Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 16 Mar 2007 09:35 In article <026kv2dmekf8lgget27vs5hkhi2hf2nsre(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > 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? Your brains? > You are truly pathetic, let alone an absolute dipshit. > Pathetic? No, Dimmie that's you. -- Keith
From: krw on 16 Mar 2007 09:40 In article <87hcslhfqz.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > "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. Neither you nor your sister, Dimmie, are worth "countering". > I hope he found his form-filling fulfilling. You're so far off (with everything you've said so far) that you haven't even hit the right side of the continent. -- Keith
From: nonsense on 16 Mar 2007 09:50 krw wrote: > In article <026kv2dmekf8lgget27vs5hkhi2hf2nsre(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > >>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? > > > Your brains? > > >> You are truly pathetic, let alone an absolute dipshit. >> > > Pathetic? No, Dimmie that's you. > Note to BAH. Neither krw nor I can make a silk purse out of MP's stuff. I'm going to stop responding to him now as there's no advance possible.
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 10:41 In article <ete2pi$8qk_001(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <etbicr$3ko$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <etb9rf$8ss_002(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <et8v9c$6oi$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>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. >>> >>>The file you put on the tape did not contain a directory of the >>>tape. It was an edited file that you think may match the tape. >> >>Now at least you seem to perhaps have started to get a slight glimmer of >>understanding. >> >>I was not suggesting a file that was manually edited. You have claimed to >>be a developer so this part should have been obvious, but now lets >>discuss this file you put on tape. It is also not a directory of the >>tape. It was not made from the tape. > >My method did do this. Once again you've just changed your story. You claim that the TAPE.DIR was and was not made from the tape. Back and forth go your claims. Until you settle on one story, there is very little point in continuing the discussion because at this point, I have ealready shown that in either case the checksum could have been correct. > >> It was made from what you intended >>to write onto the tape. > >Nope. > >>You wrote this file onto the tape before you >>wrote the files it claimed were there. Unless you then checked the tape >>to make sure that all the files you claimed to have written were actually >>there, > >Of course this happened. In fact, there was always a bit by bit >compare to ensure that the tape nor the drive had a fault while >writing the tape. So you checked after the fact that the tape was correct. At least we have that part of the story straight now. >> this file you wrote could not be said to be a correct directory of >>the tape. > >But it was. That's what you aren't understanding. No, I think you aren't understanding. You claim that it is a directory of what was actually written onto the tape. This is not what it really is. It is really a file of what you intended to write onto the tape. Only after you make the file did you actually write the tape. This makes it exactly the sort of thing I suggested you were doing and you you objected to so strongly way back earlier in this thread. >> The method I suggested way back at the start involved exactly >>this sort of check to make sure that the file I was suggesting was also a >>true and correct directory. > >The only thing your method did was to make the checksum of >the line that listed TAPE.DIR match the file TAPE.DIR if >a user ever did a checksummed DIR TAPE.DIR/CHECK on the >disk after he restored it. No, what I suggested made the checksum stated for TAPE.DIR the correct checksum of TAPE.DIR and have this correct checksum in TAPE.DIR on the tape. Nothing forbids the checking of the checksums on the tape without doing a restore. >By making this nubmer correct, you invalidated all the rest >of the tape. That is complete and total nonsense. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 10:43
In article <ete426$8qk_002(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <etbie5$3ko$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <etbb22$8qk_002(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <et8vtn$6oi$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <et8nid$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <1173870480.508596.143930(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>On Mar 13, 10:34 am, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> In article <et3pbr$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. >>>> >>>>That is just silly word games, but at least you now obviously must see >>>>that you have been wrong. >>> >>>Wrong. [awed emoticon here] >> >>Ok so you haven't yet figured out that you were wrong. >> > >Do the exercise and you will see what I've been talking about. Which exercise? I have pointed out that the checksum could be correct in every case you have changed your story to. Do you have some new case you would like to introduce? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |