Jihad needs scientists

[MassiveProng]

On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

At the moment, there is a controversy going on about the Wikipedia
entry about VM.

How the fuck would you even know, claiming to have never been there?

 

[MassiveProng]

On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.

You're an idiot, and neither are you a bit god, nor are anyone you
have given this title to. Obviously.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:42:21 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.

]

More proof that you know nothing about the industry, much less where
it is headed.

 

In article <gmlpu25b3tfs69secilf7ppjvsbm0ph0s5@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

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.

Why? The water payment software of my town cannot
handle negative numbers. The agreement I had to sign
that allowed Social Security to deposit to my bank
account has wording that allows a withdrawal (IOW
a negative number). Put on that programming cap
you think you own and read the fine print.

/BAH

 

In article <esikk3$9en$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

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.

Sure. But you are missing the requirement that the DIR file
was a checksummed directory of the _tape_, not of the
contents of the tape before it was saved.

If so this is falling off a log simple.

I am aware of that one. This was a directory of the tape,
not the files of the disk before they were copied to the
tape.

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.

You are not solving the problem I was talking about.

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.

You are talking about checksumming the files on the disk. That
was not the purpose of the directory file. This directory file
had to be done on the tape.

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.

No, it is a problem that cannot be solved.

[....]
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.

It was not solved by other; it is impossible to do.

/BAH

 

In article <rcoqu2h5urukiqjdgukr9c376h9o9q9g5i@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


At the moment, there is a controversy going on about the Wikipedia
entry about VM.


How the fuck would you even know, claiming to have never been there?

I keep company the bit gods.

/BAH

 

In article <ieoqu2d4uvu74k80s9ai2s57c3b8a9ibfr@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.


You're an idiot, and neither are you a bit god,

I have never claimed to be one.

nor are anyone you
have given this title to. Obviously.

The systems and comm you are using were partly or mostly
created by people I worked with. One even lived in my
house.

I know a bit god when I see one.

/BAH

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

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.

Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is.

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.

Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is.

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.

Thanks for demonstrating how limited your knowledge is.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

Ken Smith wrote:

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.

That's as self-serving statement as I've ever seen.

It is a hard disk controller and more, a superset rather
than "something different" that you'd prefer to make it.

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.

The IDE connection supports CD drives as well as CR-R and
CD-RW drives. IDE can also support tape drives designed
for that purpose. Think Travan.

http://www.pacificdata.com/ide_tapedrive.html

<flush> your argument.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

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

snip

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.

snip

Using a Microsoft game as your standard?

Good for you, not so good for serious uses.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

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.

Now there's irony. LOL Where are those Brits now?

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

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.

Your sun may rise and set around "modern PC motherboards" but
not everyone's does.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng 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.

Had tapes on them too.

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.

Wrong again. SCSI is NOT an exception. You'd probably be
surprised at the sorts of things we hang off a centronics
parallel I-O port. You folks call that the printer port
because IBM named it LPT1.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

It is an advance not unlike many before this.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <990b$45ed7583$4fe701c$6070@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
[....]
"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.

That's as self-serving statement as I've ever seen.

It is a hard disk controller and more, a superset rather
than "something different" that you'd prefer to make it.

[....]

The IDE connection supports CD drives as well as CR-R and
CD-RW drives. IDE can also support tape drives designed
for that purpose. Think Travan.

We have already covered the fact that the "disk drive controller" circuits
were all on the disk drive it self in the IDE case. The electronics being
refered to as the disk drive controller is the electronics that moved into
the disk drive when we went from things like the ST506 to the IDE drives.

The fact that things like tape drives can connect to the IDE cable proves
my point. In the SCSI case all the disk drive controller electronics is
still within the disk drive. The thing in the mother board is a SCSI
controller.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esjjt0$8ss_003@s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

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:
[......]
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.

Not providing a buggy whip holder in a car is the same sort of trade off.
Having multiple disks connected to a single disk drive controller
electronics gives absolutely no advantage and a few disadvantages.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
[....]
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.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.

Not what BAH is refering to isn't. The change she is disagreeing with
didn't start with any ability to do operations between drives without the
CPU getting involved. The disk drive controller electronics was shared
between two drives but only one drive could operate at a time.

It is posible that she has confused the disk drive controller with a
thing called a channel controller that was a topic in earlier discussion.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

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.

Don't wonder why you stand alone in these discussions
lacking any admiration for your efforts.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

[....]

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.

Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism
hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.


Not what BAH is refering to isn't. The change she is disagreeing with
didn't start with any ability to do operations between drives without the
CPU getting involved. The disk drive controller electronics was shared
between two drives but only one drive could operate at a time.

It is posible that she has confused the disk drive controller with a
thing called a channel controller that was a topic in earlier discussion.

Seems to me she's delving into theory while you're stuck
in "hardware as it is now" arguments. She's learning from
you, possibly not in ways you can relate to.