Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Mar 2007 06:16 In article <90cd3$45f42b40$4fe74eb$3027(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <et0nu2$8qk_001(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <esuq2s$ds3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater >>>>voltage on tubes. >>> >>>Now think about that over time. >> >> >> Suddenly, you are arguing exactly my case and agreeing with me but putting >> the above as a preface to it. This is a very strange thing for you to be >> doing. I was the one arguing that a lot of choice are the result of >> considerations that appeared trivial or near coin tosses at the time that >> ended up having a large effect later. I used the 5V logic case because I >> thought it was an obvious and well known example. From the fact that I >> got an argument on it, I see that it is less well known than I thought. > >There are lots of well believed urban legends. You have noted that he stripped my post to make it appear that I was agreeing with his factoid. I was talking about something completely different. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Mar 2007 06:18 In article <et18sk$ki3$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <et0nu2$8qk_001(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esuq2s$ds3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater >>>voltage on tubes. >> >>Now think about that over time. > >Suddenly, you are arguing exactly my case and agreeing with me but putting >the above as a preface to it. I wasn't agreeing to anything. By stripping the post to make it appear that I was talking about a 5V factoid is blatant intellectual dishonesty. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Mar 2007 06:20 In article <et1957$ki3$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <et0oi0$8qk_003(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esuqfn$ds3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>No, you are making the same mistake over and over. As I stated before, if >>>you know what you are going to put into TAPE.DIR, you can make its >>>checksum correct. No editing of a magnetic tape was needed by the method. >> >>Then that TAPE.DIR was not made by taking a directory of the >>tape. That was not the purpose of the file. If I had to do >>it the way you suggested, I wouldn't put the file on the tape >>since it would be a waste of tape space. > >So now you are suddenly changing your story and saying that editing of the >tape was done. There was no tape editing done. > You really need to go back and reread what I've suggested. >I have pointed out that you could have gotten the correct checksum if you >had just thought for a minute. It is impossible. > >[....] >>>I have tried to explain how but you just don't seem to be able to >>>understand the issue. >> >>It is you who do not understand the purpose of the file. It is >>made by taking a physical directory of the magtape and never >>touched by human hands. The last was THE requirement. > >I never suggested that the directory had to be touched by human hands. >You have made claims of being a developer. If you retract that claim then >perhaps we can say that you did the best you could do. If you don't >retract, you then have to admit that you could have shipped correct tapes >but didn't. I shipped correct tapes. I never allowed corrected tapes to be shipped. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Mar 2007 06:28 In article <et1a4q$ki3$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <et0qsp$8qk_002(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esurfc$ds3$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <esu74a$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <esrtcj$qj4$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>In other words, you wrote the TAPE.DIR after all the other files were >>>>>written. This means you had to write a file of that size and then the >>>>>data and then open TAPE.DIR for writing. >>>>> >>>>>If this is what you did then my method of putting a correct checksum still >>>>>works. If you wrote the TAPE.DIR before the other files and never changed >>>>>it, my method still works. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[....] >>>>>>Anybody who has done any grocery shopping would know the difference >>>>>>between the two. Just because dog food is on your shopping list >>>>>>never guarantees that dog food will be in your car when you get home. >>>>>>The only listing that shows you were successful in putting >>>>>>dog food in the shopping cart is the cash register receipt. >>>>> >>>>>Does this mean you wrote TAPE.DIR after the other files were all written? >>>> >>>>Yes. TAPE.DIR was created after the files were written to the tape. >>>>That is how you get a directory listing of the tape onto the tape. >>>> >>>>The first cut of the tape had a zero block TAPE.DIR for a place holder >>>>on the tape. Then a DIRECT DSK:TAPE.DIR=TAPE:/CHECKSUM was done. >>>>Then another save was done; this time TAPE.DIR that was on the >>>>tape contained a checksummed directory of the tape. >>> >>>In other words, you "editted" the tape. >> >>No. > >How yes you did. You did exactly the action called editing when speaking >of a tape. We don't call saving a saveset editing. > > >> >>> You wrote one file and then wrote >>>something different in its place. >> >>No. I wrote the whole save set. In magtape terms, the saveset >>was the file on the tape. > >Now what the heck are you claiming? I'm still talking about the same thing. > >>I know you've explained ad nauseum. You keep ignoring the point >>of the file. IOW, you implemented something that wasn't in the spec. >>In fact, your implementation is 100% contrary to the spec. > >You seem to keep not being able to understand it, or the spec said "do it >wrong". Kid, I wrote the spec. I know what the goals were; I know what was possible and what wasn't possible. > > >[....] >>>As I explained, the claim that it can't be correct it wrong. The method I >>>explained makes it correct. There is no problem. >> >>But you don't fulfill the requirement that the file is a >>directory of the tape, untouched by editing hands. > >Yes, I do. At least if you are as you claimed earlier in the development >team. Go do the exercise. You will see you cannot put a checksummed directory of the tape onto the tape and have the checksum of TAPE.DIR match the checksum of TAPE.DIR that is listed in TAPE.DIR. > > >[....] >>>You don't seem to be able to understand the idea so yes, I guess you would >>>punt the idea. leaving the tape incorrect and your customers at an extra >>>risk. >> >>Nobody assembled the file called TAPE.DIR. It listed the files >>that were on the tape when we made the master. > >You earlier stated a command you typed to make the file. Are you a >noone?????? Then that file was saved along with all the other files onto the tape. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Mar 2007 06:30
In article <et15r5$h35$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. That would be a cheap and dangerous configuration. /BAH |