Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: harris777 on 12 Feb 2007 20:04 MassiveProng wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:18:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>>>what you do call the OS? >>>>> >>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>> >>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>partitions. >>> >>> >>>Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) >>> >>>A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system >>>administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system >>>administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. >> >>As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. >> >>Be happy. > > > Bullshit. But hey, at least you didn't sidestep... no... you > claimed someone else did. > > Just admit that your remark was incorrect and move on. > > Have you ever had a machine that contained more than one physical > drive? How about more than two? Sure. The wonders of SCSI. That hardware has become inexpensive.
From: harris777 on 12 Feb 2007 20:07 MassiveProng wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:34:34 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:28:38 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>Gave us: >>> >>> >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:16:56 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>>Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, what you >>>>>>>>do call the OS? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>>>> >>>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>>partitions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're an idiot. I have had systems with 5 OSes on them at the same >>>>>time. >>>> >>>>What's your point? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have done plenty of Linux installs, and nearly ALL add menu >>>>>selections for windows, beos and other systems. >>>> >>>>What's your point? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you have ANY brains, you do NOT let linux "set things up" for >>>>>you. ANYONE with ANY brains goes through the pain of learning how to, >>>>>and setting it up him or herself. >>>> >>>>> That is a ridiculous statement you have made. >>>> >>>>As it has been with everything else you've written, you >>>>know nothing about this subject while understanding less >>>>than nothing. >>>> >>>>I'll repeat it since you're a slow learner: >>>> >>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>partitions. >>> >>> >>> >>> And I repeat: >>> >>> You're a goddamned idiot. >> >> >>So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, >>it is invariably wrong. > > > You're an idiot. You statement about Linux is absolutely 100% > WRONG! > > >>LOL > > > That is the only task you are likely actually able to perform. > > You certainly know next to nothing about Linux... or less. So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, it is invariably wrong.
From: MassiveProng on 12 Feb 2007 20:37 On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:00:25 -0600, harris777 <harris777(a)isp.com> Gave us: >Phil Carmody wrote: >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>> >>> >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>[.....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>>>>what you do call the OS? >>>>>> >>>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>>> >>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>partitions. >>>> >>>>Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) >>>>A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system >>>>administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system >>>>administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. >>> >>>As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. >> >> >> Which precise bit do you claim I redefined? >> What was the prior definition? >> What have I changed it too? > >You've redefined what a "properly installed Linux" is. No, actually unlearned did by suggesting that there is but a single manner in which to install Linux Properly. He couldn't be more incorrect. So Phil didn't redefine a goddamned thing. The unlearned twit attempted to, and was called on it.
From: Ken Smith on 12 Feb 2007 21:42 In article <87d54f16ou.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> In article <87wt2n1r6j.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> >> In article <87ejow2v23.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> >> [...] >> >> >> > If you want to complain here it's not about >> >> >> >the lack of othogonality, rather the dearth of registers. >> >> >> >Remember, x86 is thirty years old. >> >> >> >> >> >> AX, BX, CX, DX, IS, IP, DS, ES Thats 8 16 bit registers. That >> >> >> isn't a serious shortage. The fact that you can't use the DS and ES as >> >> >> would make sense and that the memory operations were so slow made it so >> >> >> that you always felt short on registers. >> >> > >> >> >You're rusty. 7 GPRs plus a stack register. 4 segment registers which >> >> >are not GPRs at all. >> >> >> >> No, I'm pointing out that the segment registers are 16 bit registers that >> >> can't be used for normal stuff. They are special purpose but only serving >> >> to implement a stupid idea. They could have been just more 16 bit >> >> registers. >> > >> >You're pointing out that there are 12 16-bit registers including the >> >segment registers by saying that there are 8 16-bit registers? >> >> You are wrong about the number of registers. This is where your error is >> based. Look at: >> >> http://www.electronics.dit.ie/staff/tscarff/8086_registers/8086_registers.html >> >> And count how many 16 bit general purpose registers. > >You are terribly terribly confused. One minute you are including >segment registers, and the next minute you are not, only looking >at general purpose registers. No, go back and reread what I said. I was talking about 16 bit registers and why the 8086's is such a stupid processor. It has 4 *general purpose* 16 bit registers. It has several more registers that because it is a stupid design only give you 4 more bits worth of address width. >Do you actually think that "IS[sic], IP, DS, ES" are general >purpose registers? If not, why did you mention them above. Because they have 16 bits in them. I listed the 16 bit registers in the machine. It was part of showing what a stupid design it is. >You are horribly confused. No, I am not. You are. > Slow down, and work out what you >actually want to say before posting nonsense. > >> There are 4 >> according to Intel. > >Intel's MCS-86 User's Manual, July 1978 (preliminary) defines the >'General Register File' to be AX, BX, CX, DX, SP, BP, SI, and DI. Go look at: http://www.electronics.dit.ie/staff/tscarff/8086_registers/8086_registers.html You will notice that the SP, BP,SI and DI are all disqualified as being general purpose. [....] >memory arithmetic operation, e.g. NEG = >16+EA, simple case = 21 > >load, register arithmetic, store >8+EA, simple case = 13 >3 >9+EA, simple case = 14 >Total = 30 >And here on planet earth, 21 ticks is faster than 30. What the heck does the 30 have to do with it???????? Take an example: MoveLoop: mov DX,CX ; Save the loop counter 2 Clocks mov CX,[SI] ; Load the length Extra ALU trip=6 Clocks add SI,2 rep movsb ; Extra ALU trips at least 12 clocks mov CX,DX ; Restore the loop counter 2 clocks loop MoveLoop That is 2+6+12+2 = 22 clocks because the 8086 is stupid. >The discussion where IS, IP, and DS are general purpose registers? No, the discussion where they have 16 bits in them. >You also claimed IS, IP and DS were general purpose registers. No I didn't. You haven't been folowing the discussion and your stupid insults have put me off bothering to correct your mistaken view so have fun. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Feb 2007 07:46
In article <7s12t2hugoubonpmistq4eoaec1vv8njk2(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:18:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >Gave us: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>>>what you do call the OS? >>>>> >>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>> >>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>partitions. >>> >>> >>> Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) >>> >>> A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system >>> administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system >>> administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. >> >>As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. >> >>Be happy. > > Bullshit. But hey, at least you didn't sidestep... no... you >claimed someone else did. > > Just admit that your remark was incorrect and move on. > > Have you ever had a machine that contained more than one physical >drive? How about more than two? How about 200? /BAH |