Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 10:39 In article <eshd16$l1t$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esh1sr$8qk_007(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.... me ....] >>>So now you go back to "never". Which is it? >> >>I wish you would think and read at the same time. >>I'm getting weary of this word game you keep resorting >>to when I've made a point. > >The simple fact is that you haven't made a point. You think that just >because you have written words that this performs some magical operation >out in space that you see as "making a point". You at least should >require that the words form a logical argument on the topic under >discussion before you claim that they "make a point". This is impossible to do since you require illogical statements which always agree with you. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 10:41 In article <eshbnr$l1t$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esh15o$8qk_003(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <874pp16r7c.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> Has controller functionality moved into all disk drives? That >>>> sorta sucks. ....Do these disk drives have multi ports? >>> >>>Ever since IDE was invented, and before that too. >>>You're several decades behind the rest of the world. >> >>From your sentence, I must conclude that you are saying >>all disk drives are IDE? > >For a while it could be said that a high enough percentage was that if >someone said disk drive you could assume IDE. SCSI was the next most >common but not nearly as common. These terms were common in the PC world. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 10:48 In article <eshcs5$l1t$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eshaf7$8ss_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>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. > >A checksum isn't the best way to do it if but assuming a checksum is used, >the problem of the checksum including its self was solved years ago. No, it wasn't. Not with the spec I had. Remember that the directory of the tape had to be the first file on that tape. I had to build the tape on our inhouse systems. It would have been easier to append the directory but that's not what the customer needed. > >Hint: what do write you when you haven't done the checksum yet? What do >you write after you have done it. The medium was magtapes. They are not random access writable media. >On machines that do ones compliment math the checksum is a slightly better >check. Cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is not subject to the problems a >simple check sum is. I'm not talking about the heuristic that created the checksum. I always used the one implemented in our DIRECT program. I'm talking about storing a file whose contents changes with each previous save. Remeber that a checksummed directory of the tape also has to include the file that contains the checksummed directory of the tape. > >One an NRZ tape, a small defect can damage two bytes in a row. This >damage can cause the checksum to come out the same in an alarmingly high >percentage of the cases. The parity usually warns you but even it can be >fooled. > >With CRC, the same trick as is used in checksums can be done. It usually >involves a table look up to do however. YOu are making thing too complicated. This was a problem you cannot solve with technology. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 11:01 In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >[....] >>Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh >>MassivelyWrong one. > >I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of >error but there is a point that I would like to make here. > >Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we >called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the >electronics used related to disk drives today. And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. > >Today, there is a lot more electronics included in the term "controller" >mostly because we didn't create a new term to cover the new stuff. The >bulk of work of the controller of old is now done by the disk drive but >mother board chip set now has a bunch of this new work to do. The IDE was >the point where the mother board electronics was the simplest. > >I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on >this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part, >I will retract it immediately. The term for this paragraph is "disclaimer". /BAH
From: krw on 5 Mar 2007 14:59
In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [....] > >Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh > >MassivelyWrong one. > > I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of > error but there is a point that I would like to make here. > > Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we > called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the > electronics used related to disk drives today. > > Today, there is a lot more electronics included in the term "controller" > mostly because we didn't create a new term to cover the new stuff. The > bulk of work of the controller of old is now done by the disk drive but > mother board chip set now has a bunch of this new work to do. The IDE was > the point where the mother board electronics was the simplest. True, but such "simplicity" doesn't last. As I indicated in an earlier article, the original IDE "interface" was a simple LS244 buffer (could have been '240) off the AT bus. The IDE "port" is a controller now. There is a lot of smarts in a modern ATA controller (both parallel and serial). > I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on > this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part, > I will retract it immediately. MassivelyWrong needs to retract his head from his hindquarters. -- Keith |