Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Speaking of trolls...On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:44:45 -0800 (PST), Mahipal
mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:33 pm, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:11:48 -0800 (PST), Mahipal
[trim]
Interesting reference this Bhopal incident. Por que?
As long as you're trolling, might just as well have fun.
Look, it's snowing outside my window. I've got internet to serve
mankind all night long. As do you too. O well. So Bhopal rhymed with
Mahipal. Not my problem. Nice you got rhyme in your mind. Must make
your right?
Sucks to be you.
Can't and will not argue that. Duh.
No, I can't argue how much it sucks to be you.
Speaking of trolls...The high unemployment rates prove altruism is dead.
Repeating your idiocy just proves the point; you're an idiot.
Re-demonstrating your sensitivity proves what I said to be true.
No, just continuing your idiocy.
You are beneath the levels my idiocy can reach.
The high unemployment rates prove altruism is dead.
Repeating a lie doesn't make the truth. Lefties like to think so,
though.
As if the righties never repeat a word. So true, and I agree, that
they the righties do not think. Keep the words coming you nameless
twit.
Look, loser, you're the one who's repeating a lie, hoping that someone
will think it's true.
You are the one hoping that I lie. Fyi, I am not repeating anything. I
authored the line that bothers you to the core.
You do lie. Live with it.
Pot Kettle Speaking of Black trolls... Good riddance.The high unemployment rates prove altruism is dead. Deal with it.
Proof.
I as an individual am no proof of the statistics in the News and its
nearest sister Social Media. Deal with it you nameless Mother Idiot
Twit (MIT). Or do you not know how to use punctuation?
IOW, you're another idiot troll. Now run along and troll elsewhere.
Yes, mostly by "gavino" ...Several times there have been requests and attempts
for building a computer having Forth as Operating System.
Isn't "wacky" just a euphemism for "hack" ... ?There are Open Source projects in the making.
Today I read about this one:
"Building my Own Laptop"
Quotation:
We are building an open laptop, with some wacky
features in it for hackers like me.
Yes, ARM microprocessors are becoming faster, but they're alsoThis is a lengthy project. Fortunately, ARM CPUs are getting
fast enough, [...]
Wrong. By the time it takes to "complete" your project, i.e.,so that even if it took a year or so to complete, I won't
be left with a woefully useless design.
GHz+ performance level is overkill for those tasks.Today's state of the art ARM CPUs - quad-core with GHz+
performance levels - is good enough for most day-to-day
code development, email checking, browsing etc...
Good luck with that. I.e., highly unlikely.Of course, a feature of a build-it-yourself laptop is that all
the design documentation is open, [...]
Good luck with that. I.e., highly unlikely.so others of sufficient skill and resources can also build
it.
Delirious?The hardware and its sub-components are picked so as to make
this the most practically open hardware laptop I could create
using state of the art technology.
Well, after seeing his webpage, he's clearly not delirious inYou can download, without NDA, the datasheets for all the
components, and key peripheral options are available so it's
possible to build a complete firmware from source with no
opaque blobs.
Source: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2686
For small quantities, wirewrapped or point-to-point or grid-styleMy favorite would be a laptop with an RTX2000-like
microprocessor instead of the ARM. A friend of mine had
developed such a computer with the RTX2000, twenty years ago,
everything wirewrapped. It's a pity that I didn't take the
chance to make a PCB out of it. This time is gone, and today
the only microprocessor which comes near to an RTX2000
style microprocessor is the ARM.
Everything is feasible. Is it worthy? That's the question youIn my opinion an ARM based laptop with Forth as
Operating System is feasible.
If the OS must be partially coded in C, is there any point toThere may be parts of the I/O software written in C needed
to be used, but it will be manageable to access this I/O
from a Forth OS via entry points.
Of course they will. It's a business. You pay, they Play:visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
design one. No, a professional motherboard manufacturer *will
not* accept designs from open-source software even if in the
correct file formats.
Was everything I read in the 70s and 80s wrong?visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
[...] Moore's Law is slowing down, [...]
Myth? Even Gordon Moore predicted his law would slow down.
He was wrong. Did something change?
Rod Pemberton wrote:
visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
[...] Moore's Law is slowing down, [...]
Myth? Even Gordon Moore predicted his law would slow down.
He was wrong. Did something change?
Was everything I read in the 70s and 80s wrong?
He predicted the number of elements per IC would double every year, and it
did from 1959 to the early 80s.
In the 70s, everyone said we would hit a wall, probably in the 80s. It was
pointed out that if progress did not slow, we would have billion-transistor
chips by 2000. It did take several years longer.
When we hit the wall in the 80s it was said that Carver Meade rewrote the
book on processes, and enabled continued progress.
But that progress was reduced to doubling every 18 months, and recently
every 2 years.
Every citation of "Moore's Law" in the 70s said "every year", but people
keep redefining it. Sure, it will last forever if you redefine it.
In 1965 Moore observed that growth was doubling every year and he saw noRod Pemberton wrote:
visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
[...] Moore's Law is slowing down, [...]
Myth? Even Gordon Moore predicted his law would slow down.
He was wrong. Did something change?
Was everything I read in the 70s and 80s wrong?
He predicted the number of elements per IC would double every year, and it
did from 1959 to the early 80s.
In the 70s, everyone said we would hit a wall, probably in the 80s. It was
pointed out that if progress did not slow, we would have billion-transistor
chips by 2000. It did take several years longer.
When we hit the wall in the 80s it was said that Carver Meade rewrote the
book on processes, and enabled continued progress.
But that progress was reduced to doubling every 18 months, and recently
every 2 years.
Every citation of "Moore's Law" in the 70s said "every year", but people
keep redefining it. Sure, it will last forever if you redefine it.
Sorry, forgot to post the link to the graph. Here is the Moore's LawRod Pemberton wrote:
visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
[...] Moore's Law is slowing down, [...]
Myth? Even Gordon Moore predicted his law would slow down.
He was wrong. Did something change?
Was everything I read in the 70s and 80s wrong?
He predicted the number of elements per IC would double every year, and it
did from 1959 to the early 80s.
In the 70s, everyone said we would hit a wall, probably in the 80s. It was
pointed out that if progress did not slow, we would have billion-transistor
chips by 2000. It did take several years longer.
When we hit the wall in the 80s it was said that Carver Meade rewrote the
book on processes, and enabled continued progress.
But that progress was reduced to doubling every 18 months, and recently
every 2 years.
Every citation of "Moore's Law" in the 70s said "every year", but people
keep redefining it. Sure, it will last forever if you redefine it.
Possibly. In <2002Dec22.163332@a0.complang.tuwien.ac.at> I computedIs there some distortion to the curve because of using only
microprocessor data and not memory, etc?
Regardless of whether the curve is softening a little or not, I amrickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
Is there some distortion to the curve because of using only
microprocessor data and not memory, etc?
Possibly. In<2002Dec22.163332@a0.complang.tuwien.ac.at> I computed
the price/bit of DRAM (from 1983 to 2002), and got an average halving
in 17 months.
Indeed.On 1/2/2013 1:16 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
Is there some distortion to the curve because of using only
microprocessor data and not memory, etc?
Possibly. In<2002Dec22.163332@a0.complang.tuwien.ac.at> I computed
the price/bit of DRAM (from 1983 to 2002), and got an average halving
in 17 months.
Regardless of whether the curve is softening a little or not, I am
amazed that it has lasted as long as it has. Lately I have been hearing
that we may really be reaching the end of what can be done "easily",
meaning it is getting a lot harder to keep extending that curve. I
understand we will be seeing some fundamental limits becoming real
problems around 10 nm... but I have heard that song play on the radio
before.
That's an old song, too.From what I've heard, the real issues are not advances in process
technology, but that we don't have any good use for more transistors in
CPUs or more CPUs on a chip. Plus, the market has been changing so that
more transistors aren't what is needed, but less power consumption for
the highly portable devices.
I've been hearing that song for a couple of decades, too.I was a bit surprised by the huge adoption of mobile computing over the
last 10 years. Having gotten over my surprise, I expect the PC to
become a much smaller player to the handheld and table form factors with
the resulting emphasis on very low power and the resulting change in
emphasis in processing technology from density to power consumption.
Not sure why you say that is a "couple of decades" old. In '93 theyOn Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:22:41 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've heard, the real issues are not advances in process
technology, but that we don't have any good use for more transistors in
CPUs or more CPUs on a chip. Plus, the market has been changing so that
more transistors aren't what is needed, but less power consumption for
the highly portable devices.
That's an old song, too.
I was a bit surprised by the huge adoption of mobile computing over the
last 10 years. Having gotten over my surprise, I expect the PC to
become a much smaller player to the handheld and table form factors with
the resulting emphasis on very low power and the resulting change in
emphasis in processing technology from density to power consumption.
I've been hearing that song for a couple of decades, too.
The reality is that we can't know what the next "big thing" is. We do
know it's not the current "big thing".
Perhaps not '93, but by '95 the main issue of PCs had turned to power.On 1/2/2013 6:30 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:22:41 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've heard, the real issues are not advances in process
technology, but that we don't have any good use for more transistors in
CPUs or more CPUs on a chip. Plus, the market has been changing so that
more transistors aren't what is needed, but less power consumption for
the highly portable devices.
That's an old song, too.
I was a bit surprised by the huge adoption of mobile computing over the
last 10 years. Having gotten over my surprise, I expect the PC to
become a much smaller player to the handheld and table form factors with
the resulting emphasis on very low power and the resulting change in
emphasis in processing technology from density to power consumption.
I've been hearing that song for a couple of decades, too.
The reality is that we can't know what the next "big thing" is. We do
know it's not the current "big thing".
Not sure why you say that is a "couple of decades" old. In '93 they
were still pushing for "longer, lower, wider" to quote the auto
industry's motto during the years when they blithely promoted fancier
cars with shiny doodads instead of safety or lower pollution.
Just because the problem wasn't "solved" (it really never was - peoplePCs
didn't reach their peak power dissipation until they were over 100 Watts
in what, 2000 something? Now they hardly have a PC CPU that uses 100
Watts. I think even the ultra powerful server CPUs try to keep the
power consumption down as it costs more to cool the equipment than it
does to power it.
FPGAs are programmed in the field not in the factory, every time youGood luck with that. I.e., highly unlikely.
If the project uses custom FPGA's, everyone attempting to build it
will need either 1) an FPGA programmer or 2) buy programmed FPGA's
from the project. If the project uses COTS, e.g., AMD or Intel
motherboard chipset, then you'll have to find a way to purchase
the components in small quantities.
I'm not not sure what a "professional motherboard manufacturer' isNo, a professional motherboard manufacturer *will
not* accept designs from open-source software even if in the
correct file formats.
Its not hard to open a "cash" account with the three big onlineThirdly, "you" can't get the modern components.
throug-hole can be soldered wih a soldering iron, as can leaded SMDaccess to wave-soldering machines for through-hole components and
SMT oven-soldering machines for the SMT components.
the more more you order the cheaper for each.Also, small
electronic manufacturing firms have to submit minimum orders well
into the thousands before a board manufacturer will even consider
a run of boards.
only two stacks, and tiny ones at that, if you like stacks why not useMy favorite would be a laptop with an RTX2000-like
microprocessor instead of the ARM.
forth is an incremental compiler hardware drivers can probably beI.e., if the OS is slower, the same speed, or even slightly faster
than an a hobbyist x86 OS in assembly or Linux, is there point to
using Forth? (No.) It must be _significantly_ better in some
way. Cost can be that factor, but that's not the case here. He's
used some very recent components.
There may be parts of the I/O software written in C needed
to be used, but it will be manageable to access this I/O
from a Forth OS via entry points.
If the OS must be partially coded in C, is there any point to
having any of it coded in Forth? (Not really.)
That's not universal. There are flash based FPGAs and there are FPGAsOn 2012-12-31, Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote:
Good luck with that. I.e., highly unlikely.
If the project uses custom FPGA's, everyone attempting to build it
will need either 1) an FPGA programmer or 2) buy programmed FPGA's
from the project. If the project uses COTS, e.g., AMD or Intel
motherboard chipset, then you'll have to find a way to purchase
the components in small quantities.
FPGAs are programmed in the field not in the factory, every time you
reset the device you need to reprogram the FPGA.
I'm pretty sure, at least DigiKey, sells to individuals.No, a professional motherboard manufacturer *will
not* accept designs from open-source software even if in the
correct file formats.
I'm not not sure what a "professional motherboard manufacturer' is
but the likes of PCBCart will manufacture the boards I doodle up in
(gEDA) PCB
Thirdly, "you" can't get the modern components.
Its not hard to open a "cash" account with the three big online
suppliers (digikey, mouser, farnell) You may need to register
a one-man business first.
QFNs can be done with an iron, too. Some are a little tricky but mostaccess to wave-soldering machines for through-hole components and
SMT oven-soldering machines for the SMT components.
throug-hole can be soldered wih a soldering iron, as can leaded SMD
(like SOIC). (lead as in wire, not as in Pb)
Non-leaded like QFN and BGA require an oven, with a controlled
temperature profile. an ordinary kitchen appliance with a conscious
operator watching the temperature and the clock can probably fit the
bill if he's only making one.
My "production" run is often ten boards. There are assembly housesAlso, small
electronic manufacturing firms have to submit minimum orders well
into the thousands before a board manufacturer will even consider
a run of boards.
the more more you order the cheaper for each.
for the price to be competitive it will need a large order.
I'm not sure what your point is. There was a tradeoff between buildingOn Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:42:03 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2013 6:30 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:22:41 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
I was a bit surprised by the huge adoption of mobile computing over the
last 10 years. Having gotten over my surprise, I expect the PC to
become a much smaller player to the handheld and table form factors with
the resulting emphasis on very low power and the resulting change in
emphasis in processing technology from density to power consumption.
I've been hearing that song for a couple of decades, too.
The reality is that we can't know what the next "big thing" is. We do
know it's not the current "big thing".
Not sure why you say that is a "couple of decades" old. In '93 they
were still pushing for "longer, lower, wider" to quote the auto
industry's motto during the years when they blithely promoted fancier
cars with shiny doodads instead of safety or lower pollution.
Perhaps not '93, but by '95 the main issue of PCs had turned to power.
It didn't get fixed, mainly because the packaging people were better
than anyone gave the credit for.
PCs
didn't reach their peak power dissipation until they were over 100 Watts
in what, 2000 something? Now they hardly have a PC CPU that uses 100
Watts. I think even the ultra powerful server CPUs try to keep the
power consumption down as it costs more to cool the equipment than it
does to power it.
Just because the problem wasn't "solved" (it really never was - people
just got bored with balls-to-the-wall performance), doesn't mean it
wasn't a primary concern.
I am looking for an official drawing or spec sheet on a taper that isn't
listed in the Machinery Handbook and doesn't seem to exist on the
Google-search-braintrust called the Internet...
It's apparently known as the A-O (aye-ooh) taper and is short for
American Optics.
Apparently, it's a taper that has been around for 50+ years and used by
folks in the optical industry to hold specialized tooling. But because
the tooling is hand loaded in many cases (not for long if I have
something to say about it), the taper isn't all that precise.
Well... In my industry, precision is key so if a drawing(s) exist
anywhere, I'd love to compare them.
Problem is, I can't find a single one.
Any A-O taper experts out there with links to drawings?
Thank you. I didn't even think of changing to another group... OldThere is an Electro-Optical Engineer on news:sci.electronics.design
named Phil Hobbs that might be able to help you. I added the group,
since there are a lot of knowledgeable people on that group.
The American Optical taper is used for mounting tools on opticalJoe AutoDrill wrote:
I am looking for an official drawing or spec sheet on a taper that isn't
listed in the Machinery Handbook and doesn't seem to exist on the
Google-search-braintrust called the Internet...
It's apparently known as the A-O (aye-ooh) taper and is short for
American Optics.
Apparently, it's a taper that has been around for 50+ years and used by
folks in the optical industry to hold specialized tooling. But because
the tooling is hand loaded in many cases (not for long if I have
something to say about it), the taper isn't all that precise.
Well... In my industry, precision is key so if a drawing(s) exist
anywhere, I'd love to compare them.
Problem is, I can't find a single one.
Any A-O taper experts out there with links to drawings?
There is an Electro-Optical Engineer on news:sci.electronics.design
named Phil Hobbs that might be able to help you. I added the group,
since there are a lot of knowledgeable people on that group.