Subject: Re: Shift from UNIX to NT in progress?
From: u3629675@chula.edu (Sirilak Menakanit)
Date: 5 Sep 1996 10:40:59 GMT
Tom Ruta (rutat@cadvision.com) wrote:
: p.oman@ix.netcom.com(paul oman) wrote:
: >I am trying to determine the degree of reality regarding
: >the shift from networked UNIX workstations to Windows NT platforms.
: >
: >Are you planning, thinking about, doing, this shift?
:
: Yes... but only tangetially. Our seismic work is generally
: still on UNIX, but log analysis is moving to NT. ANd we see
: that the DBMS (Oracle) world will move to NT before we go
: UNIX.
:
: Tom
: Tom Ruta
:
: ==============================================================
: Tom Ruta, ISP "Nunc hoc in marmore
: Manager, Information Services non est incision"
: Tarragon Oil and Gas Limited
: FAX: (403)262-5324
: PHONE: (403)974-7690 Email: rutat@cadvision.com
:
: WWW ---> http://www.togl.com/tarragon.html (Soon!)
: ==============================================================
:
_________________________________________________________________
WHY WINDOWS 95 GETS MY VOTE
Confessions of a 'convert' to Microsoft's new operating system
It's been on the shelves for a year now, and here's my confession: I
like Windows 95. I've been using it for the past several months, and
when push comes to shove, Windows 95 is my operating system of choice.
It installs easily, it's stable, and aside from the odd quirk here and
there, it's one of the best pieces of software out there.
Windows 95 has impacted the software world in a variety of ways - many
of them positive. For example, newer applications are adhering to the
Windows 95 interface standards with tabbed menu boxes and so forth,
and making use of the Microsoft-initiated "Wizards". These Wizards,
from installation to accomplishing specific tasks, make life easier
for everyone, beginner to expert, guiding you through complex tasks
with no more than mouse clicks.
There's more. Memory enhancements to Windows have reduced the
likelihood of faulty applications depleting your memory supplies. You
also don't need QEMM or other memory managers because Windows 95 does
an excellent job of handling those tasks. In some of the reports I've
seen, installation of these memory tools leads to no significant
improvement in performance.
You can get rid of most of the things in your autoexec.bat file and
your config.sys file. They were left behind to leave old users feeling
comfortable, but are not really necessary for proper execution of
Windows 95. The only exception to this is the loading of drivers for
the odd CD-ROM or sound card for which Microsoft does not supply
drivers. On most of the newer pieces of hardware, which are
Plug&Play compatible, this is not an issue.
You can also forget about your win.ini and system.ini files - again,
Microsoft left them there, and you can fiddle with them if you want,
but they no longer play the central role they once used to.
Windows 95 has a lot of tricks up its sleeves. Compatible applications
are "registered" with the new OS, and, should you want to remove them,
just go to your Control panel and choose "Add/Remove Applications".
Click on the application you want to remove, and it's gone.
Use of the right mouse button is an added plus. On most every screen,
dialog box or bit of screen real estate, you can hit the right mouse
button for a popup box containing a list of things you can do. For
example, if you right-click on your desktop, you see options to create
new files or folders, or change the property settings for your
desktop. If you right-click the taskbar, you see a similar popup menu
with taskbar-specific commands.
I've experimented a great deal with Windows 95, both English and Thai
versions. I've tried various combinations of Windows 95 and OS/2 on
the same machine; I've installed numerous applications; I've made
heavy use of Windows 95 Internet capabilities (Two Thumbs Down for the
installation process, though). For what I've seen, Windows 95 is far
more reliable than Windows 3.x, and offers me a greater number of
options and tools to get my work done.
(Some observations: if you want to have 2 operating systems on your
machine, install the other one first, then Windows 95. This tends to
work better. With OS/2, manually switching between the two works
better than the Boot Manager.)
People who complain most about Windows 95 tend to be those used to the
old ways of doing things. They invested a lot of time and effort in
learning the Windows 3.1 way of doing things, and expect backwards
compatibility from A to Z.
Given the chore which that represents, I'd say Windows 95 has done a
great job.
Dismissing the operating system because it won't allow you to run some
obscure piece of software from ages past is a bit unfair.
You get the best performance with Windows 95 when you start over from
scratch - tossing out all those old Windows 3.x programs, updating
your hardware, getting a new CD-ROM and so on. With the backwards
compatibility issue is removed, Windows 95 speeds up and works almost
flawlessly.
Are there problems? Of course. Getting the Internet up and running is
difficult. Some older Windows 3.1 applications don't work. The system
hogs resources.
Microsoft owns the lion's share of the desktop OS market because most
people vote with their wallets - and what they've decided is that
Windows is the platform of choice for most. Not Apple, not OS/2, not
DOS, not Linux or any other operating system.
(For a look at a brand new operating system, check out Be Inc, at
http://www.be.com.)
Let's hope the industry settles around Windows 95 for a few years at
least before the next major upheaval takes place!
Kitipan Kitbamroong
Chemical Engineering Department
Chulalongkorn University
Payathai Road , Payathai
Bangkok 10330
email:kitipan@pobox.org.sg
Home Phone Num. : (662)-5912164
Work Phone Num. : (662)-2186746 or 2186765
Mobile Phone Num: (661)-6232856
Pager : 162 call for 062341
: 152 call for 646797
--
Subject: Galileo Update - 09/06/96
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 6 Sep 1996 21:03 UT
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
GALILEO MISSION STATUS
September 6, 1996
On time and on target, NASA's Galileo spacecraft today accomplished a
close flyby of Jupiter's biggest moon, Ganymede, flying over the north polar
region at noon Pacific time at a distance of 262 kilometers (162 miles) from the
surface, project officials reported.
Since the Ganymede 2 encounter sequence began on September 1, science
instruments onboard have been busy making measurements of Ganymede's magnetic
environment, gravity and surface characteristics. Images and other data
gathered during the Ganymede encounter will be returned over the next two
months, beginning Monday, September 9, and should afford scientists valuable
views of Ganymede's icy, fault-ridden terrain. The camera team is looking
forward to receiving special stereo images of Ganymede that will provide
three-dimensional views of some of the moon's surface features.
Today's flyby also provided the Galileo science team with a unique
opportunity to sample the magnetic and particle environment around Ganymede. In
its flyby of the same moon two months ago, Galileo experimenters found evidence
of a possible magnetic field emanating from Ganymede. Data from the flyby today
is pivotal to resolving the question of whether Ganymede indeed has a magnetic
field.
Throughout the Ganymede encounter period, Galileo also has been carrying
out observations of Jupiter itself, and the moons Io, Callisto and Europa.
Some of Galileo's data from the current encounter, mostly measurements of the
magnetic field and particle population near Ganymede, are not recorded onboard
the spacecraft but are being radioed directly to receivers on Earth.
Galileo's next flyby of a Jovian satellite occurs November 4 when the
spacecraft will come within 1,104 kilometers (686 miles) from the moon Callisto.
#####
Subject: Re: discussion of new groups - follow up to Mary Corman cross post repost
From: Richard Adams
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 16:33:17 -0700
Chuck has previously stated that he prefers the
use of kill files and would not support moderation.
As far as my own personal knowledge of usenet, I
do not claim to be a master of TCP/IP or Unix,
but I know where to obtain these resources when needed.
A trustworthy moderator doesn't have to be a whiz kid,
but it helps that I do have access to these.
His point that the group vote system has drawbacks
is logical. However, each survey I've conducted shows
that the majority voter would prefer self control
by the participants and vote to exclude someone only
as a last resort, except for obvious off topic stuff.
The use of an automated robot to moderate is
already quite successful for other groups. No
additional proposals are needed here.
There weren't any other issues I hadn't previously
addressed, though Chuck disagreed with what I said
before, I've nothing further in response.
Richard
PS: anyone that wants to discuss this with me by
phone, send me an e-mail for my phone number.
Subject: Re: PRAYER 31/8, Which of these mean more to you-- email, Net,
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 6 Sep 1996 22:56:29 GMT
In article <50ki47$7qa@crcnis3.unl.edu>
jcorn@unlgrad1.unl.edu (James F Cornwall) writes:
> James, if you hang around long enough to read some of the
> beautiful prayers and verse that AP gives. Like his :
>
> You shall go forth from your NET access, renewed, alive in
> Grace, heralds of Love, Mercy, and Peace. You shall be
> persecuted and despised. At the end of this age, the Pu
> Church -- triumphant and resplendent -- shall emerge,
> carried by My 5f6, the last six electrons of my creation.
>
> I shall remain with you until all that I have foretold
> comes to plutonium.
>
> O, Humanity, how long must I labor to win you to science?
> How long will it take you to see the beauty in my physics
> -- My seal your soul of love imprinted therein. My
> skeptical creatures! You cannot see, for arrogance have
> I blinded you in my superdeterminism! What shall I do with
> you next? How shall I make my great love within you appear?
>
> Which the meek and mild Archimedes Plutonium serves, you will
> understand why he gets such responses. And he loves to read your
> people's responses about the God = Atom "ideas".
>
> Jim Cornwall
> Ex-USAF, now Geol Grad Student
>
Thanks Jim, my website is http://www.dartmouth.edu/~atom
for in-depth on the One Atom Everything Universe
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: Carol Limbrick
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:28:15 +0100
In article <50kvmt$kuc@gold.gn.iaf.nl>, John Wansink
writes
>I'll make the point humans have almost stopped the physical evolution.
>The products of our brains will take away the need to have a physical
>evolution. At the moment we will only physically 'develop' as a result of
>no longer needed functions (of which the tailbone is a classic example,
>as is the appendix: a no longer needed blood reservoir). Instead humans
>will find ways to develop faster and better the capabilities of their
>brains. They will so for a number of reasons. the most important are:
> - increasing external threats (world pollution for example)
> - a burning desire to develop one self (now that we learned to use this
> brain, we want to exploit it to the maximum)
>
>
>John Wansink, The Netherlands
>
>
Hi
This is my first posting to a 'real' newsgroup, so I appologize if I
have mucked it up.
I agree that human physical evolution has stopped (or at least has
slowed down a lot), and that humans will continue to evolve mentally.
However, I believe that evolution will go in the other direction - that
is, that we will mentally regress. We have, in effect, become too clever
for our own good: survival is no longer a challenge for which
intelligence is required. Less intelligent people have just as good a
chance of survival as the more intelligent. In fact, the less
intelligent tend to have larger families.
In a few thousand (maybe hundred) years our increased ease of survival
may eliminate the need for intelligence. If we extrapolate this view, it
gives a frightening picture of the future - one in which, perhaps, man
has reverted to a level of intelligence equivalent to, say, a
chimpanzee, and whose every need is catered for by ancient, super-
intelligent computers.
Perhaps I'm getting a little carried away, and not taking other
considerations into account, but I see the future of man as less, not
more intelligent.
Just my 2 cents worth. Comments welcome.
--
Alex King
ajking@limbrick.demon.co.uk
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:info@turnpike.com
Subject: Re: PRAYER 31/8, Which of these mean more to you-- email, Net, or
From: jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu (John Chandler)
Date: 7 Sep 1996 01:44:28 GMT
In article <32303B7D.167EB0E7@lgc.com>,
Stephen Victor wrote:
>David Young wrote:
>>
>> Not only are they degree wielding professionals, but in a response received
>> from the Director of Computing Services at Dartmouth, I was told that our
>> friend Mr. Plutonium is a staff member there.
>>
>> With people like this shaping the minds of college students, I
>> sincerely fear for the future of our world.
>
>Rest assured that Mr. Plutonium isn't shaping anyone's mind. I really
>don't mean this to sound like a snub of a blue collar profession, and I
>hope no one takes offense, but in actual fact the esteemed physicist and
>savior of the world is a dishwasher at the Dartmouth Inn. He isn't much
>of a threat to anything, much less the future of the world.
Come on, guys. Let's be accurate.
AP is _not_ a dishwasher at the Dartmouth Inn,
he's a POT washer (really!) at the Hanover Inn.
(The Hanover Inn is owned by Dartmouth, it's true.)
AP has, he says, made a fortune in the stock market,
but now washes pots for a living.
That may speak to his general veracity.
AP = Antisemitic Potwasher
--
John Chandler
jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: minnie@mail.pe.net (Gary/Robyn Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:04:48 -0800
In article <841962818.28852@dejanews.com>, pelorus@ltec.net wrote:
> IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
>
> All of the terrestrial planets are pock-marked by impact craters, and
the Moon
> has half a dozen impact craters that measure over a thousand kilometers in
> diameter. To the extent that the Earth has a significantly larger
> cross-sectional diameter and is the dominant gravitational center in the
> Earth-Moon system, it should have experienced multiple impacts that produced
> crater rims measuring thousands of kilometers in diameter. Where are they?
>
[snip]
dear friend,
you raise many reasonable points and many, i'm sure, from their graves of
anger- are ready to flame.
but more than these important questions, you infer the greater question...
we as a civilization, as a scientific community have far to go to really
understand the truth of our world and universe. and our goverment's
willingness to secret information from the people only sends us deeper and
deeper into the controlled dark shadows of this evil empire (no it's not
russia!).
mr. baalke, where are hubble's studies of halebopp?
Gary D. Goodwin
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: edmundo
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 16:52:28 +1100
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article , Carol Limbrick writes:
>
> >Hi
> > This is my first posting to a 'real' newsgroup, so I appologize if I
> >have mucked it up.
> >
> > I agree that human physical evolution has stopped (or at least has
> >slowed down a lot), and that humans will continue to evolve mentally.
> >However, I believe that evolution will go in the other direction - that
> >is, that we will mentally regress. We have, in effect, become too clever
> >for our own good: survival is no longer a challenge for which
> >intelligence is required. Less intelligent people have just as good a
> >chance of survival as the more intelligent. In fact, the less
> >intelligent tend to have larger families.
> >
> > In a few thousand (maybe hundred) years our increased ease of survival
> >may eliminate the need for intelligence. If we extrapolate this view, it
> >gives a frightening picture of the future - one in which, perhaps, man
> >has reverted to a level of intelligence equivalent to, say, a
> >chimpanzee, and whose every need is catered for by ancient, super-
> >intelligent computers.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm getting a little carried away, and not taking other
> >considerations into account, but I see the future of man as less, not
> >more intelligent.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents worth. Comments welcome.
> >--
> It is a possibility. I think, though, that long before we get to this
> stage life'll become a challenge again due to overcrowding and
> depletion of resources. And, once it is a challenge, evolution will
> start working on us again.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Does this mean that ETs have no concern for the environment or
despeciation?
Existence is the miracle.
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 05:21:25 GMT
In article , Carol Limbrick writes:
>Hi
> This is my first posting to a 'real' newsgroup, so I appologize if I
>have mucked it up.
>
> I agree that human physical evolution has stopped (or at least has
>slowed down a lot), and that humans will continue to evolve mentally.
>However, I believe that evolution will go in the other direction - that
>is, that we will mentally regress. We have, in effect, become too clever
>for our own good: survival is no longer a challenge for which
>intelligence is required. Less intelligent people have just as good a
>chance of survival as the more intelligent. In fact, the less
>intelligent tend to have larger families.
>
> In a few thousand (maybe hundred) years our increased ease of survival
>may eliminate the need for intelligence. If we extrapolate this view, it
>gives a frightening picture of the future - one in which, perhaps, man
>has reverted to a level of intelligence equivalent to, say, a
>chimpanzee, and whose every need is catered for by ancient, super-
>intelligent computers.
>
> Perhaps I'm getting a little carried away, and not taking other
>considerations into account, but I see the future of man as less, not
>more intelligent.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth. Comments welcome.
>--
It is a possibility. I think, though, that long before we get to this
stage life'll become a challenge again due to overcrowding and
depletion of resources. And, once it is a challenge, evolution will
start working on us again.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Are *all* Texas lakes man made?
From: tedsrussll@aol.com (TedSRussll)
Date: 7 Sep 1996 00:23:58 -0400
If a non-Texan may enter this discussion -- John hit the nail on the head:
all lakes are transient and the age of lakes represents a continuum, from
a one-day river flood to Lake Baikal (oldest and deepest lake in the
world). The question of what lakes are permanent therefore is just a
semantic one.
For all lakes it is just a matter of time before it dries up or the outlet
erodes away and the lake becomes part of a river. When Niagara Falls
finishes eroding upstream in a few hundred thousand years, Lake Erie will
just be part a river flowing from Detroit to Buffalo. The lakes in New
England, the upper Midwest, and Canada are only as old as the last ice
age, and will be gone in a few thousand years. The Great Salt Lake was
once much bigger and will be gone in a geological blink of the eye. Since
the glaciers didn't find their way down to Texas, and nothing else of
interest tectonically has happened there for a long time, the 'real' lakes
there have long since eroded away.
Ted R.
Subject: Flummox Alert
From: oseeler@mcn.org (Oliver Seeler)
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 15:33:48 GMT
The following is intended for new and casual visitors to this
newsgroup. It will be posted periodically for as long as necessary.
Due to the large number and great size of the articles in this
newsgroup posted by Mr. Richard Adams regarding his current
controversial proposals to alter the structure of certain Usenet
newsgroups, it is no longer possible to obtain a clear picture of what
is going on here by taking a casual look around. Opponents of Mr.
Adam's ideas, including this writer, are simply being overwhelmed by
the sheer volume of Adams' articles. The most simple public question
to Mr. Adams commonly results in a response from him of from 300 to
900 lines; the traffic from Adams often exceeds 1000 lines per day. In
the opinion of some, this bloat constitutes intentional obfuscation
and confusion of the issues (with a not insubstantial measure of
intimidation tossed in), and is being employed as a primary tactic by
Adams in what to more than a few observers appears to be his effort to
gain control of all substantial discussion of earthquakes on Usenet
(notwithstanding his claim that ca.earthquakes would be unaffected).
Intentional or not, the effect is the same and anyone newly arrived
here, and who happens to be curious or concerned about the issues, is
strongly cautioned that without spending a great deal of time perusing
past articles, incorrect conclusions and misunderstandings concerning
not only Mr. Adams and his proposals but also his opponents are
inevitable.
In view of the above, for the moment I find it a pointless to address
this issue further other than by the re-posting this warning. I will
not respond in public to public comments on this article.
Yours for freedom on the net,
Oliver Seeler
Subject: Re: Creationists prohibit GOD from using HIS method !?
From: Landis.Ragon@ibm.net (Landis D. Ragon)
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 05:03:00 GMT
markc@gibelet.nexen.com (Mark Christensen) wrote:
>Anyone ever hear of significant digits? If I asked you the value of pi,
>what would you answer? 3.14? or maybe 3.1415? Possibly 3.141592654?
>Which is the correct answer? None of them. And all of them. It depends on
>the number of significant digits you decide to compute to. An answer
>of 3 is correct if you are only calculating to 1 significant digit.
>It is believed that Biblical cubits were related to to the measurement from the
>tip of the index finger to the elbow...roughly 18-19 inches. Now, I'm sure the
>author of 1 Kings would not have specified the circumference as 3 cubits plus
>a knuckle! They would simply have rounded off to the nearest cubit...one
>significant digit. And this would be a correct record of the measurement.
