Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 10:45 In article <etdt34$8ss_003(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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? No. All mechanical engineers are complete idiots. It is where the electronics engineers that are flunking out go to complete some degree. Nobody in their right mind would ever let them design something important like a factory. That job is much better left to someone with a degree in quantum physics. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 10:55 In article <1173976773.203668.217240(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: [....] > >Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is only self referential. I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following statement carefully: This statement is incorrect. Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrect so therefor it must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. The problem would be not stepping outside the system to examine it. The failure by BAH is in fact a problem with recursion in as much as she can't step outside the system. >(*) The decimal checksum of this ASCII sentence is exactly 05407 > >fuBAH, Unhinged and MassivelyWrong might like to check this assertion- >the text of the sentence starts with "(" and ends with "7" I'm sure BAH will object that you didn't write it onto tape with the checksum at the start. Unfortunatly, she can't get to WWW stuff. There is a good joke I could make here but I won't. >It is the sort of elegant toy puzzle that Martin Gardner would delight >in. > >CRC16 would take a lot more effort. Even the CRC8 solution used a table. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 21:19 In article <87d539hfj5.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >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. But those type declares are spinkled throughout the code. This is not good "C" coding practice. It is far better to gather all the type information inot one place. You can do something like this: #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 signed #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O unsigned #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00 char #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OO single #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O0 long #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00O /* lemmings go here */ #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 ; Then you can simply write: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 When you need to declare a variable. I think you will agree that this is much better coding practice. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 21:21 In article <ete3bo$8qk_003(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <etbjit$3ko$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <etba66$8ss_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <et90pt$6oi$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (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. >>> >>>So far it can't be solved. If I do think of a solution, I'll be >>>the darling of the comm people and revered by the physics people. >>>It's a fun to think about. >> >> >>It has been solved. It was solved long long ago. You just seem unwilling >>to understand the solution. > >The problem has not been solved; it cannot be solved without >a time machine. YOu do not understand the specification. It has been solved. You don't understand what you were really doing. You spelled it out step by step elsewhere that I am about to go respond to, but in this case, ypou are doubly wrong because the time machine serves no purpose in solving it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 21:33
In article <ete3ua$8qk_001(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <etbkc7$3ko$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <etban7$8qk_001(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <et90d1$6oi$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <et8hr5$8ss_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <et7ljd$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: >>>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>> ><snip> > >>>> I have explained how to make TAPE.DIR have the >>>>right checksum for all posible cases of how you did things. >>> >>>Your methods require a human intervention which is called >>>editing. The minute you close the file, that file is no >>>longer a directory of the tape; it is a file that you think >>>is a directory of the tape. >> >>No it does not require any such thing. You still haven't understood. >>Think about any step you think a human must do and ask yourself the >>question "does this step need to be done by a human?". You can also ask >>yourself the questions "Who wrote the directory command?", "What do we >>mean by directory" and "What really is a file?" > >I could try to teach you the answers to these questions but I don't >think you are able to learn the material. You are just being silly. You are the one who is having trouble understanding. >>Its is exactly what I said. If you did not create the TAPE.DIR from the >>tape its self, > >I did create the file from a directory of the tape. No, you did not. You created the TAPE.DIR file by making something that is not *the* tape under discussion. > >> you did not really create a directory of the tape. You >>created a directory of what you intended to put onto the tape. > >Not at all. The TAPE.DIR file contained a checksummed directory >of the tape that was made. Before you wrote the tape you shipped, you had the file call TAPE.DIR that contained the checksums. You made this from something that was not the tape under discussion. Below you suggest that this TAPE.DIR was made from what was on some tape. The media in question at that point could have been a disk drive or punch cards. It was just a temporary place to store stuff. It was not the tape you shipped. At the point where yopu made this file and had not yet made the tape you shipped, you where in exactly the situation I suggested you were at that point in the process. >>> After you >>made this file you then attempted to write it and what it claimed was also >>there onto the tape. > >After I made the file, I resaved the tape with that file at the >beginning of the save set; it was another requirement that the >file be the first file. "resaved" means you wrote. You now admit that you had the TAPE.DIR before you wrote the tape in question. >But you don't satisfy the primary condition that the file >be a file that was made by doing a directory of the physical tape. Neither in fact did you. You wrote the directory that was made from some other tape. Only by verifying the accuracy after the fact did you prove that what you wrote was a nearly accurate description of that tape. If you had as you first said written the files to tape, then you could have used the edit write ability of the drive to write the directory at the start. Since you stated incorrectly that you were writing the directory of what was really on the tape and I took you at your word on this, I concluded that this is what you did. Since then your story has changed. [...] >Mr. unsettled read my specification and seems to have understood the >problem completely. No, I don't think he understands it at all. He just happens to agree with your claim based on what he thinks the spec is. >>Perhaps you have started to catch on. Perhaps not. Think about why and >>how all the other steps did not need human actions to perform. These >>steps were done by a script file. Nothing I have suggested needs a human >>to do. > >Everything you have suggested required hand editing You really must be trying to not understand. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |