Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 19 Feb 2007 08:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >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. No they were not. Virtual memory interferes with the operation of all processes that require it. I wouldn't expect you to be aware of this, though, give your track record of being ignorant of basically every aspect of the computing industry. .... > >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 Your working set is always outdated.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. I have to scan, and operate upon, the entirety of a 450MB matrix several hundred thousand times. That /cannot/ be done without swapping when you only have 512MB RAM and a bloated OS. A 400MB matrix was fine. No rearrangement is possible. The quantity of swapping is in fact surprisingly small, given the size of the dataset and the lack of RAM but hard disks are several orders of magnitude slower than RAM, and so only slowing down by a factor of ten implies that my memory hit rate is respectibly high. However, I wouldn't expect you to understand that, though, given your track record of being ignorant of technical aspects of 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: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:02 In article <era4fu$tvp$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er9e30$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>"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. > >That doesn't cover it either. With our use of the terminology, it does. > I can have many-many jobs going with their >outputs if any displayed on one desktop and run some others from another. Our first try at doing this on an ASR35 was with a program we called OPSER. Later its functionality was replaced with a program we called OPR and each of your tasks were run from a PTY (pseudo-TTY). Our users could also use the commands ATTACH and DETACH which is the equivalent of your point-clicks on the thingies you call desktop. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:06 In article <874ppintmn.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >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". That is real time. > >Real time has a clearly and consistently defined meaning, >of which you are apparently ignorant. Nope. Your definitions of real time is what IBM COBOLers used call real time. > >Video, and audio, playback is about as realtime as it gets. Not if the bits can be stored before displaying. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:16 In article <iaeht2dil4dv19lureek0ivmh1gc02e8pq(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Feb 07 13:54:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> the bits >>on the system have to be preserved in a manner that will not >>cause the user any trouble. > > You let us know when you find it. Somebody is already doing something about it. There a radio ad selling backup services. This is the first time I've heard it in the general populace world. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:18
In article <sdeht2prl7cmo2vs6be9g9htsoo3abm0hm(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Feb 07 13:54:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> Now think >>about a human whose banking data is on his system and he needs >>to upgrade hard and/or software. You may wish to swallow a >>Valium first before you think too much. > > > Dumbshit. ALL of my banking data is in the BANK's database. > > I can securely and safely access it from ANY web capable computer >ANYWHERE in the world. > > You couldn't BUY a clue. 'Secure and safe' and 'world-wide access from any computer' are orthogonal. /BAH |