Jihad needs scientists

[Ken Smith]

In article <esh1sr$8qk_007@s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.... me ....]

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.

The simple fact is that you haven't made a point. You think that just
because you have written words that this performs some magical operation
out in space that you see as "making a point". You at least should
require that the words form a logical argument on the topic under
discussion before you claim that they "make a point".



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

In article <eshd16$l1t$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <esh1sr$8qk_007@s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.... me ....]
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.

The simple fact is that you haven't made a point. You think that just
because you have written words that this performs some magical operation
out in space that you see as "making a point". You at least should
require that the words form a logical argument on the topic under
discussion before you claim that they "make a point".

This is impossible to do since you require illogical statements
which always agree with you.

/BAH

 

In article <eshbnr$l1t$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

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.

These terms were common in the PC world.

/BAH

 

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. Remember that the
directory of the tape had to be the first file on that tape.
I had to build the tape on our inhouse systems. It would
have been easier to append the directory but that's not what
the customer needed.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

/BAH

 

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.

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".

/BAH

 

[Ken Smith]

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.

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.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In sci.physics, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
wrote
on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:31:37 -0800
<3j7mu2d76vc5eq16p9umeq49cp8kse4msj@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:08:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

I always
get confused when reading either's cache docs.


Not surprising since you don't even know where the drive controller
for an IDE drive is located, and you are so retarded that you think it
is merely a cache.

There are two controllers involved. One is attached to the
system motherboard, usually through a plastic fitting; the
other is part of the drive unit, and presumably includes
the on-drive cache. To which were you referring?

(The two are of course cabled together.)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[krw]

In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...

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.

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.

True, but such "simplicity" doesn't last. As I indicated in an
earlier article, the original IDE "interface" was a simple LS244
buffer (could have been '240) off the AT bus. The IDE "port" is a
controller now. There is a lot of smarts in a modern ATA controller
(both parallel and serial).

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.

MassivelyWrong needs to retract his head from his hindquarters.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

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.

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".

;-)

--
Keith

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

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?

Insane old cranks will find themselves concluding all kinds
of crap for no good reason at all.

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

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

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.

Multiple devices have been possible on PC since the *buses* that
the hard disk drives hang off were invented. That's why they
were buses. More evident for SCSI than IDE obviously. IDE used
the cheapest hack possible to reduce contention issues. SCSI
did it properly.


Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[MassiveProng]

On 05 Mar 2007 13:05:11 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> Gave us:

krw <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
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.

Actually, he's right.

What's on the mobo is the bus controller. Once it's pumped onto
that bus it doesn't matter what device is at the far end.
Sure, it's most likely to be a physical IDE hard disk drive,
but to the motherboard it's just a black box.

Are you confusing IDE drivers with IDE controllers? IDE drivers
are the things that need to know what commands are to be written
onto the IDE bus. They aren't drive controllers though.

Proven even moreso by the fact that today's SATA drives REQUIRE that
the master be on the end of the cable when both drives are present on
that channel. That master's Integrated Drive Electronics is the drive
controller.

I do have some confusion, however, regarding the fact that an
optical storage/read drive does not require being set master or slave,
and will work on a channel without a master.

I believe it sits on the IDE I/O channel, and accepts (through a
driver) some standard subset of I/O commands, which are now supported
in hardware at/on the IDE I/O chip.

 

[Ken Smith]

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

 

[Ken Smith]

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.

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

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.20564083e805e7a098a06e@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eshe15$l1t$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
[....]
True, but such "simplicity" doesn't last. As I indicated in an
earlier article, the original IDE "interface" was a simple LS244
buffer (could have been '240) off the AT bus. The IDE "port" is a
controller now. There is a lot of smarts in a modern ATA controller
(both parallel and serial).

"a simple" is not correct. "a small integer number of simple" would make
the above correct. The IDE bus needs to push data both directions.

The early versions when hooked to a 386, required that I/O instructions be
spaced out in time. There was a problem with the chip select remaining
true.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:11:47 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <MPG.205515a4ccabcb5498a058@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <3j7mu2d76vc5eq16p9umeq49cp8kse4msj@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:08:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

I always
get confused when reading either's cache docs.


Not surprising since you don't even know where the drive controller
for an IDE drive is located, and you are so retarded that you think it
is merely a cache.

What a snip-forging clueless dolt, Dimbulb.

ROTFLMAO. What irony! And MP claims I know nothing about hardware.

Dig yourself deeper, dumbass. You're a fucking joke already.

 

[MassiveProng]

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.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:21:23 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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 .

When you are at the bottom of a mid-oceanic trench, like you are, it
usually is.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:42:26 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.

You're an absolute retard.

You should check into an alzheimer's care clinic.

 

[MassiveProng]

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

You are assuming that software is written to do these sanity checks.

Checks have been processed by computers since the days they began
using magnetic ink after the big swindle that guy did on the airline.
Now he is the creator of most of the security "features" that printed
checks have these days. That still doesn't change the fact that they
are ALL processed by a computer.