Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 09:49 In article <erhdqd$8qk_007(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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? I am disputing your incorrect statements. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 09:51 In article <erhe27$8qk_009(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <erf2nv$39q$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ereo6m$8ss_009(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <87irdym3zz.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> MassiveProng wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I can boot Linux from a DVD and RUN it all day long, and I don't need >to >>>do >>>>> > ANY installation! >>>>> >>>>> That sounds interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Where can I get one ? >>>> >>>>Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu all come as live CDs >>>>Gentoo does too. >>>>Knoppix was the original popular live CD. >>> >>>What does the OS, running from a CD, use for its scratch pad? >>><snip> >> >>It uses the RAM of the computer. They like to have quite a lot of RAM. > >A RAM can't be the scratchpad. That would slow down processing >enormously. I don't see any reason why it would. The live CD versions of Linux do this all the time. They run very fast. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 09:57 In article <erhe08$8qk_008(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <b708b$45db13c4$cdd084b9$32231(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >> [.....] >>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. :-) This is not true. I doubt that Dr. Kent Cullers would even begin to agree. Many people tink in terms of the sweep of motion, the feel of things and how they sound. They do not have to freeze the situation in their mind to study it. For that matter that would hinder their mode of thinking. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 10:03 In article <erhea1$8qk_010(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ergbsm$jtg$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ereobj$8ss_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <ercret$dg2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>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: >>>>[....] >>>>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. >>> >>>A solution is to invent a software GETSEG if the hardware can't >>>give help. >> >>You can usually work out before hand what needs to be in memory when. > >You can do this only if the directives are in a script or the >machine is dedicated to one task and the process has been debugged. The code of a FFT is an example of a classic case where the order things are needed is well known. There are lots of tasks like that. If they are part of the total load on a computer, it still makes sense to use code within that routine to do the swapping for that routine. >You can not ever predict what will be required if any human >has access to the system. Sure you can. If the computer is running a printer server, you can predict the right order for the files to be read by the server. If there is a task constantly running to take sliding billion point FFTs, you know what is best for the FFT part. Just because the human may change something it doesn't mean they change everything. >>This way, the swapping action is always the best one instead of pot luck. >>A simple case is when you are sorting a huge file. The first step is to >>sort the biggest hunks that will fit into RAM, after that the code is a >>classic merge operation. For each part it is fairly easy to see what >>needs to be in RAM. > >You are still thinking in single-use mode. That situation is becoming >rarer even on PCs. I've been trying to point that out throughout >this particular thread drift. No, I'm thinking of the case where something very difficult needs to be done with a PC. While it is doing it, the best rules for swapping are known. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 21 Feb 2007 10:11
In article <erhd4t$8qk_001(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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. No, it is just part of the overhead of doing VM. If the speed of results is important, it is better not to have to swap. This means that doing the tasks one after the other is the way to go. Back in the day, the IBM370 would "roll out" a program so that it was put on hold while something else was done. [......] >> >> 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. Windows allocates memory on a least fit basis. This tends to leave a lot of small holes in the memory space. Unfortunately on x86 machines, the memory management doesn't do address translation on a finer grain than the segment size. This leads to a lot of fluff in memory space. Windows doesn't assume that garbage collection is needed nor does it have memory compacting. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |