Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 22 Feb 2007 22:45 On Thu, 22 Feb 07 12:19:13 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >That concept happens to be what most hardware developers miss. Bwuahahahahahahahahaahaha!
From: MassiveProng on 22 Feb 2007 23:07 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:23:31 +0000, Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Gave us: >Big Die, fuckhead.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 06:17 In article <erhmkg$em5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erhe08$8qk_008(a)s916.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <b708b$45db13c4$cdd084b9$32231(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >[.....] >>>We use thresholds to pigeonhole. The entire discussion, >>>which didn't get they bites I had hoped it would, has >>>to do with how we study nature more than it does with >>>the realities within nature. >> >>The only way we know how to study is to take snapshots. >>That's why it's so difficult to grok photons and electron >>orbits. :-) > >This is not true. I doubt that Dr. Kent Cullers would even begin to >agree. Many people tink in terms of the sweep of motion, the feel of >things and how they sound. They do not have to freeze the situation in >their mind to study it. They do when they measure an event. > For that matter that would hinder their mode of >thinking. I wasn't talking about thinking; I was talking about measurement. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2007 07:09 In article <erhnfn$em5$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. Nope. VM doesn't have to swap. Swapping is done to make room so a memory request by another task can be serviced. I don't know why but people often confuse virtual memory addressing with swapping. The two are separate. > 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. You still have swap if a task is too big for the computer's resources. Single-tasking doesn't prevent swapping. It prevents context switching, but not swapping. You are confusing context switching with swapping. > Back in the day, >the IBM370 would "roll out" a program so that it was put on hold while >something else was done. That had to do with resources such as magtape drives, diskpacks, etc. > >[......] >>> >>> 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. By memory compacting, are you talking about shuffling? /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 23 Feb 2007 07:25
On Fri, 23 Feb 07 11:17:24 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <erhmkg$em5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>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. > >They do when they measure an event. Retarded sidestep in attempt to hedge incorrect observation. > >> For that matter that would hinder their mode of >>thinking. > >I wasn't talking about thinking; I was talking about measurement. See above. |