> SLIP
> SET,IF,PVTMOD=(MEASMCMN,0ADA,0ADC),DSPNAME=(‘MEASMCMN’.*),JOBNAME=MEASMCMN,ID=M,END
> The address in the data space I am looking for was:
> Access register: 01010039 Register: 00025238
> I did not know the name of the data space DSPNAME(IRR1) is not in the
> dump but I did find ASID
I'm not sure what this has to do with mainframes or even I.T., though.
It just emphasizes once again at the utter lack of importance attributed to
facts in many debates (choose whatever debate and whichever side) - it's
all narrative and posturing (and - that - has been related to Mainframes
>>We have only to look
>>at the actions of the IRS in recent years.
>They went after PACs on both side of the aisle, for the same types of
>violations.
That's correct, Shmuel, though the abuses were disproportionately on one
side since that's the side wealthy donors disproportionately favor.
Moreo
Scott,
I agree that ethics is a large part of it.
I will suggest that it is reasonable to anticipate that an attorney may well
argue that the programmers in fact became co-conspirators by virtue of the fact
that they cannot reasonably argue that they did not know that the code was
intended to
J O Skip Robinson wrote:
The recovery routine got control and screwed up registers, ...
That reminds me of a similar experience when I was handed JES2 Exit 6
around 1985 and told to make some changes. It was complex code I didn't
understand at all, so to learn I zapped some zeros at various
>Three main reasons to have recovery come to mind
>-- to release resources that you have obtained
>-- to gather diagnostic data to help debug your error
>-- to protect your caller from unexpectedly getting control in its
>recovery
A fourth, of course: for protecting the system against bad user in
Very nice, Mark Steely. Consider WHI stolen!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
This is a question of ethics and ones moral compass.
Regards,
Scott
On Friday, September 18, 2015, Richard Pinion wrote:
> I understand the point you are making, that an employee is told
> to do something that they know is illegal or immoral, and they
> do it anyway. Having worked for a non-pr
