Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 22:08 In article <87k5yckcdy.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [....] >Aha - with BAH's redefinition of words, she _must_ be >in a Forth dialect sect. When you create a new class in C++ you can make your own operators for it. There is no reason you can't make the "+" symbol divide. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 20 Feb 2007 22:57 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <b708b$45db13c4$cdd084b9$32231(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ereo06$8ss_008(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <66a0f$45d9e1db$4fe709e$21351(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>> >>>[.....] >>> >>> >>>>>just to see where that one goes. It is an issue I've not >>>>>seen addressed. It gets even more interesting when viewed >>>>>through the prisms of the various physics models in use >>>>>today. >>>> >>>>Analog implies thresholds; does it not? >> >>>No, it doesn't. It implies a continuous function. >>>This isn't always true. >> >>We use thresholds to pigeonhole. The entire discussion, >>which didn't get they bites I had hoped it would, has >>to do with how we study nature more than it does with >>the realities within nature. > > > You are just pointing out that we are not able to work with all of the > analog signal. This is a limitation on us not on the rest of the > universe. There may still be a lower limit. If you assume that the > position of lets say an electron must be stored, you can say that to store > that information, there must be some bits of information somewhere. > Shannon showed that to store a bit of information requires a finite amount > of energy. E=MC^2 makes that energy have a mass. If the number of bits > in infinite, the mass ends up infinite and the universe goes slurp down a > black hole. That's the computerist's take. There are many other discussions to be had out of the questions raised.
From: Eeyore on 21 Feb 2007 03:17 MassiveProng wrote: > Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Gave us: > > >Big > > Big SPAMTARD is about to get numerous complaints registered if he > doesn't learn that once is enough, and is all you are allowed. Heck yes ! His posts are completely off-topic. Graham
From: Eeyore on 21 Feb 2007 03:19 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. Quite possibly but I was specifically distinguishing a CPU from an I/O processor. Graham
From: Eeyore on 21 Feb 2007 03:21
MassiveProng wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: > >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? I was just wondering the very same thing. Where does a memory controller fit into this scenario for example ? Graham |