Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Feb 2007 07:15 In article <i70nt25k4ubuvllr029cun9ebu1e1bng0a(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Feb 07 13:29:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>Not at all. OSes were handling the above problems in the 60s. >>The reason virtual memory was invented was to solve the above >>problem. >> > The swapping, in this case, CAUSES the interference. That has to do with severe memory management problems. > He can run >each alone and get the job done faster. Proving further that you >don't know a goddamned thing about it. That says that the running task has enough memory. The problem has to do with having to keep vestiges of code, which isn't needed, in core all the time. One of the asspects of PC software is that nobody ever learned about segments and getting them when the code is needed and then removing them when the code is no longer required. > > Not only that, but even on my 2GB machine, Billy swaps. that's just plain ridiculous if you aren't using all the code segements. It tells me that the OS doesn't know how to delete stale segments during its cleanup sweeps..it probably doesn't have any cleanup sweeps. > So even in >that case, the tasks would finish faster separately. If you never use a function, there isn't any reason to have it taking up memory space. The problem with PC coding practices is that the newyoungthings have always believed that code, which might possibly be executed 20 years from now, has to be resident in core. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Feb 2007 07:17 In article <c814$45db3101$cdd085c5$1823(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Phil Carmody wrote: >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: <snip pretty good description of real time> Thank you. I owe you one. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Feb 2007 07:20 In article <090nt25vi4qb897k955nl3sul58c6q6vqd(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:57:32 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine ><ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> Gave us: > >>In sci.physics, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote >>on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:10:12 +0000 >><45D9BDD4.B68B994E(a)hotmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Graham >>> >> >>The CPU is not a dedicated processor. >> > > Sure it is. It is dedicated to processing everything the OS throws at >it. Definitely a tech. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Feb 2007 07:26 In article <erf2m9$39q$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erennl$8ss_006(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ercoj7$8qv$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ercbpb$8qk_009(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.. surf web, get spam and play games ..] >>>>>Go take a look at what all those PCs get used for. What I listed was most >>>>>of it. People have PCs in there home that only serve as a very limited >>>>>tool. >>>> >>>>Nope. I'm currently running a test so see just how much pressure >>>>people are getting to start doing on-line banking. The latest >>>>development is that any check you write is handled like a debit >>>>card. The requirement for a voucher for each payment is disappearing. >>> >>>You are one person and certainly the minority. I'm about to look at what >>>my wife is doing on her computer..... >>> >>>She is "surfing the web" right now. Like many others. >>> >>>Just because a few people do more complex stuff, you can't assume that >>>everyone does. >> >>This isn't an assumption. There is enormous pressure to herd >>the general public into using electronic banking. > >I use electronic banking. I go to the banks web site and do it. It is >just another "surfing the web" case. I don't have any special software to >do it. I am far from the normal user but even I didn't add anything >beyond the web browser to do my banking. Since you have already converted to on-line banking, why are you disputing my statements about it? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Feb 2007 07:30
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. The only way we know how to study is to take snapshots. That's why it's so difficult to grok photons and electron orbits. :-) /BAH |