Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 5 Mar 2007 08:45 Big Bertha Thing electron Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/electron.html Access page JPG 53K Image Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including soc.history.what-if Round photographic plates. Caption;- Showing a track left by a cosmic ray electron, in a magnetic field of 12,000 oersteds. The energy of this electron is 8 MeV, very low for a cosmic ray, but much higher than that of any electron ever ejected, by a gamma ray from a natural radioactive substance. From a book by J.D.Stranathan Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Chairman of Department, University of Kansas. The "Particles" of Modern Physics. (C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942 Big Bertha Thing noah When its raining cats, dogs, kitchen sinks, the lot. The time to start worrying is when you see a guy building an ark. Pastures is mathematical ark, to negotiate a sea of numbers, with Outlandish PPT by Structure, as the first of many rainbows. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997. To comply with my copyright, please distribute complete copies, free of charge. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk From: Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem Subject: Re: Big Bertha Thing mayor Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:23:16 +0000 17 February 1998 19:47:02 Message From: Tony Lance Subject: Group and Pip To: group Cc: Philip Sims gary.s Cresswell I keep hearing people disavowing membership of the group. All group members, except those in First Aid Tent, were volunteers who have not resigned. Everyone, including First Aid Tent members, have never dissented to group postings till now. The only unexplained event is membership of the First Aid Tent. Big Bertha Thing pip Guilty as charged. I should not have done any of the following;- 1. defended you in the mods conf. 2. given you an invitation, when the dogs were at the door. 3. offered a refuge for the explosion survivors. 4. ticked off the mods. 5. put your name up in lights on OUSA Astronomy and Astronomy and Space. 6. Put back the release of my software package, just because of the troubles. Personally I would take me out and shoot me, there is no punishment too bad for any mod, who gets even one complaint. We should be above reproach, like Caesers' wife. I will of course remove the words 'Extract to explain the project to Philip Sims' from all further postings. Please accept my appologies for all the bad things I did before your elevation to mod. I only pick on little people. Thank you, Tony Lance End of Big Bertha Thing pip
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 08:39 In article <eseufl$o8u$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <87zm6t5c5o.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >[....] >>> You are telling the developers that they are wrong?!! >> >>He's telling you you're wrong. I don't believe you could develop >>anything more complex than gout. > >Lots of very complex but wrong software has been developed. This was written by a person who used the products we sold. You can't have it both ways, hon. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 09:45 In article <7a43a$45ec1801$4fe7193$29320(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <ro5mu25t5k632vamea8fgrhot2q21do65k(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:24:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>> >>>>That is not a bit by bit compare. >>> >>> For the most part, yes it is as there cannot be one bit out of place >>>and yield the same checksum, AND the exact bits that would have to be >>>off in order to yield the same checksum put the likelihood at about 10 >>>to the 17th power to one odds against. >> >> >> Checksumming is useful. It is not a bit by bit compare. The only >> way to guarantee that your save matches the disk copy is to go >> back and read the file from the tape and compare the input >> with the disk copy using the same criteria. This is a bit by >> bit compare. There is a very small window of error possibility >> between a >> >> MOVE A,TAPE WORD >> MOVE B,DISK WORK >> CAME A,B >> JRST [REPORT ERROR] >> JRST .-4 ; READ NEXT WORD PAIR. >> >> >>> So, you were also unaware that checksums are the de facto standard >>>in the industry? How telling. >> >> >> Checksumming is not a bit by bit compare. This sentence does not >> say that 'checksumming never happens and isn't useful'. >> >>> Entire CD and DVD and soon HD DVD images are verified in this >>>manner. Has been done for decades without a miss. >> >> >> Are you familiar with the term GIGO? >> >>> What happened to you? Why have you "missed" the rest of the world? >> >> >> Checksumming, used in the way you describe, is a shortcut; a bit by >> bit compare take twice as long. > >Bit by bit compare is the gold standard. It is the only standard when you are cutting the master distribution tape. I designed our procedures so that a checksummed directory of the tape was the first file on the tape. That way a customer could tell if one of the famous cosmic rays shot their distribution tape. And that was a PITA because a checksummed directory of the tape was never precisely accurate because the checksum of the first file (the checksummed directory of itself) always changed :-). It was one of those neat CATCH-22 problems that I liked to think about. It reminded me of those three-way mirrors in the clothing store's dressing rooms. It was turtles all the way down. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 09:48 In article <esc95d$atc$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esc02o$8qk_001(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <es9g64$q95$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[.... intel ....] >>>>>I still can't find it. I searched the PDF version of the report for word >>>>>"division" and nothing like that came up. Do you have a page number? >>>> >>>>You have to read the whole report and then compare the different >>>>product areas. >>> >>>I have read the damn thing. Now tell me where these number are. >> >>You'll have to wait for this answer. Last year's had separate >>sections discussing the PC biz and the embedded controller biz. >>The embedded piece took in a lot more money but I don't recall >>the percentage. I do recall it was significant. > >I think you are misrembering it. That is possible but not likely because I remember being very surprised. I also thought PCs brought them more money. <snip complete abject determination to read all as 100% wrong> /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 10:03
In article <esh6in$8qk_002(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eseufl$o8u$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <87zm6t5c5o.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>[....] >>>> You are telling the developers that they are wrong?!! >>> >>>He's telling you you're wrong. I don't believe you could develop >>>anything more complex than gout. >> >>Lots of very complex but wrong software has been developed. > >This was written by a person who used the products we sold. > >You can't have it both ways, hon. I have also used Windows. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |