Chip with simple program for Toy

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:48:09 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Phil Allison wrote:

"beatbox"
Hi,
I'm making a circuit where 100n metal film capacitors are listed as
required.

** Its a misprint.

Should be " metallised film ".

It *could* be metal fim. Rare I know.

---
Hardly. Every ceramic capacitor in the world is a metal film
capacitor, which type would be fine in the OP's application.

If the author of the schematic meant metalized film, then the error
was in not designating the caps "metalized film" or hyphenating
"metal film."

--
JF

There are also metalized glass capacitors, if your budget is big
enough, along with metalized Mica. One 25 KW UHF transmitter I worked
on used some very large open metalized mica capacitors that cost over
$900 in the '80s. It was at the output of the 250 watt driver stage.


Shove that up your #$%^&* UK donkey! ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 3 May 2007 00:23:13 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Fields"
Eeysore
Phil Allison wrote:

"beatbox"

I'm making a circuit where 100n metal film capacitors are listed as
required.

** It's a misprint.

Should be " metallised film ".

It *could* be metal fim. Rare I know.

---
Hardly. Every ceramic capacitor in the world is a metal film
capacitor, which type would be fine in the OP's application.


** Dear John ....

The actual issue here is the industry accepted, unambiguous identifying type
name - as required for ordering purposes.

Try to follow the context.

Even when it is implied rather than visible.





..... Phil

Dear Phil,

In the context that they're being used as supply bypass capacitors,
I believe it's much more likely that they're ceramic than metalized
plastic film, so the term 'metal film' is probably referring to the
sub-micron thick metal film "plates" sandwiched in between the
ceramic dielectric. An unusual usage for 'metal film', but stranger
things have happened, wouldn't you agree?


--
JF

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Hey look - some hairy critter just poked its shit ugly head up
out of a dunny and puked !!

Whose hair?

** Yeah - it.

ROTFL !!

Has it done good, yes? You rolled over my puke-dot.

...... Phil

But I got somehow in the right thread . Interesting.... Allthough, I
would suggest a real VC Analogue Sequencer. MIDI to CV are rightly
wrong, IMO.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Me" <Me@thishere.com> wrote in message
news:cC_Zh.88042$aB1.9235@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Thanks for your help guys.
yes, I've got MPLAB but haven't got clued up yet.
Found the sim and been playing with it.

I have one more problem that I'm sure you will probably fall about
laughing at.
I'm trying to write a Timer prog. For the miss's.
I recon everyone starting out with pic's does one of these as a 'HELLO
WORLD 2'.
Anyway I've been trying to write to ports B and C on a 16F690 in the sim
and when I write
a 10h to port B, I get nothing, on change on the port.
And when I try to write a 06h to port C I get a 04h on the port instead,
so RB2 isn't changing.

I can post the .asm if it would help you to help me.
But remember I'm only starting out with pics and It's not up to much.
I'm still getting to grips with it.

Thanks again guys

Make sure the TRISB and TRISC registers are set properly for output, and
also make sure you change the BANKSEL properly. If you post your code for
initialization and where you write to the registers, that will help. Also,
make sure any ISRs save and restore the W and Status registers.

I haven't had much response from the Microchip forum, but the
comp.arch.embedded usenet group is fairly active.

Paul

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:

"beatbox"
Hi,
I'm making a circuit where 100n metal film capacitors are listed as
required.

** Its a misprint.

Should be " metallised film ".

It *could* be metal fim. Rare I know.

---
Hardly. Every ceramic capacitor in the world is a metal film
capacitor, which type would be fine in the OP's application.

If the author of the schematic meant metalized film, then the error
was in not designating the caps "metalized film" or hyphenating
"metal film."

I was referring to *film and foil* types as opposed to metallised film. They are
obviously noy needed here. I agree with your comment about the author of the
schematic btw.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

In the context that they're being used as supply bypass capacitors,
I believe it's much more likely that they're ceramic than metalized
plastic film, so the term 'metal film' is probably referring to the
sub-micron thick metal film "plates" sandwiched in between the
ceramic dielectric. An unusual usage for 'metal film', but stranger
things have happened, wouldn't you agree?

Polyester film caps are widely used in European designed products for decoupling
actually. I gave up on ceramics after encountering a high failure rate when using
them (50V rating) on 17V supplies for decoupling.

Graham

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Fields"
"Phil Allison"

I'm making a circuit where 100n metal film capacitors are listed as
required.

** It's a misprint.

Should be " metallised film ".

It *could* be metal fim. Rare I know.

---
Hardly. Every ceramic capacitor in the world is a metal film
capacitor, which type would be fine in the OP's application.


** Dear John ....

The actual issue here is the industry accepted, unambiguous identifying
type
name - as required for ordering purposes.

Try to follow the context.

Even when it is implied rather than visible.


Dear Phil,

In the context that they're being used as supply bypass capacitors,

** That is NOT the context.

YOU cannot invent context.






......... Phil

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:55:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

In the context that they're being used as supply bypass capacitors,
I believe it's much more likely that they're ceramic than metalized
plastic film, so the term 'metal film' is probably referring to the
sub-micron thick metal film "plates" sandwiched in between the
ceramic dielectric. An unusual usage for 'metal film', but stranger
things have happened, wouldn't you agree?

Polyester film caps are widely used in European designed products for decoupling
actually. I gave up on ceramics after encountering a high failure rate when using
them (50V rating) on 17V supplies for decoupling.

---
Yeah, that's kinda scary, especially when polyester caps are
self-healing.

What was it with the ceramics, a bad batch of caps or a really spiky
supply?


--
JF

 

[Kit]

On May 2, 9:41 am, "Epictitus" <mikeNOSPAMster...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/OpenWrtDocs/Customizing

Have you checked out OpenWRT running on Linksys WRT54G_?

Runs linux, open sourced, c/w PS, built in GPIO, serial port, 5 ethernet and
wireless for under $60!!!

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:133feklem3pqn26@news.supernews.com...

Kit wrote:

Sure, I am using a Technologic Systems TS-7200.
http://www.embeddedarm.com/epc/ts7200-spec-h.html

BTW, how do you like that board? Is the Linux distro stable (as in runs
for months without issue)? I'm looking to use something like as a central
controller for a bunch of home automation junk I've come up with. Mostly
just to do a bunch of long term logging, yet be accessible over the
network.

So far the board has been great. As for stability, I can't really say.
Because I haven't had it for very long, and it hasn't been running for
most of the time (I have been trying to get the rest of my project
going .

I figured out what I needed. I just needed a SCR.
Thanks for the help anyway.

This isn't related, but I was wondering if anyone has used the
Propeller from Parallax? If so what is it like, how well dose it work?

Thanks again
-Kit

 

[John]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:54:40 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <vblc3315em344kgqtbgfp3ra61btnlktvn@4ax.com>, John <look@sig.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 12:09:09 -0700, unisonharmonics@gmail.com wrote:

How do I control voltages to pins of the USB programmatically?
For example, I'd like to say send a signal to individual USB pins (if
that's applicable in USB) how do I do that ?

Also what's the appropriate newsgroup for this question? Thanks .

Think of what USB stands for
Universal
SERIAL
Bus

I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about USB, but there's nothing
inherently wrong with wanting to send a signal to individual pins in a serial
connector. Think about RS232 -- only pins 2 and 3 carry data; 6, 7, 8, and 20,
among others, are used for signaling equipment states.

USB uses 4 wires:
Power to device:
V+
V-

Data between devices:
Data+
Data-

No individual pins to control.

John

 

[Ken]

On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:13:51 -0400, John <look@sig.net> wrote:

USB uses 4 wires:
Power to device:
V+
V-

Data between devices:
Data+
Data-

No individual pins to control.

http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

 

[Curt Welch]

partso2@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 25, 1:35 am, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:





You are composed of cells, billions and billions. Each
cell follows the laws of chemistry, immutably - including
your brain cells. They just run along, minimizing the
Gibbs free energy, that's what molecules do.

More precisely, you are misrepresenting what the
laws of chemistry say.
If we accept the general intent of what you said or
meant to say, it is statistical. The importance of "random"
fluctuations to biology is increasingly appreciated.

Straw man.
Clearly, human behavior is very complex,
probably intractable. And likely, this is due
in large part to thermodynamic fluctuations.
Humans are noisy, messy sytems.

But that doesn't address the free will question.
The brain/mind may be chaotic and
unpredictable, but that doesn't mean you have
free will. You are still a mass of cells, governed
by the laws of chemistry.

To invoke free will, you must posit a 'mind',
which is somehow acting independently
of cellular activity.

Your basic point was that the laws of thermo disallow
"free will". That is false, for the reason I stated, and
which you seem to understand.
Quite explicitly, I did not claim any position on free will -- only
that "thermo" does not disallow it.

Our understanding of "mind" is not yet far enough
advanced to allow any meaningful scientific discussion
of what free will, or its appearance, is.

There's the problem: you have not defined the
term, your notions are fuzzy.

Before we can talk about ducks, we need an
operational definition; a duck is feathered, swims,
quacks. After we agree on that, we can argue
about the best ways to hunt em, cook em, boink em.

I have given my definition of free will, which
accords with the commonly held view. And
I have provided cogent reasons why it is chimerical.

You only wriggle with "science isn't advanced
enough" etc. without defining what "it" is. How
would you recognize it if it crashed through your
windshield?

Come back when you've done your homework...

--
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're a liar, RichD. a liar of the worst type. And alternatively (or
also) not too smart. Just a simple liar, that's you.

Calm down. No need to get excited. By trying to help you understand that
you are just a machine doing what you are programmed to do, no one is
trying to make you anything other than what you are.

Don't get angry. You have no right to. According to you, I've no free
will, right?

I get angry at my computer. Why would he not get angry at you? You need
to think a bit more about what it means to get angry. There is no need to
limit our anger to just humans and the concept of anger certainly isn't
limited at humans. As such, whether we can get angry at something doesn't
tell us anything about whether that something has some magical stuff inside
them to make them different or whether they are must simple machines.

so I'm only typing what my 'program' forces me to.

That's right.

Every
time I see words like yours, I'm forced to type 'liar'. So stay calm.

You have a very strange program in you. If you read, and think about what
people say here, you might find your program changing.

No one here is trying to deceive you as far as I can tell. Everyone for
the most part is just here sharing their ideas and thoughts - just like
you. It seems to me that you are just being overly paranoid to believe
that people are actually lying - telling you things they don't actually
believe.

If you think the ideas are so strange that no one could believe them, and
as such, they must be lying because you can't understand how anyone could
believe this, then you need to spend more time thinking about these things
instead of just assuming everyone that puts forth a materialistic belief is
only lying.

But, seriously, I do think you're a liar (or, let's say, it's better
than the alternative...). Have you noticed what are you trying to do?
you try to CONVICE people of your opinions

Of course. Just like you are. The world would be a far better place if we
all shared the same ideas and opinions. We all try to get others to see
things our way in order to reduce the conflict. Of course, sometimes, the
more you realize you are different, the more you create conflict - so it
can sometimes be better just to accept the difference and walk away.

- note, all people are
'programmed', right?

Yes. But do you have even the slightest idea how we are programmed? I
suspect not.

so, for a lot of posts, you just try to do the
impossible, according to you. So you probably don't really believe
they're programmed, right?

No may not every have thought about this, but by you reading my post, I am
changing your program. I am programming you - just like you are
programming me by what you wrote. We don't normally call it programming in
humans, we call it learning, or we call it operant conditioning, but it's
programming either way.

And, you seem to be over-satisfied with your last points. So let's
clear it out: you didn't write nor composed them.

It just doesn't work that way. If I program a robot to shot people, and it
goes out and shots people, then there's no way you can say that I shot the
people. The robot did it. I was part of the causality chain that led to
the events of people being shot, and I would be the one held responsible
for the damage in a court, but the robot did the shooting.

Likewise, he wrote the post. He was programmed by his environment, but he
wrote the post. Nothing is inconsistent with the idea of being programmed,
and being the one that created the post.

You're only a
printer.

We are much more complex and interesting than printers. We are very
complex operant conditioned learning machines. Our hardware was designed
by a long and slow process of evolution, and it's actual behavior, was
shaped by a long and slow process of conditioning over our life times.

You just type what your 'program' tells you to.

That's right. We do what we do because of what we are.

