Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 14 Mar 2007 21:22 In article <873b47kb97.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> In article <et8nqg$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>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 :-). >> >> You are really stupid you know. I have pointed out how to solve the >> recursion problem. You just refuse to believe that it can be solved so >> you obviously aren't letting yourself understand what I am talking about. >> >> The folks who came up with the method were obviously years ahead of you on >> such subjects. > >It's not even a "recursion" problem. It can be considered a "recursion" problem. It is more exactly a self reference problem. It can be likened to the sentence: The first word in this sentence is "The". The checksum refers to the very thing that is stating the checksum. People who are not used to thinking about self referencing, often have trouble understanding some of the issues it raises. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 14 Mar 2007 21:26 In article <d1696$45f819d6$4fe71d4$28690(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <et8oqh$8qk_006(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [....] >> >>>Mr. unsettled did write a summary of the behaviour and why it >>>can't be solved. He did it in 25 words or less. The magic >>>incantation is recursion. >> >> >> The fact that you say "the magic incantation is recursion", is further >> proof that you can't deal with it and therefor think that the problem >> can't be solved. >> > >It cannot be solved within the specification. It depends on whether the specification forbids solving it or not. There are at least three ways to do it. One would require that BAH actually have been a developer. One requires works if the specification only requires that "TAPE.DIR" be the directory of what is on the tape and the third will work if TAPE.DIR must be the output of the directory command. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 14 Mar 2007 21:33 In article <MPG.2062131aed7a2dce98a111(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <et7ktl$bq1$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... [....] >> How mush is "badly written"? Most software is truly horrid. I still have >> a hope that this may change. It may take the deaths of a hundred cute >> puppies live on TV, due to a bug, to get the point. >> >So you agree that software sucks, C/C++ should be banned from the >planet, and Billy Gates drawn and quartered. ...and then discuss >software quality. Does screeming it from the roof tops qualify as merely agreeing? I think that "C" could be allowed to remain on the planet. It can serve as a good teaching tool about the dangers. [....] >> I wouldn't trust M$ for anything. > >It's OK for trolling for dumb donkeys and dimbulb. I wouldn't even trust it for that. [.....] >Don't want no steenkin' Apples, now that they're x86. (Disclosure: I >worked on the later G4 and G5 processors ;-) Yes the switch to X86 was a step backwards. I think a huge FPGA with a soft processor may have been a better way to go. This way, you could run any code. With a little trickiness, you could have some 8051 code, some Z80 code, a bit of PIC code and a transputer all cohabiting the virtual CPU space. we could have some real fun. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 15 Mar 2007 00:54 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <MPG.2062131aed7a2dce98a111(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <et7ktl$bq1$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>says... > > [....] > >>>How mush is "badly written"? Most software is truly horrid. I still have >>>a hope that this may change. It may take the deaths of a hundred cute >>>puppies live on TV, due to a bug, to get the point. >>> >> >>So you agree that software sucks, C/C++ should be banned from the >>planet, and Billy Gates drawn and quartered. ...and then discuss >>software quality. > > > Does screeming it from the roof tops qualify as merely agreeing? > > I think that "C" could be allowed to remain on the planet. It can serve > as a good teaching tool about the dangers. One has to remember the origin of the thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix > [....] > >>>I wouldn't trust M$ for anything. >> >>It's OK for trolling for dumb donkeys and dimbulb. > > > I wouldn't even trust it for that. > > [.....] > >>Don't want no steenkin' Apples, now that they're x86. (Disclosure: I >>worked on the later G4 and G5 processors ;-) > > > Yes the switch to X86 was a step backwards. I think a huge FPGA with a > soft processor may have been a better way to go. This way, you could run > any code. With a little trickiness, you could have some 8051 code, some > Z80 code, a bit of PIC code and a transputer all cohabiting the virtual > CPU space. we could have some real fun.
From: Phil Carmody on 15 Mar 2007 06:14
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <873b47kb97.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >> In article <et8nqg$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> [...] > >> >>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 :-). > >> > >> You are really stupid you know. I have pointed out how to solve the > >> recursion problem. You just refuse to believe that it can be solved so > >> you obviously aren't letting yourself understand what I am talking about. > >> > >> The folks who came up with the method were obviously years ahead of you on > >> such subjects. > > > >It's not even a "recursion" problem. > > It can be considered a "recursion" problem. It is more exactly a self > reference problem. Self reference and recursion are very different things. > It can be likened to the sentence: The first word in > this sentence is "The". Nothing to do with recursion there. > The checksum refers to the very thing that is > stating the checksum. People who are not used to thinking about > self referencing, often have trouble understanding some of the issues it > raises. People who are not used to thinking, such as BAH, seem to even have problems understanding *what* you're doing, let alone how it works and any issues surrounding it. Sad really. I decided not to chip in and tell her about the IOCCC entry from a few years back which implemented exactly the scheme you're talking about - I thought that would prompt even more confusion from the senile one. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |