Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Mar 2007 07:33 In article <6b713$45eeac9c$4fe77f4$13950(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <esij9m$9en$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <eshesp$8qk_004(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <eshe15$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. >>>>> >>>>>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. >> >> >> Speed is uninteresting if you don't have a way to get the >> bits from here to there. :-) Having more than one path >> allows the system to keep functioning even if one of the >> pathways breaks. > >Ah yes, redundancy means something different to us than >it does to the Brits. Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says "Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one superstitious. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Mar 2007 07:37 In article <158be$45eead75$4fe77f4$13972(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <63ec8$45ed7ba8$4fe701c$6223(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>It is an advance not unlike many before this. >> >> >> It is a dangerous advance if no thinking is done. There >> isn't much thinking going on. We certainly are not >> breeding people capable of thinking about both things: >> computer systems and banking. > >History teaches us that we are, unfortunately, reactive >instead of being pro-active when it comes to these things. You don't have to tell me about this one. Mess prevention is done by only a few. I don't think it is in the hardware of 99.9% people to be able to think about all consequences of any action or inaction. This thread is a very good example. >The "think" signs should have been "think ahead" signs. Such as "think ahe a d" /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 7 Mar 2007 08:06 On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball >any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says >"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one >superstitious. > We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where have you been?
From: krw on 7 Mar 2007 09:27 In article <pn3su29ue4de7i91aeemgi225h2b2go3lb(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:09:04 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > > >Dimbulb, SATA drives are one per cable. There is no Master/Slave, > >nor Cable Select (what you're attempting simper on about). > > > I meant UDMA. You know, that method you swore was controlled at the > motherboard. Then say what you mean, Dimbulb. It's already hard enough to follow your twisted logic and four-letter words to find anything worth reading, without guessing what you're talking about. > > Just so you know, the SERIAL ATA interface is ALSO tertiary to the > PCI bus. Not necessarily (either ATA or SATA). -- Keith
From: krw on 7 Mar 2007 09:30
In article <f5etu2huta97pm9kqgu8d2g4tehvemr00h(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Wed, 07 Mar 07 12:33:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >Our OS philosophy used all available pathways and never mothball > >any of them. It is still a computer system truth that says > >"Use or lose it." This aspect of gear sure can make one > >superstitious. > > > > We are approaching reliable, secure 10Gb/second networks now... where > have you been? > Speed is and reliability are orthogonal, Dimbulb. "Reliability" is always a relative term. -- Keith |