Heck, you're
not even a keyboard. Just a simple printer. Have you ever seen a
computer coming out of its manufacture line, dancing and crying 'hey,
I've a wonderful operating system and a brilliant program installed!!'
- that's what you are. You can't take credit for anything you're ever
done, said or thought.

If I program a robot to search for path though a maze, and it finds one.
Who gets the credit for finding the solution to the maze? Me, or it? It
after all did all the actual work. Why is it that humans tend only to give
other humans credit instead of giving the machines doing the work some of
the credit?

Well, to start with, many people do give their machines credit. They give
their machines names, (ships, cars, planes) and they will at time give the
machine credit for doing something like saving a life. But this is mostly
done with the assumption that the machine doesn't understand and doesn't
really deserve the credit.

We give people "credit" instead of the machines for many reasons. For one,
most of our machines are not autonomous. They weren't designed to be
autonomes. They were designed to be slaves directly under the control of
their masters (humans). Cars don't tend to drive off and get their oil
changed when it's needed. They were designed to do that type of thing.
They were designed to respond to the wishes of the human driver.

Humans, when you give them credit, understand that you are giving them
credit, and they change their future behavior as a result of it. When you
praise someone (give them credit for doing something you liked) you have
apparently conditioned them to do more of that thing in the future. When
you punish them (take credit away from them) you have operant conditioned
them to do less of the action in the future.

Giving a human credit is something we do in an attempt to program them - to
shape their future behavior.

We don't give hammers credit, because we know that talking to the hammer
and telling it how nice of a job it did pounding that nail won't change
it's future behavior. There's no point in it. This is why we assign
credit, and responsibility, the parts of the system we can re-program by
telling it how good a job it did - aka the operant conditioned machines
that were part of the causality chain of events we want to control in the
future.

And, let's assume you really have no free will. After all, some
(small) percentage of the population is born crippled, damaged, sick,
blind or in any other type of inormality. So let's assume some are
born without free will (that's what you feel - maybe you're correct).
But how do you know what's going on in my mind? how can you speak of
other people? I feel I do have free will.

You have totally missed the entire point of a discussion like this if that
is what you think. The issue isn't whether you have free will or not, the
issue is one of trying to understand what we are talking about when we say
a person has free will.

I can look down at my desk and see a pen. I can make a decision to pick it
up, or I can decide to leave it there. I will then pick it up, or leave it
there. This simple little chain of events is what we call "free will". No
one is trying to tell you that you don't do these sorts of things. They
are simply trying to point out to you that everything you did, in a chain
of events like that, could simply be a result of how you were programmed by
nature, and by nurture.

They are also pointing out that it's inconsistent with everything we
currently know about the universe, to believe that our actions are not a
result of the chemical and physical operation of our body.

If you want to believe that you are more than just a body which acts
according to the known laws of nature, then you are not alone. Many like
thinking that. However, all the objective data we have access to indicates
that this is just not true. There's no data to support the idea that
humans are more than just a body. All we have, is billions of people who
don't want to believe that they are only a body. The fact that people act
this way however (reject the ideas of materialism) is all explained by
materialism. If you want to study science, and understand why it tells us
what it does, you are free to do that. Most however who reject
materialism, refuse to study it - because they have already been programmed
by their environment to reject it.

You have had a life time of programming by your parents, and by your
friends, and by the culture you grew up in. My words might be changing
you, but their effect is no doubt trivial compared to what you have
received from others over your entire life. You do the things you do, and
think the thoughts you think, because of how your environment has
programmed you.

And you do, too. Let's take a look at your (private) life: Have you
ever walked into a supermarket and wondered what type of ice-cream to
buy? why? it's a teriffic waste of time! anyway you'll walk out with
what your progam tells you to, so why waste time?

Because we are programmed to think about it instead of making a snap
decision. We have learned from past experience not to make snap decisions
when we don't need to - to spend some time thinking about our options in
order to make the best one possible. Otherwise, we grab the first thing we
see, and then when we get home, we will remember we wanted to try something
else, but then it's too late. We are stuck with the decision we made when
we were at the store.

It's that type of past experience that has programmed us to hesitate before
making a decision we won't easily be able to undo. The bigger the effect
the decision will have on our future, the more we are likely to hesitate.
We are programmed to do this by our past experience.

just take the first
one and run out. Have you ever tried to decide which way to walk,
which words to choose, which way to do anything? time waster! I think
you're a great believer in your free will.

Just because you have the power to think about a decision before you pick a
choice of action doesn't mean you are not programmed to do just that.

We can program robots to perform a task like find a red ball in a room and
pick it up. But we can also program the robot to search the room and find
all the red balls before it decides which red ball to pick up. And once it
has a list of all the balls in it's mind, we can program it to think though
all it's options to figure out which ball will be best to pick up (but we
have to give it a way to measure "best"). It can then think through it's
options, and select the one that it believes is best, and then try to get
it.

Does the robot have free will because it's thinking about it's options
before it makes a decision? You call it free will when you do, so
shouldn't you call it free will when the robot does it? If not, what are
you doing that the robot is not doing, that we need to program into the
robot, to give it the same free will you have?

Yopu're absolutely sure you
have it. You can't deny it anymore than you can deny your existance -
if someone supplied you with a proof you don't exist, will you stop
feeling existing? will you believe him? even if you find no fault in
the proof, there're things you'll never believe (unless you want to
believe them in order to release yourself from responsibility). So is
free will. For that very reason, no exact definition is required
(although possible) - we all know exactly what it means. We use it
every time we choose (which is almost always), and many other times.

The question at hand here, is can we build a robot that has the same free
will you have? So far, no one has done this. No one has built a robot
that has all the same powers of behavior that a human has. And you can use
this simple fact as support for a belief that humans have something special
that a simple machine could never have. But it sure wouldn't be proof that
machines can't have it, or that you are anything other than a machine doing
what you are programmed to do.

And just one last point (although it really isn't needed), just to
refute your thermo-chemical argument (so you can stop showing your
astonishing ignorance again and again. Really strange 'program' you
have...). Many years ago, Karl Popper proved that the laws of physics
aren't deterministic. Note, he didn't speak of quantum physics (which
goes without saying) - he spoke on Newtonian Classical Mechanics. You
must know thermodynamics is much more complicated than mechanics, and
that no one really understands it (that's why Bolzman has commited a
suicide, right?) but it's based on mechanics, so that's it. I think I
have this wonderful Popper article on paper somewhere at home.

None of that is relevant to the real question here. You are built out of
atoms, our machines are built out of atoms. Whatever basic nature exists
in atoms, exists in humans, and in all the machines we build.

You can't use any laws of physics to prove you are not a machine, unless
you can show that some law of physics applies to the atoms that make up
your body, but not to the atoms that make up a machine I might build.

The question for AI (I'm reading and posting from c.a.p so AI is what I
care about) is whether we can figure out how to design and build machines
that duplicate all the wonderful things humans can do. Since we build
these machines out of the same material man is made out of (atoms) none of
these silly debates about quantum physics tell us what type of machine we
can, or can't make.

Now, PLEASE. I don't want to open a new line of discussion

To late. You already have.

by people
who have never touched philosophy, hardly ever learned physics and
think they're the world's geniuses. so PLEASE, reffer to this last
point ONLY AFTER you'r learned that Popper article.

I'm sorry, but I don't give a shit about Popper and nothing you have
written makes me want to go learn about it (my previous programming is
making me reject your suggestion at new programming).

Good day. Have good time CHOOSING what to think of my words...

Computers make choices every time they execute an IF statement in their
programming. Logic gates make choices every time they change the state of
their output.

The fact that humans can make choices doesn't mean they are special - are
machines already make billions of choices a second.

So let me summarize. The issue is not whether we have free will. We all
have something that people like to talk about as free will. The issue is
whether any of the behavior we like to call "free will" is in conflict with
the idea that we are just machines following our programming. The answer
is that it is not. Many of our more complex machines (especially the stuff
produced by AI researchers) seem to have the same type of free will that
humans have - just not as much of it yet. There's really nothing you can
point to in human behavior that we haven't already identified at some level
in our machines. The only thing left, is to close the gap - to make
machines more like humans by making them do all the things that humans can
currently do, that machines have not yet done.

The only question here, is whether this is possible. Can we ever close the
gap all the way? That is, produce a machine designed by humans, which
duplicate all attributes of humans that we consider worth duplicating (we
will chose not to duplicate a few things like "bleeding when cut" if we can
figure out how to make a machine that acts human but doesn't need blood to
function).

No one knows the answer to this, and as far as everyone knows, it's
impossible to answer. We just have to keep trying and see where it takes
us.

If we could bet on it, some would bet it's possible, and some would bet
it's not possible. If you put a time limit on it, them in the end, some
will win and others will lose. I personally have made a bet that it is not
only possible, but that it will be done by 2015. I'm a bit more optimistic
than most. I made the same bet in 1975 saying it would be done by 1985. I
lost that one. I didn't make the bet again until I thought we were close
enough that I would win it (I hate loosing bets).

The arguments you made in your post however made it clear you don't
understand what free will is, or what RichD was even talking about. But
yet, you tell him he should get more education? Interesting programming
you have there.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[Me]

Yes, that worked lovely.
Thanks Paul.

I do use the Microchip site for searching for answers,
However I need only basic help at the moment and most
of the questions on there seem to be of a different kidney to my questions.
And besides that, sometimes fewer opinions are much easier to handle.

Thanks again.

 

[Guy Macon]

The little lost angel wrote:

It doesn't. As I understand it, heat is generated by transistors
mainly during switching, i.e. when it's doing something.

Your understanding is close, but not exactly correct.
Look at Figure 2 in this Chip Design Magazine article:
http://www.chipdesignmag.com/print.php?articleId=76?issueId=6

Also see:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/504/frank.html
http://www.gabeoneda.com/node/79
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=54202129
http://www.dspdesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?printableArticle=true&articleId=21400746
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_optimization_(EDA)


Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

 

[krw]

In article <1178460685.878244.238470@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
kensmith@rahul.net says...

On May 6, 3:37 am, a?n?g?...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little
lost angel) wrote:
[...]
It doesn't. As I understand it, heat is generated by transistors
mainly during switching, i.e. when it's doing something.

This is true at 4GHz. If you run as slow as 1Hz, the "leakage" sets
the lower limit on the power.

With newer processes the lower limit may approach 50% of the total
power.

See the bit on "power estimation" in:
http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/ds055.pdf

If you put zero in as the frequency, you will see some power remains.
This part has enough hardware in it to make an extremely dumb
processor.

No dumber than the one proposing it.

The latency to first instruction out is also magnitudes times faster
than your 'parallel Hz' system. A modern 4Ghz CPU can always go full
speed for 1us to produce results and shutdowns/downclock to conserve
power. But your 1Hz system cannot be faster than 1 sec. So a 4Ghz CPU
can have the same heat efficiency AND faster output. Your 4Ghz
Parallel-Hz system is not comparable.

Actually his idea may be worse than that. If an instruction needs the
value produced by a previous one, it can't be started until the other
is done. Consider the statement:

IF (A + B) * C > D THEN E = 1

(A + B) takes a cyle
* C takes a cycle
D takes a cycle
E = 1 takes a cycle

Not necessarily. The "E = 1" step can be done in zero cycles. It's
just a mux of '1' and whatever was there. There are several ways of
handling this in zero cycles. Fer instance one could do it by
assigning one register ('1') or another (the previous 'E') during
rename.

Thats 4 seconds to get the answer.

That't "That's" (before the apostrophe police get here). ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <1178494834.481770.159400@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, big_money64 <big_money64@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is one of the few sites that offers great information and
devices, for penis enlargement, that really work. You'll be excited
when you see the end result. Well worth buying. I've been using it for
3 months now and have gained 4 inches. Give it a look. You'll love it,
and the ladies will definitely love it!

So sorry to hear that you needed that.

Can't imagine why you think I might, though...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

big_money64 wrote:

This is spam for losers.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Aly]

"big_money64" <big_money64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178494834.481770.159400@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

and the ladies will definitely love it!

Trust me on this one, the ladies WILL NOT definitely love it. FACT: Big
cocks hurt!! 4-6" is an average penis size and perfectly adequate. 9"
penises are totally impractical.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Leisure.208@gmail.com wrote:

My spam.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I had one but the cat licked the paint off it and it fell to bits.