Driver to drive?

[qrk]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:06:01 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

I wouldn't deny you the pleasure of finding one for yourself. Have
fun.

In other words, no you can't.

Sea level is falling globally btw.

Graham

You must be looking at specially selected regional data or data over a
very limited time span.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Most charts will put sea level rise around 100mm to 300mm/century.

---
Mark

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:34:48 GMT, qrk <SpamTrap@spam.net> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:06:01 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

I wouldn't deny you the pleasure of finding one for yourself. Have
fun.

In other words, no you can't.

Sea level is falling globally btw.

Graham

You must be looking at specially selected regional data or data over a
very limited time span.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Most charts will put sea level rise around 100mm to 300mm/century.

---
Mark

Naaaah! It's either land sinking or excess sinking turds from leftist
weenies.

Apply a little engineering judgment... how the <expletive deleted> can
you make a statement like that and keep a straight face ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[Lauri Kruger]

Yksinkertainen kysymys: "Mitä Suomen valtion kansantalous saa tehtyä niillä
100% puhtailla energiamäärillään, joita sille tuottaa esim. wanhasta
palaneesta vesiekosähkövoimasta kunnostettu perinteinen
pienvesivoimalayhtiömme Lapijoen sähkö 12v aikana. 10 000 000kWh?" Kertoen
selkeää viestiä siitä miten oikeasti energianhuoltoamme pitäisi suunnata
uusille urilleen.

L.S.19.05-08. (Kyse on siitä massiivisesta kuparin tuhlauksesta jota
Posiva/TVO tunkee vuosimiljoonaksi totaalihaaskuun pois maailmasta jota
muuten 30v jaksoissaan kiertävä neitseellinen kupari edustaa. Näin jää
kansantaloudestamme kiertämättä 33 333 kertaa kyseinen 90 000t
kuparitonnistomäärä. Huikein taloustappioin vuosimiljoonan jemmaansa. Se
tietää tuleville sukupolvillemme käsittämättömän suuren jalomettaliaarteen
poistumista talouskasvuistamme ikuisesti!) "Kuparikaan ei tule tyhjästä.
Ympäristökeskuksen Outokummun kuparista laskemia. Yhteen (15t)
loppusijoituskapseliin tarvittava kupari aiheuttaa 82 500kg
hiilidioksidipäästöt. Energiaa kuluu noin 130 megawattituntia, (yhtä paljon
kuin sähkölämmitteinen pientalo kuluttaa 6,5 vuodessa. )Polttoöljyä palaa 7
500kg ja kivihiiltä 29 000kg. Raakaöljyä tarvitaan 2 600kg.
Kuparikaivoksessa kalliota on pilkottu yhden kapselin tarpeisiin lähes 500
tonnia. 12 000 uraanitonnin loppusijoitus edellyttää 6 000
polttoainekapselia. Lähde Suomen ympäristökeskus, Luvata Pori Oy Posiva".

Lasketaan nyt malliksi mitä puolestaan edustaa Lapijoen Sähkön tuotanto
edelliseen ydinvoiman AIHEUTTAMIIN megasaastutukseen verrattuna.10
000MW/130MW/kiapseli= 77 kapselia/ 15 000kg. Lapijoen sähkön tähänastisella
tuotannolla Suomen talous menetyksen sijaan SAISI:

-(10 000 000kWh sähkönä)
- 1 155 000kg puhdasta kuparia kansantalouteemme
- Säästäisi 6 352 500kg hiilidioksidipäästöt
- Polttoöljyä 577 500kg
- Kivihiiltä 2 233 000kg
- Raakaöljyä 200 200kg
- Kuparimalmia 38 500 000kg

Tällä aineella toisin käytettynä EI olisi loppusijoitettuna siis:
*154 000 kiloa plutoniumpolttoainekapseleita!*
* 1 540 000 kg bentoniittia Posivaonkaloon!*
_______________________________

n.50 712 200 kg materiaali vapaaseen käyttöön!
___________________________________

*Miten tätä enää voisi kommentoida? .. .. .MYKISTÄVÄÄ.. !

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:09:34 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Kruger
<kruger@rabe.net> wrote:

I hear it on good authority that Lauri Kruger gives good head ;-)

 

[RichD]

On Feb 6, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:

You have 8 balls of equal size, color, etc.  

7 of the balls weigh the same, and one weighs slightly more, but not
enough to where you can tell by just picking it up.

You also have a balance scale (i.e., 2 trays on either side of the
center post).  It won't tell you the weight of something, just if what
is in the right tray is heavier than the what is in the left, or vice
versa.

What is the smallest number of times that you can use the scale, with
certainty, to determine which ball is the heavier one?

What if the oddball is heavier OR lighter?

That's the correct form of the problem, the OP got it wrong.  Although,
it doesn't change the answer (3) at all, or the procedure.

Yes. The oddball is a different weight - heavy or
light, unknown - and: your task is to identify it; you
are not required to determine whether heavy or light.

Finally, modify the problem: either one ball is odd, or
they are all true. Solve.



--
Rich

 

[dgates]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:33:13 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 6, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
You have 8 balls of equal size, color, etc.  

7 of the balls weigh the same, and one weighs slightly more, but not
enough to where you can tell by just picking it up.

You also have a balance scale (i.e., 2 trays on either side of the
center post).  It won't tell you the weight of something, just if what
is in the right tray is heavier than the what is in the left, or vice
versa.

What is the smallest number of times that you can use the scale, with
certainty, to determine which ball is the heavier one?

What if the oddball is heavier OR lighter?

That's the correct form of the problem, the OP got it wrong.  Although,
it doesn't change the answer (3) at all, or the procedure.

I don't know about "wrong." 8 balls, one of them too heavy, is also a
valid problem. It also tricks people because they look at the 8 and
think that the answer must be to weigh 4 vs 4, then 2 vs. 2, and
finally 1 vs. 1. So they guess the wrong answer of 3, instead of the
correct answer of 2.

Yes. The oddball is a different weight - heavy or
light, unknown - and: your task is to identify it; you
are not required to determine whether heavy or light.

This sounds trickier, although I think I could get somewhere by
weighing 123 vs. 456. Then, assuming I don't get lucky enough for
them to balance, I'd weigh 14 vs. 25. I think that path would get me
to a solution in 3 weighings.

Finally, modify the problem: either one ball is odd, or
they are all true. Solve.

This sounds a bit like the previous one. Start with 123 vs. 456. The
only new case would be down the path where they balance. But then
you'll still have two weighings to deal with 7 and 8. First, weigh 7
and 8 against each other. Then, if they don't balance, weigh 7
against 1.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-02-07, dgates <dgates@somedomain.com> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:33:13 -0800 (PST), RichD
r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 6, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
You have 8 balls of equal size, color, etc.  

7 of the balls weigh the same, and one weighs slightly more, but not
enough to where you can tell by just picking it up.

You also have a balance scale (i.e., 2 trays on either side of the
center post).  It won't tell you the weight of something, just if what
is in the right tray is heavier than the what is in the left, or vice
versa.

What is the smallest number of times that you can use the scale, with
certainty, to determine which ball is the heavier one?

What if the oddball is heavier OR lighter?

That's the correct form of the problem, the OP got it wrong.  Although,
it doesn't change the answer (3) at all, or the procedure.

I don't know about "wrong." 8 balls, one of them too heavy, is also a
valid problem. It also tricks people because they look at the 8 and
think that the answer must be to weigh 4 vs 4, then 2 vs. 2, and
finally 1 vs. 1. So they guess the wrong answer of 3, instead of the
correct answer of 2.


Yes. The oddball is a different weight - heavy or
light, unknown - and: your task is to identify it; you
are not required to determine whether heavy or light.

This sounds trickier, although I think I could get somewhere by
weighing 123 vs. 456. Then, assuming I don't get lucky enough for
them to balance, I'd weigh 14 vs. 25. I think that path would get me
to a solution in 3 weighings.

actually you could include the other two balls in the second step
147 vs 258

third step is 783 vs 156

and that finds the bad ball with no decision tree needed for the
weighings.

Finally, modify the problem: either one ball is odd, or
they are all true. Solve.

This sounds a bit like the previous one. Start with 123 vs. 456. The
only new case would be down the path where they balance. But then
you'll still have two weighings to deal with 7 and 8. First, weigh 7
and 8 against each other. Then, if they don't balance, weigh 7
against 1.

what's more all thses can be done in the same number of weighings with
9 balls.

for the first case
123 vs 456
147 vs 258

(if both balance ball 9 is the culprit)

for the second and third with 9 balls.

weigh 123 vs 456
then 456 vs 789
then 147 vs 258

three predeterimed weighings suffice for 12 balls
with 1 or 0 bad balls

weigh 123A vs 456B
then 456A vs 789B
then 147A vs 258C

I wonder if there a way to do 13 balls in three weighings.

 

[PN2222A]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gmjusq$5q0$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

You have 8 balls of equal size, color, etc.

7 of the balls weigh the same, and one weighs slightly more, but
not
enough to where you can tell by just picking it up.

You also have a balance scale (i.e., 2 trays on either side of
the
center post). It won't tell you the weight of something, just if
what
is in the right tray is heavier than the what is in the left, or
vice
versa.

What is the smallest number of times that you can use the scale,
with
certainty, to determine which ball is the heavier one?

What if the oddball is heavier OR lighter?

I wonder if there a way to do 13 balls in three weighings.

Yes.
PN2222A

 

[RichD]

On Feb 6,, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

So now let's talk about the bottom side stimulus of the current
package before the Congress:  This money will be injected into the
real economy and will have an inflationary effect which is good.
Wages will rise and more job opportunities will be created than would
have otherwise been the case.

That's what been happening for the past 8 years, i.e., government
running huge deficits and thereby injecting money into the economy.

How does a deficit inject money into the economy?

That should not need explanation.  What needs explanation is
how anyone could not see that deficits increase the amount
of money in circulation.

uh, 'deficit' describes the situation where Paul
owes $1000 taxes, but the gubmit collects only
$900; the remainder is borrowed from Peter.
'balanced budget' indicates that Paul pays the
full $1000 promptly. Net effect, in both cases:
$1000 transferred from private checking accounts to Treasury.

Clearly, a deficit does not create money.

This should not need explanation. What needs
explanation is how computers became so simple,
that any halfwit knowitall can post to Usenet.

Why hasn't it led to increased prosperity?

Why should it?

It depends on how/where the money is injected and how/where
it is reclaimed.

Of course, The producers get looted, and suffer
impoverishment. The influence peddlers prosper.

--
Rich

 

On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:





On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.

---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---

My mind wasn't in a great state by time I'd finished plowing through
it. The tedium was relieved by occasional moment of hilarity, but you
have to know quite a bit to find Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner funny, and the
occasional absurdity certainly didn't justify the slog.

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

"That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then
we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to
go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing
that: There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the
Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the
Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law,
right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the
arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by
putting out their arms, they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at
the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year,
but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be
other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more.
Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics."

Or would be, if the oceans expanded uniformly.

They don't. Fresh water actually contracts when you warm it from 0C to
4C before moving over to expanding. Salt water merely expands very
slightly from -2C to about 5C, and the coeffocient of thermal
expansion doesn't rise linearly with temperature until the temperature
gets over about 10C

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html

Thus when the tropical oceans expand (and become less dense) some of
the expansion flows away towards the poles, and raises the water level
there, decreasing the moment of interia of the earth.

Obviously, the rising sea level at the equator would raise the moment
of interia of the earth if all the water stayed put, but if enough of
it flowed away, the effect of the reduced density would overwhelm the
greater radius.

There's also the point that much of the Arctic Ocean is covered with
pack ice for much of the year, so that while the Artic is warming up
rapidly, the Arctic ocean under the ice is stuck at -2C, and won't
expand at all.

Antarctica is also surrounded by a large ice shelf, fed by ice sliding
off the Antarctic ice sheet - which is sliding rather faster these
days than it used to do - and the temperature of this area of the
Southern Ocean is also stuck at -2C.

And - of course - the rotation of the earth is mostly slowing. We have
to keeping on adding leap seconds to our clocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

When global warming did one of its short term reversals in 1999-2000
the earth did speed up, but not for long.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:57:21 -0800, RichD wrote:

On Feb 6,, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
So now let's talk about the bottom side stimulus of the current
package before the Congress:  This money will be injected into the
real economy and will have an inflationary effect which is good.
Wages will rise and more job opportunities will be created than
would have otherwise been the case.

That's what been happening for the past 8 years, i.e., government
running huge deficits and thereby injecting money into the economy.

How does a deficit inject money into the economy?

That should not need explanation.  What needs explanation is how anyone
could not see that deficits increase the amount of money in
circulation.

uh, 'deficit' describes the situation where Paul owes $1000 taxes, but
the gubmit collects only $900; the remainder is borrowed from Peter.

No, moron. The remainder may or may not be borrowed. It may well be
simply created. You, being a total ignorant Republican, do not wish to
allow yourself to know this.

'balanced budget' indicates that Paul pays the full $1000 promptly. Net
effect, in both cases: $1000 transferred from private checking accounts
to Treasury.

Clearly, a deficit does not create money.

I can always tell when the OP is a stilt brain. The use of the word
"clearly" gives em away.

This should not need explanation. What needs explanation is how
computers became so simple, that any halfwit knowitall can post to
Usenet.

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I started we wore robes and sandals. The general public were
actually fearful of computers and some of them thought the "machines"
would take over and suck out their vital fluids. They were sorta like
you are now regarding money and economics.

Why hasn't it led to increased prosperity?

Why should it?

It depends on how/where the money is injected and how/where it is
reclaimed.

Of course, The producers get looted, and suffer impoverishment. The
influence peddlers prosper.

You seem to have no grasp of who the "producers" might be.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[MooseFET]

(news groups trimmed)
On Feb 9, 7:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]

Clearly, a deficit does not create money.

I can always tell when the OP is a stilt brain.  The use of the word
"clearly" gives em away.

Remember that "clearly" is like the math term "it is obvious that"
which means "here is a giant error".

As Yogi Berra said "Any quote claimed to be from Tesla, Edison or
Franklin is likely not"

63% of all statistics quoted are just made up.

The Stanford dream research study showed that the words "the new study
from" often mean "a study that happened only in the speaker's dreams".

Also watch out for the word "remember" because it often means "I am
claiming without any supporting evidence".

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:01:09 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

(news groups trimmed)
On Feb 9, 7:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
Clearly, a deficit does not create money.

I can always tell when the OP is a stilt brain.  The use of the word
"clearly" gives em away.

Remember that "clearly" is like the math term "it is obvious that"
which means "here is a giant error".

As Yogi Berra said "Any quote claimed to be from Tesla, Edison or
Franklin is likely not"

63% of all statistics quoted are just made up.

The Stanford dream research study showed that the words "the new study
from" often mean "a study that happened only in the speaker's dreams".

Also watch out for the word "remember" because it often means "I am
claiming without any supporting evidence".

So how does it feel to have all that butter slathered all over

yourselves, Americans?

That is what the Obamanible Snowman is doing to us.

The truth is known. They have had REAL, PROPER statistics for over two
decades. They KNEW this was happening, and they ALSO know that this
country, and the world is headed for a depression like 'evening'.

We are headed for a depression here folks. Mark my words, this is the
first major repercussion from the devaluation of the gold standard. More
will follow over the next 200 years, you can count on it.

There are no jobs to be had. We will have a choice...

Soup lines, ala 1929...

OR

We could take those out of work, and ship them to Texas, where they can
ALL become WALL-Es (Wall Employees), and they can start by building our
southern border WALL.

Then, we can have them build a few PRISON WALLS.

I am ready for the WALL-E troops. Are you?

Is your powder dry? Do you have twice the number of rounds you ever
thought you would need?

Look closely and one can see Obama's lies even as they part from his
lips.

He is going to throw what little money we have left <sic> at the
millions out of work. That was MY (OUR) tax payer dollars, and doling it
out to those that were unfortunate is the WRONG move.

Times will be tough for ALL of us. Some, more than others. Too
fucking bad. We'll help, but we certainly shouldn't be doling out cash
like it grows on trees.

The current situation is sad, not because of the state of our economy,
but because of the way our "leaders" are attempting to pull the wool over
our eyes while they get an open ticket to do whatever they want. Things
that we explicitly told them in the past that they could NOT have... like
their fucking raises!

 

[RichD]

On Feb 9, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

So now let's talk about the bottom side stimulus of
the current package before the Congress:  This
money will be injected into the real economy and
will have an inflationary effect which is good.
Wages will rise and more job opportunities will
be created than would have otherwise been the case.

That's what been happening for the past 8 years,
i.e., government running huge deficits and thereby
injecting money into the economy.

How does a deficit inject money into the economy?

That should not need explanation.  What needs
explanation is how anyone could not see that deficits
increase the amount of money in circulation.

uh, 'deficit' describes the situation where Paul owes
$1000 taxes, but the gubmit collects only $900; the
remainder is borrowed from Peter.

No, moron.  The remainder may or may not be borrowed.  
It may well be simply created.  You, being a total ignorant
Republican, do not wish to allow yourself to know this.

ohhhhh... so now, the money MAY be created, at
the option of the central bank. While before, it
was OBVIOUS that a deficit MUST create money.
With no recognition that MONETARY policy is
distinct from FISCAL policy.

Of course, as a left wingnut, you have the
backbone of a jellyfish, and won't concede this.
Watching a sleazoid wriggle and tap dance, is
the funnest part of Usenet.

'balanced budget' indicates that Paul pays the full $1000
promptly.  Net effect, in both cases: $1000 transferred
from private checking accounts to Treasury.

Clearly, a deficit does not create money.

I can always tell when the OP is a stilt brain.  The use of
the word "clearly" gives em away.

Clearly, 'clear' is inappropriate to describe the muck
which fills your skull.

This should not need explanation.  What needs
explanation is how computers became so simple,
that any halfwit knowitall can post to Usenet.

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why hasn't it led to increased prosperity?

Why should it?

It depends on how/where the money is injected and
how/where it is reclaimed.

The producers get looted, and suffer impoverishment.  
The influence peddlers prosper.

You seem to have no grasp of who the "producers" might be.

As if you do?

You're the dumbest lying marxist I've seen on
this board, since that douche Trucker who
used to post here.


--
Rich

 

[Sylvia Else]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Hello,

I just had this what seems to be a new idea:

"Detecting memory corruption with sound".

Assuming there is lots of memory corruption but for some reason still hard
to find then maybe finding it with sound might be possible ? (Maybe it could
work for little bit of corruption too ? )

Idea is to for example:

Allocate large ammounts of memory, lock em so they stay at same place.

Then fill that memory with same kind of sound/wave buffer... and then simply
play it... while maybe displaying a memory counter or so... which indicates
in which memory cell/region/range the sound is currently playing...

The sound could also be stored on harddisk first and then loaded to see if
that creates any kind of system corruption...

Maybe this could also be used to test soundblaster..

But the purpose ofcourse should be to somehow track-down what is causing the
corruption.

Could be a driver or so...

So I am just bringing this idea to your attention... maybe it has some merit
to develop/think about it further... maybe it could be usefull for something
in the future ?!

(As I was changing the subject to include "(or system)" and then moving to
the end of the subject causing the error beep in outlook express some more
sound corruption occured.... I recorded it and it's available on my webdrive
as well as other sound samples of: memory (?) or some
system/hardware/software (?) corruption, which gave me the idea !)

http://members.home.nl/hbthouppermans/CracklingAfterMillionsOfReadsAndWrites/

(I think system got corrupted after millions of reads or writes... or maybe
some part of the memory became active because of high memory usage which is
normally inactive/unused (?))

Bye,
Skybuck !

Seems to me that this just amounts to reading the memory and checking
that it contains what it should, except that the reading is slow and the
checking rather imprecise.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Seems to me that this just amounts to reading the memory and checking that
it contains what it should, except that the reading is slow and the
checking rather imprecise.

What if the corruption is triggered by something else for example playing
the sound ?!

If the problem is that playing the sound corrupts memory other than that
containing the sound, then the obvious course is to run a memory checker
(being of a kind that doesn't have to be booted on its own) along side
playing the sound.

If the corrupted memory is memory containing the sound data, then one
would have to wonder how you suspected memory corruption in the first
place.

Sylvia.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

If the corrupted memory is memory containing the sound data, then one
would have to wonder how you suspected memory corruption in the first
place.

Any other process could be corrupting the memory simply be writing to it...

Program A writes 5 to memory cell 4.

Program B writes garbage to memory cell 4.

However this only happens during sound playback...

For example the programs are some kind of kernel/driver related thingy

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

If the corrupted memory is memory containing the sound data, then one
would have to wonder how you suspected memory corruption in the first
place.

Any other process could be corrupting the memory simply be writing to it...

Program A writes 5 to memory cell 4.

Program B writes garbage to memory cell 4.

However this only happens during sound playback...

For example the programs are some kind of kernel/driver related thingy

Seems like you've narrowed the problem to be solved to that of finding
faults in sound card drivers when used for playback, rather than the
detection of general memory corruption issues.

Sylvia.

 

[TheM]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:00841295$0$18793$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Skybuck Flying wrote:
Hello,
(I think system got corrupted after millions of reads or writes... or maybe some part of the memory became active because of high
memory usage which is normally inactive/unused (?))

Bye,
Skybuck !

Seems to me that this just amounts to reading the memory and checking that it contains what it should, except that the reading is
slow and the checking rather imprecise.

Sylvia.

http://home1.stofanet.dk/viking/Do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg

M

 

[Sylvia Else]

TheM wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:00841295$0$18793$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Skybuck Flying wrote:
Hello,
(I think system got corrupted after millions of reads or writes... or maybe some part of the memory became active because of high
memory usage which is normally inactive/unused (?))

Bye,
Skybuck !
Seems to me that this just amounts to reading the memory and checking that it contains what it should, except that the reading is
slow and the checking rather imprecise.

Sylvia.

http://home1.stofanet.dk/viking/Do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg

M

If I want to feed a troll, I will. Providing sustenance to lower forms
of life appeals to my nurturing instincts.

Sylvia.