Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >I do prefer at least medium level code though. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, you seem to have that kind of thinking style. > >> >> Haven't you ever been curious about what goes on > >> >> underneath all the layers? > >> > > >> >I know what does. > >> > > >> >In fact PL/M allows you to invoke certain instructions explicitly such as > >> >SHL, SHR, ROL and ROR for example. > >> > > >> >I do prefer to be able to write the rest of the code in something close to > >> >English though. > >> > >> Then you rely on other people to do the correct thing. This > >> is the philosophy you've had in this whole thread. > > > >Don't be daft. > > I'm not. I pretty much know how you think. > > >By a similar token you'd use a typewriter instead of a > >computer. > > It depends on the what is to be accomplished. > > >There is quite > >simply no merit in reinventing the wheel every time you > >want to multiply 2 numbers for example. > > There is merit if I'm trying to breed kiddies who are going > to design the next 5 architectures of CPUs. Assembler's unlikely to help them there for sure ! > >You invariably seem to think it's 'better' to do things the > >'hard way'. > > Of course but for only the first time. After that, the kid > can use all different ways. > > >That's simply backward thinking. > > Sigh! No, that's training. Pointless training IME. A bit like how learning Latin was once justified because doctors might need it ! Like any language when I *had* to use assembler ( for DSP ) I learnt it then - not before. It was pretty obvious anyway. Just examing a compiler's output gives you some idea. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > What you do think the people who code your HLLs do? What do > you think people who teach HLLs about new CPU architectures > do? I think they're quite few in number. > How do you find the people who have a knack for this kind > of work if nobody is aware that machine language will always > exist? Most ppl don't even need to know of its existence. You might as well say a data entry clerk should know how to use an abacus first. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:49 Ken Smith wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > > >> No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be > >> heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to > >> regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS > >> constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a > >> NHS. > > > >You're missing an important aspect, interference with aviation. > > > >Same reason they regulate transmitter towers which don't cross > >state lines either. > > That would give the FAA the power to control a narrowly defined set of > things about radio stations. They would have no right to say anything > about program content for example. The federal government sets limits on > what is broadcast on KALW. I say that they can only have this power by > logic that also allows an NHS. I'm persuaded by your argument. The FCC are controlling more than just technical issues. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 09:59 In article <3c38f$456c71a7$4fe7665$9834(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <1909f$456a5341$4fe73b3$25206(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>The price caps mentioned by Medicare leave me wondering what's >>>going on. > >> If you want to kill a popular program, the first step is to make it >> unpopular by messing it up. Then the public will agree to have it >> terminated. You can also force the reduction in the size of the federal >> government by running up unsupportable debts so that they have eventually >> to either default on the loans or downsize massively. Both seem to be at >> work today. > >History elsewhere has had governments default on loans. It usually is quite a disaster for the populace when that happens. I believe that the current path the US is on leads to the US defaulting and the economy crashing. Right now it is looking like we are about to tip over into a down turn, but I don't see this one as the one where it comes home to roost. Right now oil is traded in US dollars. This requires a lot of the money that went overseas to slosh around between economies. The various countries that hold US dollars don't straight away try to turn them back to the US. This means that if the oil business switches to using the euro as the basis, The US will see a large number of dollars suddenly sent home. This will drive up inflation and as a result interest rates. (Un)fortunately the government is also effected by interest rates. In this case the "UN" applies. The higher interest rates could mean that so much of the budget is being used just pay interest that the government is forced to default. This would leave the US very weak. China holds a large amount of US dollars. Their government runs at a surplus. The US dollars are part of the "investment portfolio" used to hold the value for the future. If China decides that the dollar is not as good of a risk as some other investment, they may "rebalance" their portfolio exchanging the dollars for the other investment. This too would send a large wave of dollars to the US. Without either of these sorts of events, the curve the country is on still leads to a bad place. With out a spark, the ignition will happen spontaniously after even more fuel has piled up. The sky may not be falling but we are in a handbasket and that handbasket is in motion. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:01
In article <C191E043.4F0CE%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: [....] >>>> I hope to argue that the NHS would be no more unconstitutional than the >>>> FCC is. >>> >>> Apples and Orange. >> >> Oh really. Please explain how the logic that applies to one does not to >> the other. > >The reasons for each are not the same. But, I claim the logic is. Not that the constution says nothing about apples or oranges either but the federal government regulates both of them too. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |