Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 19 Feb 2007 13:22 In article <ercame$8qk_003(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <era4fu$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. In that case your use of terminology is very strange and obviously wrong. On a linux box, you can have many jobs and many desk tops but there need be no relationship between the two. On my PC at work, it is common for there to be a job that has no screen I/O involved at all. There are may also be several jobs outputting on one screen. >> 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. I know about attach and detach. I can run command line things and have the outputs from them also on a desktop. In many cases, they will have different windows to send their results to. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Feb 2007 13:49 In article <erc8n2$8ss_006(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <877iufp05h.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [....] >>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. I think you and Phil are using a different mean of "interfering". Phil is thinking of it in the sense of a real time OS. The overhead of the VM system will make for inteference in the real time sense even if the two programs do eventually produce the right answer. Unfortunately the hardware in the x86 series of processors makes it hard to do a general purpose VM that doesn't thrash a lot. If the problem is too big to fit in real memory, doing the disk I/O in the program instead of letting the VM take over usually make for a faster result. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Feb 2007 13:55 In article <87zm7amepp.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [....] >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. Here's a completely useless observation: Given a matrix: A B C D E F G H I Doing a fk transform can be done as FFT(A,E,I), FFT(B,F,G), FFT(C,D,H) then FFT(A,F,H), FFT(B,D,I), FFT(C,E,G) -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Feb 2007 14:01 In article <45D9BDD4.B68B994E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> > >> >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. > >It's called the CPU. It could also be "a CPU". Multiprocessor systems may start to happen soon. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Feb 2007 14:06
In article <5c240$45d96d08$4fe71f9$16508(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >d.086(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> Could you please terminate this thread. It's off topic and crossposted >> to sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.electronics.design, sci.med The >> discussion below is only about electronics design. Please start a new >> thread in your own news group and give it a Subject heading >> appropriate to the topic under discussion. Please no more 'Jihad needs >> scientists'. It's offensive. > >That's nice. By posting that you did exactly the thing he was asking you not to do. I really don't see why you did it after all he should get his way about what happens on the usenet shouldn't he? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |