| Monday
August 21, 2000
I'm way behind on work, so this remains a short shrift
week. Sorry. I do sometimes get inspired to write long replies, but I hope
I don't. There's just too much to do.
Thought you might be interested in this since you
investigated the Dean drive long ago and far away in a different universe.
So gyros weigh less the faster they spin!
http://helix.nature.com/nsu/000824/000824-1.html
Chuck Anderson
I don't think anything came of that;
there was for a while an assertion about the effect of spin rates on
gravity but I do not believe it held up when repeated. Dean, and the late
G. Harry Stine, were convinced there was some was to convert angular
acceleration to linear acceleration but so far no one seems to have
demonstrated it.
Jerry, you said:
...but the Warrior Code has nothing to do with a republic. The young
Warrior fights for his comrades, for his outfit, for his officers, and for
the nation, in that order. A Warrior will lay down his life for a flag,
but it's not the flag of the nation, it's the Eagles of his outfit.
I've thought about this at some length, having spent
12 years in the Navy. I agree with most of it, except "A Warrior will
lay down his life for a flag, but it's not the flag of the nation, it's
the Eagles of his outfit." I, personally (and I am not implying that
I am the norm, only what I feel), have always felt strongly that the
people, the nation and the principles behind it, were the factors that got
me to lay my life on the line. The folks I teamed with were part of the
equation, but only a part of the aforementioned larger picture.
As I said, it's the way I personally feel, and I've
never claimed to be normal. :-)
A disturbing issue, which also indicates that my
feelings weren't with my comrades, is that I ran into many service members
(from all services) who joined to get college money, training, needed a
place to land, or just flat didn't know what to do, but had no desire to
go to war and fight for anything.
I don't know how their philosophies would change had
we had a major shooting war, but it is certainly odd to me that anyone
would consider joining the military and wasn't willing to fight, or even
accept the idea that they might have to.
Tracy Walters, Networking Rocky Mountain
Technology
No I said Warriors; you were a
citizen as most of the US military has been for most of our history.
Warriors are professional soldiers, and if they are effective they have a
different code of honor from citizens. I'm not really saying anything new
or startling; it's a lesson from history and known to, among others,
Macciavelli.
My
current byte.com column has a long bit about migrating Outlook 2000
I'll be brief.
I read your latest BYTE article (man I'm glad they
continued the web site after the paper magazine folded) including the part
about your outlook troubles.
I've had a stick in my craw about outlook for a
goodly long while now. I use rules, and handy things they are, too.
However, Do you know how to set them so that mail that goes into folders
doesn't turn on the flag to make you think you have mail that needs
attention *now*?
A pet peeve, but there it is.
At any rate, thanks for all the SF (I'm a voracious
fan).
-Ken
Thanks. I fear I don't seem to have
the problem: it boldfaces any folder with unread mail in it, but it's
supposed to do that. The red ! only appears if the mail is marked high
priority by the sender. I think we have a misunderstanding.
Hi Jerry,
Re: Restoring Outlook rules
I have encountered the same rules problem running
Outlook 2000 even when restoring Outlook .pst files to the same location
at which they resided, when "restoring" the .pst file from
duplicates stored on other hard disks within the same PC.
I have encountered the problem with Outlook 2000
running under Windows 98 and under Windows 2000. To me this is a maddening
problem that ought to have been fixed a long time ago. I find that
exporting the rules regularly so as to enable me to re-import the rules
does not work even if the Outlook file is put back where it was before a
crash (after reinstalling Windows from scratch on a blank hard disk).
Your article seems to answer one thing that had been
a puzzle. When I last restored a .pst file under Windows 2000 I restored
all of the files in the Windows 2000 "Documents and Settings"
path that seemed even remotely associated with Outlook. The files (.pst
file included) in this case were restored from a backups up made using
Veritas Backup Desktop Ed. for Windows 2000 rather than just copied
duplicates stored on other hard disks. All of the folder-to-copy-to
locations restored just fine.
Previously I had tried restoring Outlook settings
with files originally "backed up" to other hard disks on the
Windows 2000 machine using a batch file to make simple file copies. These
copy-based restores left all of the file locations to be fixed afterward
manually even when the rules import feature was used to restore previously
exported rules.
I presume that in using the Veritas backup I
restored an exact tape image of the .pst file that somehow retained
properties that maintained the rule structure as the rules came up intact.
Or could there be a non-obvious file in the "\Documents and
Settings" path that holds the folders-to-move-to info? Could it be in
the frmcache.dat file in the "C:\Documents and Settings\Keith E.
Risler\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\FORMS" folder (for
each users, for example? Or some other file?
Someone should yell at Microsoft to ensure a simple
way to restore the rules. Fixing them manually is a maddening process that
once started can't be easily paused until it's done.
Keith E. Risler KeithRisler@alumni.uwo.ca
| http://members.execulink.com/~kerisler
I am yelling at Microsoft to fix
this imbecility. Meanwhile, OUTBACk which is mentioned in the column (and
there will be more next week) does have some solutions; stay the course,
help is on the way!
Hi Jerry!
Don't know if you'll have either the time or
interest to read / respond to this subject, but thought I'd write
nonetheless...
Given your discussions on a wide variety of topics
and your latest experience with problems in relocating your Outlook .PST
file (in today's, 8/21/00, column), I wondered if you could / would
comment on possible solutions to the question of long term retention and
archiving of email?!
I just had to rebuild one of my home PC's over the
weekend and spent most of the time trying to get all of my "precious
emails" back accessible and in one piece! Many of the special
programs I located on the web which recover emails directly from a DBX
file failed because the files were too large!
I need to organize, delete, prune and weed out lots
of emails. But I also want to save a number who are from special people,
represent my proof of purchase of web-based software, etc. And I also
probably should organize email I want to keep by year -- so that I can
"purge" messages off at some time in the future.
With the large volume of email you receive, how do
you keep organized and retain the messages you feel you should?
In searching (www.google.com) the web this afternoon
on "Email Archive Standards", it appears that lots of
governments, businesses and individuals have the same problem -- and of
the hits I found, most admit they have a problem, but noone seems to have
a solution!
Thanks, enjoy your columns (as I have for many years
as a Byte Magazine subscriber)!
George
I periodically copy the entire PST
to another disk drive, and burn a copy on a CDROM. It's the safest archive
I know. In general, if something happens to the main machine on which
outlook.pst resides I am in for a day of hurt anyway, so taking special
precautions to make it easier to reinstall the outlook.pst doesn't seem
worth it. But I do make copies of that PST file and burn them on a CDROM
reasonably often since all my contacts and addresses are on those files.
More below
Dear Jerry:
A funny thing happened a few nights ago; without
much warning (I'd been getting random and infrequent "parity
error" memory problems at startup for some time), my deskstop system
refused to boot. The startup logo would appear on the screen, the drive
lights would flash, the hard disk would spin up, but the POST never got as
far as accessing the floppy: no beeps, no response from any key or key
combination, no nothing.
In the process of troubleshooting the system by
removing hardware devices one by one I discovered the problem was my
Belkin 4-port external USB hub: I don't know why, but between one boot and
the next it fried. This makes two out of two bad Belkin USB hubs for me;
one was bad out of the box; this one ran fine for over a year, but
eventually joined the other in the trash: I will never buy another Belkin.
What is interesting is that the failure of the hub
caused the POST to halt on boot, and the system looked as brain-dead as it
would have if the motherboard had failed. I run Windows 98SE on this box,
and I pass this along in case any other readers run into a similar problem
in the future: if your machine won't boot, and you have a USB hub, try
disconnecting it first (it's about the easiest hardware to disable anyway)
before digging deeper into the system innards. If I had followed this
advice I would have saved myself hours of frustration, scraped knuckles,
and all the rest that goes with rooting around inside the case.
All the best--
Tim Loeb
I have not used that particular
Belkin product although they are supposed to have sent me several days and
days ago. In general I find Belkin products reliable and useful. It
happens that at the moment I am using mostly ICS CPU switches rather than
Belkin, but Belkin apparently does a better job switching among systems
where one needs a PS/2 mouse and another a serial mouse. In general I have
liked Belkin, but again I say, I have not used their USB hub. In my case
the motherboard was dead, dead, dead, and putting in a new one solved my
problem; but I am working at the edge of Intel's technology, with
engineering samples not production boards, and I don't report test
failures without explanations; Let me say quickly that I have more
reliance on Intel motherboards than any other brand when it comes to fast
fast fast systems.
Thanks for the report. The really
important point is that USB stuff can really muck up a system. See
below.
Jerry,
I really regret replying to your mail column, I
appear to have set off a small brush fire, that hopefully I can quell
before it becomes a firestorm. My original comment was derived from a
article that your reader referenced that highlighted the hypocrisy of Ben
&; Jerry's denouncing dioxin, whilst simultaneously having very low
levels in their food products. My hyperbole regarding dioxin (which I now
deeply regret stating) is based upon not my own opinion but that of the US
EPA http://www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin.htm
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/factsheets/dioxin_long.pdf
as well as that of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (of the
World Health Organization) who have both classified dioxin (to be
specific, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin ) as carcinogens with
specific potency factors that their experts (not me!) have decided.
Now some persons may distrust these organizations,
but that is a different issue. The more important issue, rather than the
degree of toxicity, is the exposure of the material to humans. Plutonium
isn't dangerous at all behind shielding, but I wouldn't want it in my food
chain. Likewise with other toxic materials. And the level of toxicity is
important, as 'All substances are poisons, the right dose differentiates
between a poison and a remedy' (attributed to Paracelsus, circa 1400 [date
may be wrong]). So your admonition/challenge to eat plutonium, etc. is not
one I wish to accept. I don't want to eat ANY of it, which is my point. I
understand risk assessment and realize that risks are minute for several
chemicals, but we try to avoid risks that we can (which is why there's an
FDA).
Regarding your comment (hyperbole??) that there are
instruments that can detect 'one or two molecules' I'd really like to know
where such instruments are, their detection limits and sample preparation
methodologies. I think you were perhaps overstating your case (as I did)
to make your point. Can we get back to PC's and networks now?
-- Bruce Weir
First, the dose makes the poison,
and that is precisely what EPA "regulatory science" does not
concede. As to my remark about a couple of molecules, first it was a more
obvious hyperbole than the often repeated "most toxic substance on
Earth" nonsense, and second, it's getting closer to true, and one of
the problems with regulation by bureaucracy. We can detect smaller and
small amounts of stuff now, and as the sensitivity of the instruments
grows, we find 'pollution' where none was before -- and at tiny levels,
removal costs become exponential.
Spending all your money reducing a
.000001% threat then there are 4% threats you ignore seems to me folly,
but that is what the EPA does. "Avoid risks" is a general
statement without much value. Sane policy seeks to avoid risks in ways
proportional to their probabilities taking account of the costs of risk
avoidance. I realize that is pure common sense: alas it seems totally
lacking in our public policies, which tend to be dictated by silly
statements like "most toxic stuff on earth."
The dose makes the poison. This has
been known since, I think, Paracelsus (whose name I have
misspelled.)
Jerry,
The following is from the first volume of John
Masters' autobiography _Bugles and a Tiger_. He served with the 4th Prince
of Wales Own Gurkha Rifles in India in the years before WWII, and later in
the CBI Theater. He went on to write a lot of novels about India and
Indians. Both this book, and the following _The Road to Mandalay_ are
excellent reading. Since you mentioned the Gurkha in connection to Kipling,
I thought I would send this along.
Anyone employing Gurkhas should send copies to
potential enemies to let them know what they are in for. Perhaps they will
find a way into one of your near-term stories. I should like to see that.
jim dodd
jimdodd@tcubed.net
Chapter Six
"Gurkhas enlisted between sixteen and nineteen
years of age, and signed on for four years' service. At he end of four
years a man could either "cut his name" -- that is, go -- or
sign for more service. His pay was sixteen rupees (about five dollars) a
month. After fifteen years as a rifleman he had earned retirement pension
of five rupees a month, or about $1.75 During his service he would receive
promotion according to his ability -- from rifleman (private) to lance
naik (pfc), naik (corporal) havildar (sergeant), havildar major, and
quartermaster havildar of various kinds and grades. Then came a much
bigger step, promotion to commissioned rank.
Commissions in the old Indian Army were of two
kinds, from the King or from the Viceroy. Officers holding them were known
respectively as King's Commissioned Officers (KCOs) and Viceroy's
Commissioned Officers (VCO's). In a British or American battalion, all
officers are second lieutenants, lieutenants, captains, majors, and so on.
In the Indian Army these ranks belonged only to King's Commissioned
Officers, of whom there were about twelve in a battalion. The remaining
nineteen officer jobs were carried out by Viceroy's Commissioned Officers.
The VCO started his military life as an enlisted man and, when promoted,
was promoted in the same battalion. He was therefore always of the same
caste and tribe as the rank and file. Thus the VCO's in s Sikh Regiment
were Sikhs, in a Gurkha Regiment, Gurkhas, in a Mahratta Regiment,
Mahrattas, and so on.
There were three ranks of VCO: jemadars, who wore
one star, the same as second lieutenants; subadars, who wore two stars,
the same as lieutenants; and _the_ subadar-major, who wore a crown, like a
mahor. VCOs were not warrant or noncommissioned officers, but officers in
the full sense. They wore Sam Browne belts and swords, had powers of
caommand and disciplone over all Indian enlisted men, received salutes,
and were always addressed as "sahib" -- "Jemadar-sahib,"
"Subadar-Major-Sahib," and so forth.
Thank you. And
see below.
On Reorganization and Data Bases
| I need to reorganize this whole place anyway. Much of what is here |
is left from the earliest days. I do have a next and previous up in | the
header, and have had for some time. But all that has to be done | by hand,
and that means it doesn't get done. Or I don't have time | to write
anything...
I've sent you email about this before. I *really*
think your site should be database-driven.
Each View and Mail would live in the database...
possibly even broken down into specific days. This would require a
nontrivial amount of up-front work, but from then on you get everything
you want, more or less for free. Your web server would, when asked for a
web page, pour data from the database into a standard template. The
standard boilerplate would appear at top and bottom. Links to previous and
next would just appear. Mail and your replies would be formatted
differently. Users could customize the way they see the site.
And, there is no need for your existing URLs to
change. If someone wants to see View 113, then http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view113.html
could still work. (In the worst case, if the new system has a new way of
doing URLs, you could set up a batch of redirects to send people to the
new URLs.)
Alas, there is little I can do to help with this
project, other than give you a few URLs.
Your best bet might be to take the Slashdot system
and use it. Vast chunks of it will not matter to you (you aren't planning
to let people post articles) but I think it will get you up and running
quickly. It needs a UNIX or Linux server, not an NT server.
http://slashcode.com/
Many sites are running on this. Slashdot for one, of
course. But have you seen Nanodot?
http://nanodot.org/
Here is a link to a big long book with lots of stuff
in it. This will definitely tell you what not to do. It will also tell you
what to do, as long as you are willing to use the same tools the author
likes to use.
http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/
There is a turnkey system called Frontier that would
do exactly what you would wish it to do. Unfortunately it costs way more
than you will want it to cost. I include a link here for completeness.
http://frontier.userland.com/
-- Steve R. Hastings "Vita est" steve@hastings.org
http://www.blarg.net/~steveha
Dum vivamus, vivamus. I agree
what OUGHT to be. What I don't have is time to DO it. Alas. I'd even pay if
it could be automated. Pay reasonable amounts, anyway.... Darnell was
going to do it, but he has gone all academic on me, which is great for him,
and he has my best wishes and congratulations, but it don't get my site
databased dammit...
I got this from Infoworld, who recommends it based
on input from Steve Gibson ( www.grc.com
):
http://www.lavasoft.de/
This is a site that, among other things, has a
freeware product called Ad-Aware. This software lets you scan your HD for
"spyware" or "adware", which is a newish category of
web-based nasty that reports your surfing habits back to some marketer.
Keep up your good work. Sorry about Intellectual
Capital. It was an interesting site.
Bill Seward http://the_freehold.homestead.com/
Thanks.
I have an essay and a new discussion on the academic
discipline known as sociology; I will reference it here and in VIEW, but
it has its own page.
Look, I know this is presumptuous of me. I'm only a
reader, so I have lots more time on my hands than you.
I really loved "Lucifer's Hammer" I'd
enjoy a sequel. Senator Jellison is dead, the power is back on, some of
the wandering tribes have rejoined civilization and so on. Kevin Costner
swims ashore to deliver the mail and gets mauled by a wolf riding a
bicycle or something.
I don't expect a reply, but if you feel so inclined,
I have an account at Hotmail (brucemoxon@hotmail.com)
I'm not in the habit of sending fan mail as I figure
you have better things to do with your time. I'm sure you've had this
request before and if you don't want to do it, or can't I'll understand
(sniff, sniff).
Bruce Moxon
Actually, Niven and I planned to
continue the story in the original and thus have not only the material for
a sequel but some of the chapters, but in fact we found them dull: the
story is pretty well finished as we wrote it. But in fact it would make a
better sequel than continuation, and we think about it from time to time,
but it is exceedingly unlikely that we'll ever do it.
RE: Windows ME
Jerry,
I'm afraid Mr. Thompson is right on this one. MS
wanted Win 98 to be the last DOS based Windows, but they weren't able to
do it in time... Thus 'ME' will be (they hope) their last OS with a DOS
core. They've done a lot to _hide_ DOS in this version, probably to start
weaning people away from it, but it's still there. Here's a bit from a
review of beta 3 that talks a little about Win ME's DOS access, or lack
thereof.
http://www.winmag.com/windows/winme/beta3/07.htm
--Robert Brown http://www.godofwar.com "Life is
a constant IQ test, and not everybody passes."
Well it doesn't surprise me that Thompson is right. He
often is. Oh. Well. I'll continue to collect information, but it looks
like I have the lead to the next column.
After skimming the exchanges re: dioxin, it occurred
to me that one man's poison is another man's opportunity: let's encourage
some entrepreneur to establish an internet-based market to buy and sell
insurance on low levels of risk! People who fear, e.g., low levels of
dioxin could buy a policy that would pay them money if/when the
agreed-upon level of exposure was shown to cause specific harm.
This way people who are nervous about dioxin,
nuclear power, meteorites and asteroids, etc., could feel better, and
perhaps sleep better, while others more in the know could get rich!
- Mark
Actually not a bad idea if you
could establish a mechanism for determining when there was to be a payoff.
But having lawyers argue it in front of a jury wouldn't work.
"There is a turnkey system called Frontier that would do exactly
what you would wish it to do. Unfortunately it costs way more than you
will want it to cost. I include a link here for completeness. http://frontier.userland.com/
"
Cost is relative - other than a machine to run it on
(and appropriate net access, which is no different from other database-drien
solutions), Frontier is based on a $899 per-year subscription, which
entitles you to all updates. If you let the subscription lapse, you're
still free to use it, you just won't get updates. At any time you can
rejoin, and get the very latest version. Considering all it provides,
including "Manila", which lets you edit your website from
anywhere with nothing more than a web browser, I think it's a bargain for
commercial or semi-commercial sites. You can even get a free Manila
account at any of a number of places (www.editthispage.com,
www.launchpoint.net, and www.weblogger.com are some) to try it out.
regards, Monty
(Disclaimer: I don't work for or have any financial
interest in Userland - I just really like their software. I'm still using
a two-year old version of Frontier to maintain some sites I have)
I think I need to know more. If it
would be easy to implement, that price isn't THAT prohibitive. It's
how long it would take to learn and use it that is fearsome. And
see below.
TOP
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
