Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 26 Feb 2007 20:18 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <ogp3u2t5etlcgrhm0rcup6065455p0s1gr(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >On Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:27:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > >>No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical > >>memory. > > > > > > It means that code segments that would be in MEMORY has to be > >offloaded onto slower, more permanent (intended for) storage mediums > >to be recalled later. The system takes a speed hit with VM, but is > >permitted to do tasks that would otherwise not be doable. > > Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a program > that has a memory reference whose address is larger than physical > memory. Wrong (and in part meaningless due to gibberish wording). It's entirely possible to have VM systems which do not permit that situation to occur. > > All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine. > > You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you? I hate to break this to you, BAH, but, whoever he was, JMF's gone, and he does not channel through you. If anything, you're trashing his name every time you embarass yourself so. You are known here by your words, and your words are bullshit. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 26 Feb 2007 20:25 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <ur3vt2tl5lg3ujbtu14tgksbjd6s35h51j(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:04 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > > > >>No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few > >>times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the modification > >>date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part. > >> > > Batch (read DOS type batch file) driven backup routines worked > >flawlessly for me for YEARS, and only backed up what was needed, and > >never overwrote a newer file with an older file. > > Using your method, a restore would have to start with Backup Tape > #1, then #2, then #3, ....finishing with the last backup tape made. > If you have been doing this for three years, you have 1000 tapes > to restore. Not if he was using GFS. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Eeyore on 26 Feb 2007 20:26 MassiveProng wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > Software increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities. > > > Bwuahahahahah! How profound! > > The last time you were synergistic was the last time you lit one of > your farts. Do girls do that ? Graham
From: Phil Carmody on 26 Feb 2007 20:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > Again, I think you are confused about swapping. The OS only needs > to swap if it has to temporarily delete contents of memory whose > bit settings have to be restored exactly as they were. Dancing that perverse line between wrong and meaningless - yes, it's another BAH post! Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 23:25
In article <erulrt$8qk_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ersiq6$ui3$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ers3rf$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <erpov3$c02$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[.....] >>>>You are assuming that I don't know about things I don't care about this is >>>>a serious error on your part. I know that there are many people out there >>>>who have not yet seen the light and still run Windows. I know that these >>>>people are doomed to lose valuable data at some time in the future. I >>>>know that fixing this will require some software that gets around things >>>>Windows does. I don't run Windows. I run Linux. As a result, I want to >>>>back up my data on a Linux box. I also want to protect my self from the >>>>bad effects of Windows losing data on someone else's machine. This is why >>>>I raise the issue. >>> >>>And you keep assuming, erroneously, that this type of usage is the >>>majority of computing in the world. It is not. >> >>Yes, it is. Look at how many homes have PCs in them today. This is the >>big market for computers today. It massively out weights the business >>usage. > >Now go read an annual report from Intel. PCs are not their highest >income producer. Controllers are. Where in the anual report? I can't find any such statement in there. >>> I am trying to >>>talk about the day when everybody has to have a computer to do any >>>financial transactions. >> >>You are changing the subject to the future. > >It is the very near future. > >> In fact your transactions do >>require a computer. It is the one at the bank and not yours however. > >You are missing the latest improvement. It is no longer the banks' >computers but the payees' computers. The money is still in your account until your bank agrees it isn't. Fraud from the other end can happen electronically or physically. All that is happening is the risks are moving into the electronic world. [....] >>You are attempting to get out of discussing an issue because you know that >>you have already made enough errors in the area to discredit everything >>you say. You claim a lot of knowledge. Your knowledge is from a very >>narrow base. You also claim to have spent "man years" this doesn't mean >>you got it right or even that you know anything. It just means you spent >>a lot of time. > >The stuff we shipped to customers that have been used for decades >must have something right about it or it wouldn't have been installed. Lots of copies of Windows got installed too. Your code only needs to be no worse than the other's to get used. [....] >>It does the restore. The repair is another issue. Putting the system >>back as it was in the first step. > >This stategy does not deal with the problem if the problem has >been saved on that tape. This is the "restore" process. It is not the "repair" process. They are two different things. >>No, I don't. You have confused doing a repair with doing a restore. The >>restore method I suggested is correct. If you now want to discuss the new >>topic of repair, then we can begin that topic. > >In most cases that I have observed, the repair and restore were >connected. They may both need to be done but they are two different subjects. You need to be able to get from the broken system to the situation as it should be. You may be able to do this without doing a restore if redundent information exists. If you can't do that, the first step is usually to step back in time to where the problem hadn't happened yet. You can then step forwards repeating the transactions. [....] >>I doubt that it has become seriously more complex. The issues all existed >>at that time. The amount of data is all that has increased not the >>complexity of the question. > >It is severely more complex. Just the requirements to do the >arithmetic could fill volumes. How exactly did it become more complex? All the issues that exist today existed in the past. There may be a lot more data to deal with but the same situations still come up. [....] >>Yes, muliple copies of the data in one form or another is what you need. >>The information must be stored more than once if you expect to be able to >>put back the data that has been lost. There is no way around this. Error >>correcting codes are just ways of storing the information more than once >>so even the storage systems and modern RAM chips do this. > >This strategy cannot work in global finance. A good example of >an early attempt to solve these kinds of problems is something >called SABRE(sp?) which was an airline scheduling program that >ran on IBM machines. You are simply wrong in this. You must have another source of information to make the correction. If you don't have a source of information to make the corrections with, it is completely imposible to make the corrections. There are no if ands or buts about it. >>>Most people don't have enough money to maintain multiple accounts. >> >>Most people can do it. You don't need to put a lot of money into a bank >>to have an account there. > >You have to put a lot money in each account if you don't want >to hand over your paltry amounts to the bank in fees. People >like my parents simply do not have the luxury of lots of cash >on the asset list. They are likely overe 55 they should change banks. [....] >>It protects against the mere failure of the bank's computer. This can >>strand you. > >This is not a solution for people who do not have enough money >to spread around. I agree it isn't but there is nothing else you can trust to solve the problem. >>It solves the problem of failure. Evil activity is solved by checking the >>balances etc. There are two problems that must be covered. You ignore >>one and don't assume I've already thought of how to solve the other. > >There are lots of problems and you aren't even aware of most of them. Name 2! -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |