Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:44 In article <J7udnR8smt-TQFjYRVnyhwA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq4k0j$8ss_008(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eq2gbn$2bi$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <epvr4c$8ss_016(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <epvis8$gav$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>>>If the trial had happened etc, people would have "seen justice done". >>>>>> >>>>>>There wouldn't have been a trail. It would have been delayed and >>>>>>the center of Washington's attention for two decades. There were >>>>>>other things that needed serious attention. >>>>> >>>>>What makes you say that. Trials seem to happen all the time in the US. >>>>>Nobody is supposed to be above the law, so how exactly do you not see a >>>>>trial? >>>> >>>>The Nixon problem would have been used to delay work on anything >>>>else. >>> >>>Nonsense. You seem to think that the US can't think about two things at >>>once. >> >> It can't. Did you miss the zipper mess of Clinton's administration? >> > >It is odd that you have a lower opinion of your nation than the people who >get accused of being "anti-US." I just know how people work. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:46 In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[......] >>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>code simply moves bits without error. > >Now that Windows is the most common OS, Except Windows isn't an OS. > the second part of your statement >is no longer correct. You should have said: > >Most of the code for a correctly functioning OS moves bits without error. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. ;-) /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:47 In article <c0rcs296jhma2ea0kr9rl8gj2mlsu30f29(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Feb 07 12:51:27 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <8qm9s2t5d9ckmqrdn8lvm0ifachcbf8vo5(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sat, 03 Feb 07 13:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>In article <mgo7s21ckoee6om4d5c05vj9rr8pjfi78h(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>On Fri, 02 Feb 07 14:04:45 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <8e65s297p2fs3tfodc3mk1rmqu2phstukv(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that >>>>>>>>is bad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe >>>>>>>monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>>It has one board. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which incorporates all the items I listed above. Being a single >>>>>board STILL does NOT make it a computer. >>>>> >>>>> Nice attempt at a sidestep, though. >>>> >>>>You have the term "computer" and "computer system" confused. >>>>They are not equivalent terms. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> A controller board that incorporates all the sensors mentioned and >>>the timers and clock, are not a computer, NOR are they a computer >>>system. It is a micro-controller, nothing more. >>> >>> You sit in front of a dumb (or smart) terminal connected to a remote >>>computer. >>> >>> Those are two elements of a computer system. >>> >>> Embedded micro-controller circuitry for hardware is NOT a computer. >>> >>> No calculations have to be made. Nothing got computed. Not a >>>computer. >> >>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>code simply moves bits without error. >> >> >>> Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the >>>unsettledTard is not correct either. >> >>He will have a slightly different definition of a computer because >>of the applications his business had to use. >> > > > Oh boy! You must have consulted with one of your bit gods, because >you have now jumped from "everything has/is a computer. I've never said that. Are wriggling now? >" to "Everyone >defines 'computer' differently". > > Make up your mind. You do like to change a specific to a generality. /BAH
From: Tony Lance on 5 Feb 2007 07:56 Big Bertha Thing redoubt Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/redoubt.html Access page to 600K ZIP file Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.physics.particle Postings potentially suitable for;- 1. SRF Classical Astronomy 2. SRF Classical Mathematics 3. SRF Classical Physics 4. SRF Classical Chemistry After 15 months, an armistice term has just been fullfilled.(2nd Battle) Student research project conferences, by invitation only, now available. Battles without cost are not battles. I have just had the following shot out from under me:- 1. www.bertha.ndirect.co.uk (disabled) 2. Paid UK ISP Net Direct. (15 months) 3. Professional newsgroup SP Dejanews.com (3 months) To the victor the spoils. See my new newsgroup review section, complete with copyright. Big Bertha Thing memoriam Tony died raising his best friends family, His wife needed two helpers, his poor heart and him. Carer, postman, welder and domino player. RAF aircraft fitter at Battle of Britain and El Alamain. Outboxed a voortrecker at middleweight. Raised trade union branch president and National officer of voluntary .org Taught me to keep the faith, Mend my bicycle and trigonometry. His story is ended, but not yet finished. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:51
In article <n3rcs2lbd3jpq9rc994vei80h3ote25ep6(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>code simply moves bits without error. >> > > ALL computing IS math at the electrical level. Shifted registers, >etc. ALL math. Nope. Count up the machine language instructions. Now count those that arithmetic. On the architecture I worked on, the arithmetic instructions were 1/7. /BAH > > The difference in the definition revolves around function, and >purpose. > > An MPU that runs a motor is NOT a computer, and if said MPU was the >i80186, which was one of the heaviest use chips for a long time in the >industrial control realm. That chip CNA be incorporated into a device >which we would call a computer. If, however, it is merely >incorporated into a device meant to print on boxes as they pass under, >it would not be a computer. More accurately a controller, which is >the term being used. > > If you read and comprehend, you MIGHT get it... finally. |