Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Dan Bloomquist on 13 Mar 2007 12:05 Eeyore wrote: > > Dan Bloomquist wrote: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>> >>> >>> Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt >>>logic swing. >>> >>> Do you even know what slew rate is? >>> >>> The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage >>>that could be slewed to at a decent rate. >> >>Wow. Sounds like ECL is a tremendous screw up. > > > ECL's use in commercial equipment is negligible. You are changing the subject.
From: nonsense on 13 Mar 2007 13:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <2fef3$45f57c0a$4fe760d$11460(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>Dan Bloomquist wrote: >> >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. >> >>Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" >>was the requisite defining element. As usual, when >>beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift >>the goalposts. >> >>That's another version of what amounts to the Godwin >>alert, the discussion (as intended) is dead. > No, it's not. Perhaps not to you, but they've shifted the goalposts and the discussion to other issues, mostly arguing for the sake of bloviating. > I'm still planning to do my homework so I can > answer one your questions. As you wish. I don't have any outstanding unanswered questions that I consider important, let alone cage rattling.
From: nonsense on 13 Mar 2007 13:32 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <et5v7k$8qk_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] > >>>Did you write a TAPE.DIR onto the tape after the tape had already been >>>written? >> >>No. One of my requirements was that the file be the first in >>the saveset. > > > In other words, you created it based on what you intended to write to the > tape not what you actually wrote. This contradicts what you said earlier. > > It doesn't matter because the suggested method still works. The checksum > could still have been correct. The operative word is "could." It can never be "what was read from the tape." Your entire argument on this matter has been silly. It is an elementary problem in recursion. >>>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. >> >>The file was made by doing a directory of the tape. >> >>>No matter which you did, the checksums can be correct. >> >>No, they cannot. The requirement was that TAPE.DIR be a directory >>of the tape and not a made-up list. > > > Yes they can, it can and once again you are contradicting what you said > above. Either the TAPE.DIR was made after the tape was written or it was > not. If it was not, then it was not a list of what was actually written. > In that case is must be a list of what you intend to write. > > If the list existes before the write is done, then it is not a list of > what was written. It simply can't be unless you have a time machine. > > It doesn't matter which order it was done in because, as I pointed out > earlier, I have explained how the TAPE.DIR can have the correct checksum > in all cases. You have just not understood the point. > > > >>>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, >> >>TAPE.DIR is a file on the tape AND it is part of the contents >>of the saveset (which is the physcial magtape file). > > > Are you saying there are two copies or are you saying that you wrote > everything in one big file? > > It really doesn't matter because in either case, the checksum could be > correct but I am curious. > > >><snip. >> >> >>>I see that I can and have done exactly that in the past. >> >>No, you have not done a similar thing. > > > Actually yes I have. > > > >>>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. >> >>You may have copied files to tapes but you have not made a distribution >>according to the spec we used. > > > Perhaps I have never made a tape based on the spec you used but I have > explained how you could have made one that followed that spec that had a > correct checksum. > > >>>[....] >>> >>>>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? >> >>It is both. That is why a CATCH-22 exists. > > > There is no CATCH-22. The checksum could have been right. > > > >>>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. >> >>Your method had each disk file copied to the tape. That is not >>how our files were shipped. A saveset was the tape's file. There >>were no EOFs between the files we distributed. > > > This doesn't change a thing. I was and still am trying to explain to you > how the checksum could have been correct on those tapes. In fact, you > composed the TAPE.DIR based on what you intended to write. when you made > this TAPE.DIR it could have had a correct checksum in it, for each file. > > The checksum for TAPE.DIR can be correct as I have explained. > >
From: nonsense on 13 Mar 2007 13:34 Dan Bloomquist wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> Dan Bloomquist wrote: >> >> >>> MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>>> >>>> >>>> Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt >>>> logic swing. >>>> >>>> Do you even know what slew rate is? >>>> >>>> The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage >>>> that could be slewed to at a decent rate. >>> >>> >>> Wow. Sounds like ECL is a tremendous screw up. >> >> >> >> ECL's use in commercial equipment is negligible. > > > You are changing the subject. > Of course, in usenet losers seem to do that a lot.
From: krw on 13 Mar 2007 13:38
In article <45F64100.9CD12C2C(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > Dan Bloomquist wrote: > > > MassiveProng wrote: > > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > > > > > > > > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt > > > logic swing. > > > > > > Do you even know what slew rate is? > > > > > > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage > > > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. > > > > Wow. Sounds like ECL is a tremendous screw up. > > ECL's use in commercial equipment is negligible. Wrong again, dumb donkey. Most IBM mainframes before CMOS microprocessors took over (mid '90s) were ECL. That's a lot of ECL. -- Keith |