Better yet, let's move to a system of logic where there is one state for each possible answer. This woman is asking if we're fundamentally making improper assumptions about programming, and that's why we're making crap programs. My proposed machine would fix that, because it has an output state for every possible answer. All that would be required is to select the desired output answer, then map it back to the input state. Bingo! We've now got the right question to ask.
(Or in other non-silly words, adding more states to a computer logical system doesn't make it more useful).
So what you're saying is that the future of our country depends on the entire population moving into trailer homes? And only then will we cheap enough in comparison to the rest of the world to get work? And only then can we get rich?
Suddenly my stupid uncle living in the trailer doesn't seem so stupid. After all, he lives without working at all, while I bust my ass at a keyboard. I thought that I was living on the cutting edge of society. I was one of the first people with a computer in their home. I was sending e-mail when there were only 100,000 people on the Internet. I was using Linux when there were only 100,000 users. Little did I know that my good ol' Uncle Bob in the trailer wasn't a throwback, but that he was the avant garde of society. For the past 30 years, he's been trying to show all of us the way to live, pointing us all towards the future dream of a single-wide trailer and a rusty K-car out front. How did I get it so wrong?
The PVR that comes with a service is not an advantage for either. The reason being that you REALLY want to get a TiVo. Everything sucks in comparison (mileage may vary).
TiVo will work with either your satellite or cable, without any trouble. As far as the other issues, I've had both DirectTV and Dish Network (currently have Dish). You will lose the signal when it rains hard. I live in Texas, the land of flash floods, and the most I've lost my signal for is an hour. More typical is 3-4 minutes. It takes a hell of a storm to block the signal for longer than that.
Birds, airplanes, people, etc. will not block the signal. Anyone who claims that they will is on crack.
When people talk about the space shuttle computers they usually mean the 5 computers that control vehicle flight.
Anyway, lots of Intel Pentium and later class computers have flown on the shuttle. I don't think they have too much trouble with the radiation, despite being off-the-shelf models. The shuttle is still well protected from radiation at its typical altitude.
If you enjoy computers then play with them. You will lose your joy if you become a professional.
Another explanation is that if that happens, then you probably didn't like computers as much as you thought you did.
I started out with a love for computers. I've been programming them for more than 20 years. I program computers all day long. It doesn't hurt that I use Linux at work. Then I come home and do the same thing, except my own personal projects. I still love it.
The carriage was pulled by radioactive horses, and was carrying a load of pitch blende which is what they used to feed the horses in those days. Not many people know that. See? Radiation did kill him.
I have just one question. I've looked all over for the answer, unsuccessfully. You seem to know what you're talking about.
How do I make a CSS layout thingy that lets me put a big image next to the nav bar?
My web page (www.pdrap.org) has a photo album. If you look at http://www.pdrap.org//photo_albums/year_2003/April/anole/pdr_0132.html for example, you'll see what I'm talking about.
In Mozilla, the photo is directly to the right of the nav bar. The photo makes the page very wide, so Mozilla puts a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom, which is what I want.
IE seems to detect that the photo would make the page too wide, so it puts the photo below the nav bar.
Any hints for me? I'm not a whiz at this. The whole reason why I switched my website to nothing but CSS was to play with it and learn it. I used to have frames before, which worked fine.
For me, the Captain was never in color. My family didn't get a color TV until 1978 when I was 10 years old.
That never stopped me from loving the Captain. I still think back to those days with a lot of fondness, and great amazement that I would crawl out of bed before 8 AM to watch him every day.
Windows 3.0 could take partial advantage of the 386, it is true. That was the ability of the 386 to address more than 1 meg of RAM. But, 32 bit code was thunked down to 16 bits, because underlying all of Windows was DOS.
Intel made 286's up to 16.5 Mhz, not 25 Mhz. Siemens licensed the 80286 and pushed it to 20 Mhz. Harris got all the way to 25 Mhz.
The average instruction timing for the 80386 was about 3 clocks per instruction, and for the 80286, it was about 5 clocks per instruction. But, that's averaged over the entire instruciton set as listed in the manual. They also used the best timings available to the CPU. For example, an integer ADD instruction takes 2 clocks on a 386 when you add two registers. But when you add a register and a memory location, the ADD instruction takes 7 clock cycles. Real world code produced by compilers doesn't use the instruction set uniformly, and real world code results in a lot of the slower usages of the instructions. The result was that the 80286 kept up very well with the 80386.
Take a look at: http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an111.pdf
Here's a quote I found. It's really hard to find instruction set timing comparisons between the 80286 and the 80386. It basically says that the 80286 can run the code in 15 clocks, and the 80386 can run the code between 11 and 16 clocks. The variation on the 80386 is probably because the 386 started introducing pipelines in the processor. Obviously, the technique wasn't that effective for increasing speed, other than clock speed.
The following statements produce the same results, but take between 74 and 81 clocks on the 8088 or 8086 processors. The same statements take 15 clocks on the 80286 and between 11 and 16 clocks on the 80386. (For a discussion about instruction timings, see "A Word on Instruction Timings" in the Introduction.)
mov bl, 2 ; Multiply byte in AL by 2
mul bl
And, I found these things in a 80386 programming reference manual. One is in the section about the differences between an 80386 and an 8086. The second one is about the 80386 vs. the 80286.
14.7 Differences From 8086
In general, the 80386 in real-address mode will correctly execute ROM-based software designed for the 8086, 8088, 80186, and 80188. Following is a list of the minor differences between 8086 execution on the 80386 and on an 8086.
1. Instruction clock counts.
The 80386 takes fewer clocks for most instructions than the 8086/8088.
The areas most likely to be affected are:
* Delays required by I/O devices between I/O operations.
* Assumed delays with 8086/8088 operating in parallel with an 8087.
The part about the 286 doesn't specify anything about the instruction set.
14.8 Differences From 80286 Real-Address Mode
The few differences that exist between 80386 real-address mode and 80286 real-address mode are not likely to affect any existing 80286 programs except possibly the system initialization procedures.
So, I hope I've met the burden of proof. I've showed that 386 computers running Windows 3.0 were running DOS underneath, that they had to thunk down to 16-bit code for all the operating system stuff, and that from the instruction set timing information (with references) an 80286 and an 80286 running 16-bit code at the same clock speed were very close in performance.
When the 386 was introduced it was, clock-for-clock, twice as fast as the 286, no recompiling necessary.
That actually wasn't true. The 386 might have been able to move 4 bytes at a time rather than two bytes, but not many apps could use that kind of speedup. And, if your app benefitted from that kind of speedup, you were better running it on an Amiga or Atari that had a hardware blitter chip.
Besides, the 386 ran DOS mainly, and therefore was in 16 bit mode. The 286 and the 386 were very comparable at the same clock speeds running DOS. By the end of their lives, you could get a 20 Mhz 286 chip from Harris, or a 40 Mhz 386 chip from AMD I think. It was all about clock speed.
What do you recommend for someone like me? I don't play very often, and I suck at AA. When I do play, I usually wind up dead very quickly. I'd play more if the game were more fun, and if I could find people who also suck to play with.
You can't turn a 3 lane highway into a 1.5 lane highway, except by removing lanes. Your comment doesn't make an ounce of sense. In fact, that sort of misunderstanding of how to use the lanes on the highway is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from the horribly stupid drivers I observe every day.
To all the lousy drivers out there: take your cowboy hat off, get off the cell phone, get out of the left lane, use your turn signals, and put some air into your tires.
The left lane is A passing lane, not THE passing lane. If you're not passing, you should be in the right lane. Middle lanes should also be passing. Don't go slower than the right lane in the middle lane.
No. I'm just pointing out that it's not consistent to decry an ad hominem, then respond with one of your own, in the same sentence. I wasn't saying a single thing about politics, BTW. We could have been talking about geraniums.
The Saturn V could be rebuilt today, but would cost a lot due to reengineering. It's not that the plans were lost, but that technology has changed. Many things available in the 1960's are not available any more, because they've been replaced by improved technologies. For example, Saturn V had sequencers, not computers. The whole rocket could be run with the equivalent of a mini-itx board saving a lot of weight and complexity over the old sequencer circuitry, but the reengineering would cost millions.
The engines themselves were relatively unremarkable (except for their amazing size) scale-ups of typical kerosine-LOX engines of the 1960's. Easy to make new ones if we wanted to.
Slashdot Mirror
Get help. You may be an alcoholic. It should take approximately a half hour to finish a sixpack.
It's better than Cats.
I will see it again and again.
(If you don't get the joke, don't moderate.)
Better yet, let's move to a system of logic where there is one state for each possible answer. This woman is asking if we're fundamentally making improper assumptions about programming, and that's why we're making crap programs. My proposed machine would fix that, because it has an output state for every possible answer. All that would be required is to select the desired output answer, then map it back to the input state. Bingo! We've now got the right question to ask.
(Or in other non-silly words, adding more states to a computer logical system doesn't make it more useful).
the human ancestor, homo erectus
Ron Jeremy came to mind, actually.
Obviously, the only person who isn't a South Park fan modded me down. Or, maybe they ARE a 5 assed monkey, you insensitive clod!
So what you're saying is that the future of our country depends on the entire population moving into trailer homes? And only then will we cheap enough in comparison to the rest of the world to get work? And only then can we get rich?
Suddenly my stupid uncle living in the trailer doesn't seem so stupid. After all, he lives without working at all, while I bust my ass at a keyboard. I thought that I was living on the cutting edge of society. I was one of the first people with a computer in their home. I was sending e-mail when there were only 100,000 people on the Internet. I was using Linux when there were only 100,000 users. Little did I know that my good ol' Uncle Bob in the trailer wasn't a throwback, but that he was the avant garde of society. For the past 30 years, he's been trying to show all of us the way to live, pointing us all towards the future dream of a single-wide trailer and a rusty K-car out front. How did I get it so wrong?
1) Start with a 5 assed mouse
2) ???
3) 5 Assed monkey!
It is left as an excercise for the reader to create a 5 assed mouse.
The PVR that comes with a service is not an advantage for either. The reason being that you REALLY want to get a TiVo. Everything sucks in comparison (mileage may vary).
TiVo will work with either your satellite or cable, without any trouble. As far as the other issues, I've had both DirectTV and Dish Network (currently have Dish). You will lose the signal when it rains hard. I live in Texas, the land of flash floods, and the most I've lost my signal for is an hour. More typical is 3-4 minutes. It takes a hell of a storm to block the signal for longer than that.
Birds, airplanes, people, etc. will not block the signal. Anyone who claims that they will is on crack.
When people talk about the space shuttle computers they usually mean the 5 computers that control vehicle flight.
Anyway, lots of Intel Pentium and later class computers have flown on the shuttle. I don't think they have too much trouble with the radiation, despite being off-the-shelf models. The shuttle is still well protected from radiation at its typical altitude.
Wrong, the shuttle does not use x86 processors.
If you enjoy computers then play with them. You will lose your joy if you become a professional.
Another explanation is that if that happens, then you probably didn't like computers as much as you thought you did.
I started out with a love for computers. I've been programming them for more than 20 years. I program computers all day long. It doesn't hurt that I use Linux at work. Then I come home and do the same thing, except my own personal projects. I still love it.
It's written in Old Engrish, that's why.
The carriage was pulled by radioactive horses, and was carrying a load of pitch blende which is what they used to feed the horses in those days. Not many people know that. See? Radiation did kill him.
I have just one question. I've looked all over for the answer, unsuccessfully. You seem to know what you're talking about.
l /anole/pdr_0132.html for example, you'll see what I'm talking about.
How do I make a CSS layout thingy that lets me put a big image next to the nav bar?
My web page (www.pdrap.org) has a photo album. If you look at http://www.pdrap.org//photo_albums/year_2003/Apri
In Mozilla, the photo is directly to the right of the nav bar. The photo makes the page very wide, so Mozilla puts a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom, which is what I want.
IE seems to detect that the photo would make the page too wide, so it puts the photo below the nav bar.
Any hints for me? I'm not a whiz at this. The whole reason why I switched my website to nothing but CSS was to play with it and learn it. I used to have frames before, which worked fine.
For me, the Captain was never in color. My family didn't get a color TV until 1978 when I was 10 years old.
That never stopped me from loving the Captain. I still think back to those days with a lot of fondness, and great amazement that I would crawl out of bed before 8 AM to watch him every day.
The cause of belly button lint is belly buttons. There's a 100% positive correlation.
He talks with that orifice? I'm impressed.
Intel made 286's up to 16.5 Mhz, not 25 Mhz. Siemens licensed the 80286 and pushed it to 20 Mhz. Harris got all the way to 25 Mhz.
The average instruction timing for the 80386 was about 3 clocks per instruction, and for the 80286, it was about 5 clocks per instruction. But, that's averaged over the entire instruciton set as listed in the manual. They also used the best timings available to the CPU. For example, an integer ADD instruction takes 2 clocks on a 386 when you add two registers. But when you add a register and a memory location, the ADD instruction takes 7 clock cycles. Real world code produced by compilers doesn't use the instruction set uniformly, and real world code results in a lot of the slower usages of the instructions. The result was that the 80286 kept up very well with the 80386.
Take a look at:
http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an111.pdf
Here's a quote I found. It's really hard to find instruction set timing comparisons between the 80286 and the 80386. It basically says that the 80286 can run the code in 15 clocks, and the 80386 can run the code between 11 and 16 clocks. The variation on the 80386 is probably because the 386 started introducing pipelines in the processor. Obviously, the technique wasn't that effective for increasing speed, other than clock speed.
And, I found these things in a 80386 programming reference manual. One is in the section about the differences between an 80386 and an 8086. The second one is about the 80386 vs. the 80286.
The part about the 286 doesn't specify anything about the instruction set.
So, I hope I've met the burden of proof. I've showed that 386 computers running Windows 3.0 were running DOS underneath, that they had to thunk down to 16-bit code for all the operating system stuff, and that from the instruction set timing information (with references) an 80286 and an 80286 running 16-bit code at the same clock speed were very close in performance.
When the 386 was introduced it was, clock-for-clock, twice as fast as the 286, no recompiling necessary.
That actually wasn't true. The 386 might have been able to move 4 bytes at a time rather than two bytes, but not many apps could use that kind of speedup. And, if your app benefitted from that kind of speedup, you were better running it on an Amiga or Atari that had a hardware blitter chip.
Besides, the 386 ran DOS mainly, and therefore was in 16 bit mode. The 286 and the 386 were very comparable at the same clock speeds running DOS. By the end of their lives, you could get a 20 Mhz 286 chip from Harris, or a 40 Mhz 386 chip from AMD I think. It was all about clock speed.
What do you recommend for someone like me? I don't play very often, and I suck at AA. When I do play, I usually wind up dead very quickly. I'd play more if the game were more fun, and if I could find people who also suck to play with.
I like Python because of the line numbers and the goto statement. Why don't they add those features to Visual Basic?
You can't turn a 3 lane highway into a 1.5 lane highway, except by removing lanes. Your comment doesn't make an ounce of sense. In fact, that sort of misunderstanding of how to use the lanes on the highway is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from the horribly stupid drivers I observe every day.
To all the lousy drivers out there: take your cowboy hat off, get off the cell phone, get out of the left lane, use your turn signals, and put some air into your tires.
The left lane is A passing lane, not THE passing lane. If you're not passing, you should be in the right lane. Middle lanes should also be passing. Don't go slower than the right lane in the middle lane.
No. I'm just pointing out that it's not consistent to decry an ad hominem, then respond with one of your own, in the same sentence. I wasn't saying a single thing about politics, BTW. We could have been talking about geraniums.
The Saturn V could be rebuilt today, but would cost a lot due to reengineering. It's not that the plans were lost, but that technology has changed. Many things available in the 1960's are not available any more, because they've been replaced by improved technologies. For example, Saturn V had sequencers, not computers. The whole rocket could be run with the equivalent of a mini-itx board saving a lot of weight and complexity over the old sequencer circuitry, but the reengineering would cost millions.
The engines themselves were relatively unremarkable (except for their amazing size) scale-ups of typical kerosine-LOX engines of the 1960's. Easy to make new ones if we wanted to.