Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (The Ghost In The Machine)
RE: Do Linux suXX??? ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: The return of Drestin Lack-o-facts. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Perry Pip)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Darren Winsper)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:28:11 +0000
"Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
>
> Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> | "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
> |> Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> |> | "James A. Robertson" wrote:
> |> |> Peter van der Linden wrote:
> |> |> >
> |> |> > [...] I do somewhat resent you misrepresenting the
> |> |> > situation in this way. [...] Do you think that somehow Gary
> |> |> > Van Sickle had an unlimited right to make libellous
> |> |> > accusations from his anonymous account?
> |>
> |> Peter, there's no "unlimited right to make libellous accusations"
> |> anonymously and I don't recall anybody here arguing over that
> |> except Revusky. That's his straw-man that he keeps beating, and
> |> then claiming victory over.
> |
> | Well, it's not a straw man, Jon. It's quite literally what these
> | idiots are maintaining. They are arguing that there is some kind
> | of constitutional right to participate in a public forum
> | anonymously. Furthermore, when you point out that much of said
>
> Yet you just now dropped the 'unlimited' part, which in the past you
> introduced into the debate.
>
> | participation was libellous in nature, they simply repeat their
> | claims about the "right to anonymity".
>
> As opposed to the supposed 'unlimited right to anonymity'.
Well, Jon, if the "right to anonymity" they believe in includes the
right to slander others with impunity, never having to show your face,
then it's pretty darned unlimited, don't you think?
I mean, you seem to be desperately trying to snipe at me via my slightly
different choice of words this time -- that I did not include the
"unlimited" part. But I'm not a computer, Jon. I may well say things in
slightly different ways from time to time. But the overall set of views
that I've been espousing are pretty consistent.
>
> | So you're arguing that it would all be okay if the... organs of
> | the state.... were involved somehow. And the fact that they
> | weren't is what makes writing a letter of complaint so wrong...
> |
> | Interesting position. Are you actually willing to maintain that?
>
> Regardless of what my position would be, as Mr. Robertson points out,
> discussions with you are generally not worth the time. So, no. I
> will, however, occasionally point out misrepresentations of the
> record and faulty logic, as I did in the previous post.
IOW, you're not going to answer the question. That would be a waste of
time, I guess. And tiresome. It is tiresome to have to back up what you
say.... The only thing more tiresome is trying to debate with someone
who refuses to back up what he says because of how tiresome that is....
Tiresome squared....
<sigh>
Jonathan Revusky
>
> | [... discussion on ad hominem attacks]
> |> In the past, in comp.lang.java.advocacy, Revusky regularly added
> |> ad hominem attacks to his arguments, apparently believing that
> |> applying it to an argument (often to "cause [...] psychic pain")
> |> converts it from something to be shunned in a discussion to
> |> something perfectly reasonable and proper. This is what he
> |> means, above, when he says "was merely name-calling". Mr.
> |> Robertson is justified, IMO, claiming that he just didn't want to
> |> discuss with Revusky; it is tiring, for the reason he mentions.
>
> Revusky wrote:
> |
> | You know, Jon, I don't even think that you are debating any of
> | this out of sincerity. It's just that you're mad at me, have felt
> | humiliated by me in various exchanges, and are desperately trying
> | to get back at me in any way possible. I don't believe that
> | anything you're saying here corresponds to any profound
> | convictions on your part. Certainly, it's very half-baked, not
> | very well thought out.
> |
> | So, already, it is bad enough that you discredit yourself by
> | making these stupid arguments. But what is worse is that there is
> | not even any sincerity or conviction behind what you are saying.
> | At least, I sense that James Robertson is somewhat sincere. You
> | are just trying to get back at me in some rather petty, pathetic
> | way.
>
> Nice to see you confirming my statements above, since Deja's archive
> is currently limited.
>
> Jam (address rot13 encoded)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:30:18 GMT
In article <8re1jv$q9o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
> : I don't know how successful such efforts would be,
> : since Juno has had a "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" e-mail
> : address for three years and STILL hasn't created a
> : Mac version (Macs are roughly 12% of the desktop
> : market, as compared with Linux's 4%-6%), but the
> : Linux platform is essentially based on the concept
> : of trying very hard not to spend money
>
> I will never understand where people get this idea.
Being able to download the entire RedHat CD online,
then running it on some old PC in the closet?
> The "free" in free software means freedom, NOT price.
<SARCASM>
Which explains why the GIMP retails for $99.95, right?
</SARCASM>
Free software includes free price. The "free software"
folks are selling not "software with a price but with
freedom", they're selling "software services".
> I spend more money on Linux than I ever did on
> Windows, although of course I get far more in
> exchange for that money.
Funny, I've had exactly the opposite result, having
spent less money on Linux than I've ever spent on
Windows.
> Linux is very important to people who are
> price-sensitive, but it's biggest market by far
> has been among IT professionals, who in this
> country at least have two to four times more
> real income than the average citizen.
Oooooo! I wish I could get you to repeat that to
all the major free ISPs, since use of a free ISP,
like Linux, is not limited to people who can't
afford an ISP.
The business model of free ISPs is the sale of
advertising, and they can sell more advertising
on a quote like "Linux...biggest market is IT
professionals, who...have two to four times
more real income than the average citizen."
Marketing people slobber over a market composed
*mostly* of people who make two to four times
as much as the average citizen.
After all, when you're on the road and the local
ISP is a long-distance call (and AOL continues
not to be Linux-friendly), a free ISP with
numbers all over America is what you're gonna
use, even if you pay $40 a month in ISP charges
at home and can afford it.
> We use Linux not because it's inexpensive, but
> because it's good.
Well, I use it because its inexpensive AND good.
[snip!]
> : Free Internet Service for Linux would really
> : speed up the entry of Linux into the desktop
> : and laptop market.
>
> I would really like to see something like this,
> but realistically, I can't think of a viable
> business model that would make it profitable
> for anyone to do.
>
> Again, maybe someone can. I've been wrong before,
> and this would be a pretty neat thing to be wrong
> about. :)
The business model is JUNO.com, which has been
making money off of free internet service for YEARS.
They almost lost it when they tried to do free E-mail
but charge for Web access. Then they created Web-access
software and didn't charge for Web access, but created
a second tier service with more numbers and a $19.95
a month access fee.
Would you pay $19.95 a month for nationwide numbers
to internet access? This is what Juno feeds its
free isp service on, along with advertising.
The two-tier system implemented by Juno seems to be
working well for them, so it appears that the business
model would work for a Linux ISP. The Linux "average
citizens" would get the free ISP, and the Linux
"IT Professionals making two to four times the income
of the average citizen" buy the premium service for
more phone numbers and *traveling access*.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:41:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 4 Oct 2000 10:28:12 -0500
<39db4bfe$0$24632$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8rda5r$9p9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >happily give details to anyone who wants them with the exception
>> > of dresden and any of his previously identified flunkies.
>>
>> Another commode swimmer.
>>
>>
>
>potty mouth :p
I can see that we're starting to talk shit in this subthread,
and hopefully I won't piss anyone off, but the puns might get
fairly disgusting at a scatological level. :-) (Is this
subthread going down the toilet?)
But I won't get throne in a loop here; I'm flush with anticipation
as to how everything comes out. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random porta-potty here
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:45:32 -0400
Frédéric G. MARAND wrote in message
<8rfbc9$eml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>8rf209$npo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> M$ doesn't sell hardware.
>
>You should tell that to Logitech, Genius, Cherry, and a bunch of others
>manufacturers on the Mouse, Keyboard and Joystick market. They'll surely be
>much relieved, don't you think ?
Naturally you clipped the context showing we were discussing computer
systems.
2 + 2
------------------------------
From: "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: 4 Oct 2000 18:46:28 GMT
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
| "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|
|> |> | Nice philosophy.
|> |>
|> | Well, go for it! Let me know how you do and I'll consider
|> | doing it myself.
|> |
|> | If, however, you find that the honest are outweighed by the
|> | greedy and dishonest 10:1, then don't cry. After all, you
|> | *told* us so.
|>
|> There's no honesty or dishonesty involved in this model. I'd
|> wager that you are against it in part because it would mean
|> Microsoft would make money on continuous improvements instead of
|> monopoly.
|
| Uh... given that this is how I believe they make money *now* (ie.
| on continous improvements), I don't see the relevance of your
| statement?
|
| Also, why would Microsoft's business model affect me one way or
| another?
You're right that it doesn't have any particular relevance to this
discussion, except as just another case like books and music. I
shouldn't have mentioned it.
| The reason I'm against it is because:
|
| (a) It takes work, blood, sweat, tears,time and effort to create
| intellectual property. It's a part of your life that you can never
| get back.
| (b) therefore, creating the property means that you deserve to be
| able to seek compensation for doing so.
|
| Your scheme would appear to mean that I can spend 5 years writing
| a book, which I can't sell, regardless of how compelling a story
| it is, how much effort it took to write. I have to make all my
| money off speaking engagements.
We've never faced a situation in our history where making a copy of
any work is something anybody can do for free, effortlessly. But we
can't easily go back to the way it was before because of the nature
of computers. There are bound to be changes in the way we do things.
I'm not sure that every kind of work can be protected to earn the
same profits as before. Perhaps the same way mp3.com works would
also work for books (or more likely short stories).
| In which case -- why would I write the book in the first place,
| when I can be a short-order cook instead and put bread on the
| table?
To get the name that allows you to make profits on the speaking
engagements. Or because you want to and love doing it. One
advantage of having a huge networked world is that there's bound to
be plenty of people that do things just for the love of doing them.
Like Linux, stories and music might be created the same way, and with
greater quality than those created for sale.
Jam (address rot13 encoded)
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:50:00 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8recrj$kmf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >That's a laugh. Ever seen some of the source to the original MacOS? It
>> was
>> >all written in Pascal. What good would that do MS, who write everything
>in
>> >Assembler at the time. Besides, Windows 1.0 was absolutely nothing like
>> >MacOS. If they had used the MacOS source, it would have been much much
>> >better.
>>
>> Don't you mean IBM's OS2? You're going to get those folks mad.
>
>What do you mean? OS/2 came out years after MacOS did, and didn't even
have
>a GUI for years after Windows 1.0. Besides, it was MS and IBM, not IBM's
>OS/2.
My remark was in reply to unicat statement: "They [Microsoft] obtained the
source code for the Mac OS by promising to
port MSWORD
to it, then used it to create the first commercial version of Windows
instead."
2 + 2
>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:07:14 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, . escribió:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El mié, 04 oct 2000, . escribió:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>> Actually, CPU mhz cannot be measured to your significant figures. You are
>>>>> quite incorrect.
>>>
>>>> It cannot? Oh really - and why is that? Do you know how frequencies are
>>>> multiplied and divided to get the results we see externally?
>>>
>>>Yes actually, I do. And you cannot, absolutely CAN NOT go out to TEN
>>>decimal places in this regard.
>
>> Sure you can. You can measure a CPU's frequency to 10 decimal places, easily.
>
>> Assuming you can count the oscilations exactly, you will have a +-0.5 error in
>> the count.
>
>> Measure time in seconds with an error of less than 1E-25, and count the
>> oscillations in 1E15 seconds.
>
>> You will have 10 significant decimal places for the frequency of that CPU, with
>> plenty to spare (check the error propagation, if you want).
>
>*significant* decimal places?
>
>Thats not enough to cover the 13 offered in the original post. :)
Actually, it's more like 15 ;-)
>> Of course there is a tiny practical issue with that procedure, too.
>
>Yes, just a teeny weeny one. You also have to take into consideration variance
>according to temperature, humidity, acts of god and whether its the second tuesday
>of the month.
Since the test I proposed takes some 3.6 million years, I expect the variations
in humidity to be pretty much averaged through the duration.
> Once you reach out to that kind of placement, you're beginning to
>deal with a quantum-like quality; your measurement (if indeed youre taking a real,
>legitimate measurement) wont be the same twice.
The measurement procedure I proposed has about the same certainty as a 0
decimal place measurement done in a second. No quantum stuff in it.
>Then again, if youre simply extrapolating from simpler measurement (which is what
>the original poster was doing), you can come up with any number you like.
Pretty much :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:28:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:36:20 -0300
<00100316373600.20872@pc03>:
>El mar, 03 oct 2000, . escribió:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>> So why is a CPU that runs at 666.666666666 <etc> not 667 ?
