Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 18 Feb 2007 17:17 krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > >> 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. They do not have to do all those things. Anyone who disagrees with my statement is imposing an obligation on females - an obligation to cook, an obligation to rear kids, or an obligation to entertain makes. I impose no such obligation. 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 17:21 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <5sget2h5v9vgso9ekm63run3pn8dm2vf26(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >On Sat, 17 Feb 07 14:08:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > >>Why real time? > > > > Because it is processed, compressed video data. > >It has to be processed to be rendered by the video card. > > That's not real time. Real time implies that the image has > to be display in the same instant that the image was first > made. Yet again, you're just plain wrong in pretty much every way possible. BAH computing is BAD computing. 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 17:23 Phil Carmody wrote: > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> >>>Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> >>>>>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. > > > They do not have to do all those things. > > Anyone who disagrees with my statement is imposing an obligation > on females - an obligation to cook, an obligation to rear kids, > or an obligation to entertain makes. > > I impose no such obligation. From infancy on, you looked after yourself. No wonder you turned out this way.
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 17:30 In article <MPG.2042782f10ec82d8989fb6(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >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? :) You don't get buffer overflows from [BP+N] type instructions. These are used to address single values on the stack. It is the [BP+SI] type of instructions that Windows blows it on. > >-- > Keith -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Phil Carmody on 18 Feb 2007 17:32
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87wt2gr3fq.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >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. > > Sure you can. All it takes is a small matter of programming in > the OS. > <snip> You've forgotten about your "interfering with each other" clause: <<< On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > It is possible to have all tasks done for >you on that one system without any of them interfering with the other. >>> The SMoP, paging or swapping, interferes with all processes. My 500MB job has alas just started to exceed the spare physical memory of the machine, and is now paging: <<< geespaz:~ phil$ vm_stat 1 Mach Virtual Memory Statistics: (page size of 4096 bytes, cache hits 88%) free active inac wire faults copy zerofill reactive pageins pageout 1653 75061 37638 16719 3808729733 204226690 2699315021 242110132 82229948 79333050 1451 75080 37894 16646 1793 0 0 344 1790 506 1553 75092 37780 16646 763 0 0 408 753 659 1510 75113 37802 16646 908 0 0 1184 896 511 ^C geespaz:~ phil$ top -o rsize Processes: 42 total, 2 running, 40 sleeping... 124 threads 00:28:47 Load Avg: 0.49, 0.39, 0.34 CPU usage: 0.0% user, 12.1% sys, 87.9% idle SharedLibs: num = 155, resident = 3.11M code, 376K data, 396K LinkEdit MemRegions: num = 3576, resident = 445M + 668K private, 5.76M shared PhysMem: 64.6M wired, 292M active, 147M inactive, 505M used, 6.99M free VM: 3.58G + 112M 82310459(1825) pageins, 79386895(957) pageouts PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE 3194 gp-sta 10.1% 17:59:13 1 15 328 430M+ 1.25M 430M+ 770M 0 kernel_tas 9.7% 13:49:45 41 2 1356 12.5M 0K 52.5M 707M >>> Notice that my process is running at 10th speed now paging's kicked in, and it's waiting on I/O. I may as well ^C it unless it reduces its footprint real soon now. 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./. |