Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 18 Feb 2007 13:11 Big Bertha Thing Positive Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/positive.html Access page JPG 53K Image Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including se.vetenskap.astronomi Round photographic plates. Caption;- A photograph of great historical interest. The track is one left by a positron. This positron possessed, an energy of 63 MeV, before entering the lead plate from below; after penetrating the 6 mm. lead plate, it proceeded with an energy of 23 MeV. This change of energy, shows definitely, the direction of motion of the particle and, therefore, allows one to conclude, that it is positively charged. From a book by J.D.Stranathan Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Chairman of Department, University of Kansas. The "Particles" of Modern Physics. (C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942 Big Bertha Thing jeremiah A film Jeremiah Johnson, not necessarily true. A mountain man asked him, whether he was any good at skinning bears. He said that he could skin them, faster than the mountain man could catch them. So running down the mountain, with a bear in hot pursuit. His friend runs in the front door of the cabin and jumps out the back window. Quote "You skin that one ... and I'll go catch me another one!" Unquote. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997. To comply with my copyright, please distribute complete copies, free of charge. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 13:13 In article <er92a2$ji1$2(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >On 2007-02-17, MassiveProng ><MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: [....] >> Th glaring error I see is that LTSpice doesn't take long enough to >> run that it needs to do it in the background on another desktop. > >that depends on the simulation. > >once you've got 30 or 100 or active components on the schematic it can slow down >considerably As usual, MissingProng doesn't know what he is talking about. Any nonlinear component slows things down. Sharp knees in BV and BI functions can slow things way down. When doing a full up switcher, you can have to very different time scales. When the switcher is interacting with a model of a physical object, you can have huge differences in time scale. This is where runs get very long. >When I was playing with simulated MOSFETS and ideal gates to construct a >D type flipflops from basic components I was starting to see slowdowns. This is quite a bit like the DC-DC converter case. LTSpice must calculate many points right near the Vth of the MOSFET to get the right results. This means that the time step will have to be very short. > >if you're just doing the 555 + LED thing then yeah there's nothing to wait >for. > >Bye. > Jasen -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 18 Feb 2007 14:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <9b5c0$45d854a8$4fe75aa$9801(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <er7blr$ijh$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <er6sft$8ss_009(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <er4gcr$1ln$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >>>>>>jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of > > later > >>>>>>>>versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even > > very > >>>>>>>>later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the > > stack. > >>>>>>>I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >>>>>>>Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >>>>>>>a go at multitasking dos too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >>>>>>>freeware and faked multitasking somehow. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you call two tasks "multi", >>>>> >>>>>I don't :-). >>>> >>>>I could do 3 too. >>>> >>>>It just takes a little more coding. >>> >>> >>>My point is that it should not take more coding to add and/or >>>subtract. To have to do coding in order to add one is a crock. >>>None of our old customers would have accepted this. We certainly >>>did not have the resources to code every time we needed to run >>>an extra task. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>I wrote one that worked quite nicely. It >>>>>>allowed the user interface task to run while disk I/O and printing etc >>>>>>also ran. It was very special purposed so it wouldn't be something to >>>>>>market. >>>>>> >>>>>>It really isn't that hard to create a multitasking system if only one > > task > >>>>>>is allowed to touch a given bit of hardware. Mostly you just have to >>>>>>change the stack pointer and return from the timer interrupt into the >>>>>>other task's context. >>>>> >>>>>You have a very big IF in that sentence. ;-) >>>> >>>>Yes, but the two tasker served its purpose quite nicely. I created only >>>>the tool I needed for the purpose not a general OS. >>> >>> >>>Sure. I understand what you did. :-) Now think about all the >>>different kinds of hardware, formats, software, etc. and the >>>fact that each person's individual system are all different from >>>any other system in the world, past and future. >>> >>>You can't force everybody to code every time they want to do >>>something extra. >> >>Where's that supposed bright line between coding and using? > <GRIN> Believe it or not, compilation. I guess I'd better > define this one. Compilation is the computing service that > changes your ASCII character directions into data blocks > that a linker can use to produce an executable set of > machine insructions. You mean like when I type a name and password in at the appropriate prompts. :-) I understand what you think you wrote, but that doesn't define a bright line. When I set up a crontab to repeat a computer process (perhaps back up a set of files and put them on tape or a cd) at a certain time every day am I coding or am I using? Same thing with a doze PC and "scheduled tasks." There are libraries at all "higher levels." I view this as a discussion well suited to fuzzy logic analysis.
From: nonsense on 18 Feb 2007 14:27 krw wrote: > In article <er9fag$8ss_012(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >>In article <MPG.20414665b9b9f85a989fac(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>In article <87wt2gr3fq.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... >>> >>>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: >>>> >>>>>On 17 Feb 2007 15:15:20 +0200, Phil Carmody >>>>><thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I'm currently running a 500MB LLL reduction on my G5 with 512MB RAM. >>>>>>I have 72 such reductions to perform. Care to tell me how I could run >>>>>>all 72 without any of them interfering with the other? Or even 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Run one on one CPU and one on the other. >>>>> >>>>> I used to with SETI at home all the time, and it most certainly DOES >>>>>double the number of units a day that machine churned out. >>>>> >>>>> If you only have a single CPU machine, however, you will not be able >>>>>to do this. >>>>> >>>>> I have been running dually machines (at the personal level) for over >>>>>6 years now. They are awesome! >>>> >>>>You can't fit 2 500MB jobs into 512MB of RAM. >>>> >>>>I am a big fan of the dual G5s too. >>> >>>Me too. The G5 program paid my mortgage for five years. ;-) >> >>Did it do windows? <GRIN> > > > Of course not! (OTOH, I've never touched a Mac, so...) > I guess you're one of the few MacVirgins remaining then. Saved yourself from that slimy feeling, you did.
From: nonsense on 18 Feb 2007 14:28
krw wrote: > In article <er9eg3$8ss_003(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >>In article <87mz3csv1x.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > > <snip> > >>>>This is not a new concept; it's >>>>been around since females had to cook, rear kids, and entertain >>>>the males so they would stick around for a while. >>> >>>Females do not have to do that. >> >>You have a lot to learn. > > > This is obvious by his attempt to tell a female what they don't > have to do. Any male over 18 with a normal IQ would *never* make a > dumbass statement. Phil, here's your sign. Any male with a superior IQ wouldn't think it. LOL |