Jihad needs scientists

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.

/BAH
 
In article <esevoq$o8u$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <eseg77$8qk_001@s993.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esc81s$atc$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <esboom$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es9f0f$q95$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es98ds$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[....]
The other stuff I've spoken to elsewhere.

The case that I brought up was database; with databases, the data
is always a moving target that can never be snap-shot with accuracy.

This is not always true. In a multidisk mirroring system, you can do a
commit and unmount one drive. It will be an image of what was there at
the time the commit happened. Disks are fast enough that this option can
be used for most applications. The delay caused by the OS's commit
operation is not very long.

I know this is one strategy. One kind of implementation was called
striping. For a reservation system, this may not be the best
technique because data entry and maintenance is over a wide
geographical area; the speed of light is very slow.

You said "never".

That's right; that kind of data base can never be snapshot with
accuracy; this is because the same field can change often at
the same wall clock time.

So now you go back to "never". Which is it?
I wish you would think and read at the same time.
I'm getting weary of this word game you keep resorting
to when I've made a point.

<snip>

/BAH
 
In article <d87d5$45eac8ae$4fe73ef$20995@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <48cku2dg872ekdnpgtu6u9phbndvhu92oo@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:03:35 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:



In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.


Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet
skills.

It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the
maternal kind.

More immature petty baby bullshit. You have succeeded in letting
the Unlearned Tard drag you down to its level. Congratulations.


Your congratualtions are premature. I have yet to achieve his level
of thinking ability. It's a fine goal.

Thank you. However IMO we're merely displaced on the
same plateau.
[blushing emoticon bows] And it's uphill both ways :).

/BAH
 
In article <f97mu2hjqpm94t8hjaatra9d3436rj2f2g@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:25:02 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <48cku2dg872ekdnpgtu6u9phbndvhu92oo@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:03:35 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:



In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.


Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet
skills.

It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the
maternal kind.

More immature petty baby bullshit. You have succeeded in letting
the Unlearned Tard drag you down to its level. Congratulations.


Your congratualtions are premature. I have yet to achieve his level
of thinking ability. It's a fine goal.

Thank you. However IMO we're merely displaced on the
same plateau.


Yes... the same "plateau" as whale shit resides.
I can think of ways to use whale shit. I still cannot
think of a way to yours.

/BAH
 
In article <o67mu29sv19p8014nuonk16opltldsdp17@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 07 13:11:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <20dku29jsq6ahmd2ucqjrm0279atd4ll2r@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:22:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

There are plenty of data bases in today's online world that can never
be taken off-line.


You're an idiot.

You stopped thinking. Consider finance. Transportation,
especially things like trains, planes, and some ships.
Consider war objects. Consider NORAD. Consider power
generating stations. Consider the networks and telecomm.


ALL have servers which are taken offline ALL THE TIME.
Yes, the hardware has to be kept independent of the data base.
This problem has given lots of people job security for decades.

You really don't know how it is done these days. You prove it with
your every post.
It is too bad you don't know how to recognize and learn from people
who have the knowledge you don't.

/BAH
 
In article <MPG.2054ad0bf134f2a98a054@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <esbq1q$8qk_008@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.20520a9f9e61c03b98a03c@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <es92g1$8ss_002@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a031@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f4cm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling.


Bullshit. My landlord gets a check, and his bank submits it to
my
bank who has it ON FILE RIGHT NOW, I get an image of the check in
my
mailed monthly statement, and can look up a full size image of all
my
checks online.

Dumber-than-a-dim-bulb, you're wrong.

No. You are. I can even request the return of the check.

Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is
turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed.

This is the bug in the process, IMO. The process depends on the human,
who is scanning the physical paper, to destroy it.

It doesn't matter if the physical check is destroyed or not. The
routing and account numbers are all that matters. The paper check is
only a carrier for those.


What prevents multiple scans?

Oh, that's the real beauty of the system. NOTHING. It happens all
the time. Better have online banking so you can catch it before you
start bouncing checks.
And that's why people precede the post office carrier around here and
collect the checks that were written to pay bills. My past year's
goal was to learn how to live without checking. It's not been
pretty; it cannot be done by people have to work for a living.
It also requires a local bank that's cooperative (no fees are
charged to breathe in their building...yet). I've had to go
back to old-fashioned accounting posting methods to keep track
of cash flows.
BTW, I had to agree to allow my employer to reach into my account to
pull money out before I could get direct deposit.
What do you think Social Security depositing did? And I had
no choice in the matter.

At least there is
some protection there, but this will become the general case.
You have no protection from SS. The news coming out this
week about our legislature's edict that "Thou shalt pay
thousands each year for medical insurance" has me seriously
thinking about moving. Price quoted is 57 year olds pay $400/month.
That's $5K a year and still no access to medical services.

If I were a business, I'd withdraw medical benefits and state
insurance. Poof! All the mess erased in one swell foop.
And the state still has not provided anybody a means to prove
we have insurance. Deadline is July 1, 2007. If you haven't
supplied proof, you pay a penalty on the 2007 income tax forms.
Not only do they have everybody who works and/or lives here
by the short and curlies, they've got everybody's paycheck on
both ends.

Watch closely what happens here. If it succeeds, where succeed
means that no politicians are found hanging from trees, it'll
go national with even more Nazi-like rules.

/BAH
 
In article <lm7mu25skv8pnpoi3pmfjcgird3dep2dce@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:44:51 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


BTW, I had to agree to allow my employer to reach into my account to
pull money out before I could get direct deposit. At least there is
some protection there, but this will become the general case.


Bullshit. The mechanism by which employers begin direct deposits
differs from employer to employer and from payroll agency to payroll
agency.

You could be a bit more clueless, just not in this life.
All a despositor has to do is negate the number and shwoosh!
you have a negative balance and no money.

/BAH
 
In article <1173085079.133726.187830@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:35 pm, jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
In article <MPG.20520a9f9e61c03b98a...@news.individual.net>,
krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <es92g1$8ss_...@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbah...@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a...@news.individual.net>,
krw <k...@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f...@4ax.com>,
MassivePr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn...@4ax.com>,
MassivePr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbah...@aol.com Gave us:

The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling.

WOW! The US finally abandons stone age banking technology.

Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is
turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed.

This is the bug in the process, IMO. The process depends on the human,
who is scanning the physical paper, to destroy it.

It doesn't matter if the physical check is destroyed or not. The
routing and account numbers are all that matters. The paper check is
only a carrier for those.

Whatpreventsmultiplescans?

Don't US cheques have a serial number so that the thing will only be
processed once by your bank no matter how many times it gets scanned?
You are assuming that software is written to do these sanity checks.
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.

If the crook isn't greedy and just asks for a pittance and runs
through a retailer's data base, he can make quite a bit for
a few seconds of online time.

UK banks haven't returned cheques to their customers for decades. It
is pointless wasteful paper shuffling. Only if you challenge a cheque
transaction as invalid does anything need to move.

UK banks permit cheques to be written on almost any legal object
provided that all the information required for processing the
transaction is included - the record I believe is currently held by a
farmer who wrote one on a live cow. Postage for returning these more
esoteric objects used as cheques would be very expensive. Obviously
you lose the cheque book serial number lock in when using an
unconventional medium for your cheque.
Now think about the code written by people who have the
equivalent knowhow as some of the posters in their thread drift.


Protesters tend to take advantage of this feature when writing cheques
for court fines. eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3159242.stm

Most non-cash transactions in the UK these days use cryptographically
signed bank card technology promoted as "chip & PIN". Same technology
also used on credit cards here. A signature is no longer good enough.
FWIU, Europe has implemented a method of payments where you, the
bill payer, pushes the money instead of the payee pulling the
money out of your account. The US doesn't have a "push" method.


It isn't quite as powerful as the longer established Belgian system
which also allows Proton E-cash for small transactions where the bank
card also holds pure currency in a cryptographically secure form.
"Protons" can be used exactly like cash for small purchases like a
loaf of bread - no change needed.
The new wrinkle that just happened here is that writing a check
now gives implicit agreement for the scanner of the check to
electronically access the account. There is nothing in the
terms written on my bills that states it is a singular permission.

IOW, as I read it, the agreements can be interpreted to be
giving the receiver of the check a blank debit card. I can't
see where in the process the amount withdrawn is compared to
the amount written on the piece of paper. That happens
as much as two months later when the check writer gets his
statement.

From what I hear on the news, fewer and fewer people balance
their bank statements.

/BAH
 
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.
 
In article <eseufl$o8u$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <87zm6t5c5o.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[....]
You are telling the developers that they are wrong?!!

He's telling you you're wrong. I don't believe you could develop
anything more complex than gout.

Lots of very complex but wrong software has been developed.
This was written by a person who used the products we sold.

You can't have it both ways, hon.

/BAH
 
Big Bertha Thing electron
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/electron.html
Access page JPG 53K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews including soc.history.what-if

Round photographic plates.

Caption;-
Showing a track left by a cosmic ray electron,
in a magnetic field of 12,000 oersteds.
The energy of this electron is 8 MeV,
very low for a cosmic ray,
but much higher than that of any electron
ever ejected, by a gamma ray from a natural
radioactive substance.

From a book by
J.D.Stranathan Ph.D.,
Professor of Physics and Chairman of
Department, University of Kansas.
The "Particles" of Modern Physics.
(C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942

Big Bertha Thing noah

When its raining cats, dogs, kitchen sinks,
the lot. The time to start worrying is when
you see a guy building an ark.

Pastures is mathematical ark,
to negotiate a sea of numbers,
with Outlandish PPT by Structure,
as the first of many rainbows.

(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete copies, free of charge.

Tony Lance
judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk


From: Tony Lance <judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk>
Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Big Bertha Thing mayor
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:23:16 +0000


17 February 1998 19:47:02
Message
From: Tony Lance
Subject: Group and Pip
To: group
Cc: Philip Sims
gary.s Cresswell
I keep hearing people disavowing membership of the group.
All group members, except those in First Aid Tent, were
volunteers who have not resigned.
Everyone, including First Aid Tent members, have never
dissented to group postings till now.
The only unexplained event is membership of the First Aid Tent.

Big Bertha Thing pip

Guilty as charged. I should not have done any of the following;-
1. defended you in the mods conf.
2. given you an invitation, when the dogs were at the door.
3. offered a refuge for the explosion survivors.
4. ticked off the mods.
5. put your name up in lights on OUSA Astronomy and Astronomy
and Space.
6. Put back the release of my software package, just because
of the troubles.

Personally I would take me out and shoot me, there is no punishment
too bad for any mod, who gets even one complaint. We should be
above reproach, like Caesers' wife.

I will of course remove the words 'Extract to explain the project
to Philip Sims' from all further postings.

Please accept my appologies for all the bad things I did before
your elevation to mod. I only pick on little people.

Thank you,
Tony Lance

End of Big Bertha Thing pip
 
In article <eacku2tdsf6thdaatjmm5jl2icokitfcvm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:15:55 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <es9eh9$q95$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es95ji$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es6rgr$kgg$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es6h92$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
snip

Honey, you are not paranoid enough.

I have suggested the reasonable way to deal with the problems of doing a
back up.

Your methods have serious problems.

You're an idiot.

You are so determined to prove me wrong

It was my job to find all flaws of all processes, systems,

Then why did you stop looking two decades ago? You know NOTHING
about modern computing systems.
Bit flows have not changed. Preservation and distribution methods
have not changed, only the medium has changed. For that matter,
the current medium of today's distributions is a caues of the
security problems. Some things need to be slowly so that there
is enough time for quality assurance checking to occur.


and designs and think of solutions.

As if you could improve on a "design".
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.

I didn't earn the title
den mother for nothing.

Bwuahahahahah! How funny. You likely earned it as a joke on you.
I guess you don't know what a den mother does. That would explain
your 12-year-old mentality in these posts.
that you haven't even
read and thought about what I wrote.

I've read and thought about your ideas over 30 years ago.

Horseshit!
Nah, that was 50 years ago.
This
is all old stuff and I'm learning that this is another piece
of knowledge that seems to have been lost.

You're an idiot. Backup schemas have been improved upon for
decades. You are decades behind, and every time you assert this utter
CRAP, you prove it to be so.
If you think your backup procedures are improved, you will have
a very unpleasant surprise some day.

You just bark some new claim at the
thread and assume that it will convince people.

This is not a conflict of who knows more than the other.

You lost that one at the starting gate, Bessie.

These
are serious matters and there is no room for pissing contests.

Then why are you trying to out piss everyone, ditzoflex?
I am not. I keep wondering why you insist on the contest.
[....]
This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not. Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.
Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night. Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

The disks and computer have gotten faster more than they have gotten
bigger.

Sure they've become "faster". The capacity increases have stayed
ahead of processing speeds.

You're an idiot. Your latency figure is on the order of two decades
or more.

Today it takes less time to image my 250G disk than it did the
10M Winchester that was the first one I imaged.

I don't believe imaged the Winchester. I think you dumped it to
magtape or some similar unit record medium.

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...>

/BAH
 
In article <7a43a$45ec1801$4fe7193$29320@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
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.
It is the only standard when you are cutting the master distribution
tape. I designed our procedures so that a checksummed directory
of the tape was the first file on the tape. That way a customer
could tell if one of the famous cosmic rays shot their distribution
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.

/BAH
 
In article <esc95d$atc$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <esc02o$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es9g64$q95$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.... intel ....]
I still can't find it. I searched the PDF version of the report for word
"division" and nothing like that came up. Do you have a page number?

You have to read the whole report and then compare the different
product areas.

I have read the damn thing. Now tell me where these number are.

You'll have to wait for this answer. Last year's had separate
sections discussing the PC biz and the embedded controller biz.
The embedded piece took in a lot more money but I don't recall
the percentage. I do recall it was significant.

I think you are misrembering it.
That is possible but not likely because I remember being very
surprised. I also thought PCs brought them more money.
<snip complete abject determination to read all as 100% wrong>

/BAH
 
In article <clrnu25osju950torle6oq699df6o8jtah@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <cvjmu2pgfsrpjfvvjie752jaemsndk04dm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:42:54 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <cd7mu25du691t138q6uatnmt7jdlqqvp31@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:54:07 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <9ldku21o58531j21nnipbg2qorbqtc71li@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:38:29 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling
controllers.


IDE controllers are ALL ON THE DRIVE.

Clueless.

The part on the MOBO is called an I/O interface, NOT a drive
controller.

You couldn't be more clueless, Dumbulb.

Tell us, oh master of IDE... Where is the controller located for the
IDE/computer interface.

Where is the DMA BUSMASTER CONTROLLER, MassivelyWrong? You're so far
out of your league you can't even find the light switch.

PCI bus mastering is NOT a hard drive controller, you fucking
retard.

Who said anything about PCI, Dimbulb?

You fucking idiot. You were jacking off about DMA.
Gee, most dim one. PCI is not required for either ATA nor Busmaster
DMA. THe first busmaster DMA ATA was on ISA, Dimbulb.

NO peripheral makes it onto a MOBO except THROUGH the PCI bus. As
in TERTIARY to it.
Wrong. Ever heard of PCI-E? PCI is not necessary for ATA (in fact
ATA looks more like ISA).

You need to grasp that fact, dumbass.
You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit your smelly ass, oh
MassivelyWrong one!

--
Keith
 
In article <esh1bm$8qk_004@s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2054aaec1791f94798a052@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <eseef4$8qk_001@s993.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
snip

Thank you!

Words change meaning, levels of indirection are thrown in, confusion
reigns, Dimbulb is wrong (and swears a blue streak to prove it).
Nothing ever changes.

[glum emoticon here] Yea, no progres has been observed.

I've made this point in the other group, but sometimes things are
invented in more than one place at close to the same time. Each
invents new words and a mess occurs. For example: AMD and Intel have
totally different and contradictory vocabulary WRT caches. I always
get confused when reading either's cache docs.

Well, when I started typing that kind of stuff up, we created
our own spellings, too.
You mean like "disk" and "DASD". Oh, and "pel". ;-)

--
Keith
 
In article <urrnu2hckhb1lmai0dsupup8cma40188lq@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:28:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <53kmu2l27tht6bvo2skhmat172tf1kilc5@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:45:55 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <i38mu2t8oe1kr97c2ro6o23119r38cncsa@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:19:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

Some fraction of the controller has been on the disk drive for a long
time. As we went ST506->EDI->fast ATA->SATA, more and more of the
workings moved into the drive.

The KiethTard seems to think the opposite, but I agree with you.

As we moved to DMA-4 -> ATA->2 ATA-345 -> SATA more and more moved
back to the chipset, dumbass Dimbulb.


The chipset has NOTHING to do with this, you retarded fuckhead!

Clueless as ever.

WELL BEFORE the chipset is even encountered, IDE I/O interfaces have
their own chip. That is ALSO true for SATA, so AS WE MOVED toward DMA
type transfers, we STILL required an I/O chip to pass it off to the
PCI Bus, you fucking idiot. The DRIVE controller, however, is STILL
ON THE DRIVE.

Clueless.

You will not win, because you are fucking wrong.

Says MassivelyWrong (a rather fitting name for you Dimbulb, even if I
do say so myself).

Her's a clue... EVERYTHING peripheral I/O oriented is tertiary to
the PCI bus. That includes the IDE I/O interface chip that ALL
motherboard makers use on ALL motherboards.

Clueless.

Go try to buy a clue now, dumbass.

From you? Not possible, oh MassivelyWrong one.

For IDE, ALL BIOS and OS calls to the hard drive go through the I/O
interface and to the CONTROLLER which is located ON the hard drive.
Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh
MassivelyWrong one.

YOU are the one that is wrong, asswipe.

Another "movement" from Dimbulb.

--
Keith
 
In article <esh6in$8qk_002@s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <eseufl$o8u$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <87zm6t5c5o.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[....]
You are telling the developers that they are wrong?!!

He's telling you you're wrong. I don't believe you could develop
anything more complex than gout.

Lots of very complex but wrong software has been developed.

This was written by a person who used the products we sold.

You can't have it both ways, hon.
I have also used Windows.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <esh15o$8qk_003@s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <874pp16r7c.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Has controller functionality moved into all disk drives? That
sorta sucks. ....Do these disk drives have multi ports?

Ever since IDE was invented, and before that too.
You're several decades behind the rest of the world.

From your sentence, I must conclude that you are saying
all disk drives are IDE?
For a while it could be said that a high enough percentage was that if
someone said disk drive you could assume IDE. SCSI was the next most
common but not nearly as common.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
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.

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

One an NRZ tape, a small defect can damage two bytes in a row. This
damage can cause the checksum to come out the same in an alarmingly high
percentage of the cases. The parity usually warns you but even it can be
fooled.

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





--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top