On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:14:19 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:


I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
anymore.

/BAH

About when did they stop using paper
punch tape for programs?

As far as the data goes, there are so many
missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
only operating a few years, the results are less
than acceptable.

Security would not be a problem if critical
data was kept on computers not connected to
the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
all the data for the whole world, another for
email, and another for payroll, etc.

It is about time some better hardware
was offered that allows a manual switch to
shut off any incoming packets that are not
requested, another $500 computer could
be used as a quarantine machine, but in
almost everything the experts try to make
one device do everything.

Measurements should be included with
the adjusted/corrected/modified/updated/
trick values, computers now have hundreds
of times the capability used as if the climate
experts never used a computer before.

I wish all the AGW frantics good luck
with a warmer 2010, warmer is better all
year except in hot spells.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:16:54 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:20:38 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:38 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:22:09 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:57:19 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:43 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:03:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
snip

I'm not disagreeing with that,
I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed
into a usable format.
Then it is not the raw data. The suggestion was to provide the raw
data. That means that the original collection of bits has to be
copied bit for bit with no modification. A lot of copy operations
insert 0 zero bits for alignment.
I think the disagreement is simply semantic.
No, it's not.

You aren't considering
"copies of the raw data", "raw data". I do, as long as the copy is
not corrupt.
How do you know that? You can't unless the person who copied it did
an BINCOM or something to verify that no bits were changed and no
fills were inserted.
"Read after write" verification has been around quite a while. My
system does it automatically. Doesn't yours?
Does yours include the nulls when comparing one file to the other or
skip them? I'm stating that you have to be careful. If you're moving a
binary data file from a 16-bit to 72-bit machine, you'll have problems.
You'll have a lot more problems if you're moving a binary data file from
a 72-bit to 16-bit machine. You'll have even more problems if some of
the collection was done using single-word floating point format and
later collections was done using double-word floating point format.
Mixed mode data collections means that the raw data had better not be
something that had been modified and this included null fills.

Perhaps that explains the popularity of text files.

Which cannot be used as data. Period.


And you are a computer guru?

A text file in DOS format can have each data
byte on a new line, the line feed/carriage returns
only take 2 bytes and there is no guessing like
with unix text files.


I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
insist it's the only "raw data".
People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
have to be done to clarify the meaning.

You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
to central processing unit.
As I said, it's just semantics.
It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
derivative.

Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.

You're nuts. I'm giving up trying to talk about this with you. The
subject deserves serious, careful thought.

snip...very reluctantly

/BAH

There are dozens of ways to do any one
task, I have so much trouble with other people's
software I am convinced it is made difficult on
purpose, nobody could be as dumb as some of
the software makes the author look.

I thought I would like graphical linux and
bought about six different versions, but none
looked like completed operating systems and
the third party software was so bad I gave up
and I run with a mobile rack and any operating
system that fits the task best.

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:14:19 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:


I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
anymore.

/BAH

About when did they stop using paper
punch tape for programs?

I suspect there are still systems using them out there.


As far as the data goes, there are so many
missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
only operating a few years, the results are less
than acceptable.

Security would not be a problem if critical
data was kept on computers not connected to
the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
all the data for the whole world, another for
email, and another for payroll, etc.

You are completely missing the security aspects when
humans are involved. Raw data can get lost easily if
it's not accessed often. It's even easier to lose
code sources if they're not used more often.


It is about time some better hardware
was offered that allows a manual switch to
shut off any incoming packets that are not
requested, another $500 computer could
be used as a quarantine machine, but in
almost everything the experts try to make
one device do everything.

That kind of security has existed for a long time. It's called
a phone plug.


snip

/BAH

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:16:54 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:20:38 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:38 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:22:09 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:57:19 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:43 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:03:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
snip

I'm not disagreeing with that,
I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed
into a usable format.
Then it is not the raw data. The suggestion was to provide the raw
data. That means that the original collection of bits has to be
copied bit for bit with no modification. A lot of copy operations
insert 0 zero bits for alignment.
I think the disagreement is simply semantic.
No, it's not.

You aren't considering
"copies of the raw data", "raw data". I do, as long as the copy is
not corrupt.
How do you know that? You can't unless the person who copied it did
an BINCOM or something to verify that no bits were changed and no
fills were inserted.
"Read after write" verification has been around quite a while. My
system does it automatically. Doesn't yours?
Does yours include the nulls when comparing one file to the other or
skip them? I'm stating that you have to be careful. If you're moving a
binary data file from a 16-bit to 72-bit machine, you'll have problems.
You'll have a lot more problems if you're moving a binary data file from
a 72-bit to 16-bit machine. You'll have even more problems if some of
the collection was done using single-word floating point format and
later collections was done using double-word floating point format.
Mixed mode data collections means that the raw data had better not be
something that had been modified and this included null fills.
Perhaps that explains the popularity of text files.
Which cannot be used as data. Period.


And you are a computer guru?

No. The JMF in my user name was the real guru.


A text file in DOS format can have each data
byte on a new line, the line feed/carriage returns
only take 2 bytes and there is no guessing like
with unix text files.

Text is not data, unless you are generating the index of a book.



I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
insist it's the only "raw data".
People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
have to be done to clarify the meaning.

You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
to central processing unit.
As I said, it's just semantics.
It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
derivative.
Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.

You're nuts. I'm giving up trying to talk about this with you. The
subject deserves serious, careful thought.

snip...very reluctantly

/BAH

There are dozens of ways to do any one
task,

Actually, more; there one way/human being.
Everyone has a different pattern of working. :-)

I have so much trouble with other people's
software I am convinced it is made difficult on
purpose, nobody could be as dumb as some of
the software makes the author look.

this is topic which has taken hundreds of thousands
of manmonths to design. It would take forever to
produce one, and only one.


I thought I would like graphical linux and
bought about six different versions, but none
looked like completed operating systems and
the third party software was so bad I gave up
and I run with a mobile rack and any operating
system that fits the task best.

That's what you're supposed to do. There is no
such thing as "one OS fits all". The best you
can do is start out with a general purpose OS
which leaves most of the user usage as an exercise
for the user.

We made several OSes which did this.


/BAH

What a bunch of childish bull.

I have data on a USB drive that started out on a 5 1/2" floppies. You can
still download SPICE versions that used to be on tape archives.

This silly canard that if it was once on paper tape or punch cards it
could never be moved to another medium is so stupid that only an utter
idiot would try to pass it off.

Look, the CRU folks and their co-conspirators SAID they would delete it
if there was a Freedom of Information act attempt to get it, there were
FOI attempts to get it, and it's now deleted.

Okay, so lets stop with this idiot talk about how it was on paper tape.
IT's just a stupid lie. It isn't even supposed to be believed, its only
has to be a good enough lie to keep the conspirators out of prison.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:43:10 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:


Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery we've
all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.

Exactly. I thought maybe these "climate scientists" were just stupid. You
know how it is; the "A+" guys go into theoretical physics and particle
physics. The "B" guys go on to build bombs. The B- guys who barely made
it through grad school at Po-dunk U. go on to become "Climate Scientist".

But they're not just stupid. They're liars. They're frauds.

There are two big problems in physics.

1) The lack of ethics in society in general.
2) Funding.

These two worked together to produce not just non-science, but complete
and utter FRAUD.

Our society is simply not as honest as it used to be. See, "The Cheating
Culture" by David Callahan for many examples of how our ethics and
honesty has declined in our culture.

The second problem is how science is funded.

Research that finds a threat or promises a big payoff get funded, even if
they are complete and utter crap. I've seen a bad theory and cherry
picked results get funded year after year, each time with the results
"needs more research". Not just climate change, which is the biggest scam
of all.

What do you think is going to happen? That some "researcher" is going to
say "opps! I made a math error in my theory" or "I cherry picked the
results, really nothing going on here different from conventional
physics"? Hell no! They're not going to make themselves unemployed by
being honest. They LIE. What's really scary is how some of them even
begin to believe their own BS.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
What a bunch of childish bull.

I have data on a USB drive that started out on a 5 1/2" floppies.

Impossible. Floppies don't receive data magically.

You can
still download SPICE versions that used to be on tape archives.

This silly canard that if it was once on paper tape or punch cards it
could never be moved to another medium is so stupid that only an utter
idiot would try to pass it off.


Where are you getting this idea (that it can't be moved). All that
I'm stating is that transforming from one form to another makes the
copy not the raw data. The raw data is usually saved intact as a
sanity check.


Look, the CRU folks and their co-conspirators SAID they would delete it
if there was a Freedom of Information act attempt to get it, there were
FOI attempts to get it, and it's now deleted.

Okay, so lets stop with this idiot talk about how it was on paper tape.
IT's just a stupid lie. It isn't even supposed to be believed, its only
has to be a good enough lie to keep the conspirators out of prison.

You aren't even seeing the trees for the forest. :-).

/BAH

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:43:10 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:


Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery we've
all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.

Exactly. I thought maybe these "climate scientists" were just stupid. You
know how it is; the "A+" guys go into theoretical physics and particle
physics. The "B" guys go on to build bombs. The B- guys who barely made
it through grad school at Po-dunk U. go on to become "Climate Scientist".

But they're not just stupid. They're liars. They're frauds.

There are two big problems in physics.

1) The lack of ethics in society in general.
2) Funding.

These two worked together to produce not just non-science, but complete
and utter FRAUD.

Our society is simply not as honest as it used to be. See, "The Cheating
Culture" by David Callahan for many examples of how our ethics and
honesty has declined in our culture.

The second problem is how science is funded.

Research that finds a threat or promises a big payoff get funded, even if
they are complete and utter crap. I've seen a bad theory and cherry
picked results get funded year after year, each time with the results
"needs more research". Not just climate change, which is the biggest scam
of all.

What do you think is going to happen? That some "researcher" is going to
say "opps! I made a math error in my theory" or "I cherry picked the
results, really nothing going on here different from conventional
physics"? Hell no! They're not going to make themselves unemployed by
being honest. They LIE. What's really scary is how some of them even
begin to believe their own BS.



Why are you not blaming the real crooks?

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
I M @ good guy wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:14:19 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:


I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
anymore.

/BAH

About when did they stop using paper punch tape for programs?

I suspect there are still systems using them out there.

Although they tend to be rare dedicated machines with exotic external
hardware controlling old telescopes, satellite downlinks or something
like that. Maybe even the odd aging nuclear power station. Most will
have had something grafted on to allow faster transfer by now.

Some Marconi Myriads were still in use in the mid 80's and I knew at
least one that output its measurement results on paper tape then. The
tape was then fed into the mainframe for final processing.

As far as the data goes, there are so many
missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
only operating a few years, the results are less
than acceptable.

Security would not be a problem if critical
data was kept on computers not connected to
the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
all the data for the whole world, another for
email, and another for payroll, etc.

You are completely missing the security aspects when
humans are involved. Raw data can get lost easily if
it's not accessed often. It's even easier to lose
code sources if they're not used more often.

An astonishing amount of old data on mag tape (admittedly most of it
will never be missed) has expired due to print through as data volumes
have grown. It is even worse for digital text archives there are plenty
of wordprocessor disks for the likes of the early Olivetti kit that are
now virtually impossible to read. Their machines were Zilog based and
good in their day but lets say they did not survive much after the IBM
PC. You can have them read but it costs $$$.

It is about time some better hardware
was offered that allows a manual switch to
shut off any incoming packets that are not
requested, another $500 computer could
be used as a quarantine machine, but in
almost everything the experts try to make
one device do everything.

That kind of security has existed for a long time. It's called
a phone plug.

The only truly secure computers are those which are physically
disconnected from the outside world and with strict controls on who
enters and what leaves the room. Thumbnail drives and even smaller SD
media means that multiple GB can leak away if security is careless.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:17:57 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
What a bunch of childish bull.

I have data on a USB drive that started out on a 5 1/2" floppies.

Impossible. Floppies don't receive data magically.

You can
still download SPICE versions that used to be on tape archives.

This silly canard that if it was once on paper tape or punch cards it
could never be moved to another medium is so stupid that only an utter
idiot would try to pass it off.


Where are you getting this idea (that it can't be moved). All that I'm
stating is that transforming from one form to another makes the copy not
the raw data. The raw data is usually saved intact as a sanity check.


Look, the CRU folks and their co-conspirators SAID they would delete it
if there was a Freedom of Information act attempt to get it, there were
FOI attempts to get it, and it's now deleted.

Okay, so lets stop with this idiot talk about how it was on paper tape.
IT's just a stupid lie. It isn't even supposed to be believed, its only
has to be a good enough lie to keep the conspirators out of prison.

You aren't even seeing the trees for the forest. :-).

/BAH

Now you're being silly. Using that illogic, the "raw data" is the mercury
in the thermometers at a thousand weather stations and it only existed at
the time it was taken. Everything else, including the paper logs where it
was written down, is not "raw data".

Sorry, I thought you were serious.

The CRU destroyed the data, as in "the numbers don't exist anymore". They
don't exist on punch tape, on disk, on DVDrom, nor a RAID array or USB
drive.

Now, child, go play your ****y little semantic game somewhere else.