Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 12 Mar 2007 10:38 In article <et39an$8ss_001(a)s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <90cd3$45f42b40$4fe74eb$3027(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: [......] >>>>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. I did nothing of the sort. I just took the only part of your post that said something interesting on the topic and pointed out that you weren't saying anything that contradicted me. > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Mar 2007 10:42 In article <et39ee$8ss_002(a)s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <et18sk$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. No, it was nothing of the sort. It was taking a section of what you said without changing its meaning and pointing out that you had said "now think about" in front of statements by you that agreed what what I had earlier said. You followed this with some other stuff that was so old hat it didn't need a reply. We have beaten to death the topic of being compatible with the installed base. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Mar 2007 10:50 In article <et39hp$8ss_003(a)s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <et1957$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. In that case. The tape had to be written with the TAPE.DIR in place and correct on the first pass. This contradicts earlier statements by you where you said this could not be the method. You have said that the TAPE.DIR must list what is actually on the tape and not what you intend to put onto the tape. You can only find out what you have put on the tape by reading it after you have written it. The only way that you can write the TAPE.DIR at the start of the tape is to then do an operation that is called "editing". You are contradicting yourself. >> 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. No, it isn't. You haven't understood the main point. I have explained how a file can contain its own checksum without error. You need to go back and read it and think. [....] >>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. No, you shipped ones where the checksum was reported incorrectly. I have shown that there was no need to do this, no matter which way you made these tapes. At this point I have explained it for every posible procedure for producing the tape. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Mar 2007 11:03 In article <et39vo$8qk_001(a)s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <et1a4q$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. Did you write a TAPE.DIR onto the tape after the tape had already been written? If the answer is yes, you edited the tape. In this case the method works. If the answer is no then you can no longer argue that the TAPE.DIR is the list of what is actually on the tape. It must be the list of what you intend to put on the tape. You have claimed that this is not allowed, but the method still works for this too. No matter which you did, the checksums can be correct. >>>> 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. You have changed what you have claimed. Suddenly, the TAPE.DIR is not a file on the tape and is a part of the contents of a file on the tape, or you have merely added a confusion factor. The TAPE.DIR file could still have the correct checksum not matter which so the point doesn't really matter to the argument. You have missed the core question about making the checksum correct. >>>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. It appears you don't you still haven't understood that you could have, no matter what the requirements were, sent tapes with correct checksums and still met the specs. We have covered every case except doing it all with a write reverse. I will state for the record that if you had to use a write reverse to do the write, you still could have gotten the checksum right. >>>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. I see that I can and have done exactly that in the past. I have explained how to do it a few times. You seem unable to graps it. I've used it. Remember I have written tapes too. [....] >Then that file was saved along with all the other files onto the tape. Wait a minute! Suddenly TAPE.DIR is the list of what you intend to write onto the tape. Your story has changed. You earlier asserted that it must be made from what you actually wrote. Which is it? Not that it matter which it was because as I have already stated, I have explained how you can get it right in either case. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Dan Bloomquist on 12 Mar 2007 11:41
MassiveProng wrote: > > Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. No, it is, 'Jihad needs scientists' |