+H

The checksum is not changed if two changes that cancel each other are
made.

This is not a very good sanity check.

You didn't understand it did you? I may try again later on this.



[....]

That is not how we used checksums when packaging our materials.
The program our customers used to get a checksum had to match
the program we used to get the checksum we reported.

There is absolutely nothing in what I suggested that changes this. I will
suggest you go back over the subject again.


[...]

I'd never let you package our stuff. You are more interested
in fakery than in ways to assist customers to analyze stuff
that goes wrong.

No, I am more interested in getting the right answer and you are more
interested in defending a statement you made which is shown to be
incorrect. I don't want the customer to have to analyze any extra wrong
things so I wouldn't send them tapes with an obvious mistake on it.

Note that the obvious "solution" was to put the directory of the
tape in a saveset at the end of the tape. But that was unacceptable
because the customers did not need to have to read to the end
of a serious of save sets (which could involve more than one
tape) in order to "see" what was new and ID the beware files.

The solution I gave is the right one. Just admit it.

It was also a goal, to minimize the number of times they had
to physical pass the tape on a reel over the heads in order
to restore what we shipped.

They should only need one pass. Perhaps what you did contained another
error that forced more than one since you brought the subject up.

Assuming reel-to-reel tapes, you can command the tape into the read
reverse mode to do the verify on the writing drive to do a verify of the
contents.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Tony Lance]

Big Bertha Thing book
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/book.html
6K Web Page
Astrophysics net ring access site
Newsgroup Reviews including soc.history.medieval

Out of Copyright Illustrated Astronomy Book Sale

From: David Hodgson
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
Subject: Old Astronomy Books For Sale
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999

From: Andy Mabbett
Newsgroups: uk.sci.astronomy
Subject: For sale: Old Astronomy books
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999

From: (Oldbooks78)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: FS: Old Astronomy Books, 4 for 25 US$
Date: 26 Sep 1999


Big Bertha Thing toga

What's a First Aid Tent?
What's a toga party, in "Animal House" by National Lampoon?
In "Mean Machine" starring Burt Reynolds,
he said "If it worked once, it should work twice. Lets do it!"
With the First Aid Tent, it worked twice,
so it should work three times.
The first two battles of cyberspace each started,
when a first aid tent was set up.
The first was set up on the OUSA Classical Particle conference.
The second was set up on four conferences,
in the pseudo Student Research Faculty.
Needless to say both the conference and
the faculty were subsequently closed down by order.
"It's a tale to gladden the ears and to grow old listening to,"
said the giant in the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant."
by Stephen Donaldson.

Tony Lance
judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk


01 June 1998 13:19:20
Message
From: Mansour Abou Jaoudy
Subject: Confused was Re: Big Bertha Thing repairs
To: Tony Lance
Cc: George Ho-Yow
OUSA Controller
group
Hi Tony (& all)

I haven't been much on line for some time, I come here to see loads of B.B.T. stuff in my
mail box which i got no clue what to do with it.

Is this a kind of joke taking so long. I recall some time ago couple of people wanted to
be off the list but some how i still see their names on mmmmmm I see some light now ah no
don't worry that is the monitor ON ;o)

what makes me wonder, i see the OUSA Controller on the list, mmmmm i am sure she/he/they
got something more important to do, or am i wrong.

that leavs me with 3 options:

a) This is all a joke and i just did not get it.
b) This is some kind of a test to see how much mentally are we prepaired to take.
c) You playing with fire.

Now if it is "a" it is taking too long and people are getting upset (I myself one of them)
I hope it is not "b", I re-checked your resume and you seem to me not the person who will
do such a thing. you more into computers right.
that leaves "c", well what shell i say, maybe we are lucky you got a 386 PC and not a PII
300 ))

There is a conference about Programming and programmers, why don't you come by and share
with us your expereince in this field, you seem you got lots of it and will be of good
help. I have to say i am the mod of that conference but have not been there for more than
3 months, i feel like a stranger now ;o))

I have included every one in my reply (although i don't know who are the "group" ) and
will try to keep it for this time only.

