From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 23:30 In article <erui5d$8ss_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ersfac$ui3$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ers25a$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <erpp2s$c02$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[......] >>>>>>If a CPU chip needs 1 hour to do a an add instruction, you can't make it >>>>>>go faster by anything you code. Like I said it sets the upper limit on >>>>>>the performance. >>>>> >>>>>Sigh! If an ADD takes an hour and the computation has to be done >>>>>in less time, then you don't use the ADD instruction. You do >>>>>the addition by hand. >>>> >>>>In other words: You need another CPU to do the operation. >>> >>>Not at all. You can arithmetic by hand. >> >>You will say anything to avoid admitting that you missed the point when I >>said that the hardware is what sets the upper limit on the performance. > >I am addressing your comment. No, you suggested that the hardware did not set the limit on performance. You were wrong in this. >>..... and that set a limit on the performance didn't it. > >No. The architecture could not do arithmetic. Software >increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities. No, it bloody didn't. That hardware merely did not have an add instruction. It could look up values in tables to get the answer. The length of time to do this was finite. The hardware sets the limit on the performance. A PDP-8 couldn't subtract. An 8080 didn't have a multiply. A 1802 can't do a sqrt(). All of these I have coded. None of that made the limiting factor the software. In every case the hardware is the limiting factor. > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Feb 2007 23:37 In article <MPG.204cd75ceff51c5d98a004(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eruumf$vf3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... >> In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> > >> >> So far, I haven't been >> >> able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will >> >> be able to use. >> > >> >How about PayPal, or the equivalent? >> >> No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a >> million years. >> >I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why? There are lots of uninformed reasons and one big real one. They gain the power to lock up your money in case of a dispute. It isn't some third party that holds the cash until the matter is settled. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Feb 2007 03:53 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <eruk81$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [.....] > >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped > >traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the > >piece of paper you sent to him; > > No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking > them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he > can't cash it again. I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field she /can/ make a correct statement in. Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s, (more securely even then than how the US or UK does it presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even seen a chequebook. 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 27 Feb 2007 04:03 Phil Carmody wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped > > >traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the > > >piece of paper you sent to him; > > > > No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking > > them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he > > can't cash it again. > > I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This > subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field > she /can/ make a correct statement in. > > Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I > don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s, > (more securely even then than how the US or UK does it > presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even > seen a chequebook. Really ? I recently(ish) opened a new account here in the UK and automatically got traditional cheque and paying in books. Graham
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Feb 2007 04:05
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >[......] > >>>This is what I have been trying to explain to you about the hardware > >>>setting the upper limit on performance. > >> > >>Sigh! The IBM 1620 had no arithmetic instructions. Arithmetic > >>was done "by hand" by looking up table entries. > > > >..... and that set a limit on the performance didn't it. > > No. The architecture could not do arithmetic. Software > increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities. I see it's not just words related to technology, or economics, that you redefine wildly, but in fact almost any word you chose. I see today that you have decided that "capabilities" will mean something entirely different from, and contradictory to, the meaning understood by the whole English speaking world. Maybe I'm being too generous about your own capabilities, I'm not entirely sure you're sentient enough to actually physically /chose/ which words you will use incorrectly, I think it just happens. 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./. |