Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Mar 2007 07:06 In article <esml4r$bj2$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esmalk$8qk_001(a)s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esjvn9$1a4$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)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. The checksum of the contents of the tape is not interesting. That is a summary and doesn't help. A bit by bit verify is done instead of your checksum summary. The record of the checksums of each file on the tape is the needed information. That itemized record is put into a file which is the first file 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. I'm at a loss to try to explain what we were doing. YOu seem to be determined not to understand. > > >[....] > >>>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. Your solution does not provide a list of all files on the tape. > 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. Your simple case doesn't address any of the issues. All it does is create extra work in the procedure with no usefulness. <snip> >>> 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. You can't edit a tape. That would open such a can of Murphy's worms, even if it were possible. > The contents of the directory on the tape >doesn't change once the tape is created and is ready to ship. A tape is not a directory medium. The file I am talking about is part of the save set. <snip> >>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 don't have to; my methods worked and provided enough data for sanity checks on both ends of the distribution system. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Mar 2007 07:58 In article <esou80$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <esml4r$bj2$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <esmalk$8qk_001(a)s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <esjvn9$1a4$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)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. > >The checksum of the contents of the tape is not interesting. >That is a summary and doesn't help. A bit by bit verify >is done instead of your checksum summary. > >The record of the checksums of each file on the tape is >the needed information. That itemized record is put into >a file which is the first file on the tape. Let me try to explain using different lingo. The first file on the tape, TAPE.DIR, is the invoice of the distribution and contains a list of each item on the tape, including that item's checksum. <snip> /BAH
From: Tony Lance on 8 Mar 2007 08:54 Big Bertha Thing particle Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/structur.html 7K Web Page Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.med.nutrition Outlandish Particle Periodic Table in Structure Order. From Pastures Software Package Documentation. (Particle Structure Results Program, in Fortran 77.) Sub-atomic Mesons, Baryons and Leptons Classification System. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997 Distribute complete and free of charge to comply. Big Bertha Thing repairs If it is not broken, do not fix it. Some parts of the project may need repairing. If you cannot fix it, with a good suggestion, then do not take it apart, in the first place, with a bad one. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk From: Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem Subject: Big Bertha Thing mayor Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:06:57 +0000 Big Bertha Thing mayor 4th October 2000 ex-GLC LPFA/DETR pension rights abuse case Mr.Ken Livingstone Mayor of Greater London Dear Sir, Local Government Pension Scheme Appeal In their letter of 12th May 2000, from Mr.K.A.Bloomfied, the DETR upheld my appeal. I would be gratefull for the opportunity to summarize subsequent events. I had applied for early retirement on medical grounds, to the London pension Fund Authority. My last appeal was to the DETR. They upheld my appeal and instructed LPFA to grant me an independant medical review. The grounds were that the LPFA Medical Advisor was under qualified and not independant enough. Their decision was final and they would not discuss the matter further. Any further appeal would be to the Ombudsman. The LPfA Director claims that the LPFA Medical Advisor is qualified and shows a letter discussing the qualification. He claims that due to this, the instruction is void and he proposes to take no further action. DETR was the statutory supervisory body for the LPFA. LPFA is the statutory successor authority to the Greater London Council. The Ombudsman has no authority to enforce his judgement on the LPFA. Under the GLC, the final appeal was to a committee of members of the council. Upon abolition by statutory transfer, the final appeal was to be to the Secretary of State for DETR; Mr.John Prescott MP. Since July 2000 the LPFA is directly accountable to Mr.Ken Lingstone. Would you please sort out this problem for me. I enclose below some of my correspondence with the DETR and DHSS, as background. Thanking you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Tony Lance Big Bertha Thing minister Contact Mr. Phil Goodwin Director of Operations London Pensions Fund Authority 8th February 2000 For the Attention of Mr. John Prescott, Government Minister, Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Local Government Pensions Division, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Dear Mr. Prescott, Local Government Pension Scheme (LPGS) I claim my right of appeal to you, as Secretary of State. This was notified to me by Mr. Goodwin, the Director of Operations of the London Pensions Fund Authority, in his letter of 5th January 2000, which is enclosed. The appeal is against the decision not to allow me an early retirement on medical grounds. Both the officers, who have dealt with my appeal, have made comments which are prejudicial. My doctor has said that in his view, I will never work again. Their view was that the medical grounds are insufficient and that my background notes to the case are immaterial, sight unseen. Given that I have the right to attach these notes to the medical report of my doctor, to maintain that they are immaterial sight unseen, negates my right. Since my right is statutary, granted by the mother of parliaments, it should stand and the notes be deemed material evidence. Please find enclosed copies of my letters to the LPFA dated 25th October 1999 and 2nd December 1999. These together with my letter of 29th April 1999 to DHSS provide a summary of the case, which will let you decide whether to proceed further. The two prejudical comments are given below. Extract from letter dated 8th November 1999. From LPFA doctor to LPFA Mr.Scott. Quote I regret that the enclosures with your letter were not complete, I only received the first page of Mr Lance's letter of appeal, but none the less, having reviewed the medical evidence which I have received in this case, I do not wish to amend or add to my medical report dated 14th October 1999. Unquote Extract from letter dated 13th December 1999. From director to LPFA doctor. Quote In your letter of 8th November you refer to a "missing page" from Mr Lance's letter as copied to you. This is now attached and I shall be obliged if you are able to confirm that this would have had no material bearing on your opinion. Unquote On the bi-focals, mentioned in my letter of 25th Octeber 1999 to LPFA. It took me two years to find out, that they are not bi-focals. I said I had trouble with the eye test and nobody believed me. I can get a refund from the optician. This brings me to another grounds for appeal. It is a catch 22 situation, where they think that I am too sick to know, that I am sick enough to claim early retirement. They are trying to do a "Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch" job on me, like the optician did. You will probably remember how this goes. Close enough quotation. I want a refund, for this parrot you sold me? What's wrong with it? It's dead. When did it die? It was dead, when you sold it to me. Was it on it's perch, when we sold it to you? Yes. Then it must have been alive. How did it stay on it's perch? It was glued on. Then how do you know it's dead? It fell off. It's not even a parrot. Of course it's a parrot, it's green isn't it? It's painted green. End of quotation. On you being a minister of the crown. Your bill to turn a statute into guidelines is a bit of a "dead parrot" job. Guidelines are based on good faith and statutes are based on bad faith. The statute states that local government authorities shall not "intentionally promote homosexuality" nor "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." Anybody sitting down to teach schoolchildren respect for unspeakable acts, as a form of family life, cannot be said to be acting in good faith. It is to be put to a free vote of like minded politicians; opticians to a man. Thanking you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter and looking forward to the favour of your reply. Yours sincerely, Tony Lance ex-branch president Boilermakers Trade Union(GMB) http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance www.bertha.ndirect.co.uk (disabled) CC. Internet Usenet newgroups sci.astro et al. (Without addresses, names) Big Bertha Thing appeal 2nd December 1999 For Attention of Mr. Phillip Goodwin, Director of Operations, London Pensions Fund Authority, Dear Mr. Goodwin, Local Government Pension Scheme (LPGS) Further to your letter of 25th November 1999 and our telephone conversation yesterday, regarding my second appeal. In your letter you mention that my reservations were conveyed to your doctor. This was in fact, not the case. In his letter of 8th November 1999, to your Mr.Scott, what he said is given in the extract below. "I regret that the enclosures with your letter were not complete, I only received the first page of Mr. Lance's letter of appeal, but none the less, having reviewed the medical evidence which I have received in this case, I do not wish to amend or add to my medical report dated 14th October 1999." I would thank you for your assurance that my letter of appeal dated 25th October 1999 and my letter to DSS of 29th April 1999 would be taken into account, in your current independant review of my second appeal, following the rejection of my application. I would confirm that there is no further medical evidence to come. There are, however, two incidents, which may have some bearing. One DSS doctor asked me why I have had no tests done. I replied that my doctor already knew what it was. It was a pinched nerve in my back causing my legs to be inflamed. Another DSS doctor went so far as to lie me down and examine my legs, to see if they were inflamed. I was not told the result, but passed my all work fitness test, as unfit for work. I trust that this will be in order and look forward to the favour of your reply. Yours sincerely, Tony Lance Big Bertha Thing application Contact: Tarek El-Din 25th October 1999 London Pension Fund Authority, Dear Sir, Re: LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME. Further to your letter of 18th October 1999, rejecting my application for early retirement on medical grounds. I am writing to appeal against your decision, on the following grounds;- 1. Question of Procedure. 2. Question of Fact. Twice during the 21 day period to inspect the medical report, I called at the surgery after 4.30 pm, to be told it was out of office hours, so not available. The third time, I called at 10.30 am on 18th October 1999, to be told that the 21 days had expired and the report had already been sent. It was dated 29th September 1999, which by my reckoning was the 20th day since it became available. This being said, there was no opportunity to attach my notes. Hence the procedure had not been complied with. The report itself, was the first time I had heard of the diagnosis of sciatica, the three months duration or the infrequent attendance at surgery. In view of this, I would ask you to bear with me, while I go through the facts of the case. On 3rd April 1996, I was told by my doctor, that the strong pain in both legs was caused by a pinched nerve in my back, which caused my legs to be inflamed. I was prescribed 14 No. Voltarol Retard 100 mg tablets, for inflamation. 8 days later the pain stopped, so I still have 6 tablets left. Since then and continuously for over three years, I have had three well defined symptons as follows;- 1. I cannot do mental or physical work, for longer than 30 minutes per day. 2. I cannot stand still for longer than 10 minutes, without getting dizzyness and palpatations. 3. I cannot sit still for an eye test for longer than 7 minutes, without distress and my eyes going out of focus. The latest symptom and one which causes me most concern, is that I cannot read a brand new science fiction book by a favourite author. I recently returned 12 such books to the library unread. They had been accumulated over a period of months. Background circumstances;- 1. 14th October 1990 redundant from job as senior computer programmer. 2. 1991 to 1994 successfully completed first four years towards Open University degree in Mathematics degree course and awarded Dip.Math(Open) 3. 1995 withdrew from 12 hours per week course, due to family problems. 4. 1996 unable to complete even one homework of 6 hours per week course, did not take exam and failed course. 5. 1996 fence repairs of 7 hours, actually took 3 weeks at 30 minutes per day. 6. I have spent 6 years on the dole and 3 years on the sick. 7. MED4 long term sickess note for DSS, simply said general debility. 8. DSS medical exams coducted three times, all with mention of symptoms and tablets. Passed all work test as unfit for work each time. 9. 4th DSS medical exam deemed unnecessary by DSS, as I was unfit for work. 10. Since I was not receiving treatment, frequent attendance at surgery was never mentioned by Dr.Cullen. 11. Since 1955 I have been under ENT, with yearly appointments for ear infections due to mastiod cavity following opperation. 12. I have stopped wearing my hearing aid, due to increased frequency of infections. 13. I have been unable to wear my bi-focals from new, since 2 out of 4 lenses are out of focus and neither form a useable pair of lenses. 14. I also use a walking stick, inside and outside the home. I regard both the tablets and the bi-focals as factual evidence, that would stand up in a court of law or medical enquiry. Trusting that this appeal will be in order and looking forward to the favour of your reply. Yours sincerely, Tony Lance Dip.Math(Open) Big Bertha Thing welfare 29th April 1999 Operations Manager, The Benefits Agency, Dear Sirs, Further to your letter of 28th April 1999, regarding a list of questions, on the possibility of my working at all. I will attempt to answer your questions, in order as listed in your letter. 1. I am not working, I am just pottering arround on the internet. I last registered for course work with the Open University in 1997. This would have involved 6 hours work per week. I could only manage half-an-hour per day, so totally failed to do the work or complete the course. Not even one homework assignment was completed. In August 1997, I bought a second hand computer for 150 pounds sterling, and was given free access to the Open University computer along local telephone lines at a call charge of 1p per minute. Since that time, I managed to build up a body of correspondence, within the limits of half-an-hour per day mental or physical work. In January 1999, this correspondence was transfered by me to my web site; www.bertha.ndirect.co.uk. I have to pay 14 pounds and 9p per month for this site. 2. Nobody suggested it, it just happened. 3. My doctor does not know that I have a web site. 4. See answer 1 for description of my activities. No job is being done, so no job description exists. 5. No employer exists or payments have been recieved. 6. I can think straight for half-an-hour per day. The rest of the time is spent pottering arround. I can do one side of A4 paper of mathematics or computer work per day. 7. On any day free of a major shopping expedition, I can do half-an-hour of original work and about an hour of copy typing at non-typist speeds. 