Jihad needs scientists

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:53:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

And even if the software does detect a second illegal withdrawal,
the first one went through. Now think about a crook who dips twice;
the first will always be successful; all he has to do is increase
the check number and run the code on Pentium. That goes fast enough.

You're a total retard.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:15:46 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <ro5mu25t5k632vamea8fgrhot2q21do65k@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:24:46 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


That is not a bit by bit compare.

For the most part, yes it is as there cannot be one bit out of place
and yield the same checksum, AND the exact bits that would have to be
off in order to yield the same checksum put the likelihood at about 10
to the 17th power to one odds against.


Checksumming is useful. It is not a bit by bit compare. The only
way to guarantee that your save matches the disk copy is to go
back and read the file from the tape and compare the input
with the disk copy using the same criteria. This is a bit by
bit compare. There is a very small window of error possibility
between a

MOVE A,TAPE WORD
MOVE B,DISK WORK
CAME A,B
JRST [REPORT ERROR]
JRST .-4 ; READ NEXT WORD PAIR.


So, you were also unaware that checksums are the de facto standard
in the industry? How telling.


Checksumming is not a bit by bit compare. This sentence does not
say that 'checksumming never happens and isn't useful'.

Entire CD and DVD and soon HD DVD images are verified in this
manner. Has been done for decades without a miss.


Are you familiar with the term GIGO?

What happened to you? Why have you "missed" the rest of the world?


Checksumming, used in the way you describe, is a shortcut; a bit by
bit compare take twice as long.

Bit by bit compare is the gold standard.

Bullshit. The MICROSOFT Flight Sim X CHECKSUMS the DVD during the
install process. It reads the entire DVD, and there is no image to
check it against bit-for-bit. It relies on a checksum figure, and it
is deadly accurate, dipshit. CRC also provides data for repairing bad
spots on optical media. Guess what method is used to "find" a bad
spot, and guess what is used to verify the fix?

Checksum is the gold standard, and full copy/original verification
is done much less frequently, particularly on large files.

Small file writes can be fully verified WHILE being written on a
sector by sector basis BY THE OS., completely transparent to the user.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 13:50:34 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

I did and I still do that work. If you people are seriously
depended on the described strategies for backup, you had better
rethink your methods. They are not foolproof; some are demanding
that data gets lost.

You are fucking lost. Incremental backups are the current standard.
Companies with bigger budgets do full backups via mirroring or nightly
methods.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 13:50:34 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

I guess you don't know what a den mother does. That would explain
your 12-year-old mentality in these posts.

More likely they called you that as the part of den mothering that
relates to being a school marm prude.

Hell, you aren't even smart enough to bear that moniker.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 13:50:34 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Bullshit. I have such a drive, and it can be easily "imaged".

You need two drives to image one to the other.

snip -- more leakage drip...drip...drip...

Wrong! All that is needed are two like sized VOLUMES formatted with
the same file system. The drives can be of any type.

Don't try to start that bit-for-bit crap again either. These days,
one doesn't "image a drive" one images a volume. Large drives can
carry many volumes.

Do you even know what a volume is?

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:13:57 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

, most dim one. PCI is not required for either ATA nor Busmaster
DMA. THe first busmaster DMA ATA was on ISA, Dimbulb.

Oh but, the KRW dumbfuck has forgotten that ever since the adoption
of the PCI bus, ALL peripheral I/O passes THROUGH it, as in TERTIARY
to it.

Guess which side of that bus your precious IDE I/O chip is on?

Guess where even an ISA bus is at when used (as they were for years
after PCI hit the industry)?

The exception was AGP, and PCIx is even a PCI bus architecture, and
it is blazing fast.

Yet you seem to think that all this is bypassed. Good luck learning
about modern PC motherboards, you're going to need it.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:13:57 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Wrong. Ever heard of PCI-E? PCI is not necessary for ATA (in fact
ATA looks more like ISA).

Dumbass. PCI is instilled in the chipset, and ALL peripherals are
tertiary to it. PCI-E IS a new segment of the PCI architecture.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 15:41:22 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

These terms were common in the PC world.

/BAH

Look, dipshit... even in military circle, using NON PC computers,
such drives are the norm.

You can't even begin to fathom why.

COST.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:46:45 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on
this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part,
I will retract it immediately.

Yet another reason why you are retarded.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 15:48:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <eshcs5$l1t$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eshaf7$8ss_001@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
tape. And that was a PITA because a checksummed directory of the
tape was never precisely accurate because the checksum of the
first file (the checksummed directory of itself) always changed .

It was one of those neat CATCH-22 problems that I liked to think
about. It reminded me of those three-way mirrors in the clothing
store's dressing rooms. It was turtles all the way down.

A checksum isn't the best way to do it if but assuming a checksum is used,
the problem of the checksum including its self was solved years ago.

No, it wasn't. Not with the spec I had.

He didn't say decades ago, he said years ago.

You are STILL decades behind. Yet another proof post.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.

Nope. MFM as well as ESDI carried only two drives per channel. SCSI
is the exception, and has always carried many "ports" per channel.
That is due to the fact that the interface, SCSI, is meant for more
than hard drives.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

More proof that you are clueless.

 

[MassiveProng]

On 05 Mar 2007 22:35:36 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> Gave us:

From your sentence, I must conclude that you take pretty
strong mind altering substances. (Footpowder most likely.)

Gold Bond! One hears about it every time one visits an old folks

home. They rant about it, and a close inspection revels a white
residue around their respiratory orifices (or is that orifii?).
Heheheheh...

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <eshe41$8qk_001@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <eshcs5$l1t$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eshaf7$8ss_001@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
tape. And that was a PITA because a checksummed directory of the
tape was never precisely accurate because the checksum of the
first file (the checksummed directory of itself) always changed .

It was one of those neat CATCH-22 problems that I liked to think
about. It reminded me of those three-way mirrors in the clothing
store's dressing rooms. It was turtles all the way down.

A checksum isn't the best way to do it if but assuming a checksum is used,
the problem of the checksum including its self was solved years ago.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

Not with the spec I had. Remember that the
directory of the tape had to be the first file on that tape.

No problem. Was the contents you intended to put in the directory known
before you started to write. If so this is falling off a log simple. If
not, you have to know a little about tape drives to do it.

I had to build the tape on our inhouse systems.

Did these systems not do things that normal mag tap can and didn't you
have to option of looking at what you intend to put on the tape?

It would
have been easier to append the directory but that's not what
the customer needed.

I didn't say you had to.

Hint: what do write you when you haven't done the checksum yet? What do
you write after you have done it.

The medium was magtapes. They are not random access writable media.

Think about the questions. I gave you a huge hint as to how to do it.

On machines that do ones compliment math the checksum is a slightly better
check. Cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is not subject to the problems a
simple check sum is.

I'm not talking about the heuristic that created the checksum.

A "checksum" is not usually a CRC.

I
always used the one implemented in our DIRECT program. I'm talking
about storing a file whose contents changes with each previous
save. Remeber that a checksummed directory of the tape also has
to include the file that contains the checksummed directory of the
tape.

Like I said solved years ago.

[....]

With CRC, the same trick as is used in checksums can be done. It usually
involves a table look up to do however.

YOu are making thing too complicated. This was a problem you cannot
solve with technology.

It seems not by you. I didn't solve it. It was solved by others while I
was still learning about the subject. It isn't all that hard.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[MassiveProng]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 02:27:00 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

"SCSI controller" usually refers to the stuff that is making the SCSI
interface go. This shouldn't really be included in the "disk drive
controller" term. Things other than disk drives have been hung off SCSI
interfaces. Tape drives would be the simplest example of this. The SCSI
bus has to be general enough that such things can be done.

Yet it is STILL a "controller". Doesn't matter whether it's a
scanner or printer or plotter or hard drive, it hangs on the SCSI bus,
and is connected to the SCSI controller.

It is a device controller, so yes, calling it a drive controller is
not correct. I guess the exception would be a dedicated RAID type
controller card that utilizes the SCSI bus as its interface method.

Hey! You got one right!

 

In article <aclpu21vlpoq3vjnls8etfli6ki33plrph@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:16:22 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <3e6mu2tth78co1kfsatf1lefssf7865l6f@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:35:48 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


Yes,yes. Is this hardware or software? Note, for the purposes
of this discussion, firmware is soft. Oh, and exclude optical--
I don't understand that stuff.

Bwuahahahahahah!

So, you have no clue as to why logical block addressing was even
introduced?

You scream "knows nothing" with your every post!

Tell us... how many times, while you were "at the library" did you
ever visit the "wikipedea" page? Your answer will be quite revealing.

No times. Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be correct. Most of
the stuff we learned not to do has never been documented.

Bwuahahahahahah!

You should have qualified that as: "A small percentage of wikipedia
entries cannot be trusted as being correct."

The one thing you should have learned not to do, whether documented
or not, is act like you know something which you do not. That is
where you are in most of the discussions in this thread.

At the moment, there is a controversy going on about the Wikipedia
entry about VM. The consensus of bit gods is that both sides
are wrong. So why should I use Wikipedia for a reference of
definitions when I know they are wrong and are not likely to
be corrected anytime soon, if at all.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.2056422472aa66b398a06f@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]
Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of
error but there is a point that I would like to make here.

Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we
called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the
electronics used related to disk drives today.

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

SCSI controllers can have several devices hanging off them. There
are two interfaces per parallel ATA port. Things get a little
complicated, depending on exactly what variety of ATA port one is
talking about though. At it's simplest ATA is just a buffer from the
8086 bus. Later devices have fully independent busmastering DMA disk
ports.

For some reason, I thought SCSI was daisy chained which isn't
a win for some kinds of gear setups.

Today, there is a lot more electronics included in the term "controller"
mostly because we didn't create a new term to cover the new stuff. The
bulk of work of the controller of old is now done by the disk drive but
mother board chip set now has a bunch of this new work to do. The IDE was
the point where the mother board electronics was the simplest.

I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on
this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part,
I will retract it immediately.

The term for this paragraph is "disclaimer".

;-)

I still have ours in my head..."this is not to be construed
as a committment of Digital...."

When used in front of a DECUS session, it always got a laugh.

/BAH

 

In article <esij9m$9en$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <eshesp$8qk_004@s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]
Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of
error but there is a point that I would like to make here.

Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we
called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the
electronics used related to disk drives today.

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.
Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.

Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this.

This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because
the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware
pathways was the trade off.

/BAH

 

In article <gonpu25k0hbm4i23eed5r63lin4v3ll5er@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

And one controller could have many devices hanging off it.


Nope. MFM as well as ESDI carried only two drives per channel. SCSI
is the exception, and has always carried many "ports" per channel.
That is due to the fact that the interface, SCSI, is meant for more
than hard drives.

Once upon a time, controllers had many diskdrives and/or magtape
drives hanging off them. This gave the installation the freedom
to add drives or remove drives without having to replace the
whole string.

/BAH

 

In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your
descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction.


More proof that you are clueless.

I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go
when the only way people can do their finances is via
computers systems installed in their abodes.

/BAH