Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 14 Mar 2007 08:14 On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:27:07 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <et7ljd$bq1$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <b33aa$45f6d225$4fe7292$20427(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Yes, it can be what was read from the tape. I explained elsewhere exactly >>>how you can make the first file on the tape be based on the contents of >>>the tape after it has been written. Tape drives can write to the start of >>>a tape without trashing the rest of the contents of the tape. >> >> >> It will trash the rest of the tape. We shipped the files within >> savesets. >> >> >>> The >>>operation is refered to as an "edit" write. It only requires that the >>>tape already contain a block of the same size. It has been done for >>>years. >> >> >> But your edit write would not include the directory of the tape >> after you wrote it. >> >>>There is no problem in recursion. There is no problem in making the >>>checksum correct. You seem to have missed the post where I filled you in >>>on how exactly the checksum of a file can be stored in the text of file >>>and be valid. Here is a hint: >>> >>>checksum("0000ZZZZ") == checksum("1111YYYY") >>> >>>You should be able to take it from there. When you figure it out try to >>>get BAH to understand. >> >> >> /BAH understands your method just fine. First of all the editing >> method would have trashed the first saveset. Second of all, >> the file would not have been a directory of the tape after you >> wrote the file to the tape. > >I almost hate to say this, but I think that understanding >the problem is beyond him. All you EVER make are whimpy little peanut gallery comments, and even those are pretty sad. Do you ever make a post where you tell anyone the right answer if they are so wrong? NO. You are pathetic.
From: MassiveProng on 14 Mar 2007 08:16 On Wed, 14 Mar 07 11:54:56 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <5a788$45f7cdfe$4fe707e$27037(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <et7ljd$bq1$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <b33aa$45f6d225$4fe7292$20427(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Yes, it can be what was read from the tape. I explained elsewhere exactly >>>>how you can make the first file on the tape be based on the contents of >>>>the tape after it has been written. Tape drives can write to the start of >>>>a tape without trashing the rest of the contents of the tape. >>> >>> >>> It will trash the rest of the tape. We shipped the files within >>> savesets. >>> >>> >>>> The >>>>operation is refered to as an "edit" write. It only requires that the >>>>tape already contain a block of the same size. It has been done for >>>>years. >>> >>> >>> But your edit write would not include the directory of the tape >>> after you wrote it. >>> >>>>There is no problem in recursion. There is no problem in making the >>>>checksum correct. You seem to have missed the post where I filled you in >>>>on how exactly the checksum of a file can be stored in the text of file >>>>and be valid. Here is a hint: >>>> >>>>checksum("0000ZZZZ") == checksum("1111YYYY") >>>> >>>>You should be able to take it from there. When you figure it out try to >>>>get BAH to understand. >>> >>> >>> /BAH understands your method just fine. First of all the editing >>> method would have trashed the first saveset. Second of all, >>> the file would not have been a directory of the tape after you >>> wrote the file to the tape. >> >>I almost hate to say this, but I think that understanding >>the problem is beyond him. > >Definitely. I'm studying the phenomena. I have encountered this >before but it was rare in my area. I don't think one can do >comm and OS development without being able to breathe recursion >and live to tell about it :-). > >I'm beginning to wonder if this lack is a common trait. >Consider the original thread subject matter. Weren't a lot >of the problems due to not being able to think recursively? > You are BOTH recursively pathetic, lost, wrong, and bullheaded. Also too old not to be hard wired wrong which means you will never learn.
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Mar 2007 08:12 In article <snpfv2d0nujmn560h444rpt98v1ep939gq(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:27:07 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" ><nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <et7ljd$bq1$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <b33aa$45f6d225$4fe7292$20427(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Yes, it can be what was read from the tape. I explained elsewhere exactly >>>>how you can make the first file on the tape be based on the contents of >>>>the tape after it has been written. Tape drives can write to the start of >>>>a tape without trashing the rest of the contents of the tape. >>> >>> >>> It will trash the rest of the tape. We shipped the files within >>> savesets. >>> >>> >>>> The >>>>operation is refered to as an "edit" write. It only requires that the >>>>tape already contain a block of the same size. It has been done for >>>>years. >>> >>> >>> But your edit write would not include the directory of the tape >>> after you wrote it. >>> >>>>There is no problem in recursion. There is no problem in making the >>>>checksum correct. You seem to have missed the post where I filled you in >>>>on how exactly the checksum of a file can be stored in the text of file >>>>and be valid. Here is a hint: >>>> >>>>checksum("0000ZZZZ") == checksum("1111YYYY") >>>> >>>>You should be able to take it from there. When you figure it out try to >>>>get BAH to understand. >>> >>> >>> /BAH understands your method just fine. First of all the editing >>> method would have trashed the first saveset. Second of all, >>> the file would not have been a directory of the tape after you >>> wrote the file to the tape. >> >>I almost hate to say this, but I think that understanding >>the problem is beyond him. > > > All you EVER make are whimpy little peanut gallery comments, and even >those are pretty sad. Do you ever make a post where you tell anyone >the right answer if they are so wrong? NO. > > You are pathetic. Mr. unsettled did write a summary of the behaviour and why it can't be solved. He did it in 25 words or less. The magic incantation is recursion. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Mar 2007 08:13 In article <blpfv21nvb652udv7b1s626lkn7qadke8v(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Mar 07 10:20:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <87slc9jje1.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> In article <et3o1m$rad$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >There need not be any increase in the risk. Its all a matter of starting >>>> >with a reasonable OS and not adding buffer over runs. >>>> >>>> There will always be buffer overruns. >>> >>>Don't judge all programmers based on your own inadequacy as one. >> >>I'm stating this fact based on experience working with bit gods >>and hardware that had the proper tweaks to help prevent >>these problems. >> >>I never wrote a buffer overrun. My bug specialty was off by >>ones on loop counts. > > You are locked in a recursive loop of being wrong all the time! Thus, you are stating that you think I'm perfect? I wish I were. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 14 Mar 2007 10:02
In article <et8hie$8ss_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <et6c0m$t53$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <et5un4$8ss_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <et3pbr$rad$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>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 is the point. It will never be "correct" because the file >>>contains a checksummed listing of itself. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>Do the exercise. Then you will see what I'm talking about. >> >>Bin thar, dun that, got t-shirt, wore out t-shirt. >> >>I've done it. The idea wasn't new when I did. You just haven't >>understood a very simple concept. > >I understood you just fine. You didn't put a directory of the >tape onto the tape. That *proves* you didn't understand. I have explained how to make the the directory have correct checksum no matter how you actually want to do it. You seem to constantly fail to understand that you can creat a file that has its own correct checksum. It has been done many times on many tapes and on many disks. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |