Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 6 Mar 2007 09:42 MassiveProng wrote: > 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. Don't wonder why you stand alone in these discussions lacking any admiration for your efforts.
From: nonsense on 6 Mar 2007 09:56 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > [....] > >>>>Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this. >>> >>> >>>This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because >>>the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware >>>pathways was the trade off. >> >>Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism >>hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however. > > > Not what BAH is refering to isn't. The change she is disagreeing with > didn't start with any ability to do operations between drives without the > CPU getting involved. The disk drive controller electronics was shared > between two drives but only one drive could operate at a time. > > It is posible that she has confused the disk drive controller with a > thing called a channel controller that was a topic in earlier discussion. Seems to me she's delving into theory while you're stuck in "hardware as it is now" arguments. She's learning from you, possibly not in ways you can relate to.
From: Ken Smith on 6 Mar 2007 10:00 In article <esjofk$8qk_001(a)s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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 you know what you intend to write onto the tape, figure out what the checksum will be and then write the tape as you intend there is no extra effort needed. > >> 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 you intend to put the files onto the tape and can do so you can also figure out what the directory should look like before hand. This is so simple that it doesn't need further discussion. The issue of what to do if you can't be sure about how much will really fit onto the tape is worthy of further discussion if you want to know how to solve that one. [....] >You are not solving the problem I was talking about. I didn't solve it. It was solved by others long long ago. You can't see the solution without further help so I will include that help below. >>>>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. Did you control what was written onto the tape or did some random generator determine it. If you controlled what went onto the tape, you knew before you wrote the first byte what all the bytes were going to be so the figuring out of the checksum was not really a problem. The problem is that you couldn't see how to make the checksum correct when the file that contained the checksum had to be included in the checksum. A checksum is a simple sum where carried out of th etop of the word are discarded. For this reason you can take advantage of the observation that: A+B+C+D+E+F+G+0+0 == A+B+C+D+E+F+G+(-H)+H The checksum is not changed if two changes that cancel each other are made. With binary data it is very easy to implement this by simply writing the values. If you need work in ASCII doing the (-H) part is only slightly trickier. Before: *Please ignore this line: ZZZZ The checksum is = 0000 After: *Please ignore this line: ZXYZ The checksum is = 0210 See how the compensating change means that we can figure out a checksum and then put it in without changing the very thing we just calculated. Your problem was solved years ago. Doing the same on CRC based checking requires a more complex routine for doing the compensating change but the method still works. Some people even came up with cute ways to hide the compensating changes so that it wouldn't look like anything funny was being done. >>>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. See above. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Mar 2007 10:06 In article <2f35c$45ed811d$4fe701c$6345(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: [.....] >> Not what BAH is refering to isn't. The change she is disagreeing with >> didn't start with any ability to do operations between drives without the >> CPU getting involved. The disk drive controller electronics was shared >> between two drives but only one drive could operate at a time. >> >> It is posible that she has confused the disk drive controller with a >> thing called a channel controller that was a topic in earlier discussion. > >Seems to me she's delving into theory while you're stuck >in "hardware as it is now" arguments. I think you need new glasses. She is speaking of theory that was old when we were young. She has gone part way towards noticing that a round thing will roll even if you attach to a shaft at its center point. In a another few weeks whe will have a wheel. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: krw on 6 Mar 2007 10:09
In article <14kpu2t3mskaebbmbhuhkvg7fiei5pujir(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > 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. Dimbulb, SATA drives are one per cable. There is no Master/Slave, nor Cable Select (what you're attempting simper on about). > 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. Some do, some don't. Of course you're confused. When haven't you been? > 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. > Can you say ATAPI, MassivelyWrong? -- Keith |