Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 22:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >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 ! > > hUH? The architecture is what creates the assembler. > The difference between the machine language and the assembler > is somebody wrote code that equated mneumonics for certain > bit patterns in the machine language. So ? > I don't think you know what an assembler is. You're being silly then or didn't read what I wrote. > >> >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 ! > > Are you kidding? I took Latin because I was going to get my PhD > in biology. And how did Latin actually *help* you ? > >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. > > No, a compiler's machine language output is not the usual way > people code using the assembler. I'm talking about an assembler output ffs ! > There are reasons that compiler-produced code is [emoticon gropes > for a word] stilted. The examples I've looked at made perfect sense to me. Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 22:53 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Ken Smith wrote: > > > >>The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without really > >>yelding anything much as a result. > > > > You're kidding. > > > > It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA ( > > entirely justified this time ). > > > > What sheer brilliance. > > > > Graham > > > It would be a blessing if you would talk about something > that you really know! that way, we wouldn't see much > of you and give the rest a break! > > Just my comments from the peanut gallery.. Perhaps you could explain how it's increased world stability and made the USA more popular in that case ? Graham
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 08:15 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <456A7E96.F0D2EF8B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>>>More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >>>>>Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >>>>>State. >>>> >>>>Titular Head of State. >>> >>>Only because she's female? >> >>Nope. > > > Try reading to your self out loud. It might be helpful if he did that with all his postings *before* he hit send.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 08:20 In article <ekpht2$cdo$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekhf6l$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ek9v7p$lag$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ek9j8k$8qk_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>> The framers unwisely did not put any >>>>>rules on radio communications. It was very short sighted of them. >>>> >>>>No,no,no. They were short-sighted by not including TV licenses. >>>>Not anticipating radio comm was due to tin ears. >>> >>>The real problem is that they did not put anything in for the "sort of >>>interstate" commerce. They left a huge gray area. >> >>Perhaps they figured that business agreements between states were >>the states' business. >>> >>> >>>[.... Hillary ....] >>>>No,no. Futures. That means that the investment company bet >>>>on when the drug indices would go up and when they would go down. >>> >>>Do you know how much money it was? >> >>No. With her pattern, it wouldn't have to be much. > >She may have just happened to have one dollars worth and this could >have been distorted into some major issue by those opposed. You don't get it. She's that kind of idiot. She has a pattern of making choices that will cause the most troubles, especially if they will become her troubles. That's how she behaves and that's how she thinks. > > >>> The futures market is not a safe >>>investment by any means. It is a zero sum game so there must be losers. >> >>Not if you can determine the winners with your policy decisions. > >People in government effect the value of their holdings all the time. There is a law that is supposed to put holdings in a blind trust so the above doesn't happen. There was a reason that Congress passed the law. The loop hole was that wives were not included. > If >you have anybody but the poorest of the poor running government, there is >no way to avoid this. The question is whether the effect would be enough >to change how they vote. > >>BTW, futures is not an investment instrument. > >There is an argument that they are an investment. No. Most futures are 3 months. That's not investing; that is trading. > >>> >>>I don't have any holdings in futures that I know of. If I do it woud be a >>>very small fraction of my holdings. >> >>Do you have money in a mutual fund? Then you do. > >Note the "that I know of" Good grief. Don't you read the prospectus and the other reports you get from them? > >> Do you have >>your checking account with a large bank? Then you do indirectly. >>Is your pension squirreled away in your account or the company's >>account? If the latter, you more than likely depend on somebody >>guessing correctly. > >I am largely invested in earthquakes. The bunk of the rest is in things >like bonds. In the new year I will be doing a rebalance. > > >>> One reason I may have them is as a >>>hedge. You can actually arrange things so that you win if the stock goes >>>either direction. Only if it holds still do you lose. >> >>Hedge? If you have a put or a call, you're playing exotic futures. > >I don't that I know of. I was pointing out a reason Hillary may. I also pointed out a reason Hillary may. > >>>>I'm now on my second bout of the flu. So my writing >>>>is going to be less clear. >>>> >>>><GRIN> Now you may say, "Oh, joy!" >>> >>>I got my flu shot. This time it didn't make me feel bad. >> >>I don't have to get the shot. All I have to do is breathe the >>air where the shots are being dispensed. I'm pretty sure >>a shot would kill me. > >Talk to your doctor about it. They have other versions. I have no access to a doctor. I have no intention of tempting the Fates. There is a reason that there are exceptions to the list of people who get the shot. > >>>BTW: Chicken soup really does work. >> >>Yea. Guess what wasn't on my shelves when I started this flu >>cycle. I went out when I got better and got enough food for >>my larder so I don't have to place myself in jeopardy again >>this winter...except for milk and maybe some meat. > >Both will freeze. If you freeze milk, nothing bad happens to it. I thought milk separates. I have a box of powdered milk in case things become really contagious out there. > You >need to be careful of the type of container it is in. You mean for the exansion? /BAH
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 08:30
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > It is the private property ownership that is key to capitalism. If > you take that opportunity away, everybody will simply be punching > the clock. They will not care if they produce quality products > nor will they do anything about improving those products. One > of the reason Russia failed is because people didn't own their > patch nor did they own what their work produced. So they had > absolutely no incentive to make a lot or do it well. There's an entire mindset that goes along with the pride of ownership. People carry that mindset around with them all day every day. I've kept pictures of my hotel room in Belgrade as a reminder of this. There was a sink on one wall, with the faucets mounted on the wall above it, and a mirror and a light. Nothing lined up. It wasn't off by just a little, but by inches. You didn't need a level to notice the poor workmanship, it really jumped out at you. This was a large hotel, the Hotel Belgrade. I can only guess that all the rooms were much alike. Yes, it was Yugoslavia and the state still owned everything when I was last there. |