Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Mar 2007 09:03 In article <esuppf$ds3$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esu5ct$8ss_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esrqvn$n5i$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <esrg7f$8ss_001(a)s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <2v91v2pjpp3qdcn8mv70t5rk21t7g1oeem(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>On Thu, 08 Mar 07 11:48:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>As I said above, our OS philosophy was to provide multiple pathways. >>>>>>Multiple pathways...do you understand what that means? So why >>>>>>are you demeaning the OS philosophy with an argument about networks? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Networking is a MAJOR part of a modern OS, dingledorf. >>>> >>>>It shouldn't be. Routing should be kept off user machines. >>> >>>If more effective ways of breaking up the routing problem were found, >>>routing could be spread across the user machines. >> >>Why? Most user machines are used essentially as end nodes, especially >>the systems used as a TTY hosted into an ISP. These should never >>be doing routing. Contention and pathway changes are too high >>and would be a waste of overall routing CPU time to deal with. > >You have only stated the current situation and not what it could be in the >future. > >In my house there is a network that links two fast machines. These are >linked to the internet by a single high speed pathway. At some future >time, my house may have more than one path to the rest of the world. When >the city puts in its 802.11 system, it will start to make sense for my >computer to start to choose between the two paths for my packets. This >puts routing inside my house. Sure. If you have an sense of self-preservation, your router is going to be seperated from your user machines. All homes will have their own server which will not be on the same hardware as their data. > > >> >>> With the current >>>situation, I agree with you that it needs to be kept on a special box just >>>for that purpose. >> >>It's easier to fire wall also. > >The way things are evolving, the server/router/firewall will be just a >Linux box running software. Yup. I know a bit god who is exploring methods with a goal of 100% cracker-proof using the least amount of power: both man and electric. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 11 Mar 2007 11:05 In article <et0umt$8qk_018(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <esuppf$ds3$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [.....] >>In my house there is a network that links two fast machines. These are >>linked to the internet by a single high speed pathway. At some future >>time, my house may have more than one path to the rest of the world. When >>the city puts in its 802.11 system, it will start to make sense for my >>computer to start to choose between the two paths for my packets. This >>puts routing inside my house. > >Sure. If you have an sense of self-preservation, your router is >going to be seperated from your user machines. All homes >will have their own server which will not be on the same hardware >as their data. I doubt this is where it will end up. The router software will just be another task in the home machine. The code for doing rounting doesn't put the user's data at risk. The firewall is the place where the danger is if at all. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Mar 2007 11:08 In article <45F38D27.F4D71457(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > >> There's no good reason to have selected 5 volts as opposed >> to 6 volts, or for that matter, 8 volts. > >Utter nonsense. > >The IC process used for TTL has a breakdown voltage of around 7 volts. >The supply >voltage has to be less than that. The EB breakdown is lower than that. This is why unused inputs that needed to be held high sometimes weren't tied to Vcc. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Mar 2007 11:57 In article <et0nu2$8qk_001(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <esuq2s$ds3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater >>voltage on tubes. > >Now think about that over time. Suddenly, you are arguing exactly my case and agreeing with me but putting the above as a preface to it. This is a very strange thing for you to be doing. I was the one arguing that a lot of choice are the result of considerations that appeared trivial or near coin tosses at the time that ended up having a large effect later. I used the 5V logic case because I thought it was an obvious and well known example. From the fact that I got an argument on it, I see that it is less well known than I thought. > The constraint was 5V so choices >made from one development project to the next had to include >the old choices. Most projects had to think about backwards >compatibility and the parts and power that was available at the >time of planning. Then implementation was also determined by >the parts and resources available at the time of the implementation. >You can't make something that depends on a foobar existing at >the time of production. There is also the requirement that there >will be enough of the foobars so manufacturing the item >won't be held up. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Mar 2007 12:01
In article <et0oi0$8qk_003(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <esuqfn$ds3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>No, you are making the same mistake over and over. As I stated before, if >>you know what you are going to put into TAPE.DIR, you can make its >>checksum correct. No editing of a magnetic tape was needed by the method. > >Then that TAPE.DIR was not made by taking a directory of the >tape. That was not the purpose of the file. If I had to do >it the way you suggested, I wouldn't put the file on the tape >since it would be a waste of tape space. So now you are suddenly changing your story and saying that editing of the tape was done. You really need to go back and reread what I've suggested. I have pointed out that you could have gotten the correct checksum if you had just thought for a minute. [....] >>I have tried to explain how but you just don't seem to be able to >>understand the issue. > >It is you who do not understand the purpose of the file. It is >made by taking a physical directory of the magtape and never >touched by human hands. The last was THE requirement. I never suggested that the directory had to be touched by human hands. You have made claims of being a developer. If you retract that claim then perhaps we can say that you did the best you could do. If you don't retract, you then have to admit that you could have shipped correct tapes but didn't. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |