Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 21:52 In article <45DB09FC.4265792(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [......] >> >>The reason almost all PCs aren't dually is not because PCs >> >>can't be dually, it's because that's what the market wants. >> > >> >That's not the reason. Devices aren't multi-ported. To have >> >an effective multi-CPU general purpose system, all CPUs should >> >have hardware access to all devices. >> >> That is not true. You can have single ported devices in a multiprocessor >> system with no problem. Since the device is usually a physical thing, it >> can only do one thing at a time and is always slower than the processor. >> A well written OS can deal with this issue with no big problem. > >It'll probably do it better too. It makes no sense at all to hold up a fast CPU >to negotiate I/O commands. That is only true for some meanings of the word "fastest". A special purpose processor may do I/O very fast and could then be said to be the faster one although it is the right one to use for I/O. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 21:53 In article <2e7c4$45db0a5d$cdd084b9$31489(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <ereron$8qk_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [......] [....] >> The PC I'm typing on can have 2 ttys connected. The one at work can have >> 4. This isn't the real problem. > > >I have one here running Linux that's probably only >LAN limited. Today's TTY is often a PC but you might >want to take a look at http://www.wyse.com/index.asp My usual one is my DOS laptop. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 21:54 In article <45DB089A.DB973D69(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Another limitation is no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys >> connected to it. > >You can have 4 serial ports. Possibly more. If you connect a serial to USB converter, you can easily end up with more than 4. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 20 Feb 2007 21:56 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:52:30 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <45DB09FC.4265792(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> [......] >>> >>The reason almost all PCs aren't dually is not because PCs >>> >>can't be dually, it's because that's what the market wants. >>> > >>> >That's not the reason. Devices aren't multi-ported. To have >>> >an effective multi-CPU general purpose system, all CPUs should >>> >have hardware access to all devices. >>> >>> That is not true. You can have single ported devices in a multiprocessor >>> system with no problem. Since the device is usually a physical thing, it >>> can only do one thing at a time and is always slower than the processor. >>> A well written OS can deal with this issue with no big problem. >> >>It'll probably do it better too. It makes no sense at all to hold up a fast CPU >>to negotiate I/O commands. > >That is only true for some meanings of the word "fastest". A special >purpose processor may do I/O very fast and could then be said to be the >faster one although it is the right one to use for I/O. > Are there not "processor" subsections in the northbridge and southbridge chipsets that do this very thing? Also, most modern graphics cards have a "GPU" which mostly handles transforms, as well as the frame to frame rendering. Very I/O intensive "processing" there.
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 22:07
In article <2a790$45db0f72$cdd084b9$31873(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <52406$45da6760$cdd084bb$25290(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>Rich Grise wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:01:11 +0000, Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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? >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh gee, did I do something wrong? >>>>> >>>>>Yes, you should be ashamed of your self for continuing to post into this >>>>>thread when you were asked by that very important person not to. Such >>>>>people need to have their every whim catered too. If not they may may pout >>>>>and that would be very bad, I think you would agree. >>>>> >>>> >>>>My newsreader has an "Ignore thread" menu option, but apparently it goes >>>>by actual threading, and not subject line. >>>> >>>>Good-Bye. >>>>Rich >>> >>>It seems the pouters are circling. I think I need more time >>>to contemplate what you're promoting here, Ken. This is such >>>a serious issue I don't want any possibility of getting it >>>wrong. >> >> >> Yes, it is certainly worthy of some serious thought. End of life issues >> are always complex and full of moral questions. Many people will argue >> about when the death of a thread occurs. This can be very hard if the >> thread has trollers and spam in it. When a thread dies of spam, posting >> activity continues long after the actual death. Trollers tend to stop >> very quickly when they sense that no-one will respond to their tripe. > >> Most of those who have a religeous point of view, I assume, think of the >> thread as merely going to silicon heaven and resting there. > >I suspect that most Jihadists can sympathize with silicon heaven >once such a destiny is pointed out to them. They have to wonder >what eventually happens to all that sand. I guess they would be what you could call theoputes. They assume that the spirit of a computer exists as an independant thing. It is expressed through the hardware but is not the same thing as it. To them writing a new program would be discovery and not invention. All programs already exist. Humans discover them. >Then there's an entire Anna Nicole fandom which has its own >views on the matter. As I understand the current debate, they are arguing over where her body gets stuck in the ground. I don't see why they don't just cut her up and make everyone happy. The one reason I'm fairly sure I'm going to heaven is that I am afraid of heights and hate harp music. > >You know, there have to be some wild parties in silicon heaven. >It almost makes a fellow regret he's carbon based, but I guess >that might be classified as racial envy. I have long maintained that we are the information and not the atoms. So we just need a way to convert the data format. [....] >> Some would >> argue that with out the input of new postings, the thread is thrown into >> the deep abiss, but I assume this is a small minority. > >Actually it first goes to google-heaven from where resurrection >is possible for at least the duration of the internet. Humm... sort of a limbo state. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |