General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

OT Wrong advertised specifications

Started by Terry · · Last activity · 116 posts · 1,479 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
5 September 2007
Last activity
3 November 2007
Original author
Terry
Posts
116
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,479
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 116
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. willshak said:

    on 9/5/2007 5:08 PM HeyBub said the following:

    Quoted message said:
    Nancy2 said:

    Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

    Some people can't shop locally. Poor people.

    There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San
    Francisco, Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places.
    There are two WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami,
    one in Los Angeles, and one in St Louis.

    There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case
    you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too
    expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There
    are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

    Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in
    Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport,
    Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others.

    New York is lip-deep in Walmarts.

  2. Peter A said:


    Another reason to stay away from texas.

    I refuse to shop at walmart or sams club for moral reasons. Their well
    documented mistreatment of employees, discrimination against women,
    union busting, and disrespect for the environment drive me away. They
    also have been the prime mover in exporting hundreds of thousands of
    US jobs to China and other countries where workers are mistreated and
    poorly paid. Their spying on employees is another problem. Yet another
    is the fact that state and local governments have to spend hundreds of
    millions of dollars annually to provide health benefits to walmart
    employees. The waltons rake in their billions while the taxpayers foot
    the bill for the employees' health insurance - wonderful.

    I have too much self respect to shop at these places just to save a
    few bucks.

    I'll put you down as undecided.

    According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The company,
    again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans more money than
    all the welfare programs combined (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps,
    WIC, etc.).

    As for mistreating employees, we did away with slavery in the Second War of
    Independence - employees are certainly permitted to find better places to
    work.

    When a WalMart store opened in Jaunary of last year, across the street from
    Chicago, the store advertised for 325 positions. They got 25,000
    applications, 90% from Chicago ZIP codes (Chicago itself doesn't allow
    Walmart stores). Must be a lot of masochists in the Chicago area if Walmart
    is as Draconian as some believe.

    Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100 million
    CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works (fuel efficiency
    for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including demonstration stores in
    McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and Oklahoma and California.

    The store I visit (140,000 sq ft) has skylights and use almost no electric
    lighting during the day. Do you have any large retail stores in your area
    that do the same? Any?

    The percentage of Walmart employees availing themselves of Walmart's health
    insurance plan is slightly better than retailing as a whole (48% vs 45%).
    Those employees that do use public health insurance (mainly Medicare) are
    part-timers who are wholly eligible.

    I understand your complaint about moving manufacturing to China, but Adam
    Smith settled this complaint in the 18th Century with "The Wealth of
    Nations."

    Some people just don't keep up.

  3. Perhaps you high-school physics "C" students will do us the great favor
    of taking your moronic twaddle off the cooking newsgroup.

  4. Tony Hwang said:
    Terry said:

    A friend of mine just bought a new computer at WalMart. The computer
    is a complete set with speakers, mouse, keyboard and monitor. It was
    advertised with 1G of memory and the system reports that it is 768K.

    Quoted message said:

    She contacted WalMart and Walmart acknowledges that it is a mistake.
    Now she has to unplug everything, pack it up and take it back for a
    swap.

    Quoted message said:

    This is a lot of work. What, if anything, extra should she expect for
    her troubles from Walmart or Acer (brand)?

    Hi,
    Maybe it has 1GB of main memory but the video card maybe sharing the
    memory taking away 256MB. Look at the spec. of video chip. Cheap PCs
    are built that way instead of having video memory separate.

    Run full Vista, it takes 1GB ram.

  5. In article said:


    Perhaps you high-school physics "C" students will do us the great favor
    of taking your moronic twaddle off the cooking newsgroup.


    Gravity has an extensive kill-filter functionality...

    --
    Regards,
    Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

    It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

  6. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
    says...

    Quoted message said:
    Peter A said:


    Another reason to stay away from texas.

    I refuse to shop at walmart or sams club for moral reasons. Their well
    documented mistreatment of employees, discrimination against women,
    union busting, and disrespect for the environment drive me away. They
    also have been the prime mover in exporting hundreds of thousands of
    US jobs to China and other countries where workers are mistreated and
    poorly paid. Their spying on employees is another problem. Yet another
    is the fact that state and local governments have to spend hundreds of
    millions of dollars annually to provide health benefits to walmart
    employees. The waltons rake in their billions while the taxpayers foot
    the bill for the employees' health insurance - wonderful.

    I have too much self respect to shop at these places just to save a
    few bucks.

    I'll put you down as undecided.

    According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The company,
    again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans more money than
    all the welfare programs combined (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps,
    WIC, etc.).

    "According to WalMart." Gee, the font of truth. But I agree, WalMart has
    provided lower prices to many Americans. At the same time it has lowered
    wages and forced a lot of people into a situation where they have no
    choice but to scrounge for the very lowest prices. Often, because their
    jobs have vanished thanks to WalMart.

    Quoted message said:


    As for mistreating employees, we did away with slavery in the Second War of
    Independence - employees are certainly permitted to find better places to
    work.

    Except that those "better places to work" no longer exist because
    WalMart has driven them out of business or out of the country.

    Quoted message said:


    When a WalMart store opened in Jaunary of last year, across the street from
    Chicago, the store advertised for 325 positions. They got 25,000
    applications, 90% from Chicago ZIP codes (Chicago itself doesn't allow
    Walmart stores). Must be a lot of masochists in the Chicago area if Walmart
    is as Draconian as some believe.

    Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work
    because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and has
    pushed manufacturing overseas.

    Quoted message said:


    Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100 million
    CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works (fuel efficiency
    for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including demonstration stores in
    McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and Oklahoma and California.

    WalMart has indeed done various things that are good for the
    environment. You miss my point, however. They do these things for one
    and only one reason - to reduce costs and increase profits. All well and
    good, but it's still a corporation motivated solely by greed and not by
    public good. When it helps the bottom line, the environment can go to
    hell. Of course, WalMart is hardly alone in this, but they seem
    particularly venal and insensitive.

    Quoted message said:

    The percentage of Walmart employees availing themselves of Walmart's health
    insurance plan is slightly better than retailing as a whole (48% vs 45%).
    Those employees that do use public health insurance (mainly Medicare) are
    part-timers who are wholly eligible.

    Medicare is for old folks, perhaps you mean Medicaid.

    Your stats may be true, but so what? No other company comes remotely
    close to WalMart in terms of the drain on the public treasury to provide
    health care for its employees. It's shameful that I and other taxpayers
    have to pay many millions to provide health care for workers who are
    helping WalMart to rake in billions in profits.

    Look at the way Target treats its employees. Look at CostCo. Both are
    popular and profitable companies, not without their faults, but way
    ahead of WalMart in every way.

    Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just trying to
    justify your shopping there.

    --
    Peter Aitken

  7. Peter A said:
    Quoted message said:


    According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The
    company, again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans
    more money than all the welfare programs combined (Social Security,
    Medicare, food stamps, WIC, etc.).

    "According to WalMart." Gee, the font of truth. But I agree, WalMart
    has provided lower prices to many Americans. At the same time it has
    lowered wages and forced a lot of people into a situation where they
    have no choice but to scrounge for the very lowest prices. Often,
    because their jobs have vanished thanks to WalMart.

    Possibly. 95% of Walmart employees shop at Walmart.

    Quoted message said:


    Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work
    because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and has
    pushed manufacturing overseas.

    The more manufacturing we can push overseas, the better for all of us. As
    Adam Smith said (I mentioned him earlier), each country should do what it
    does best and when that happens each country prospers.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:


    Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100
    million CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works
    (fuel efficiency for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including
    demonstration stores in McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and
    Oklahoma and California.

    WalMart has indeed done various things that are good for the
    environment. You miss my point, however. They do these things for one
    and only one reason - to reduce costs and increase profits. All well
    and good, but it's still a corporation motivated solely by greed and
    not by public good. When it helps the bottom line, the environment
    can go to hell. Of course, WalMart is hardly alone in this, but they
    seem particularly venal and insensitive.

    As for "increasing profits," every one of their demonstration stores runs at
    a loss for the enviornmental test. For example, they are attempting to heat
    the stores with reclaimed grease/oil/something. There is no way, according
    to them, they can recover the cost of installing the system. But it's a
    learning test.

    By the way, greed is good. The poor cannot donate to charity.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    The percentage of Walmart employees availing themselves of Walmart's
    health insurance plan is slightly better than retailing as a whole
    (48% vs 45%). Those employees that do use public health insurance
    (mainly Medicare) are part-timers who are wholly eligible.

    Medicare is for old folks, perhaps you mean Medicaid.

    Ah, you've not been to Walmart.

    Quoted message said:


    Your stats may be true, but so what? No other company comes remotely
    close to WalMart in terms of the drain on the public treasury to
    provide health care for its employees. It's shameful that I and other
    taxpayers have to pay many millions to provide health care for
    workers who are helping WalMart to rake in billions in profits.

    I agree that no other company comes close. Walmart is the largest employer
    in the country.

    Quoted message said:


    Look at the way Target treats its employees. Look at CostCo. Both are
    popular and profitable companies, not without their faults, but way
    ahead of WalMart in every way.

    You recall that Target evicted the Salvation Army kettle people. Walmart not
    only welcomes them but often donates an employee to ring the bell if the
    Army is short-handed.

    Quoted message said:


    Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just trying
    to justify your shopping there.

    Frankly, you sound like a union goon. Perhaps you resent people working for
    an honest day's pay.

    (See, I can insult with the best of them.)

  8. HeyBub said:
    Quoted message said:


    There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in
    case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would
    be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in
    NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

    Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and
    One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst,
    Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others.

    New York is lip-deep in Walmarts.

    I found a page listing state ranking.

    New York has 37 WalMart SuperCenters, slightly behind Kansas and Iowa, each
    with 39. But way ahead of New Mexico (28). Texas has 259.

    But Texas has more people who need bargains than does New York.

    http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_wal_sto_num_of_sup-lifestyle-walmart-stores-number-supercenters

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05 said:


    "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"


    Quoted message said:

    >Doug Miller wrote:
    >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
    >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
    >>
    >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?
    >
    >Waves hand!
    >
    >I do! I do! Pick me!

    You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

    First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
    have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
    passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
    clock we can employ

    You think so, do you?

    1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
    moves in a nanosecond?

    On a motherboard, about eight inches (a foot in air). Not that that
    fact has anything to do with the maximum clock frequency achievable.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
    are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So
    in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1
    inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already
    is.

    I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at
    all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
    approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three
    *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors
    in that range.

    The difference does matter. The length of a PCI clock on a plug-in
    card, for instance, has to be within .1" (2.5" +/- .1", IIRC). The
    *difference* in trace lengths is more important than length.

    --
    Keith

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Terry <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    They are just padding the numbers. It is a good thing she found this
    information before she packed it up and took it back for nothing.

    While I agree that the advertising is misleading it is common practice
    to report installed memory as opposed to 'usable' memory.

    Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as unformatted,
    which is completely useless, of course. Then depending on what file
    system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a big chunk devoted
    to the file system and not available for your stuff.

    No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
    size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
    that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
    binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.

    Quoted message said:

    Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the like.

    What "same thing"?

    Quoted message said:

    Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what 'numbers'
    to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked' good.

    Celeron. Need I say more?

    Celerons aren't horrible anymore, unlike the original.

    Quoted message said:

    So in this case I don't blame wally world.

    Of course not. WallyWorld doesn't know any more about computers than
    the average reader of these groups. ;-)

    --
    Keith

  11. HeyBub said:


    willshak said:


    There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case
    you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too
    expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There
    are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

    Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in
    Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport,
    Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others.

    New York is lip-deep in Walmarts.

    There are plenty of Walmart's lots closer to NYC than Albany and
    the other cities you mentioned. There are several on Long Island
    and a couple in Westchester.

    Also, there are Home Depot's and Costco's in NYC (including
    Manhattan), so the excuse of not having enough room to build one
    is bogus. They may not be willing to pay the price for the real
    estate but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

    Bill

  12. Travis Jordan said:


    "Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Fine, so they still make it. When was the last time you saw a
    machine sold with memory in something other than 512mb
    increments. I just checked all of the desktops being sold at
    Walmart and they all have 512mb, 1gb or 2gb. I have not seen a
    machine sold with an odd amount like 768mb in a long time.

    Maybe not 'sold' that way, but that is quite a common configuration,
    especially for older machines. I have one with 640MB (256MB + 256MB +
    128MB) running Windows 2000, and one with 768MB (512MB + 128MB) running XP
    Pro. I just upgraded a clients Compaq Laptop to 768MB (128MB +512MB) as
    well.

    Right, for older machines 256mb was very common. But not for
    current desktops, which is what we are discussing here.

    Bill

  13. Nancy2 said:


    Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

    N.

    What makes you think it wasn't local?

    Bill

  14. In article [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago,

    There is one in Chicago now.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and
    fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas)

    WalMart is selling out America allowing the Chinese to dump goods into
    this market crippling our manufacturing base. Once we can't manufacture
    anything we are dependent upon foreign nations, such as China, to build
    anything. One of America's greatest strengths post WWII came from its
    ability to build lots and lots of [censored].

    China refuses to float its currency thus making its goods cheaper than
    they really are. Dumping is technically illegal in this country in that
    it eliminates competition destroying a free market but somehow no one in
    Congress can do anything about China now -- thanks to WalMart. China
    plans decades and centuries ahead. Wall Street plans for the next
    quarter. By owning so much US Debt and US dollars China already can
    cripple this nation economically more than any terrorist or 1000
    terrorists could do in any attack or coordinated attacks.

    That hillbillies from Texas are fanboys of Walmart because they save a
    few dollars on whatever useless [censored] they're too stupid not to buy does
    not surprise me. Ironically WalMart started out selling only US made
    goods and marketed itself as the ultimate American company. Too many
    people probably think this is still true when in reality, WalMart's
    pursuit of profits by allowing itself to be a conduit for cheap Chinese
    goods could one day destroy our economy.

  15. Bill said:
    Terry said:

    I guess not buying at Walmart is good advice.

    I'd be willing to bet that most computers you'd find at Circuit
    City or Best Buy have the exact same issue (I am surprised at
    some higher-end spec computers that use integrated video cards).

    The UMA graphics is fine unless you're doing CAD/CAM or high-powered
    gaming. However it does mean that you're going to want to go to 1.5GB or
    2GB even for Vista Home once you subtract the memory that the video card
    is using.

  16. "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"

    Quoted message said:


    "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"


    Quoted message said:

    >
    >"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >news:[email hidden]...
    >> In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
    ><[email hidden]> wrote:
    >> >Doug Miller wrote:
    >> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
    >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
    >> >>> everything.
    >> >>
    >> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with


    speed?

    Quoted message said:

    >> >
    >> >Waves hand!
    >> >
    >> >I do! I do! Pick me!
    >>
    >> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is


    finite?

    Quoted message said:

    >
    >First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All
    >computers
    >have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can
    >only


    be

    Quoted message said:

    >passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
    >clock we can employ

    You think so, do you?

    1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
    light
    moves in a nanosecond?

    [Lack of response noted]

    11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
    length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech
    she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    > therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
    >are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock
    >cycle.


    So

    Quoted message said:

    >in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace
    >were


    1

    Quoted message said:

    >inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it


    already

    Quoted message said:

    >is.

    I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't
    matter


    at

    Quoted message said:

    all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
    approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and


    three

    Quoted message said:

    *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing


    processors

    Quoted message said:

    in that range.

    [Lack of substantive response noted]

    What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying because
    you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied
    computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made
    for a faster data transfer.

    No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that
    "shortness
    means nothing".

    You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong. It
    sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is
    factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just plain
    wrong.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If we were talking photon switches (a
    theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will
    be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is
    the
    CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon
    melts
    into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
    speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a
    heat
    sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.

    We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast
    they
    can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised
    to
    the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.

    Again:

    How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?

    11.8 inches

    Quoted message said:

    At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch
    and
    three-inch signal path make a difference?

    186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough.

    Quoted message said:

    What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?

    Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you
    know?

    Quoted message said:

    --
    Regards,
    Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

    Doug, I'm done with your game. You made a claim that was wrong. Get over
    it.

    Paul

  17. Paul M. Cook said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
    > light
    > moves in a nanosecond?

    Quoted message said:

    11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
    length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech
    she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.

    Of course, this was done for illustration purposes. That length is
    correct for an electromagnetic signal travelling in a vacuum (or air,
    which is nearly identical) only. In real computers, signals are carried
    in microstrip transmission lines (signal trace on one face of a PC board
    with an internal ground plane, or ground on the other face), or
    twisted-pair transmission lines, or even coaxial cable transmission
    lines. In those, the velocity is somewhat lower, and a nanosecond takes
    you a shorter distance - about 60-80% of the distance in a vacuum.

    Dave

  18. "Mark Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    That hillbillies from Texas are fanboys of Walmart because they save a
    few dollars on whatever useless [censored] they're too stupid not to buy does
    not surprise me. Ironically WalMart started out selling only US made
    goods and marketed itself as the ultimate American company. Too many
    people probably think this is still true when in reality, WalMart's
    pursuit of profits by allowing itself to be a conduit for cheap Chinese
    goods could one day destroy our economy.

    You may be right, but the American consumer is complicit in this. WalMart
    would not have any success unless the consumer bought the stuff. We used to
    have a choice but there is not much made in USA left.

  19. In article LyLDi.1770$s06.155@trnddc04 said:


    "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"

    Quoted message said:


    "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email hidden]...
    > >> In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
    > ><[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >> >Doug Miller wrote:
    > >> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
    > >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
    > >> >>> everything.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
    speed?
    > >> >
    > >> >Waves hand!
    > >> >
    > >> >I do! I do! Pick me!
    > >>
    > >> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
    finite?
    > >
    > >First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All
    > >computers
    > >have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can
    > >only
    be
    > >passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
    > >clock we can employ
    >
    > You think so, do you?
    >
    > 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
    > light
    > moves in a nanosecond?

    [Lack of response noted]

    11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
    length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech
    she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    > > therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
    > >are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock
    > >cycle.
    So
    > >in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace
    > >were
    1
    > >inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it
    already
    > >is.
    >
    > I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't
    > matter
    at
    > all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
    > approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and
    three
    > *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing
    processors
    > in that range.

    [Lack of substantive response noted]

    What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying because
    you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied
    computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff.

    Oh, the old "argument from authority" fallacy. Too bad that formal logic
    wasn't part of *your* computer science curriculum; it was in *mine*.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made
    for a faster data transfer.

    No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that
    "shortness means nothing".

    You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong. It
    sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is
    factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just plain
    wrong.

    So say you. You've provided nothing to back that up, though.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If we were talking photon switches (a
    theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will
    be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is
    the
    CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon
    melts
    into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
    speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a
    heat
    sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.

    We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast
    they
    can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised
    to
    the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.

    Again:

    How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?

    11.8 inches

    Quoted message said:

    At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch
    and
    three-inch signal path make a difference?

    186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough.

    Lack of accurate response noted.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?

    Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you
    know?

    Lack of response noted.

    Give it up, Paul. You've lost the argument.

    --
    Regards,
    Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

    It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

  20. In article said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    "Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >Doug Miller wrote:
    > >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
    > >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
    > >>
    > >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?
    > >
    > >Waves hand!
    > >
    > >I do! I do! Pick me!
    >
    > You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

    First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
    have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
    passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
    clock we can employ

    You think so, do you?

    1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
    moves in a nanosecond?

    On a motherboard, about eight inches (a foot in air). Not that that
    fact has anything to do with the maximum clock frequency achievable.

    You might want to rethink that notion...

    --
    Regards,
    Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

    It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.