Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 11:32 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>I was told that >> >>http://www.ts1000.us/ >> >>had a coding contest in 2006. That's using the old Sinclair >>"doorstop" computers with 1K memory which also held the OS >>and a basic interpreter. I don't know how much space was >>left for programs, but it wasn't very much. > > > Unsurprisingly you can't get your facts right. > The ts1000 and the Sinclair ZX81 both had 8KB ROM. > The former had 2KB RAM, the latter 1KB. The screen, > more like a text buffer, took up to 768 bytes. > > Of course, it was well worth saving up for the 16k RAM > pack, wobble or no wobble. > > Phil Ya got me, Phil. So I forgot about the ROM. However: "The ZX81 contained only four main chips : the ROM, Z80A CPU, 1K RAM and the Ferranti custom-made chip! It is as simple as that. The machine was assembled by Timex Corporation in their Scottish plant. " http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=263 Total available bytes of RAM 901.
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 11:26 In article <ddbd9$45c5e0ea$cdd0859a$32380(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <snip> >> Eeyore is laying groundwork for justifying going back to rationing. >> He prefers being told what to do and having to be responsible >> for any decisions. > >(Another "not" missing there) Yes. Dammit. And I have to start doing income taxes. Missing my nots is a bad thing to do when doing that stuff. :-) >The socialist utopian bundling blanket. Nicely put. I wish I could figure out how to be effectively terse. /BAH
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 11:44 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <a34df$45c5f1c8$cdd0859a$311(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <aK2dnURuwa_HQ1nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eq1u5g$8ss_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <9c9e$45c38013$4fe768e$12122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>They [Muslims] can't even buy >>>>>>>>>>shoes unless the shoe has been approved by the clerics (I think >>>>>>>>>>those are the people who do this work). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Really? I can find no example of this being true. Can you support the >>>>> >>>>>claim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of the three Abraham-based religions, only Christianity doesn't >>>>>>>>have rules about living styles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>More obfuscation. Did you take a course in not answering the question >>>>>>>btw ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Can you support the claim that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear >>>>>>>? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Graham >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/072.sbt.htm > > l > >>>>>Thank you. I can't get out today to check the blurb; but I'll trust >>>>>your judgement. >>>>> >>>> >>>>This creates an interesting quandary. It appears from this, that you (BAH) >>>>had no idea where (if anywhere) in the Koran the requirement for shoes to > > be > >>>>approved by a cleric existed. >>> >>> >>>The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, >>>and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. >>>Their peoples are now getting exposed to Western media. These >>>people see stuff they would like to wear or use or buy or make. >>>Now they are the ones who are making the decisions and not >>>the clerics. The clerics who are sensitive to loss of this >>>kind of oversight power, recognize, rightly, that Western >>>civilization is encroaching into their territory. The most >>>normal decision is to decide to destroy the threat to their >>>power. >>> >>>The one advantage that these people have is they do not >>>insist on instant gratification; they think in centuries, >>>not minutes. >> >>>>That alone raises the question of why *you* were so convinced the rule >>>>existed - was it simply something you heard in the past and assumed it was >>>>true? >>> >>> >>>It is based on everything I've read. It is based on how long >>>it took for the Ottoman clerics to "approve" Western civilization >>>innovations, e.g. printing press. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Now, the secondary quandary is that you *assume* the link supports your >>>>argument, without going there or checking. For all you know it could be >>>>nonsense or it could be something which unsettled thinks is relevant but >>>>still doesn't support your argument. >>> >>> >>>Unsettled has passed most of my rationale tests. We don't agree on >>>a lot of things but he has his feet planted in reality. >> >> >>Thanks. >> >>Now, about that secondary quandary. If one reads the web page >>carefully it discusses the fact that the prophet wore sandals >>with two straps. (Did you folks miss that?) To the western >>mind that doesn't mean much, but to the Muslim it is the >>model to be followed, IMO a directive. > > > Western fashions come and go at the drop of a haute couteur > hiccup. All through Islamic history, the clothes people wore > were dictated. Some had political reasons like banning > the styles that was dictated by your predecessor but others > seems to keep the infidels' influcence away from the the pure > Mulsim. That's control, serious control. > > And that's just textiles and shoes. > >> >>>>Can *you* provide any evidence that the Koran dictates what shoes people > > can > >>>>buy? >>>> >>>>Are the strictures laid down in that link any more prohibitive than those > > in > >>>>the Old Testament? >>> >>> >>>I suspect that the Jews who are very strict have similar rules of >>>living styles. The difference is that they haven't blown up trade >>>centers for the purpose of forcing the rest of the world to their >>>adapt to their living style. >> >>Historically that's not exactly true. When Jericho was >>captured the Jews killed all the inhabitants without >>mercy, even though many begged to live a life of slavery >>instead of death. >> >>But, if we look at your statement in modern day context, > > > I think that's what I was talking about. I've tended to lose > my way among the thread drifts lately. > > >>it seems the older the religion the less interested it >>is in converts. > > > I may have a quibble with this. Talk to me about Judiasm's missionaries spreading the word and seeking to convert people. Does Christianity have fewer missionaries than Islam? I don't know, but I'd guess yes. >>Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what >>Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of >>what was going on wasn't very pretty. Luther was born >>in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of >>Christianity at all, their great reformer should be >>coming along any time now. > > > I don't think it will be a reformer in the religious sense. I > do think it will involve getting their Shariah updated to the > last century. it hasn't changed in 300 (I may be off with that > est.) years. Since then the Industrial Revolution has happened > and the world is hip deep in the Information Revolution. Even > if their coda gets updated to the 20th century they'll be way > behind. Give Luther's reforms in a context beyond the obvious religious concerns of the day. The financial and political ramifications were tremendous. >>The conditions happen to >>be ripe. Funny how that works. > > > Oh, I don't think it's odd. That's simply how knowledge, > trade, and thinking flows work. I've been trying to grasp > the general stuff but my brain keeps crossing when I study > finance, banking, and economics. I'm just not cut out for > that kind of thinking style. > >>In the meantime the west needs to hold the Muslim >>radicals at bay. > > > Right. Time; my estimate was a decade. I don't think we > have a decade. > > >>IMO "winning the war against terror" >>won't be so much by our hand as it will be Islam's >>internal reforms. > > > Exactly. > > >>If you look at things as I do, you >>might see that Ghandi nearly pulled it off for India >>and Pakistan. I think his legacy has worked to keep >>those two from destroying one another. > > > If left alone, they might figure it all out. Look at the > maps. They are between two rocks. One of them is determined > to make trouble for everybody. The other is sitting back > waiting for everyone else to shoot their feet. > > >>We, that is >>in some generation after me, will see this particular >>"war on terror" conflict end. Then, after a short >>period of peace (at most, a few generations,) the >>emergence of the next variation on large scale >>human dissent. > > > Yep. Water. > > /BAH >
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 11:46 Phil Carmody wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>>>to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >>> >>>When do you think WWII finished? >>> >>>Rationing ended in 1954, I am fairly sure the second world war finished >>>_after_ the 1920s. >> >>I just posted my reference to eeyore's post. REad it. >> >>>Did you mean 1 decade? >> >>3: 1979-1949 > > > The war didn't end, or start even, in 1949. > 1979, and your reference in your other post, is nothing to do with rationing. > > Yet again, you show that you are the master of the irrelevant. > > >>>I lived through the very last years of rationing. Do you want my stories? >> >>I would have but your credibility is zero so I don't think I can >>believe anything you would write. And that's sad. > > > I've rarely seen such pathetically obvious hypocricy before. From > someone else that is, you have a reputation for it nowadays. > > If you just want pity, why not post to alt.support.depression; > that's far easier than going through this repeated self-shaming > ritual that you perform here. Please go back there, you need more "fixing." > Does 'BAH' stand for Beatme Aboutthe Headplease? > > Phil
From: Ken Smith on 4 Feb 2007 12:14
In article <87k5yxc3vd.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [.....] >Unsurprisingly you can't get your facts right. >The ts1000 and the Sinclair ZX81 both had 8KB ROM. >The former had 2KB RAM, the latter 1KB. The screen, >more like a text buffer, took up to 768 bytes. > >Of course, it was well worth saving up for the 16k RAM >pack, wobble or no wobble. A trip down memory lane: I built my own 32K RAM for a ZX80. You could only use the upper part of the RAM as display area and a data memory. You couldn't fetch from it. I wrote an FFT program and software that did pixel by pixel graphics on it. I still have a listing of the 4K ROM contents I ran through a decompiler. The pixel by pixel graphics required some serious slight of hand to make it work. Normally, the ZX80 looked up the character and line in the PROM to turn it into pixels. I had to get the lookup action to look into the graphics image. The line of text was made to be: 00H 01H 02H .... 76H The 76H is the halt instruction of a Z80. The hardware decoded this and allowed it into the micro. The rest wer fetched but replaced with NOPs > >Phil >-- >"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank >so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of >/In God We Trust, Inc./. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |