Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:27 On 05 Mar 2007 13:05:11 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >> In article <9ldku21o58531j21nnipbg2qorbqtc71li(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... >> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:38:29 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >> > >> > >If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling >> > >controllers. >> > >> > >> > IDE controllers are ALL ON THE DRIVE. >> >> Clueless. >> >> > The part on the MOBO is called an I/O interface, NOT a drive >> > controller. >> >> You couldn't be more clueless, Dumbulb. > >Actually, he's right. > >What's on the mobo is the bus controller. Once it's pumped onto >that bus it doesn't matter what device is at the far end. >Sure, it's most likely to be a physical IDE hard disk drive, >but to the motherboard it's just a black box. > >Are you confusing IDE drivers with IDE controllers? IDE drivers >are the things that need to know what commands are to be written >onto the IDE bus. They aren't drive controllers though. > Proven even moreso by the fact that today's SATA drives REQUIRE that the master be on the end of the cable when both drives are present on that channel. That master's Integrated Drive Electronics is the drive controller. I do have some confusion, however, regarding the fact that an optical storage/read drive does not require being set master or slave, and will work on a channel without a master. I believe it sits on the IDE I/O channel, and accepts (through a driver) some standard subset of I/O commands, which are now supported in hardware at/on the IDE I/O chip.
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 21:37 In article <MPG.20564083e805e7a098a06e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net [....] >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). "a simple" is not correct. "a small integer number of simple" would make the above correct. The IDE bus needs to push data both directions. The early versions when hooked to a 386, required that I/O instructions be spaced out in time. There was a problem with the chip select remaining true. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 21:45 In article <eshe41$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eshcs5$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. Yes, it was. > Not with the spec I had. Remember that the >directory of the tape had to be the first file on that tape. No problem. Was the contents you intended to put in the directory known before you started to write. If so this is falling off a log simple. If not, you have to know a little about tape drives to do it. >I had to build the tape on our inhouse systems. Did these systems not do things that normal mag tap can and didn't you have to option of looking at what you intend to put on the tape? > It would >have been easier to append the directory but that's not what >the customer needed. I didn't say you had to. > > >> >>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. Think about the questions. I gave you a huge hint as to how to do it. >>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. A "checksum" is not usually a CRC. >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. Like I said solved years ago. [....] >>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. It seems not by you. I didn't solve it. It was solved by others while I was still learning about the subject. It isn't all that hard. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:46 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:16:22 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <3e6mu2tth78co1kfsatf1lefssf7865l6f(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:35:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>> >>>Yes,yes. Is this hardware or software? Note, for the purposes >>>of this discussion, firmware is soft. Oh, and exclude optical-- >>>I don't understand that stuff. >> >> Bwuahahahahahah! >> >> So, you have no clue as to why logical block addressing was even >>introduced? >> >> You scream "knows nothing" with your every post! >> >> Tell us... how many times, while you were "at the library" did you >>ever visit the "wikipedea" page? Your answer will be quite revealing. > >No times. Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be correct. Most of >the stuff we learned not to do has never been documented. Bwuahahahahahah! You should have qualified that as: "A small percentage of wikipedia entries cannot be trusted as being correct." The one thing you should have learned not to do, whether documented or not, is act like you know something which you do not. That is where you are in most of the discussions in this thread.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 21:48
On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:21:23 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <d87d5$45eac8ae$4fe73ef$20995(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <48cku2dg872ekdnpgtu6u9phbndvhu92oo(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:03:35 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This is what happens when you free the serfs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best >>>>>>>>use of those other fluids. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site >>>>>>>or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try >>>>>>>to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something! >>>>>> >>>>>>Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet >>>>>>skills. >>>>> >>>>>It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the >>>>>maternal kind. >>>> >>>> More immature petty baby bullshit. You have succeeded in letting >>>>the Unlearned Tard drag you down to its level. Congratulations. >>> >>> >>> Your congratualtions are premature. I have yet to achieve his level >>> of thinking ability. It's a fine goal. >> >>Thank you. However IMO we're merely displaced on the >>same plateau. > >[blushing emoticon bows] And it's uphill both ways :-). > When you are at the bottom of a mid-oceanic trench, like you are, it usually is. |