>As an engineer, I round off all the time. So, hopefully this little note
>puts this ridiculous pi issue with the Bible to rest.
Mark, I think you miss-read something. It doesn't say 3 cubits. It
says ( and the exact references are below) 30 cubits and SHOULD have
said 31.4 or 31 1/2 or 31+ or even 31 or 32 if rounded to the nearest
cubit.
But as an engineer, would you EVER round PI to 3.0?
I don't think so.
>In article <505fpu$g07@nntp.interaccess.com>, addesign@interaccess.com (Jeff) writes:
>|> johnt@haagar.jpl.nasa.gov (John Thompson) wrote:
>|>
>|> >In article <4vv0uh$3b3@mo6.rc.tudelft.nl> maarten@cpt6.stm.tudelft.nl (Jong Maarten_de) writes:
>|>
>|> >>I dunno the exact reference, but I think it was the bath in Salomon's temple. I'm
>|> >>quoting from memory here -- I did a maths problem on it eons ago. The bath was
>|> >>described as 10 'x' in diameter, while it was 30 'x' in circumference. O = pi*d,
>|> >>ergo, pi = 3.
>|> >>
>|>
>|> >I Kings 7:23 (NIV translation)
>|>
>|> > He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits
>|> > from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to
>|> > measure around it.
>|>
Landis D. Ragon
The above is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or
policy of his employer nor of the little green men that have been
following him all day.
You are growing sleepy...very sleepy.
You cannot keep your eyes open...
Your eyelids are getting heavy... very heavy...
SEND ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO LANDIS RAGON...
sleepy... very sleepy... you will remember nothing...
Subject: Re: How can I stop the rotation of the earth?
From: jamie@dcd00745.slip.digex.net (Jamie Schrumpf)
Date: 7 Sep 1996 05:02:16 GMT
In article ,
s1045099@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au says...
>
>
>
>According to my calculations, you need to exert roughly 3x10^29 Joules.
>Now say you use a few 1000MW power plants to do the job, you should get it
>done in about 10,000,000,000,000 years!
>
>I'd advise your bad-guy to turn from his evil ways.
>
Nah, all you need is the "Lensman" series anti-inertia device to run wild. (A
blown fuse on one of those giant bus bars?)
Then a single micrometeorite could stop the Earth's rotation, and no one would
ever feel it.
Until it's too late. Mwah hah hah...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as
it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as
you have got it." --- Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"
Subject: Re: discussion of new groups - follow up to Mary Corman cross post repost
From: Richard Adams
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:30:46 -0700
Chuck Karish wrote:
>
>Richard Adams wrote:
> >His point that the group vote system has drawbacks
> >is logical. However, each survey I've conducted shows
> >that the majority voter would prefer self control
> >by the participants and vote to exclude someone only
> >as a last resort, except for obvious off topic stuff.
>
> This doesn't make sense. "Obvious off topic stuff"
> can't be excluded except by manual moderation,
> which is different from banning.
Looking for possible suggestions to remove off topic
material, here's aome suggestions others have offered
which would be easily implemented with a robot moderator.
a) refuse a post cross posted to unrelated groups
b) refuse a post cross posted to many groups
c) refuse a post because of particular strings of
words in the subject line, take a look at the
various off topic stuff in sci.geo.geology
with threads on theology or quick cash as
examples.
We should start to consider acceptable ways to
screen posts besides canning certain originators.
Anyone that had a post turned down that really
wanted to post it in a particular group would
need to adjust the subject or the groups its
was cross posted to. Then if they were
deliberately violating the charter, we'd have
to bring it to their attention. If 90% of the
group (percentage used as an example) didn't
want the stuff, they could vote against that
particular poster.
Looking for input on this. These are just
some suggestions I've heard. Let's hear
some more!
Richard
PS: the proposals here will not cause
ca.earthquakes to be moderated, but
suggestions from there are appreciated.