I read your message about internet and did not know in which conference to reply to, well
it sounds good. as i said it SOUNDS. my advice never trust anything free, specialy on the
net. they have here some kind of a free telephone they say it costs you nothing and you
can speak as much as you want, BUT while you are in conversation, every 2 minutes you get
an advirt and you have to press a key for yes/no if you press the wrong key by misstake
you might bet something home of ƒ100 which you don't want at all.

now my interesting part of the reply, The Internet ;o) here in Holland they will have
access at the end of this year through the tv cable. and Holland is the best country in
that way, since every single house got a tv cable that is handled by the cityhall. and
they said the speed will be more than 10 times an ISDN line. now that is something
interesting.

OK enought talking now, back to work ;o)

take care

and keep your fingers off the fire

Mansour

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 07 Mar 07 13:33:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Now I suggest that you count the pathways and the number of "nodes"
required to keep the appearance of extreme capacities and
infallibility.

Hahahaha! We are running servers that are accessed by the pentagon
on a daily basis. 100% secure, IP encrypted in hardware, and NOBODY
but the recipient gets ANY useable data, as well as giving up there
locale, resulting in them getting busted.

Try again.

What the fuck do you think I've been talking about?

Alzheimerish blather.

Single pathways
cannot be used in network (that's why it has the root net in it).
The same thing is true with computer systems.

EVERYTHING is becoming networked. Haven't you even heard of
"network attached storage" yet? No computer there. Just plain old
access for those given it. None for those that are NOT given it.

Similar to you and your capacity to learn about all of this. More
and more I simply find you as Peter Gabriel said...

"You're not one of us"

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:30:21 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Speed is and reliability are orthogonal, Dimbulb. "Reliability" is
always a relative term.

See my response to her response to this post.

Then try to gain a clue.

Ten years ago, a Navy admiral at Point Loma (do you know ANYTHING
about what gets done at PL?) said that we would NEVER send classified
data over the internet.

Step in today's modern world, and see him eating crow, and he IS a
bit god.

Everyone learns, and ALL industry and technology matures and
evolves.

Then there is you... and BAH. That could change though. You guys
might just one day realize that you don't know everything, and are not
"the shit" you think yourselves to be.

 

[krw]

In article <cqouu2djaucuvij0ohccmru0m6pka65a41@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:30:21 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Speed is and reliability are orthogonal, Dimbulb. "Reliability" is
always a relative term.


See my response to her response to this post.

Security has nothing to do with either, oh dimmest of Dimbulbs.

Then try to gain a clue.

WHen you find your first one I'll start looking. ...wouldn't want to
make you look too bad, Dimmie!

Ten years ago, a Navy admiral at Point Loma (do you know ANYTHING
about what gets done at PL?) said that we would NEVER send classified
data over the internet.

....and this has to do with the price of oats in China how, Dimmie?

Step in today's modern world, and see him eating crow, and he IS a
bit god.

You're winking out, there Dimmie.

Everyone learns, and ALL industry and technology matures and
evolves.

With the obvious exception of one Dimbulb, perhaps.

Then there is you... and BAH. That could change though. You guys
might just one day realize that you don't know everything, and are not
"the shit" you think yourselves to be.

Dimmie, you're the one who thinks he knows everything. After all,

you do *everything* in that silly little outfit that pays you (as
amazing as you being paid is).

--
Keith

 

In article <vsnuu2587pd2ap5r5ibut3qfbueoorvfkb@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 07 13:33:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball
any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says
"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one
superstitious.


We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where
have you been?

Now I suggest that you count the pathways and the number of "nodes"
required to keep the appearance of extreme capacities and
infallibility.


Hahahaha! We are running servers that are accessed by the pentagon
on a daily basis. 100% secure, IP encrypted in hardware, and NOBODY
but the recipient gets ANY useable data, as well as giving up there
locale, resulting in them getting busted.

Try again.

What the fuck do you think I've been talking about?

Alzheimerish blather.

Single pathways
cannot be used in network (that's why it has the root net in it).
The same thing is true with computer systems.

EVERYTHING is becoming networked. Haven't you even heard of
"network attached storage" yet? No computer there. Just plain old
access for those given it. None for those that are NOT given it.

As I said above, our OS philosophy was to provide multiple pathways.
Multiple pathways...do you understand what that means? So why
are you demeaning the OS philosophy with an argument about networks?

Similar to you and your capacity to learn about all of this. More
and more I simply find you as Peter Gabriel said...

"You're not one of us"

I am very glad to not be in your category.

/BAH