>>
>>It doesnt run with that many significant figures, brainiac. Tell me, how
>>do you measure 1/100th of an oscillation?
>
>I am not saying this is how the CPU is, but:
>
>Simple example: if it runs at 10 oscilations every 3 seconds, it runs at
>3.333333<etc> hertz. You do the math.
How precise is that 3 seconds?
According to NIST (
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n99-22.htm
)
their new clock is guaranteed to within a second in nearly 20
million years (631,139,040,000,000 seconds; call it 6E14).
Therefore, the absolute maximum -- as of right now -- precision that one
can measure one's clock would be about 14 decimal places,
which would be 666.66666666666 Mhz. And that's pushing it; the
precision required for 14 decimal places is 1E-15 -- 1 femtosecond,
if memory serves. (I forget the name for 1E15 = 1 quadrillion (American);
1E12 = tera = 1 trillion (American).)
Personally, I rather doubt that anyone bothers with this sort of
precision on the mass-market consumer level. :-) (I do wonder
what precision a consumer GPS receiver would require, though.)
A long, rather dry, but nonetheless interesting piece regarding timeclocks
at
http://www.ieee-uffc.org/freqcontrol/marrison/Marrison.html
suggests that very high-quality crystal clocks can have an accuracy of
at least 1 in 10 billion (see the caption for figure 24), but
it's unclear what the accuracy of consumer-level equipment might be.
This would peg the clock frequency at 666.666666 Mhz. (Note also
that high-quality clocks are temperature-controlled to an accuracy
of about 0.1 (or 0.01?) degrees Celsius -- a precision unlikely to be
matched in a mere x86 PC. :-) )
Another poster mentioned that his clock error was about 0.23% maximum
(I forget who). This suggests that the maximum meaningful
precision one can get would be 666. Mhz -- and that's pushing it
(the absolute error being 1.5 Mhz).
My watch (an old quarts Casio) drifts about 12 seconds a week, which
translates to an error of about 0.0020%. Not all that bad, really.
This suggests 666.66 Mhz, with an absolute error of .0132 Mhz.
For what all this is worth; note also that an error in measurement of
0.23% at 666 Mhz translates to an absolute error of .0023 * (300 m / 666),
or about a millimeter per wavelength (the wavelength being 45.0 cm).
Note also that older-style consumer-level cases could set the clock speed
display using jumpers on a small board somewhere near the LED 7-segment
displays (which means it can also say things such as 'Hi' or '00' or 2
verticals 3 horizontals or anything equally representable). Newer cases
seem to have no clockspeed display at all. The actual clockspeed
is set somewhere on the motherboard, for those that have that option;
some motherboards can also report it to the CPU.
(In other words, does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone
really care? :-) )
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random song quote here
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Do Linux suXX???
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:28:00 GMT
> ...care for some healthy reading good folks?
> ok here you have it:
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley15.html
That's just a person opinion, and besides, some of the problems that
developing software brings out, are applicable to commercial products
too, such as marketing and ego.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The return of Drestin Lack-o-facts.
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:31:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:10:07 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8r8t5t$1e70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> I love the way abracadabra pretends he knows what any of those things
>> means (one of 500 made, you believed that story?) PIII-666? How about
>> 667 you
>
>666.66666666666666666..... to be precise, idiot.
See my other post to expain why this is way too precise.
I'll allow you 10 digits max. :-)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random clock tick here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:35:47 GMT
On 4 Oct 2000 17:57:25 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Sure you can. You can measure a CPU's frequency to 10 decimal places, easily.
>
>> Assuming you can count the oscilations exactly, you will have a +-0.5 error in
>> the count.
>
>> Measure time in seconds with an error of less than 1E-25, and count the
>> oscillations in 1E15 seconds.
Uhm...Roberto...do you know how long 1E15 seconds is?? You must
believe in reincarnation:)
>> You will have 10 significant decimal places for the frequency of that CPU, with
>> plenty to spare (check the error propagation, if you want).
>
>*significant* decimal places?
>
>Thats not enough to cover the 13 offered in the original post. :)
You are measuring frequency in Mhz. One Mhz is equal to 1,000,000
Hz. One Hz is defined as one oscillation per "second". So now what
exactly is a "second", Dr. Einstien?? A "second" is defined by
international agreement as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of Cesium-133
excitation microwave radiation. So if you can count 9,192,631,770
Cesium-133 oscillations you've counted for one second exactly by
definition.
Now we wanted Mhz to ten decimal places. That's the same a Hz to four
decimal places. So instead of spending all your cash on W2K plus all
the buggy software that goes with it, get yourself a Cesium-133
clock. Then count CPU oscilations for exactly 10,000 seconds (exactly
91,926,317,700,000 cesium-133 oscillations). Divide the count of CPU
oscilations by 10,000 for Hz or 1E10 for Mhz. If you really want to be
sure the last digit is accurate, run the test for 20,000 seconds or
more.
>Yes, just a teeny weeny one. You also have to take into consideration variance
>according to temperature, humidity, acts of god and whether its the second tuesday
>of the month.
True. You'll get a different result every time you do the test.
>Once you reach out to that kind of placement, you're beginning to
>deal with a quantum-like quality;
Not even close. A 666Mhz chip has a period of 1.5 nanosecs. The cesium
133 radiation has a period of approx 109 picosecs. Visible light is
about a 1E4 times shorter than that and gamma rays are about 1E9 times
shorter.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 4 Oct 2000 19:46:19 GMT
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:39:58 GMT, Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Oh puhlease - I have been using them religiously since 3.64, you haven't a
> > clue. I contribute news to one of the most popular nvidia fan sites too. You
> > haven't a clue. They are solid.
There was a thread on http://www.hardforum.com about the 6.18 drivers being
exceptionally buggy. There were quite a few reports of problems with games
crashing and corrupt textures. I can't remember the next driver revision
(6.23? Something like that), but once again, there was a thread about new
bugs that had cropped up.
I could go on, but I won't.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 4 Oct 2000 20:04:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000 17:57:25 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sure you can. You can measure a CPU's frequency to 10 decimal places, easily.
>>
>>> Assuming you can count the oscilations exactly, you will have a +-0.5 error in
>>> the count.
>>
>>> Measure time in seconds with an error of less than 1E-25, and count the
>>> oscillations in 1E15 seconds.
> Uhm...Roberto...do you know how long 1E15 seconds is?? You must
> believe in reincarnation:)
>>> You will have 10 significant decimal places for the frequency of that CPU, with
>>> plenty to spare (check the error propagation, if you want).
>>
>>*significant* decimal places?
>>
>>Thats not enough to cover the 13 offered in the original post. :)
> You are measuring frequency in Mhz. One Mhz is equal to 1,000,000
> Hz. One Hz is defined as one oscillation per "second". So now what
> exactly is a "second", Dr. Einstien?? A "second" is defined by
> international agreement as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of Cesium-133
> excitation microwave radiation. So if you can count 9,192,631,770
> Cesium-133 oscillations you've counted for one second exactly by
> definition.
> Now we wanted Mhz to ten decimal places. That's the same a Hz to four
> decimal places. So instead of spending all your cash on W2K plus all
> the buggy software that goes with it, get yourself a Cesium-133
> clock. Then count CPU oscilations for exactly 10,000 seconds (exactly
> 91,926,317,700,000 cesium-133 oscillations). Divide the count of CPU
> oscilations by 10,000 for Hz or 1E10 for Mhz. If you really want to be
> sure the last digit is accurate, run the test for 20,000 seconds or
> more.
More. In order to go to 13,15 or 19 sig figs on this problem, youd need to
run that cesium clock for many hundreds of lifetimes.
>>Yes, just a teeny weeny one. You also have to take into consideration variance
>>according to temperature, humidity, acts of god and whether its the second tuesday
>>of the month.
> True. You'll get a different result every time you do the test.
>>Once you reach out to that kind of placement, you're beginning to
>>deal with a quantum-like quality;
> Not even close. A 666Mhz chip has a period of 1.5 nanosecs. The cesium
> 133 radiation has a period of approx 109 picosecs. Visible light is
> about a 1E4 times shorter than that and gamma rays are about 1E9 times
> shorter.
You clearly missed where I told everyone all about the difference between 'measurement'
and 'extrapolation'.
=====.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
