Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 16 Mar 2007 00:09 On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:46 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >krw wrote: > >> In article <87ps7agky9.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... >> >>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >>> >>>>In article <874pomikjk.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>>thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... >>>> >>>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <3j0hv21dmsbm446in4auk2106k1m71rvqk(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:12:12 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Don't want no steenkin' Apples, now that they're x86. (Disclosure: I >>>>>>>>worked on the later G4 and G5 processors ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be "worked with" Not "on", dipshit. >>>>>> >>>>>>MassivelyWrong once again, Dimbulb. I was a member of the Apple CPU >>>>>>development team (Nintendo PPC750 processor variants as well) until >>>>>>Apple switched to x86. >>>>> >>>>>Hmmm, why were Apple buying G4s from us at Freescale if they >>>>>made their own? >>>> >>>>Apple made none, idiot. >>> >>>Why were apply buying G4s from us at Freescale if they designed >>>their own? >> >> >> Try reading, idiot. >> >>>If you have more than 1/4 of a brain you might be able to predict >>>that I will probably narrow down the work you did "on" the G4 to >>>be "filled in forms and bought them from Freescale". >> >> >> No, if you had *THAT* much brain, you would have figured out that I >> would have pegged you for an idiot, like Dimmie. > >No go, all ego. > > What, exactly, do you call these little petty horseshit one liners you spew, dingledorf? You are truly pathetic, let alone an absolute dipshit.
From: Phil Carmody on 16 Mar 2007 02:19 "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > >>>> MassivelyWrong once again, Dimbulb. I was a member of the Apple > >>>> CPU development team (Nintendo PPC750 processor variants as well) > >>>> until Apple switched to x86. > >>> > >>>Hmmm, why were Apple buying G4s from us at Freescale if they > >>>made their own? > >> > >>Apple made none, idiot. > > Why were apply buying G4s from us at Freescale if they designed > > their own? > > If you have more than 1/4 of a brain you might be able to predict > > that I will probably narrow down the work you did "on" the G4 to be > > "filled in forms and bought them from Freescale". > > People with real lives don't have time for that sort of nonsense, > but we can easily understand why you do. I notice you don't doubt my conclusion. I notice that krw doesn't counter my conclusion either. I hope he found his form-filling fulfilling. 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./.
From: Phil Carmody on 16 Mar 2007 02:24 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <878xdyikn8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >> >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. > >> > >> Did they go with the two copies of the checksum or the "please ignore > >> this". > > > >The please ignore this method. See for yourself ;-) It's omoikane from > >http://www.ioccc.org/2004/ > > I can see problems with porting this code. It uses a 32 bit constant but > doesn't force the size of the variable it is used with. This is not a > good idea in any program. It is doubly bad in one like this where the > result needs to be 100% trustworthy. I see no problems porting the code - the porting just needs to change the types used to be the types expected. 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./.
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Mar 2007 06:53 In article <a14f1$45f932f2$4fe741d$3313(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <f539$45f813cb$4fe71d4$28601(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <1173870480.508596.143930(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Mar 13, 10:34 am, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <et3pbr$ra...(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>In that case. Thetapehad to be written with theTAPE.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. >>>>> >>>>>You really are determined to parade your ignorance. File checksums are >>>>>trivial to make internally consistent. >>>>> >>>>>At the simplest conceptual level you could define all files to have >>>>>checksum=0 and add some fluff to the end of each one to make it so. In >>>>>this case you only need to adjust the TAPE.DIR and since you know the >>>>>effect of changing the bytes in the checksum representation on the >>>>>checksum it is relatively easy to program a self consistent solution. >>>>> >>>>>CRC offers a much higher chance of detecting tape bitrot. But it is a >>>>>lot harder to tweak a file to contain its own CRC (but still not >>>>>impossible). Matching an MD5 is beyond present computational power. >>>>> >>>>>But for a simple checksum it can be done trivially by writing the >>>>>master TAPE.DIR file claiming any arbitrary checksum you like and then >>>>>adjusting the final file >>>> >>>> >>>>Now the file is no longer a directory of the tape. By modifying >>>>the file on the tape, you have changed the tape. There is no >>>>longer a directory of the tape on the tape. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>with a chunk of your favourite nonsense rhyme >>>>>or saying of the day until the statement "this files checksum = 1234" >>>>>is true. Checksum is invariant under permutations of the characters in >>>>>the file so you don't have to work very hard to do it by brute force. >>>>>Even if as seems likely the TAPE.DIR contains both length and checksum >>>>>then self consistent solutions can be found by SMOP. >>>> >>>> >>>>It isn't a goal to have the checksum of TAPE.DIR correct. It was >>>>a mandatory goal to have a directory of the tape on the tape. The >>>>tradeoff to accomplish this goal was to have the checksum of >>>>the file TAPE.DIR not match the checksum of TAPE.DIR reported >>>>in TAPE.DIR. >>>> >>>>Query: Is the ability to think about this concept (Mr. unsettled >>>>called it recursion) a rare ability? >>> >>>Technicians and engineers are trained to problem solving >>>regardless of method. >> >> >> I realize this. >> >> >>>They consider it "inventive" to do >>>things the way they go about it; the way answers they have >>>provided in this subthread. >> >> >> So how does the human race go from this "inventive" solution >> methods into production? Is there a name for the work >> which eliminates this requirement to tweak each item that comes >> off the production line? > >Sure. It is called the factory worker who is paid to rush >through production while ignoring flaws. I'm talking about the work done before you can hire the production line workers. Somebody has to take the hand-made widget and figure out how to manufacture it in large numbers. >That's why we now have lemon laws. Unions don't allow quality work to occur. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Mar 2007 06:55
In article <etbirc$3ko$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <etbb6t$8qk_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>So how does the human race go from this "inventive" solution >>methods into production? Is there a name for the work >>which eliminates this requirement to tweak each item that comes >>off the production line? > >That process is called "engineering" or in some cases "manufacturing >engineering". Once the solution is found, procedures, script files and >software is written. In large scale manufacturing, whole new machines are >designed to do produce the product. Do those with mechanical engineering degrees do the work that figures out how those machines are designed and their placement on the factory floor? /BAH |