Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 18 Feb 2007 15:51 On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:42:44 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >I'm am very sure that it is the right bytes in the right order just way >late. Actually, about one in 100,000 bytes gets lost. This is a problem >with Windows not getting to the UART before the byte gets over written by >new ones. > You are probably so stupid as to have your serial port set to software handshaking XON XOFF. Your whole problem is very likely operator error.
From: Phil Carmody on 18 Feb 2007 17:01 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <871wkosial.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > [....] > >> 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. > > > >'Workspace' is used by some window managers. I've also > >seen 'pane'. > > "workspace" may be a good one. > > "Pane" is also used as a subsection within a window so it could also be > confusing. > > > I hear 'desktop' far more often though, and > >have done for well over a decade. > > It was in use as a term before the creation of "Windows". Borland didn't > invent the term for their IDE. This is worth a read in a quiet moment or ten: stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9726166/WindowInterfaces.pdf 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./.
From: Phil Carmody on 18 Feb 2007 17:05 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <er91e0$ji1$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >On 2007-02-16, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> In article <er45sh$pkf$2(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > >> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >>>On 2007-02-12, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >>>>>> You had to load the CX register to do a LOOP. > >>>>> > >>>>>What's LOOP got to do with anything? > >>>> > >>>> You haven't been following the discussion. I used the case of a REP > >>>> prefix used inside a loop as the example of why the 8086's instruction > set > >>>> was so poorly designed. The CX and the REP both use the CX so the CX > must > >>>> be loaded for the REP inside the loop. This means that the current CX > >>>> contents must be saved, the CX loaded, the REP done and the CX restored. > > >>>> This is a lot of extra work. > >>> > >>>It's less work to just use something else to hold the loop count > >> > >> Well, that depends on what the hardware has to do for you > >> to change that "something else". > >> > >>>and use DEC and JNZ in place of LOOP (faster too since 80486) > >>> > >>>One of the other registers or [bp+N] is often a good choice > >>>(for apropriate values of N) > >> > >> 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. Wrong. Then again, it's a BAH pronouncement about a software matter, the likelyhood if it being right were very slim. > We were fortuante in having hardware > spit at you if you did flagrant things. Commodity PCs have had that since the 80s too. 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./.
From: nonsense on 18 Feb 2007 17:12 Jamie wrote: > MassiveProng wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Feb 07 14:00:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >>> <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. >>> >> >> >> OMG... you got one right. >> >> You are no longer batting 1000 on wrong answers! > getting soft ? Limited comprehension.
From: Phil Carmody on 18 Feb 2007 17:11
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87mz3csv1x.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >Because watching vids is a real time process. Sheesh. > > 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. You have got to be one of the most ignorant fucks I've ever had the misfortune of encountering on usenet. Video playback is realtime. You don't do it in time, you've not done the job correctly. 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./. |