Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 18 Feb 2007 14:34 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> > wrote > on Sun, 18 Feb 07 11:52:37 GMT > <er9em5$8ss_004(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>: > >>In article <cj2ka4-ise.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net>, >> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics, MassiveProng >>><MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> >>>wrote >>>on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:59:49 -0800 >>><tiget2h5auga6jl46gn46oisadv8ckr322(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 07 14:08:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The CPU isn't doing that work. That's what the video card >>>>>does. >>>> >>>> >>>> WRONG. The cpu is what the video playback applets run, and THAT is >>>>100% cpu intensive for EACH AND EVERY FRAME of video PASSED to the >>>>video card. >>> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc >>> >>>is what I used for metrics. CPU utilization appears to be about 50% >>>according to my CPU monitor. (Athlon XP 1600++, 1.4 MHz. 512 MB. >>>BT5500 RV250-based video system. OS: Linux 2.6.20 Gentoo 2006.1. >>>DSL line incoming. No skipping noted on this particular video >>>during initial stream. Playback was possible without network IO. >>>Note that this was in "tinyscreen mode". >>> >>>(This video is safe for work: "Spiders On Drugs".) >>> >>>Another test case >>> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhd2lnCTWQM >>> >>>skipped horribly on initial load, but that looks to be >>>more of a bandwidth problem than a CPU one. CPU utilization was >>>slightly lower. >>> >>>SFW. Its main themes are apparently music, a school >>>bus, and dancing. Replay was possible without skipping. >>>Full screen utilized almost 90% of CPU, so that might be >>>an issue. >>> >>>FWIW. >>> >> >>If this becomes a common usage, it sounds like a dedicated >>processor will be installed. >> >>/BAH > > > One already is -- the GPU in the card could probably be expanded to > include common codecs. This could get quite interesting, from > a political standpoint, as Microsoft and others may want to > ensure that DRM is enshrined into law and into one's 'puter. > > Fortunately, Microsoft and Sony have so botched it that they'll > have to be very careful lest the public become even angrier than > they already are about Vista. :-) > It seemed an unwritten rule that one should only buy alternate releases of DOS. They've managed to spread the most significant horrors a little thinner. 95, ME, NT(x2), Vista(x?).
From: krw on 18 Feb 2007 14:50 In article <era1en$tvp$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <er9ick$8qk_008(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >In article <er91e0$ji1$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > > [..... [BP+N] addressing ....] > > >>> Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? > >>> It implies you have to check it each and every time. > >> > >>means you have to make room on the stack (where BP offsets > >>are typically used) for the counter. > > > >Now think. You either have to use software to check out of > >range or have hardware that will cough at you when you > >do go out of range. > > It is usually software that does it at compile time. If you are writing > in assembly, you allocate the space and assign the symbols once and then > use them in each place. Unless you do something veery stupid, there is no > need to run time check such stuff. > You've never heard of a "buffer overflow"? You aren't a Windows programmer, by chance, are you? -- Keith
From: MassiveProng on 18 Feb 2007 14:59 On Sun, 18 Feb 07 11:42:24 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <er7c3b$ijh$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <er6rf6$8ss_002(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <d1ict2h4c5s3m3e5unsu4aagl2fpj0s49n(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>>> Right now I also have LTSpice running on another >>>>>>desktop. I'm typing this while if figures. >>>>> >>>>>My point is that you should not have to have another computer _system_ >>>>>to do any other task. >>>> >>>> >>>> He said on another desktop. If you had any modern brains, you would >>>>know that that IS the SAME computer, that has multiple "desktops". A >>>>feature of Linux GUIs. >>> >>>IF that is true, the renaming of this term is going to cause a lot >>>of problems. >> >>It may have been better if a new term was invented. All the existing >>terms had meanings: >> >>"another screen" is bad because many Linux systems have more than one >>screen >> >>"another virtual screen" is bad because many Linux systems have a non >>graphics virtual screen along with the graphics one. You can configure >>for only one "desk top" and still have "another virtual screen". Also >>the "virtual screen" may be larger than the physical hardware screen. >> >>"another window" won't do because the term window is used for a part of >>what is on the screen. > >If I understand what you are talking about, on our OS, we would have >used the term job. > There's that batch process mentality showing through again.
From: MassiveProng on 18 Feb 2007 15:03 On Sun, 18 Feb 07 11:43:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <dqhet218geimesbosiht3bequ5s09jtmmg(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:56:11 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>(Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >>>In article <er6rf6$8ss_002(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <d1ict2h4c5s3m3e5unsu4aagl2fpj0s49n(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>> Right now I also have LTSpice running on another >>>>>>>desktop. I'm typing this while if figures. >>>>>> >>>>>>My point is that you should not have to have another computer _system_ >>>>>>to do any other task. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He said on another desktop. If you had any modern brains, you would >>>>>know that that IS the SAME computer, that has multiple "desktops". A >>>>>feature of Linux GUIs. >>>> >>>>IF that is true, the renaming of this term is going to cause a lot >>>>of problems. >>> >>>It may have been better if a new term was invented. All the existing >>>terms had meanings: >>> >>>"another screen" is bad because many Linux systems have more than one >>>screen >>> >>>"another virtual screen" is bad because many Linux systems have a non >>>graphics virtual screen along with the graphics one. You can configure >>>for only one "desk top" and still have "another virtual screen". Also >>>the "virtual screen" may be larger than the physical hardware screen. >>> >>>"another window" won't do because the term window is used for a part of >>>what is on the screen. >>> >> DESKTOP was always the right term. It refers to the PC's desktop, >>not another physical machine's desktop, and she is an idiot to think >>it would. > >Desktop is a new computing term and referred to the physical >dimensions of the computer you were using. > No. It refers to the space available ON THE SCREEN, NOT YOUR DESK, and it in no way referred to anything about how big your computer was. That term is FOOTPRINT. Additional desktops on OSes that support them refer to providing the user with a blank desktop (screen) so that one could run like apps together and switch to other desktops where other app were running to allow the user to sort out his managere of running apps better.
From: MassiveProng on 18 Feb 2007 15:05
On Sun, 18 Feb 07 11:49:23 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >No, it is not a real time computing application. It is a >sequential task. It doesn't matter how long the movie >takes to get to your screen; all that matters is that it's >displayed sequentially. If it were raw, ready to render frames, YES, HOWEVER, it is not, it is compressed, and MUST BE PROCESSED. You need to get that through your fat head, ditz! |