Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 6 Mar 2007 07:45 On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:42:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your >>>descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. >> >> >> More proof that you are clueless. > >I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go >when the only way people can do their finances is via >computers systems installed in their abodes. > ] More proof that you know nothing about the industry, much less where it is headed.
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 07:49 In article <gmlpu25b3tfs69secilf7ppjvsbm0ph0s5(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:42:26 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <lm7mu25skv8pnpoi3pmfjcgird3dep2dce(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:44:51 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>BTW, I had to agree to allow my employer to reach into my account to >>>>pull money out before I could get direct deposit. At least there is >>>>some protection there, but this will become the general case. >>> >>> >>> Bullshit. The mechanism by which employers begin direct deposits >>>differs from employer to employer and from payroll agency to payroll >>>agency. >>> >>> You could be a bit more clueless, just not in this life. >> >>All a despositor has to do is negate the number and shwoosh! >>you have a negative balance and no money. > > > You're an absolute retard. > > You should check into an alzheimer's care clinic. Why? The water payment software of my town cannot handle negative numbers. The agreement I had to sign that allowed Social Security to deposit to my bank account has wording that allows a withdrawal (IOW a negative number). Put on that programming cap you think you own and read the fine print. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 07:57 In article <esikk3$9en$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. Sure. But you are missing the requirement that the DIR file was a checksummed directory of the _tape_, not of the contents of the tape before it was saved. > If so this is falling off a log simple. I am aware of that one. This was a directory of the tape, not the files of the disk before they were copied to the tape. > 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. You are not solving the problem I was talking about. >>>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. You are talking about checksumming the files on the disk. That was not the purpose of the directory file. This directory file had to be done on the tape. > > > >>>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. No, it is a problem that cannot be solved. > >[....] >>>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. It was not solved by other; it is impossible to do. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 08:03 In article <ieoqu2d4uvu74k80s9ai2s57c3b8a9ibfr(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> The consensus of bit gods is that both sides >>are wrong. So why should I use Wikipedia for a reference of >>definitions when I know they are wrong and are not likely to >>be corrected anytime soon, if at all. > > > You're an idiot, and neither are you a bit god, I have never claimed to be one. > nor are anyone you >have given this title to. Obviously. The systems and comm you are using were partly or mostly created by people I worked with. One even lived in my house. I know a bit god when I see one. /BAH
From: nonsense on 6 Mar 2007 08:59
MassiveProng wrote: > 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. Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is. > 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. Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is. > 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. Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is. |