Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 21 Feb 2007 19:26 On Wed, 21 Feb 07 13:43:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <fohot29ajnjcor6od5b11e4c492v9sn36o(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Wed, 21 Feb 07 12:50:32 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>4 was unacceptable in 1968. What has the biz come to? >> >> >> You can hang like 32 com ports up on a specialized system. Likely >>more. > >32 is too few. You're an idiot. For a PC it is more than typical. > >In 1969, a PDP-8 had banks of 16. Whoopie fuckin' doo, ditzoflex. Can you be any more retarded? >>Yes, I am talking about PCs. > >I know. You have a severe case of PCitis. That is what the discussion was about, you stupid twit. >> You have been out of the loop for far too long, and the result is >>that you are loopy. > >Why can't you think of numbers in the thousands? Because the days of mainframes connected to by dumb or smart terminals has long past, dipshit.
From: MassiveProng on 21 Feb 2007 19:45 On 21 Feb 2007 21:52:10 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >Well, except if you think of "special" as in the "special bus", >and "special ed.". Or especially senile.
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Feb 2007 07:19 In article <erhnva$em5$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erhepi$8qk_001(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <erf0g5$39q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ereron$8qk_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <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. >> >>Go back and read my analogy about the pop bottle. > >That would be a silly thing to do. It makes no sense at all for a >hardware point of view. That concept happens to be what most hardware developers miss. > > >>> Since the device is usually a physical thing, it >>>can only do one thing at a time and is always slower than the processor. >> >>No, this 'always slower than the processor' has been a new phenomena. > >When I was working on the "numerical engine" with Babbage, we didn't have >to worry about such issues. We were well along when we got our funding >yanked because the mousey girl he was boffing turned out to be related to >some earl. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? > > >>>A well written OS can deal with this issue with no big problem. >> >>I know the problems. An OS can spend 25-50% of its available >>compute time switching contexts to the CPU that has the >>physical access to a device. > >That would be a badly written OS. Not necessarily. A badly configured system can cause it. An OS that is master/slave would do this most of time. >>>> Another limitation is >>>>no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys connected to it. >>> >>>The PC I'm typing on can have 2 ttys connected. The one at work can have >>>4. This isn't the real problem. >> >>And the predecessor to NT could deal with a thousand. It is the >>real problem. The biz has been reduced to small computer thinking >>in a world that is already doing large computer usage. > >I take it you don't like 4 being "multiple" too. 4 ttys connected to a system is a very low number. <snip> /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 22 Feb 2007 09:39 In article <erk1o1$8ss_001(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <erhnva$em5$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <erhepi$8qk_001(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <erf0g5$39q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <ereron$8qk_010(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <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. >>> >>>Go back and read my analogy about the pop bottle. >> >>That would be a silly thing to do. It makes no sense at all for a >>hardware point of view. > >That concept happens to be what most hardware developers miss. It is a silly concept with no physical meaning. It is useless for thinking about hardware or anything else for that matter. You seem to be trying to suggest something and are havin trouble putting it into an argument. I suggest that you go back and think about it some more. Chances are the reason you are having trouble explaining the idea is because the idea contains an error on some fundamental level. >>>> Since the device is usually a physical thing, it >>>>can only do one thing at a time and is always slower than the processor. >>> >>>No, this 'always slower than the processor' has been a new phenomena. >> >>When I was working on the "numerical engine" with Babbage, we didn't have >>to worry about such issues. We were well along when we got our funding >>yanked because the mousey girl he was boffing turned out to be related to >>some earl. > >And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I am suggesting a definition of "new" for your suggesting it is a new phenomena. [.....] >>>>A well written OS can deal with this issue with no big problem. >>> >>>I know the problems. An OS can spend 25-50% of its available >>>compute time switching contexts to the CPU that has the >>>physical access to a device. >> >>That would be a badly written OS. > >Not necessarily. A badly configured system can cause it. An >OS that is master/slave would do this most of time. Unless you set out to configure it this way, the odds of ending up with one with that problem are zero. By "master/slave" OS, you must mean a horridly badly written one. Although this is not the usual definition of "master/slave" I must assume that is how you are using the term. >>>>> Another limitation is >>>>>no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys connected to it. >>>> >>>>The PC I'm typing on can have 2 ttys connected. The one at work can have >>>>4. This isn't the real problem. >>> >>>And the predecessor to NT could deal with a thousand. It is the >>>real problem. The biz has been reduced to small computer thinking >>>in a world that is already doing large computer usage. >> >>I take it you don't like 4 being "multiple" too. > >4 ttys connected to a system is a very low number. It appears to be enough. Also, the connecting of TTYs is no longer the point. Now that PCs are networked together with high speed networks, the "system" may no longer mean just one computer and each computer that has a screen and keyboard servers the role the TTY did in the past. As a result it is no longer a truely meaningful measure. The computer that is doing the work of posting this is in another city. I am not hooked to it via a TTY. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Tony Lance on 22 Feb 2007 11:23
Big Bertha Thing Faculty (Sequel to battle) Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/faculty.html Access page 600K ZIP file Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.med 301 files from the second battle of cyberspace. Students Research Faculty 1. Existence 2. Zero interference 3. Foundation (Students, tutors or funding) 4. Articles (See Armistice terms) 5. Publications (See overview) 6. Projects (Pastures, Moisture, Big Bertha, Strategic Studies) 7. Staff (First Aid Tent, volunteers, moderators) 8. Access (All user or staff only.) 9. SRF Classical Astronomy (see OUSA Research, All user) 10. SRF Net Access Policy (See OUSA Research, All user) 11. SRF Los Alamos (see Armistice terms, OUSA Research, restricted access.) 12. SRF Big Bertha (See SRF Los Alamos, staff only.) 13. SRF Strategic Studies (See SRF Big Bertha, staff only.) 14. SRF Specification (See SRF Big Bertha, staff only.) 15. SRF Mathematics (See SRF Big Bertha, staff only.) 16. SRF Prototype (See SRF Big Bertha, staff only.) 17. SRF Yesterslaggings (SRF Net Access Policy, all user) 18. OUSA Classical Particle (OUSA Research, All user) Big Bertha Thing galios Nobody understood a thing he said, when he was alive. After he was dead, they decided that he had done a good job. The Galios Theory branch of mathematics bears his name. Now they are trying to teach me, what he did in the first place. Do you think that the penny will drop, before it becomes posthumous? Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk |