Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 09:30 In article <MPG.1fdb63e0b29518b4989d88(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ekrvkr$8qk_002(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <b59c2$4570f18a$4fe7357$10170(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> > >> >> For me hex and hex were the same thing. I worked for year in >> >> an octal environment. I'd never be able to convert to hex. >> > >> >In a different world it was said of one bit god, >> >the patron saint of cpm, that "For him, assembler >> >is a high level language." >> >> If you want to dabble in machine lanugage and not have to struggle >> with binary arithmetic, play with IBM's 1620. > >Ah, the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even Try). Addressing was still >binary, no? (long before my time) I don't think it was. I never knew about binary until I met a PDP-10. I had no idea about bases other than 10. There were a few math problems that dealt with converting logs in my past, but nothing was tied to reality. They were just logic problems that were fun to do but never used. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 09:35 In article <MPG.1fdb652993f7a7f8989d8a(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ekrvul$8qk_005(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <MPG.1fda22f3561c3ddf989d60(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <ekpajd$8ss_010(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> >> In article <MPG.1fd8f934cc0c9057989d50(a)news.individual.net>, >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >In article <ekmifn$8ss_002(a)s886.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> >> >> In article <MPG.1fd79bef70af1ed3989d3d(a)news.individual.net>, >> >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> >It's not a "3" it's "=3F" (the code-point for the apostrophe). I'm >> >> >> >not sure what I did (it just happened recently). If someone has an >> >> >> >idea how to fix it I certainly will! >> >> >> >> >> >> Did your system get hexed? >> >> > >> >> >Apparently! ;-) Maybe it's fixed, dunno. >> >> >> >> Well, now I have itch that can't be scratched. Your >> >> aberration seems to have disappeared. I HATE that >> >> when it happens. TW always blamed a cosmic ray. After >> >> haunting the s.p. newsgroup, I learned he was telling >> >> me a fairy tale ;-). >> > >> >Lloyd had it pegged. Somehow the code page got changed. I didn't >> >go in there and mess with anything so I don't know how it happened. >> >I hope it wasn't some secret keyboard combination. It looked fine >> >when I typed it so I didn't see it happen. Gremlins. >> >> [lightbulb lights above emoticon] Do you have a cat? > >Two (and two mice on the system ;). They're not much into the >Usenet though. One of the intelligent posters in s.p. had a cat and told the story about how it tip-toed through the keyboard and the cat newsgroup showed up first after all was settled and run. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 09:56 In article <457249FA.B719BD8D(a)hotmail.com>, 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: >> >> >> >> >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 think you are confused and do not know what you don't know. > > >> I don't think you know what an assembler is. > >You're being silly then or didn't read what I wrote. I'm not silly about this stuff and I am reading what you 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 ? I didn't have to rote memorize taxonomy names. I could figure out how to spell words based on their meanings. I got a taste of Julius Caesar and how he conducted his wars. I have some sense of what foreign words may mean. > > >> >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 ! ffs....form feeds? You can't possibly mean that. An assembler usually needs a linker or loader before its code can be executed. So ffs can't be that. > > >> 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. > Yes, I know. You are that kind of thinker. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:00 In article <45724638.B51686A3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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. You both have been blind. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:05
In article <ektahm$2fs$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>> >>> [....] >>> >>>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every payday >>>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS >>with the >>>>>>push of a key. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>>> >>>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>>free to some, and costly to others. >>> >>> >>> Huh? >> >>Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: >> >>IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ >> >>Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 10% >>Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 17% >>Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 12% >> >>In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >>operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. > >Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact point >when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. > >>That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >>the cost items reported by insurance companies. > >I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting it? >I don't think it is a very large fraction. You also have to count the amount of money everybody else has to spend to convince the IRS to do the collection. It is not chump change. /BAH |