₦airaland Forum

hey guys i have done it oooo!i got EM working again,it miight seem small to all you oracle pros but hey am on my way oooo!by the grace of God

ENTERPRISE MANAGER PROBLEMS I ENCOUNTERED AND HOW I SOLVED THEM
PROBLEM:
Oracle EM was not opening anytime I tried to open it through internet explorer. I checked oracle services and found out that oracledbconsoleorcl was stopped which was unusual because its startup type is automatic. I tried to start it manually but it would not yield. I went to command prompt and ran EMCTL START and I got the following error : ORACLE_SID NOT DEFINED……PLS DEFINE IT, so I defined with the following command : SET ORACLE_SID=ORCL, I then tried to start emctl again but I got the following error: EM CONFIGURATION ISSUE NOT LOCATE C:\ORACLE\, 127.0.0.1_ORCL which was strange because there is no such folder in C:\oracle\product\10.1.0\Db_1 and the closest folder to it was localhost_orcl.
SOLUTION
Anyway I guessed that EM could not start because for some reason it was looking for the folder 127.0.0.1_orcl instead of localhost_orcl, 127.0.0.1 being my IP address (will confirm when next am online).
I then made a copy of the folder localhost_orcl and changed the name to 127.0.0.1 and pasted it in the same folder being Db_1.When back to command prompt and typed EMCTL START but I got another EM configuration issue saying that EM could not locate folder C:\oracle\product\10.1.0\Db_1\oc4j\j2ee\OC4J_DBConsole_127.0.0.1_orcl, by the grace of our almighty GOD I figured out that I had to replace any folder name that had localhost to my IP address being 127.0.0.1, so as above I created duplicate folder and changed OC4J_DBCONSOLE_LOCALHOST_ORCL TO OC4J_DBConsole_127.0.0.1_orcl.When back to services and started oracledbconsoleorcl, when to internet explorer and PRAISE THE LORD!
Enterprise manager opened and I logged on.HALLELUYAH!

and also Le Moor do u have anything on running oracle on HP-UX o/s?or any hp-ux tutorials?

@Le Moor all my services are started except dbconsoleorcl which refuses to start and thats the main reason i cant run EM
@A-40 yea i know what u r going through
@ Le Moor,hey have u got anything on Globus?by the way whats Globus? heared bout it when i asked a banker for a job and he said i should learn globus first

sorry,the sysman account is there i just didnt look hard enough , and i havent got any tz errors

eeehh sorry the sysman account is actually there and its not locked

@A-40,the cd is not original but despite that i have been using EM b4 this happened,
@ Le Moor i know my sid is orcl,even though i still ran select name from v$database and it gave me orcl,i then set the oracle_sid as orcl, but after that it still gave me the error, EM configuration issue C:\ORACLE\PRODUCT\10.1.0\DB_1\JIMSPC_ORCL NOT FOUND, now the answers to your question

1)i did not start it after a clean install, all the services were started,and i never stopped it,i just woke up one day and found out i could not log on to EM,so i then checked services and found out that oracledbconsoleorcl was stopped,which is strange because it starts automatically,i then tried to start it to no avail
2)checked dba_users and did not see any sysman account ,but the dbsnmp account is there and its open,and the listener points to the right database

i tired that too the export oracle sid and it said that export is not an internal or external command,i formatted my harddrive last month so this is the onl y install of oracle on my system,also it was working properly until i encounted this problem which i am determined to solve with your help

i did that and it still gave me, environment variable oracle_sid not defined pls define it

@Le Moor,yes i installed EM cos i have been practicing on it b4 this happened. I am runnig oracle on windows xp. okay, went to command prompt and typed EMCTL STATUS AGENT and it gave me this error ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE ORACLE_SID NOT DEFINED PLS DEFINE IT, so i then typed this to set the environment variable , SET ORACLE_SID=DB_1, it then gave me this error, EM CONFIGURATION ISSUE C:\oracle\product\10.1.0\jimspc_Db_1 not found, now jimspc is the name of my computer but there is no folder called jimspc_db1 in the Db_1 folder in the oracle directory,so i guess thats the folder that has the configuration for EM so i changed the name to jimspc_orcl and then went back to command prompt and set the environment variable to ORCL like this, SET ORACL_SID=ORCL, i then ran EMCTL STATUS AGENT and it said, AGENT IS NOT RUNNING,so i went to services and started oracledbconsoleorcl but it would not start but gave me this error, WINDOWS COULD NOT START THE ORACLEDBCONSOLEORCL ON LOCAL COMPUTER and ofcos if it does not start i cant start ENTERPRISE MANAGER

you are the pillar that holds my life, master jesus!how excellent is your name!i will praise you until my last breath!

hello Le Moor,i have got some issues, not me anyway my database, i tried to open enterprise manager and it would not open, so i went to command prompt and typed emctl start but it gave me a message saying environment variable not set,set oracle_sid ,so i set the oracle sid as orcl, after that it stll gave me a message saying EM CONFIGURATION ISSUE C:\oracle\product\10.1.0\Db_1\jimspc_localhost_orcl NOT FOUND,i run oracle on windows xp,so what do i do? i also went to services and tried starting oracledbconsoleorcl but it wouldnt start, so what now?

hey monex how do i get partition magic?can you hook me up?

i use a toshiba satellite centrino duo core,120g hard drive,1.5 G ram.

Hello le Moor,i want to get into learn how to use linux os,i have downloaded 1 or 2 books online and was wondering if u could give me a few pointers,was thinking of formatting my harddrive and then partitioning so i can reinstall windows and oracle unbreakable linux or another version of linux,i have basic idea on how to go about it but i hear u need like a partition software?anyway i would like to hear from you regarding this, thanx again and GOD bless

good day le moor good to see you here again,will properly start to read the books next week,once again, thanx a lot

thanks alot le moor just checked my box will download it soon,God bless

thanx alot le moor,my email is jim_nig@hotmail.com,stay blessed!

hey le moor thanks for the advise i wouldnt mind the book on RAC and any performance and tuning books,also have u got anything on PL/SQL? well i dont know what version of oracle i would be managing but i think its 10g on windows.I also want to to learn linux and sun solaris O/S and in between trying to get an international degree in Information technology, so yea i got my hands full but its for the best,its also good to get someone like you here who is willing to help others progress

hey lemoor how r u?i was glas when i saw this thread updated,i did oracle in NIIT last year and did my OCA this year and am reading towards my OCP.Your are spot on about the practicality aspect, most of the technical stuff i learnt was on my own practicing and messing up my database and laptop when most of my classmates were to scared to even shutdown their database.Anyway i would love to hear from you,are u in Abuja?The Lord blessed me with my first Oracle dba job at an IT firm called Numeric Solutions which i will start very soon.Do you have any materials on Real Application Clusters?We were not taught but it seems its in high demand and also Introduction to PL/SQL?PL/SQL is one area i would really like to get into.So please get back to me lets interact, have a blessed day!

hello my fellow nairalanders,a female corper is looking for a bq or self contained to stay for a year in abuja for around 100k,anyone know anything?

olaadegbu, what can i say?obviously you are a child of God and i commend you,i share exactly the same view as you, remain blessed!

hey A-40 has the ocp dumps changed?about to do my ocp, and if they have changed when did it happen?cos i have them but am just wondering if they have indeed been changed

saw this post and just could not resist,well i believe in the God the most high and there are so many evidence of His handy work in nature.As for the theory of evolution, its just a theory and can never be proven.If indeed we evolved how come its only human female virgins that have hymens?And have you heared of irreducible complexity?
This chapter will examine how evolutionists respond to the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument in three areas: the eye, the complex cell and the flagellum. Scientific American states the problem this way:

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This ‘argument from design’ is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802, theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures. [SA 83]

Indeed, Gould, who was an expert on the history of evolution, agreed that Darwin was writing to counter Paley. This is another way of saying that he had an anti-theistic agenda,1 as discussed in chapter 2. This doesn’t stop many churchian academics kowtowing to every pronouncement made by Darwin and his God-hating successors, who in return regard them as contemptuously as Lenin regarded his ‘useful idiot’ allies in the West.2

Could the eye have evolved?
It’s interesting to note that the eye, which evolutionists claim is an example of ‘bad design’ leftover from evolution (previous chapter), presents their greatest challenge as an example of superb ‘irreducible complexity’ in God’s creation. Scientific American says:

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye’s ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye’s evolution—what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even ‘incomplete’ eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. [SA 83]

First, this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. Second, it’s fallacious to argue that 51 percent vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50 percent to overcome the effects of genetic drift’s tendency to eliminate even beneficial mutations.3

Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) [SA 83]

Scientific American contradicts itself here. If the evolutionary history of eyes has been tracked through comparative genetics, how is it that eyes have supposedly evolved independently? Actually, evolutionists recognize that eyes must have arisen independently at least 30 times because there is no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. What this really means is that since eyes cannot be related by common ancestor, and since they are here, and only materialistic explanations are allowed, hey presto, there’s proof that they evolved independently!

Simulation of eye evolution
PBS 1 goes to great lengths to convince us that the eye could easily have evolved. Dan Nilsson explained a simplistic computer simulation he published in a widely publicized paper.4 Taking his cue from Darwin, who started with a light-sensitive spot when ‘explaining’ the origin of the eye, Nilsson’s simulation starts with a light-sensitive layer, with a transparent coating in front and a light-absorbing layer behind.

Here is how the simulation proceeds. Firstly, the light-sensitive layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture, gradually increases the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light. But because of the diffraction of light if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens. Even if we were generous and presumed that such computer simulations really have anything to do with the real world of biochemistry, there are more serious problems.

However, the biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states that each of its ‘cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison’ and describes a small part of what’s involved:5

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

A transparent layer is also far more difficult to obtain than the researchers think. The best explanation for the cornea’s transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesn’t vary over distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content.6

Therefore, these simulations do not start from simple beginnings but presuppose vast complexity even to begin with. Also, in their original paper, the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

It is also fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!

Rotary motors in the bacterial flagellum
Scientific American cites another difficult example of irreducible complexity—the rotary motors on bacterial flagellum, but it really has no answers.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole.

What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84]


Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features:

Self assembly and repair
Water-cooled rotary engine
Proton motive force drive system
Forward and reverse gears
Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
(from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video, <www.arn.org/
arnproducts/videos/v021.htm>

Indeed, it does (see diagram).

He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84]

Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7

In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84]

This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8

The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84]

Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.

The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84]

Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.9

Blood clotting
Scientific American cites another serious problem for evolution—blood clotting.

Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. [SA 84]

This is once more a lot of bluff by the atheist Doolittle, or at least poor reading comprehension. He cited recent experiments showing that mice could survive with two of the components of the blood clotting cascade (plasminogen and fibrinogen) eliminated. This supposedly showed that the current cascade was not irreducibly complex but clearly reducibly complex. But the experiment really showed that the mice lacking both components were better off than one lacking only plasminogen, because the latter suffer from uncleared clots. But the former are hardly as healthy as Doolittle implied, because the only reason they don’t suffer from uncleared clots is that they have no functional clotting system at all! A non-functioning clotting system (despite possessing all the many remaining components) is hardly an evolutionary intermediate that natural selection could refine to produce a proper clotting system. Rather, this experiment is evidence against this, because the next step (i.e., from lacking both plasminogen and fibrinogen to fibrinogen only) would be selected against because of the uncleared clots.10

Complexity of a different kind—‘specified complexity’—is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially, his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski’s argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. [SA 84]

Talk about blind faith! But in practice, as Dembski points out, specified complexity in all cases but biology is used as evidence of design, including the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since biological complexity is the only exception proposed by evolutionists, it smacks of special pleading.11

In addition to the human eye, the flagellum, and blood clotting, there’s a host of other examples of irreducible complexity in nature. Earlier I alluded to the dynamic sticking mechanism in the legs of insects. The sticky feet of geckos is another clear example of God’s ingenuity.12 Its structure is described by its evolutionary discoverers as ‘beyond the limits of human technology.’13 Still other examples of design include the lobster eyes with their unique square reflecting geometry that inspired advanced x-ray telescopes and beam producers,14 the ATP synthase motor.

am just curious,whats in that big black boxlike structure that muslims  go around ?and why do they throw 11 stones at it?

about 3-4 yrs ago in melbourne,Oz, na waoooooo!una no dey sleep?

about an hr ago, but i actually read a verse i stuck on my bathrooms mirror if that counts  WWTLT    you prayed in the spirit?

about 30mins a go, when was the last time you thanked GOD for your life?

credit to cybertron12k for this post

THIS IS WHAT A GUY WROTE TO A SYSTEM ANALYST;
Dear Systems Department,
I am desperate for some help! I recently upgraded my program from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that the new program began unexpected child processing and also took up a lot
of space and valuable resources.

This wasn't mentioned in the product brochure. In addition Wife 1.0 Installs itself into all other programs and launches during systems Initialization and then it monitors all other system activities.

Applications such as "Boys' Night out 2.5" and "Golf 5.3" no longer Run, and crashes the system whenever selected.

Attempting to operate Selected "Saturday Rugby 6.3" always fails and "Saturday Shopping 7.1" runs instead.

I cannot seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background whilst attempting to run any of my favourite applications. Be it online or offline.

I am thinking of going back to "Girlfriend7. 0", but uninstall doesn't work on this program.

Can you please help?

, AND THIS WHAT THE ANALYST SAID;

Dear Customer,
This is a very common problem resulting from a basic misunderstanding of the functions of the "wife1.0 "program.

Many customers upgrade from "Girlfriend 7.0" to “Wife 1.0” , thinking that "Wife 1.0" is merely a UTILITY AND ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAM.

Actually, "Wife 1.0" is an OPERATING SYSTEM designed by it's Creator to Run everything. You are unlikely to be able to purge "Wife 1.0 "and still convert back to "Girlfriend 7.0 ", as "Wife 1.0 " was not designed to do this and it is Impossible to uninstall, delete or purge the program files from the System once it is installed.

Some people have tried to install "Girlfriend 8.0 "or "Wife 2.0 " but have ended up with even more problems. (See manual under Alimony/Child Support and Solicitors' Fees).
Having " Wife 1.0 " installed, I recommend you keep it installed And deal with the difficulties as best as you can. When any faults or problems Occur, whatever you think has caused them, you must run the C:\APOLOGIZE\ FORGIVE ME Program and avoid attempting to use the *Esc-Key for it will freeze the entire system. It may be necessary to run C:\APOLOGIZE\ FORGIVE ME for a number of times, and eventually hope that the operating system will return to normal.

"Wife 1.0 ", although a very high maintenance
program, can be very rewarding. To get the most out of it, consider buying additional
Software such as "Flowers 2.0" and "Chocolates 5.0" or "HUGS\KISSES 600.0" or TENDERNESS \UNDERSTANDING 1000.0", or even "Eating Out Without the Kids 7.2.1" if child processing has already started). DO NOT under any circumstances install "Secretary
2.1"(Short Skirt Version) or "One Nightstand 3.2" (Any Mood Version), as this is not a supported Application for "Wife 1.0 "and the system will almost certainly CRASH.

Thanks

@ericalesh i totally feel you,am in Abuja so all you DBA's in Abuja lets put heads together and network for our benefit and that of the wider community

wats clr?

hey qcode thanx for the info,i would really love to go into programming,so u say start with visual basic?and why does java suck?anyway i started a thread for people who want to start programming but did not really get much response from nairalanders.i downloaded a compiler called bloodshed dev c++ and i havent really had time to get stuck into it.