8. My principle interest is a 50 year scientific project, which was started 30 years ago. If I could spend 48 hours per week doing it I would. However half-an-hour work and an hour pottering, seems to be all I can manage and at that not every day of the week. Due to my condition, I asked Mrs. Pam Scruton, a fellow Open University student to be the project archivist for my work on the Open University computer. She agreed and kept the archive of the correspondence which is now on my web site. This is both an unusual request and an unusually generous service to a fellow student on incapacity benefit. 9. Zero income for as far as the eye can see. 10. Not applicable, zero wages or income. 11. August 1997 and is ongoing. I trust that the above will put the internet feeding frenzy of the newspaper hype into some perspective. Yours faithfully. Tony Lance Dip.Math(Open)
From: Ken Smith on 8 Mar 2007 09:47 In article <esothi$8ss_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <esmj7c$bj2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <esm9f6$8ss_002(a)s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <esju3h$1a4$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)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. > >Is this because disk capacities are larger than most needs? With >the habits of downloading music and videos, etc. won't there be >another capacity problem fairly soon? This may happen some time in the slightly distant future. Modern OSes allow what the user sees as a directory to be a different disk drive. MS-DOS did this with the "join" command. When Windows 95 was brought out, the "join" command went away. On Linux and OS-X, the command is "mount". It isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to see some OS automatically assigning an entier drive to things like videos. > >> 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. > >The last reason was valid in the olden days. JMF visited an insurance >company site and saw a disk farm of [can't remember the number] >hundreds, I think. He was awed because it was all one file. >There was no way our products could deal with >that kind of a data base. IBM knew how to handle those. IBM's design of the logical structure was very good from this point of view. The Volume Table Of Contents told you where the Data Extent Blocks were. The DEBs formed a chain. Extending this chain to include which physical drive the next things were on wouldn't be hard to do. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 8 Mar 2007 09:57
In article <esou80$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <esml4r$bj2$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <esmalk$8qk_001(a)s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <esjvn9$1a4$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)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. > >The checksum of the contents of the tape is not interesting. >That is a summary and doesn't help. A bit by bit verify >is done instead of your checksum summary. Suddenly you are changing the subject. The question is: would the checksum before and after match? The answer is yes, so the method works. >>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. > >I'm at a loss to try to explain what we were doing. YOu seem >to be determined not to understand. You were making a mistake, is what you were doing. >>>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. > >Your solution does not provide a list of all files on the tape. Yes it does. I have shown how you can make the checksum on this file correct. This file that contains the list is the very file we have been talking about. >> 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. > >Your simple case doesn't address any of the issues. All it does >is create extra work in the procedure with no usefulness. My simple case solves a problem that you said can't be solved. You said it was imposible. It is not. >>>> 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. > >You can't edit a tape. That would open such a can of Murphy's >worms, even if it were possible. This would be a very strange drive if you really couldn't. But if you know the names of the files to be put onto the tape, it is obvious that you don't need to do it. If you don't know the names before hand, you can't write a file containing those names so your suggested problem is meaningless if the editing can't be done. The reason tapes have an IRG (Inter Record Gap) is to allow the data on the tape to be edited. You may decide not to do this but the drives knew how. > >> The contents of the directory on the tape >>doesn't change once the tape is created and is ready to ship. > >A tape is not a directory medium. The file I am talking about >is part of the save set. This file lists the names of the files on the tape. This is a "directory". It is also sometimes called a manifest. > ><snip> > >>>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 don't have to; my methods worked and provided enough data >for sanity checks on both ends of the distribution system. You said the checksum was published as wrong and that doing it right was not posible. I worry about your customers. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |