In 00ce01cf5528$e52d0760$af871620$@mxg.com, on 04/10/2014
at 08:53 PM, Barry Merrill ba...@mxg.com said:
As the EE Lab Professor (name now forgotten, but rather aged as I
recall) finished the instructions for that lab project, he said I
have been instructed to read this note to all EE
In
caodpegqgmjak7ksush0tuntynd2+64arfp3uohpjogjq5by...@mail.gmail.com,
on 04/11/2014
at 07:21 AM, Itschak Mugzach imugz...@gmail.com said:
at the second time, try to put before the command.
The point is that by default PFK2 is set to SPLIT, not to SPLIT NEW,
and won't create a third split.
How the NSA shot itself in the foot by denying prior knowledge of
Heartbleed vulnerability
http://www.zdnet.com/institutional-failure-led-to-nsa-missing-the-heartbleed-flaw-728366/
Summary: In admitting it didn't know about a massive security flaw in
one of the Web's most used encryption
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of DASDBILL2
Of course they didn't use the Heartbleed bug for at least the last two years.
How do I know? Because
the NSA said they weren't even aware of it, so how could they possibly have
used it?
“NSA was
Whether your assessment is correct correct upon whether you are
willing to make use of EJ's suggestion that you zap (presumably) the
last letter of your routine's name to employ a sequence
'stem'.'A', 'stem'.'B', . . . . ,'stem.'Z', 'stem.'@',
'stem.'#', 'stem'.'$'
of 29 routine names, one per
On 04/11/2014 08:49 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 00ce01cf5528$e52d0760$af871620$@mxg.com, on 04/10/2014
at 08:53 PM, Barry Merrill ba...@mxg.com said:
As the EE Lab Professor (name now forgotten, but rather aged as I
recall) finished the instructions for that lab project, he
The NSA employs able people entirely capable of discovering the
recently identified vulnerability in OpenSSL, the so-called Heartbleed
vulnerability.
It says, however, that it was not aware of this particular
vulnerability; and I believe it.
There is 1) no need to impute omniscience to the NSA;
Joel is quite right.
On of thr earliest 'serious' routines I wrote, circa 1950, was one
that permitted EE's to continue to indulge in the fiction that they
were still setting dials on pots/potentiometers in what was by then an
all-digital setting.
It made them happy for a time, but all or most
Having stated that I wont be able to re-run the IEFSSI ADD a 2nd and 3rd and
4th time without receieving a DUPLICATE SUBSYSTEM ID. IS my assesment
correct ?
Correct. That's what Ed Jaffe discussed.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:13:17 -0700, Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com
wrote:
Does any of this apply?
You can code a value like: PARM='SDB=x' on the EXEC statement. This value
is effective only if the output block size is not supplied by any source.
Isn't the block size of the input
At 12:02 -0400 on 04/13/2014, you wrote about Re: Testing (was
'Tesing') A SubSystem Initialization Routi:%0D
I'm not quite sure what Robert Rosenberg means by a 'static location',
but a sequence of directed loads to tghe same reused storage obtained
once dynamically would meet your needs.
Joel is correct, the G-15 was used at that time ONLY with the Differential
Analyzer. Hell, that prof couldn't pronounce digital correctly!
Barry
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Joel C. Ewing
Sent: Sunday, April 13,
12 matches
Mail list logo
