One mouse click, 2 PC's
in [Design]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 17 Jun 2010 05:39 On 17/06/2010 6:44 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:35:40 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> > wrote: > >> Common sense has often been found wanting. > > Especially your brand of it. > At the I wrote the statment, I wondered whether you'd be able to resist posting the obvious insult. But, of course, you couldn't, which doesn't really surprise me. Sylvia.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 17 Jun 2010 06:27 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:36:51 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >On 17/06/2010 6:43 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:35:40 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature. >> >> >> Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why >> it is of ZERO significance. > >It would be surprising if it was before. That inkling of logic was missing in your previous craptography. > >But as to its significance, of course it's significant. Absolutely not. All the OP wants is the start event to be at exactly the same time. Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events, you should be able to answer the question without ANY further info related to any subsequent toggles. > Starting a >particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh >impossible. You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory? Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the distance between them? > Starting a particular sequence of program executions would >be quite easy. I cannot even be sure that you are even aware of that.
From: Sylvia Else on 17 Jun 2010 10:04 On 17/06/2010 8:27 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:36:51 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 17/06/2010 6:43 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:35:40 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature. >>> >>> >>> Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why >>> it is of ZERO significance. >> >> It would be surprising if it was before. > > That inkling of logic was missing in your previous craptography. It seemed unecessary to state that an effect will follow its cause. No counter-examples have ever been observed. >> >> But as to its significance, of course it's significant. > > Absolutely not. All the OP wants is the start event to be at exactly > the same time. And what does "exactly the same time" mean? The events received by the two computers will be at differet locations in space. The resulting separation may be time like or spacelike. If they're time-like, they won't even have a defined order. Exactly the same time is a problematic concept. The OP needs to qualify "exactly the same time" for his question even to have a meaning. Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events, > you should be able to answer the question without ANY further info > related to any subsequent toggles. > >> Starting a >> particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh >> impossible. > > You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory? > Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine > the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the > distance between them? They are PCs. They can, in the absence of statements to the contrary, be assumed to have ordinary memory. > > >> Starting a particular sequence of program executions would >> be quite easy. > > I cannot even be sure that you are even aware of that. I've stated it - why wouldn't I be unaware of it? Sylvia.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 17 Jun 2010 10:55
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:04:41 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> Starting a >>> particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh >>> impossible. >> >> You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory? >> Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine >> the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the >> distance between them? > >They are PCs. They can, in the absence of statements to the contrary, be >assumed to have ordinary memory. > >> "Nigh impossible" is not "only in ordinary memory", AND my observation involves machines separated, so the problem should be worse, according to you. It is not, however. I think your logic is flawed. |