Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 08:18 In article <87lkivp13p.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >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. You are confusing real time with sequential. If you were watching real time, you be seeing something happening as it is happening. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 08:21 In article <0ddma4-t5v.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net>, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> 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. There are also other problems that need to be solved. > >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. :-) The public hasn't had a chance to become angry about Vista. It's not been out long enough nor has it been installed on enough computers. /BAH >
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 08:29 In article <877iufp05h.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >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: Not at all. OSes were handling the above problems in the 60s. The reason virtual memory was invented was to solve the above problem. > ><<< >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. Your working set is always outdated. You would need to rearrage your code and data better..espeically the data. /BAH > >Phil
From: Phil Carmody on 19 Feb 2007 08:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87hctjp0u3.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> 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. > > Suuurreee....Now try to tell another one. Which obligation am I thereby imposing? Was it childrearing that addled your brain so much that you can't understand simple English any more? 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 19 Feb 2007 08:50
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87lkivp13p.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >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. > > You are confusing real time with sequential. If you were watching > real time, you be seeing something happening as it is happening. No, that's "live". Real time has a clearly and consistently defined meaning, of which you are apparently ignorant. Video, and audio, playback is about as realtime as it gets. 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./. |