Larry Wall & Cults

[John W. Kennedy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
[snip]

Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
utilities that would copy anything to anything?

IBM 360/370/390... DOS (later DOS/VS, then DOS/VSE, then VSE/SP, then VSE/ESA)
has a batch utility called DITTO, which copies files from device to device.

There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since A)
OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER wasn't
all that hard to use.

And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.

 

[Brian Inglis]

These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.

ISTR RP series were Memorex drives; RM series were CDC drives; the
latter were more reliable than the former.

 

[Rob Warnock]

+---------------
| >and hidden from International Red Cross.
|
| Not very well, apparently. The Red Cross found them. So did a bunch of
| lawyers.
|
| You apparently haven't been keeping up. Those DNC talking points have
| been obsolete for a while now.
+---------------

The OP is apparently not the only one who hasn't been keeping up! ;-}

Look in today's (or yesterday's) news about new revelations during
recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings of dozens (possibly
hundreds) more "ghost detainees" at Abu Ghurayb that the CIA kept
off the books... and *still* hasn't produced records for. [Reference:
Knight Ridder story on page 7A of today's San Jose Mercury News.]


-Rob

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

There was also an OS/360 version, but it was never as popular, since
A) OS/360 console operators are usually busy enough and B) IEBGENER
wasn't all that hard to use.

And, yes, there was a similar early program called DEBE.

similar to the stand-alone, self-loading (bootable) DEBE was LLMPS
.... lincoln labs multiprogramming system .... which was self-loading
program with small multitasker and most of the feature/functions
provided were similar to DEBE.

the folklore is that LLMPS was also used as the core scaffolding for
MTS (michigan terminal system)

.... misc. ref to LLMPS manual:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#0 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)

random other refs to LLMPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#15 unit record & other controllers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#23 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#25 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#26 MTS & LLMPS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#15 S/360 operating systems geneaology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#89 Ux's good points.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#55 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#45 Valid reference on lunar mission data being unreadable?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#89 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#54 SHARE MVT Project anniversary
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#64 PLX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#41 SLAC 370 Pascal compiler found
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#31 someone looking to donate IBM magazines and stuff

 

[keith]

How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
help avoid
9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.

You'd better fix your qqqqqqqqqqqq key before your head pops.

 

[Morten Reistad]

# I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
# misimplemented.

You haven't been listenning carefully enough. The agenda is to destroy the UN.
Neo-conservatives recognise that if the UN becomes powerful enough to deal with
people like Saddam Hussein, then it can deal with Bush as well. People
like Kissinger are still running around as big shots in America while other
countries consider him a war criminal.

This is not the stated agenda; but it may sound plausible. There is enough
UN-bashing going around to support it.

There are actually idiots that believe the US will remain the most powerful
military forever (or until God ends the world a few years from now). The
rest who know that power is fleeting have two options: construct a world of
comprehensive cooperative political structures, or batter any possible opponents
so they cannot attack the eventually weakenned US.

The first choice was the one (more or less) followed by the US since about 1945
through 2000. It has a long history of success behind: while not yet of that scale,
the notion of uniting disparate political units to a larger whole for mutual
security and mutual trade has worked time and time again: modern England out of the
old feudal lords, or the US out of thirteen colonies. Up side: long term peace and
stability for your grandchildren. Down side: your own power is eclipsed by the
centralised power.

The second choice has been followed by the US since 2001. Again there is a long
history behind, always ending in failure: Persian empires, Roman Empires, Chinese
empires, etc. You can never inflict enough damage on your opponents so that once
you do weaken they cannot strike back and eviscerate your corpse. Up side: you
continue to live in wealth and luxury as long as you die before the bill comes due.
Down side: your grandchildren will curse your name if they survive.

So why follow a course known to end in disaster? Pride? Greed? Delusion that
the end of the world is nigh and God will forgive warmaking and genocide?

Unilateralism can work for a while; as long as you switch back before it is
too late. Look at Holland and Britain for examples of successes.

But it still does not explain Iraq, except as a bungled attempt at
unilateralism. It expecially does not explain Bremer. Bremer is a PHB.
You would expect someone like Patton. Perhaps the right people didn't want
the job?

To get in control of a hostile country requires you to take hard action
immediatly. When someone blows a bomb you set a curfew in that province
for months, and shoot everyone that doesn't respect it; meanwhile you walk
through the whole place looking for the culprits. Perhaps they didn't have
stomack for this brutality?

There is a second agenda which is also being implemented successfully. Conservatives
want to dismantle government because it interferes with their private pursuit
of profit and power (see also Miliken and Quatrone). Actually repealing the legal
framework has been unsuccessful: no matter how appealing their claims about taxes
and regulation, when push comes to shove, most people want a government that's
powerful enough to provide for the sick and old, stop quacks from killing patients,
stop manufacturers from killing customers, and to have water and air that are not
fatal to touch.

So since 1980 the conservatives still whine about big government, but they are quite
happy to increase the government size and expenditure. While cutting taxes. The net
effect is a government that is increasingly in debt. The long term goal is to get
the government so heavily indebted that it can no longer borrow money. Then it will
collapse of its own dead weight.

A weak central government is also a stated goal, but not a mainstream Republican
one. The official policy is a strong, but limited one.

-- mrr

 

[jmfbahciv]

I just cannot understand what he wanted to do with Iraq, so fast and
with such a limited expedition corps.

If we for a moment give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
Iraq WAS a hotbed of terrorists buiding WMD's. There may after all be
some information they cannot tell us. This would explain the
hurry and the go-it-alone tactic. In that case , why wasn't the place
hit a lot harder; int the Nixon/Pinochet style? Why a PHB like Bremer?
Why not a real tough army goy the first couple of months? I just cannot
make sense of this scenario.

I had assumed this was to placate France, Germany and Russia.
IMO, there was too much politics and not enough military.

On the other hand, it may be a wish to liberate Iraq from the ravages
of Saddam, and a final round of being pissed at Saddam repeatedly
flouting the ceasefire agreement. This is a perfectly legitimate
reason to escalate the war again (it is the same war, there was never
a peace agreement, only a cease-fire). In that case a few rounds of
UN song and dance could be done while a new coalition was built; with
the US taking around a fourth of the cost and manpower, like last time.
This could be convincingly sold to the Iraqi populace as a liberation.

But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build
a coalition. They were farting around using all kinds of delay
tactics and were more than willing to allow Saddam to flaunt
the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could
do anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport
across his country from east to west.

So, I don't get it if the agenda is just what is spoken. If the agenda
is to make way for Israel scenario #2 would still be a better one.

Contrast this with Afghanistan, where there was a pretty high urgency
to get the al-Quaeda and the Taliban before they moved with another
terrorist monstrosity. Yet, a large alliance was built, NATO was used
as far as it could be stretched. the UN was in on it; and the US ended
taking around half the cost and supplying a fifth of the manpower.
With a similar strategy in Iraq the US could have resources left over
to handle North Korea, Sudan, Sierra Leone with less expenditure than
what you ended up with.

I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
misimplemented.

Or the agenda changed in midstream.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

There has been a request to [spit] these newsgroups. Where
do you read from? I'm over in a.f.c.

Since this is somewhat related to computer programming
and AI I will reply.

Thank you. I appreciate the effort.

The US has started a initiative to integrate all
information about people in the USA into a central database.

This is why I'm puzzled. This stuff is nothing new; about
the only difference is the detail.

This includes confidential information like
your medical files. Think what
you say to your psychologist is confidential?

It never was confidential. People talk; doctors confer. It
was off limits w.r.t. law enforcement but I think that had
more to do with not having to testify against yourself.
This still is not a freedom; it's a right that is listed.

..Think again. Being paranoid
can be enough to get a "red flag".
They will have access to all your credit records
and will monitor all your
travels in and out of the country.
If you buy flowers on the apposite side of town they can deduce that you
have a lover and
use this as a means of distortion. (Edgar A. Hoover style)

Initially this was just supposed to be used to monitor terrorist like
behaviour
but now the FBI and CIA are also seeing the power of such a system.

Sure. They had that kind of power and were abusing it in the 70s.
Both departments got the wings clipped. Because they did get
reorg'ed back then, a lot of the work, that they are accused of not
doing after 9/11, didn't get done because they weren't allowed to
do that work. Now Congress is shifting towards giving them
more leeway. I sure as hell hope they remember Hoover and his
abuses of power before they suggest putting one guy over it all.

The main challenge in computing is sieving through the amount of data.
Politically it is to pressure the foreign governments to wave their
privacy protection acts and allow unlimited access to information to a
foreign power.

This won't happen. Foreign governments will do whatever is in their
best interests as the US should do things in its best interests.

Don't know what you think of this but it scares the hell out of me!

It should. But this isn't a breach of freedom. It is a breach
of privacy which can only be protected by each individual, not
the government.

See, people keep saying freedoms. But I get confused and don't
consider these things freedoms. In some very stretched cases,
I might consider them rights.


/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[SM Ryan]

# But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
# It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build

France said all along it would agree to military action in Iraq
_if_ NBC weapons or development where discoverrd.

So where are these weapons?

France and Germany are in Afghanistan fighting and dying on our behalf,
along with other NATO armies. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism
except for the echoing looniness inside Dick Cheney's empty skull.
The real war on terrorism is in Afghanistan which the USA abandonned
in search of more profitable plunder. France and Germany and other
NATO armies are fighting the war on terrorism, and they were doing
so long before the USA got involved. It's the USA that abandonned
the war on terrorism in favour of trying to break OPEC and control
the flow of oil from Arab states, not France and Germany.

# the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could
# do anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport
# across his country from east to west.

The borders of Iraq were far better regulated under Saddam than today.
The chaos that USA inflicted openned the borders. Remember Bunker
Hill? Remember Valley Forge? Remember Yorktown? Do you think only
Americans are capable of taking up arms against a foreign occupier
and fighting for their independence? We have become the redcoats
and Hessians. Makes you kinda proud, doesn't it?

 

[Rupert Pigott]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

[SNIP]

I had assumed this was to placate France, Germany and Russia.
IMO, there was too much politics and not enough military.

I can't see why you bother making excuses on behalf of the
Administration. It was the Administration's call as to who
ran the CPA, let them take responsibility for it.

 

[Rupert Pigott]

There has been a request to [spit] these newsgroups. Where
do you read from? I'm over in a.f.c.

Since this is somewhat related to computer programming
and AI I will reply.

Thank you. I appreciate the effort.

The US has started a initiative to integrate all
information about people in the USA into a central database.

This is why I'm puzzled. This stuff is nothing new; about
the only difference is the detail.

This includes confidential information like
your medical files. Think what
you say to your psychologist is confidential?

It never was confidential. People talk; doctors confer. It
was off limits w.r.t. law enforcement but I think that had
more to do with not having to testify against yourself.

The Hippocratic Oath demands that patient confidentiality
be respected.

I'm sure that there is plenty of material out there which
explains why the Oath exists and why it might be desirable.

 

[keith]

# But France, Germany and Russia would have nothing to do with that.
# It would stop their cash flows with Saddam if we had tried to build

France said all along it would agree to military action in Iraq
_if_ NBC weapons or development where discoverrd.

So where are these weapons?

We don't know. We *do* know they had them. We don't know what happened
to them (though some have shown up). Indeed I hope they did disappear
into a black hole somewhere (never to be seen again).

France and Germany are in Afghanistan fighting and dying on our behalf,
along with other NATO armies.

Our? Al-Quida is only a US issue? France and Germany have nothing to
fear from terrorism?

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism

Bullshit. It may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but only the infirm
would believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

except for the echoing looniness inside Dick Cheney's empty skull.

You're projecting again.

The
real war on terrorism is in Afghanistan which the USA abandonned in
search of more profitable plunder.

Oh, please! No one abandoned Afghanistan. Just because it's not first
up on Dan Blather, doesn't mean it fell off teh radar screen.

France and Germany and other NATO
armies are fighting the war on terrorism, and they were doing so long
before the USA got involved. It's the USA that abandonned the war on
terrorism in favour of trying to break OPEC and control the flow of oil
from Arab states, not France and Germany.

....any more fairy tales? France and Germany were the ones profiting,
under the table, from trade with Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program.
They didn't want to kill the goose...

# the cease fire. With nobody watching the bad boy, he could # do
anything he damned well wanted to, including allow transport # across
his country from east to west.

The borders of Iraq were far better regulated under Saddam than today.

Is that why there were so many terrorists living in Iraq? I thought
Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism? ...can't have it both ways.

The chaos that USA inflicted openned the borders.

Perhaps. Iran and Syria do not want Iraq to be free. Much of the funding
for the "insurgents" is from Iran and Syria.

Remember Bunker Hill? Remember Valley Forge? Remember Yorktown?

How about Antietam, Harpers Ferry, and Gettysburgh? ...or maybe Pearl
Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guada Canal? See I can name irrelevant battles
too.

Do you think only Americans are capable of taking up arms against a
foreign occupier and fighting for their independence? We have become the
redcoats and Hessians. Makes you kinda proud, doesn't it?

The US seems to be the only one with a real military left. The French?
Italy? Canada?

 

[Jack Peacock]

Your argument is shallow if you direct it to the person who happens to be
holding the office of President at the moment. The President can't
introduce or pass law.

Laws no, but the definition of a law can be ambiguous. Congress has given
federal agencies under the President broad power to issue regulations with
the same effect as laws, but without going through the legislative process.
Anyone who has ever battled with the Bureau of Land Management or ran afoul
of the Endangered Species Act knows that "laws" are often created by fiat in
a Washington DC office building.

Then there are presidential Executive Orders which are often attempts to end
run around a lack of congressional cooperation. Clinton attempted to use
this to outlaw firearms posession in federal housing until the Supreme Court
put a stop to it.

And finally there are international treaties, which operate with the force
of law but are not passed by the House of Representatives. The President
signs it and the Senate confirms it, but half the legislative process is cut
out. Often all that protects the country from disasters like the Kyoto
Treaty is a filibuster by a Senate minority.
Jack Peacock

 

[keith]

Laws no, but the definition of a law can be ambiguous. Congress has given
federal agencies under the President broad power to issue regulations with
the same effect as laws, but without going through the legislative process.
Anyone who has ever battled with the Bureau of Land Management or ran afoul
of the Endangered Species Act knows that "laws" are often created by fiat in
a Washington DC office building.

Then there are presidential Executive Orders which are often attempts to end
run around a lack of congressional cooperation. Clinton attempted to use
this to outlaw firearms posession in federal housing until the Supreme Court
put a stop to it.

And finally there are international treaties, which operate with the force
of law but are not passed by the House of Representatives. The President
signs it and the Senate confirms it, but half the legislative process is cut
out. Often all that protects the country from disasters like the Kyoto
Treaty is a filibuster by a Senate minority.

In the case of Kyoto, no filibuster was necessary. Even Kerry wouldn't
have voted for it (it went doen 99-0 in a trial balloon). ...though might
today. Who knows what he'd support tomorrow. He's been on eight sides
(and still inventing more) of the Iraq issue.

 

[Rupert Pigott]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:05:52 +0000, SM Ryan wrote:
[SNIP]

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism

Bullshit. It may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but only the infirm
would believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Show me the hard evidence. All I've seen are word association
games. I'm sure you would expect me to provide evidence if I
accused the US of harbouring convicted terrorists.


The US reminds me of Ronnie's "Evil Empire" at the moment.

 

[jmfbahciv]

Not just people in the USA.




It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation.

I'll bet one of your pennies that the subsidiary has farmed it
back out of the country.

.. According to the Patriot Act,
the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
can be thrown into a U.S. jail.

[emoticon daydreams about certain talking heads getting caught]

Me too.

Sure. But the whole thing becomes moot if western civ is gone.
There are other things getting put into law and custom by
politicians that are even scarier but there won't be any chance
of rectifying rabid Republican brain damage if there isn't
any civ left.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

I know I shouldn't reply to threads like this, but I just can't
help it...

What makes you think that the current US government gives a
shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
them up in secret forever.

Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
Then these released people go blow up something else.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]

Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn into
bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?

Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
it feels better]

I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as much as we
fear, yet.

Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.

... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice is
between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial oversight
then it will get far worse than we fear.

WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?

I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might be
believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and trying to get rid
of the said freedoms in the hope that it will appease the terrorists.

Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you think you
did.

Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on me and
shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the US because of
the sentence above?

Too many people coming in. As long as you don't stand up and
shout bomb or make a fool of yourself going through customs
and fill out the paperwork without trying to be a smartass,
I don't see people who are already overworked and stretched
thin bothering with you.

.. Would I see a judge? Lawyer?

I don't know. I had understood that, if you didn't get
through customs, you were put back on a plane out of the
country.

... Would anybody even
know?

Yes. Lots of people.

..Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of behaviour
from your gov't?

If you are a terrorist with the intent to wreak death and
destruction in this country, I sure as hell hope somebody
doesn't let you in.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Bulent Murtezaoglu]

jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]

Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn into
bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?

I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as much as we
fear, yet. But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice is
between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial oversight
then it will get far worse than we fear.

I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might be
believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and trying to get rid
of the said freedoms in the hope that it will appease the terrorists.

Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on me and
shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the US because of
the sentence above? Would I see a judge? Lawyer? Would anybody even
know? Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of behaviour
from your gov't?

cheers,

BM

 

[Bulent Murtezaoglu]

[...]
jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
bm> Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn
bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?

jmf> Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
jmf> it feels better]

I didn't mean to upset you. But sigh indeed. Offtopic in all groups
too. Maybe we should get jailed? Who knows _what else_ we might be
up to? Can't be too cautious these days. What color was that alert
now? Better call the authorities.

bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
bm> much as we fear, yet.

jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.

Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused. That's
the whole point of a separate status, no? I thought the 'enemy
combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law, and
the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs. As for the _US_ doing it,
yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it. Indeed the
whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought
that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear
to stay within certain boundaries. Maybe they needen't have bothered?

>> ... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
>> is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
>> oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]

jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?

Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207



cheers,

BM


jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
jmf> think you did.

Let's hear it.

jmf> Too many people coming in. As long as you don't stand up and
jmf> shout bomb or make a fool of yourself going through customs
jmf> and fill out the paperwork without trying to be a smartass, I
jmf> don't see people who are already overworked and stretched
jmf> thin bothering with you.


jmf> I don't know. I had understood that, if you didn't get
jmf> through customs, you were put back on a plane out of the
jmf> country.

jmf> Yes. Lots of people.

jmf> If you are a terrorist with the intent to wreak death and
jmf> destruction in this country, I sure as hell hope somebody
jmf> doesn't let you in.

jmf> /BAH

jmf> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.