On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), "
Oh, I see... a liberal.

I know you're stupid. You don't have to constantly demonstrate the
fact.

You mean in the same way you demonstrate how to be a red neck?

On Apr 15, 8:39*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), "

Oh, I see... a liberal.

I know you're stupid. *You don't have to constantly demonstrate the
fact.

You mean in the same way you demonstrate how to be a red neck?

I was just thinking about who could possibly be dumber than Robo****,
and who shows up...

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "
You mean in the same way you demonstrate how to be a red neck?

I was just thinking about who could possibly be dumber than Robo****,
and who shows up...

You really like confirming your status as ignorant trailer park trash
don't you? I know you can't help playing the simpleton idiot because
of your inbreeding, but at least try to make a token effort will you?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:26:58 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:44:56 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

Andy Warhol was more an Artist. He took risks.

Andy Warhol's work SUCKED. He and Picasso can go **** up a rope.

Now There's an idea!

Quite the evocative phrase, wot?

--
STOP THE SLAUGHTER! Boycott Baby Oil!

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:42:35 -0400, the infamous "Lee Michaels"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:44:56 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

Andy Warhol was more an Artist. He took risks.

Andy Warhol's work SUCKED. He and Picasso can go **** up a rope.

Do you have any idea how much a ****ed on rope by Warhol or Picasso would go
for in today's market?

With modern DNA testing, to test its "provenance", it could go for
MILLIONS!!

Just saying...

And it would be equally as artful.

Just saying...

--
STOP THE SLAUGHTER! Boycott Baby Oil!

On Apr 15, 10:07*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "

You mean in the same way you demonstrate how to be a red neck?

I was just thinking about who could possibly be dumber than Robo****,
and who shows up...

You really like confirming your status as ignorant trailer park trash
don't you? I know you can't help playing the simpleton idiot because
of your inbreeding, but at least try to make a token effort will you?

*wiping monitor and keyboard*

On 4/14/2010 11:39 PM, Steve wrote:
On 2010-04-13 22:30:35 -0400, Larry Jaques
said:

All I can say is
http://www.poopreport.com/BMnewswire/complex_****.html

http://gizmodo.com/205693/japanese-g...ellphone-charm

The more I learn about the Japanese, the more I realize that they are
very strange.

In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:54:58 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:

It took a while to establish cause-and-effect, because *nobody* was
willing to believe that that 'innocent little job" -- nothing more than
4 standard statements in the system control language -- could _possibly_
be the culprit. Until they ran it as the _only_ job in the system, and
watched the machine crash.

The entire job consisted of:
1) request a tape mount
2) copy a file from disk to the tape
3) rewind the tape
4) copy from the tape back to a new file.
The original Univac I had tape drives that maintained tension with
springs and pulleys rather than vacuum columns. Those drives, as well as
the vacuum column model that replaced them on Univac II, could read both
forwards and backwards. There were 10 drives.

One of the programmers (no, not me) wrote a program that issued a write
command, followed by a read backwards, followed by a skip a block. That
sequence apparently exceeded the response of the strings and pulleys and
they wound up in a heap at the bottom of the drive.

The resident (yep, 24 hours a day) CEs wouldn't believe him when he
described the problem. So he wrote a little program to demonstrate the
problem, called in the CEs, and ran the program, dumping *all 10* tape
drives. He wasn't very popular with the CEs after that, but when he told
them he had a problem, they listened :-).

I sometimes think all us old computer nerds should start a website and
record all these stories before we all die and the stories are lost.

There is also the story about a university student who got the engineering
plans for an IBM mainframe disk drive (one of the washing-machine-size units),
_carefully_ calculated the mass involved, and wrote a channel program that
consisted of 'seek to outermost track', pause, 'seek to innermost track',
pause, and "repeat indefinitely". The 'pause' times were carefully calculated
to the 'resonant frequency of the drive unit. Reportedly, the unit 'walked'
almost *THREE*FEET* across the floor, _towards_the_operator_, before they
managed to find and kill the offending task. I'm given to understand that
the operators were 'a bit nervous' for some days thereafter.


I managed to knock a selectric style printer off its stand with a little
unfortunate development code.

must have been a rather flimsy stand -- the golf-ball mechanism wasn't that
massive.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:54:58 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:

It took a while to establish cause-and-effect, because *nobody* was
willing to believe that that 'innocent little job" -- nothing more than
4 standard statements in the system control language -- could _possibly_
be the culprit. Until they ran it as the _only_ job in the system, and
watched the machine crash.

The entire job consisted of:
1) request a tape mount
2) copy a file from disk to the tape
3) rewind the tape
4) copy from the tape back to a new file.
The original Univac I had tape drives that maintained tension with
springs and pulleys rather than vacuum columns. Those drives, as well as
the vacuum column model that replaced them on Univac II, could read both
forwards and backwards. There were 10 drives.

One of the programmers (no, not me) wrote a program that issued a write
command, followed by a read backwards, followed by a skip a block. That
sequence apparently exceeded the response of the strings and pulleys and
they wound up in a heap at the bottom of the drive.

The resident (yep, 24 hours a day) CEs wouldn't believe him when he
described the problem. So he wrote a little program to demonstrate the
problem, called in the CEs, and ran the program, dumping *all 10* tape
drives. He wasn't very popular with the CEs after that, but when he told
them he had a problem, they listened :-).

I sometimes think all us old computer nerds should start a website and
record all these stories before we all die and the stories are lost.
There is also the story about a university student who got the engineering
plans for an IBM mainframe disk drive (one of the washing-machine-size units),
_carefully_ calculated the mass involved, and wrote a channel program that
consisted of 'seek to outermost track', pause, 'seek to innermost track',
pause, and "repeat indefinitely". The 'pause' times were carefully calculated
to the 'resonant frequency of the drive unit. Reportedly, the unit 'walked'
almost *THREE*FEET* across the floor, _towards_the_operator_, before they
managed to find and kill the offending task. I'm given to understand that
the operators were 'a bit nervous' for some days thereafter.

I managed to knock a selectric style printer off its stand with a little
unfortunate development code.

must have been a rather flimsy stand -- the golf-ball mechanism wasn't that
massive.



It was the standard table. The ball doesn't have much mass, but the
carriage doing full returns against the stop as fast as possible makes a
lot of noise and did the deed.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:54:58 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:

It took a while to establish cause-and-effect, because *nobody* was
willing to believe that that 'innocent little job" -- nothing more than
4 standard statements in the system control language -- could _possibly_
be the culprit. Until they ran it as the _only_ job in the system, and
watched the machine crash.

The entire job consisted of:
1) request a tape mount
2) copy a file from disk to the tape
3) rewind the tape
4) copy from the tape back to a new file.
The original Univac I had tape drives that maintained tension with
springs and pulleys rather than vacuum columns. Those drives, as well as
the vacuum column model that replaced them on Univac II, could read both
forwards and backwards. There were 10 drives.

One of the programmers (no, not me) wrote a program that issued a write
command, followed by a read backwards, followed by a skip a block. That
sequence apparently exceeded the response of the strings and pulleys and
they wound up in a heap at the bottom of the drive.

The resident (yep, 24 hours a day) CEs wouldn't believe him when he
described the problem. So he wrote a little program to demonstrate the
problem, called in the CEs, and ran the program, dumping *all 10* tape
drives. He wasn't very popular with the CEs after that, but when he told
them he had a problem, they listened :-).

I sometimes think all us old computer nerds should start a website and
record all these stories before we all die and the stories are lost.
There is also the story about a university student who got the engineering
plans for an IBM mainframe disk drive (one of the washing-machine-size units),
_carefully_ calculated the mass involved, and wrote a channel program that
consisted of 'seek to outermost track', pause, 'seek to innermost track',
pause, and "repeat indefinitely". The 'pause' times were carefully calculated
to the 'resonant frequency of the drive unit. Reportedly, the unit 'walked'
almost *THREE*FEET* across the floor, _towards_the_operator_, before they
managed to find and kill the offending task. I'm given to understand that
the operators were 'a bit nervous' for some days thereafter.

I managed to knock a selectric style printer off its stand with a little
unfortunate development code.
must have been a rather flimsy stand -- the golf-ball mechanism wasn't that
massive.



It was the standard table. The ball doesn't have much mass, but the
carriage doing full returns against the stop as fast as possible makes a
lot of noise and did the deed.

Here's the data sheet for the printer showing the stand:

http://tinyurl.com/y5b6zqc

In article ,
wrote:
On Apr 13, 4:40 pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In article
,



wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:33 am, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote
:

That's not unusual at all. Subtraction *is* adding the negative
(complement).

OTOH, the IBM 1620 was known as the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even
Try). It had no ADD (or subtract) instruction at all, rather used an
index into a lookup table in memory to add. Want a different
operator? Overwrite the "ADD" lookup table, sometimes on purpose,
even.

In one of my CS classes, it was pointed out that ADD circuits are usually
smaller and easier than SUBtract circuits, so they're used more often.
That's what was so weird about the subtractor being used to emulate
addition.

Not true. The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic.

Really? I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction directly. 'Adder'
chips, however, are common as dirt.

Really. Really? You haven't looked very hard.
http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Colla...MC10H180-D.PDF

And, you sir, "don't know what you don't know."

That chip does -not- do *actual* subtraction. The spec sheet makes that
fact abundantly clear (expressly stated in the 2nd para. of the description).
That chip is an 'adder' with added logic to 'invert' one of the inputs, so
that it can _simulate_ subtraction (by internal 'complement and add').

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a bunch of inverters
on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

And _that_ is what the MC10H180, in fact, does.


True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the states in the
operation table do not collapse as well.
Addition: operand1 OR operand2 == 0 = zero result, zero carry
operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 = one result, zero carry
operand1 AND operand2 == 1 = zero result, one carry

Subtraction: operand1 EQ operand2 = zero result, zero borrow
operand1 EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 = one result, zero borrow
operand1 EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 = one result, one borrow

...which are the same operations.

Demonstrating, yet again, what you "don't know you don't know" about digital
logic circuit design.

They are _not_ 'the same operations'. They cannot be implemented with the
same logic. They cannot even be implemented with the same number of gates.

The -results- of the operations are "mathematically equivalent", but they are
*NOT* the same operations. "In theory", this is a difference that should
make no difference, but "in practice", there _is_ a difference, when you have
to implement in the real world.

To expound on the 'difference' between addition and subtraction, consider
hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. Where the 'negative' of
a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of the positive
value. e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

So what? Are you trying to prove your prowess with useless
information?

Useless? Do you know how many *BILLIONS* of dollars of scientific/engineering
computers were built using that -exact- logic, over a period of several
decades?

Those of us who actually _used_ those kinds of machines had to deal with this
"useless" behavior on a day-to-day basis.

Those machines *all* used _NATIVE_SUBTRACTION_, with addition being 'simulated'
by 'complement and subtract'.

To be absolutely explicit, on those machines _addition_ was done by running
the second operand through an inverter and then feeding that result to the
'native' subtraction circuitry. It was -not- done by disabling inverters
in front of a 'native' adder circuit. I'm sure even _you_ can see the
stupidity of running a set of (front-end) inverters before a set of
(internal to simulated subtraction logic) inverters that fed an 'adder'
circuit to generate the result.

Those who claim otherwise are ignorant of the FACTS of computing history.

In article ,
Bill wrote:

wrote in message
...
Idiot. A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when


FWIW, and I won't wish to get dragged into any muck, the algorithm for
performing of translating to negative numbers (assuming 2s complement
representation) IS relevant if one will evaluate expressions of the form
A-B as A+(-B).

The "standard' algorithm, in computer _hardware_ for getting the
2s complement 'negative' of a value is to invert the bits (1's complement
negative) and _ADD_1_ to that value. This algorithm, as does *any*
other possible algorithm, *fails* when the value to be negated is the
'most negative value' that can be represented on the machine.`

Since bitwise negation can be performed by a single transistor, I would
expect that that a value in a register could be negated VERY fast. I think
just a few clock cycles.

Yup. on a 2's complement machine, "NOT" (1's complement negate) is *much*
gaster than "NEG" (2's complement negate). On a 1's complement machine,
the opcodes are synonyms (if the latter code even _exists_, that is).

Bill

In article ,
wrote:

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition.

Liar. It is *extremely*relevant* when discussing _real_world_ implementations
of hardware to do the task.

I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.

Something you *obviously* know nothing about.

In article ,
Bill wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Since bitwise negation can be performed by a single transistor, I would
expect that that a value in a register could be negated VERY fast. I
think
just a few clock cycles.

Above you use 2's complement representations in your example. Now you
switch tracks to 1's complement representation of negative numbers
(the only format where negation = inversion).
Yes, bitwise *INVERSION* can be done by a single transistor (indeed it
takes zero clock cycles to invert a signal), but this is a negation
only if you're doing 1's complement arithmetic. You still have to do...



That must be one of the reasons they switched to 2s complement, no?

I hate to answer my own question, but the main reason was the duplicity of
zeros in 1s complement, I think.

The 'ambiguous' bit-pattern for 'zero' *was* _the_ compelling reason that
IEEE 'standardized' on 2's complement. The 'test for zero/non-zero' operation
had to check for _two_ bit patterns (all zeroes, all ones), which either
took twice as long as a single check, *or* used up a _lot_ more 'silicon
real-estate'. Even _worse_, a test for "equality" could not simply check
for a bit-for-bit correspondence between the two values, it had to return
'equal' IF one value was all zeroes, and the other was all ones. This
was _really_ "bad news" for limited-capability processors -- you had to
invert one operand, SUBTRACT, and _then_ perform the zero/non-zero check
described above. Suddenly the test for 'equal' is 3 gate times *SLOWER*
than a 'subtract'. This _really_ hurts performance. "Inequality" compares
are also adversely affected, although not to the same degree.


For *big*, 'maximum performance' machines, the cost of the additional
hardware for dealing with unique +0/-0 was small enough (relative to the
_total_ cost of the machine) that it was easy to justify for the performance
benefits. When the IEEE stuck it's oar in, 'budget' computing was a fact
of life -- mini-computers, and micro-processors. It was _important to the
*user* of computing that the results on 'cheap' hardware match *exactly*
that obtained from using the 'high priced spread'. And that _code_ developed
on one machine run *unchanged* on another machine, and produce exactly
the same results.

At the vehement urging of the makers of 'budget' computing systems, as well
as the users thereof, 2's complement arithmetic was selected for the IEEE
standard, *despite* the obvious problem of a _non-symmetric_ representation
scheme. Number 'comparisons' were much more common in existing code than
'negations', thus it 'made sense' to use a representation scheme that favored
the 'more common' operations. In addition, the 'minor problem' of the 'most
negative number' not having a positive counterpart was not perceived to be
a 'killer' issue. "Real-world" data showed that only in *VERY*RARE*
situations did numeric values in computations get 'close' to the 'limit of
representation' in hardware.

I *understand* the decision, although, still to this day, I disagree with it.
wry grin

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:30*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:21*pm, Robatoy wrote:





On Apr 14, 11:46*am, " wrote:

On Apr 14, 8:56*am, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:36*am, " wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:40*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:33*am, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote
:

That's not unusual at all. *Subtraction *is* adding the
negative
(complement).

OTOH, the IBM 1620 was known as the CADET (Can't Add,
Didn't Even
Try). *It had no ADD (or subtract) instruction at all,
rather used an
index into a lookup table in memory to add. *Want a different
operator? *Overwrite the "ADD" lookup table, sometimes
on purpose,
even.

In one of my CS classes, it was pointed out that ADD
circuits are usually
smaller and easier than SUBtract circuits, so they're
used more often. *
That's what was so weird about the subtractor being used
to emulate
addition.

Not true. *The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic.

Really? *I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction
directly. *'Adder'
chips, however, are common as dirt.

Really. *Really? You haven't looked very
hard.http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Colla...MC10H180-D.PDF

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a
bunch of inverters
on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the
states in the
operation table do not collapse as well.
*Addition: * *operand1 *OR operand2 == 0 *= zero result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 *= one *result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 AND operand2 == 1 *=? zero result, one *carry

*Subtraction: operand1 *EQ operand2 * * * * * *= zero
result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 = one
*result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 = one
*result, one *borrow

...which are the same operations.

To expound on the 'difference' between addition and
subtraction, consider
hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. *Where the
'negative' of
a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of
the positive
value. *e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

So what? *Are you trying to prove your prowess with useless
information?

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. *A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition. * *I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.
OTOH, you are up to your usual standards in cashing checks with your
mouth that you ass can't cover.

Yup, you're one of 'them' alright. You ain't much.

What a moron, Robo****, but I already knew that.

Yup, you're right to the core. I find it interesting that the bulk of
your comments are degrading and condescending to justabout anybody
here. You must really think you're something. Welll... I'm here to
tell you that you are not nice.

I would have to concede Keith's expertise on the subject of morons.
*NOBODY* has the degree of _first-hand_ experience on the matter that
he does.

In article ,
Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "
You mean in the same way you demonstrate how to be a red neck?

I was just thinking about who could possibly be dumber than Robo****,
and who shows up...

You really like confirming your status as ignorant trailer park trash
don't you? I know you can't help playing the simpleton idiot because
of your inbreeding, but at least try to make a token effort will you?

Unfortunately, he *can't* do that, no matter how politely anyone asks.

Explanation -- he's not a 'token' inbred simpleton idiot.

In article ,
Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote in
:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:58:38 -0500,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
*trim*
I agree that subtraction, GENERALLY, "*is* adding the negative".

Not generally. That is one way to do it, but certainly not the only
way. Hardware subtraction is no more difficult than addition. They're
really the same logic (twisted, but really the same).

Now go back and read what _this_ machine actually did. grin

There have been many such things talked about here. Specifically, the
IBM 1620, knows as the CADET, had a table look-up for addition. It
couldn't subtract, either.

I repeat, this multi-million-dollar super-computer "couldn't ADD".

The 1620 wasn't a "multi-million-dollar super-computer". It was, in
fact, rather mundane. That's the reason it couldn't add - they didn't
want to spend money on an adder. Note that it had no subtractor,
either.


Well that's completely different! Using a look up table for addition...
And apparently an extensive one if my 10 second internet search is worth
anything.

Depends on what you mean by 'extensive' it was a 'decimal' (although the
actual 'base' it used for arithmetic operations was programmable!) machine, so
it only needed 100 (2-digit) entries for a 1-digit x 1-digit table (base 10).
1x2 would have required 1000 (3-digit) entires, and 2x2 would have needed
1000 4-digit entires. As the smallest machines had only 20,000 'digits'
of storage, it is clear that the look-up table was a 1x1 matrix (200 digits
total). subtract, and multiply, were also performed using separate look-up
tables.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message "Real-world"
data showed that only in *VERY*RARE*
situations did numeric values in computations get 'close' to the 'limit of
representation' in hardware.


I think some would say that if your variables are getting close to their
limits very often, then
it's time to consider looking for a new data structure.

On Apr 15, 5:43*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In article ,



Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:30*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:21*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:46*am, " wrote:

On Apr 14, 8:56*am, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:36*am, " wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:40*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:33*am, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote
:

That's not unusual at all. *Subtraction *is* adding the
negative
(complement).

OTOH, the IBM 1620 was known as the CADET (Can't Add,
Didn't Even
Try). *It had no ADD (or subtract) instruction at all,
rather used an
index into a lookup table in memory to add. *Want a different
operator? *Overwrite the "ADD" lookup table, sometimes
on purpose,
even.

In one of my CS classes, it was pointed out that ADD
circuits are usually
smaller and easier than SUBtract circuits, so they're
used more often. *
That's what was so weird about the subtractor being used
to emulate
addition.

Not true. *The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic.

Really? *I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction
directly. *'Adder'
chips, however, are common as dirt.

Really. *Really? You haven't looked very
hard.http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Colla...MC10H180-D.PDF

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a
bunch of inverters
on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the
states in the
operation table do not collapse as well.
*Addition: * *operand1 *OR operand2 == 0 *= zero result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 *= one *result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 AND operand2 == 1 *=? zero result, one *carry

*Subtraction: operand1 *EQ operand2 * * * * * *= zero
result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 = one
*result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 = one
*result, one *borrow

...which are the same operations.

To expound on the 'difference' between addition and
subtraction, consider
hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. *Where the
'negative' of
a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of
the positive
value. *e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

So what? *Are you trying to prove your prowess with useless
information?

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. *A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition. * *I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.
OTOH, you are up to your usual standards in cashing checks with your
mouth that you ass can't cover.

Yup, you're one of 'them' alright. You ain't much.

What a moron, Robo****, but I already knew that.

Yup, you're right to the core. I find it interesting that the bulk of
your comments are degrading and condescending to justabout anybody
here. You must really think you're something. Welll... I'm here to
tell you that you are not nice.

I would have to concede Keith's expertise on the subject of morons.

Yes, with the three stooges (Uppity, Robo****, and you), I now know a
*lot* about morons.

*NOBODY* has the degree of _first-hand_ experience on the matter that
he does.

Yes, my first-hand experience in computer architecture sure makes you
look like a fool, but the kicker is that you can't read. Uppity and
Robo**** are simply leftist thieves.

On Apr 15, 5:13*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. *A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition. * *

Liar. *It is *extremely*relevant* when discussing _real_world_ implementations
of hardware to do the task.

Moron. Not when that wasn't the issue at hand. Of course you can
always bring a strawman to any argument if you think it makes you look
smart. It doesn't.

* * * * * * * * I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.

Something you *obviously* know nothing about.

Enough.

On Apr 16, 9:04*am, " wrote:
On Apr 15, 5:43*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:





In article ,

Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:30*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:21*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:46*am, " wrote:

On Apr 14, 8:56*am, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:36*am, " wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:40*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:33*am, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote
:

That's not unusual at all. *Subtraction *is* adding the
negative
(complement).

OTOH, the IBM 1620 was known as the CADET (Can't Add,
Didn't Even
Try). *It had no ADD (or subtract) instruction at all,
rather used an
index into a lookup table in memory to add. *Want a different
operator? *Overwrite the "ADD" lookup table, sometimes
on purpose,
even.

In one of my CS classes, it was pointed out that ADD
circuits are usually
smaller and easier than SUBtract circuits, so they're
used more often. *
That's what was so weird about the subtractor being used
to emulate
addition.

Not true. *The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic.

Really? *I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction
directly. *'Adder'
chips, however, are common as dirt.

Really. *Really? You haven't looked very
hard.http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Colla...MC10H180-D.PDF

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a
bunch of inverters
on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the
states in the
operation table do not collapse as well.
*Addition: * *operand1 *OR operand2 == 0 *= zero result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 *= one *result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 AND operand2 == 1 *=? zero result, one *carry

*Subtraction: operand1 *EQ operand2 * * * * * *= zero
result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 = one
*result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 = one
*result, one *borrow

...which are the same operations.

To expound on the 'difference' between additn and
subtraction, consider
hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. *Where the
'negative' of
a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of
the positive
value. *e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

So what? *Are you trying to prove your prowess with useless
information?

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. *A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition. * *I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.
OTOH, you are up to your usual standards in cashing checks with your
mouth that you ass can't cover.

Yup, you're one of 'them' alright. You ain't much.

What a moron, Robo****, but I already knew that.

Yup, you're right to the core. I find it interesting that the bulk of
your comments are degrading and condescending to justabout anybody
here. You must really think you're something. Welll... I'm here to
tell you that you are not nice.

I would have to concede Keith's expertise on the subject of morons.

Yes, with the three stooges (Uppity, Robo****, and you), I now know a
*lot* about morons.

*NOBODY* has the degree of _first-hand_ experience on the matter that
he does.

Yes, my first-hand experience in computer architecture sure makes you
look like a fool, but the kicker is that you can't read. *Uppity and
Robo**** are simply leftist thieves.

(Pretty soon all of us will be labeled stooges by keith...
institutions are full of guys(?) like him.)

On Apr 16, 8:17*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:04*am, " wrote:



On Apr 15, 5:43*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,

Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:30*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:21*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:46*am, " wrote:

On Apr 14, 8:56*am, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:36*am, " wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:40*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:33*am, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
" wrote
:

That's not unusual at all. *Subtraction *is* adding the
negative
(complement).

OTOH, the IBM 1620 was known as the CADET (Can't Add,
Didn't Even
Try). *It had no ADD (or subtract) instruction at all,
rather used an
index into a lookup table in memory to add. *Want a different
operator? *Overwrite the "ADD" lookup table, sometimes
on purpose,
even.

In one of my CS classes, it was pointed out that ADD
circuits are usually
smaller and easier than SUBtract circuits, so they're
used more often. *
That's what was so weird about the subtractor being used
to emulate
addition.

Not true. *The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic.

Really? *I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction
directly. *'Adder'
chips, however, are common as dirt.

Really. *Really? You haven't looked very
hard.http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Colla...MC10H180-D.PDF

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a
bunch of inverters
on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the
states in the
operation table do not collapse as well.
*Addition: * *operand1 *OR operand2 == 0 *= zero result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 *= one *result, zero carry
* * * * * * * operand1 AND operand2 == 1 *=? zero result, one *carry

*Subtraction: operand1 *EQ operand2 * * * * * *= zero
result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 = one
*result, zero borrow
* * * * * * * operand1 *EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 = one
*result, one *borrow

...which are the same operations.

To expound on the 'difference' between additn and
subtraction, consider
hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. *Where the
'negative' of
a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of
the positive
value. *e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

So what? *Are you trying to prove your prowess with useless
information?

Are you showing off that the information is useless to YOU because
your prowess is so elevated?

Idiot. *A particular method of encoding negative numbers isn't
relevant when discussing the difference/similarity between subtraction
and addition. * *I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.
OTOH, you are up to your usual standards in cashing checks with your
mouth that you ass can't cover.

Yup, you're one of 'them' alright. You ain't much.

What a moron, Robo****, but I already knew that.

Yup, you're right to the core. I find it interesting that the bulk of
your comments are degrading and condescending to justabout anybody
here. You must really think you're something. Welll... I'm here to
tell you that you are not nice.

I would have to concede Keith's expertise on the subject of morons.

Yes, with the three stooges (Uppity, Robo****, and you), I now know a
*lot* about morons.

*NOBODY* has the degree of _first-hand_ experience on the matter that
he does.

Yes, my first-hand experience in computer architecture sure makes you
look like a fool, but the kicker is that you can't read. *Uppity and
Robo**** are simply leftist thieves.

(Pretty soon all of us will be labeled stooges by keith...
institutions are full of guys(?) like him.)

No, you're special. Short-bus special.

On Apr 16, 10:12*am, " wrote:


I *DESIGN* the stuff. *Yes, I know what I'm talking about.


You're probably very good at what you do. Your social skills need
work, so you might come across as less of of a dick.
You're probably just misunderstood.

On Apr 16, 9:25*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:12*am, " wrote:



I *DESIGN* the stuff. *Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

You're probably very good at what you do. Your social skills need
work, so you might come across as less of of a dick.
You're probably just misunderstood.

From a socialist thief like you, that's a compliment.

On Apr 16, 10:38*am, " wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:25*am, Robatoy wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:12*am, " wrote:

I *DESIGN* the stuff. *Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

You're probably very good at what you do. Your social skills need
work, so you might come across as less of of a dick.
You're probably just misunderstood.

From a socialist thief like you, that's a compliment.

Get your facts straight. I was an independent small business owner
with a staff of 4. It was the third business I built from the ground
up and then sold for a nice lump of coin. I now have one business
left, my CNC millwork business. I own this business outright. No debt,
no bank-loans, just a huge amount of supplier credit and goodwill. I
have never collected a dime from any social assistance programs and
vote conservative unless there's an asshole like you who's running for
a political position under the guise of conservatism. The (small)
liberal side of me believes that I should help those less fortunate
than I. So you are wrong, wrong, wrong, ****-face.

"Robatoy" wrote

Get your facts straight. I was an independent small business owner
with a staff of 4. It was the third business I built from the ground
up and then sold for a nice lump of coin. I now have one business
left, my CNC millwork business.
=====================

Congrats on another biz success/transition.

You must be a lousy retiree.

Did you get kicked out of your shop?

Just how is the CNC biz in your neighborhood? Do you see this as a growth
biz?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:12:07 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
.. .
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:44:56 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

Andy Warhol was more an Artist. He took risks.

Andy Warhol's work SUCKED. He and Picasso can go **** up a rope.

Do you have any idea how much a ****ed on rope by Warhol or Picasso would
go for in today's market?

With modern DNA testing, to test its "provenance", it could go for
MILLIONS!!

Just saying...

But how would one prove it had been ****ed Up?

Anything they made had a "****ed-up-a-rope quality" to it.
It's integral to their crap. No proof necessary.

--
STOP THE SLAUGHTER! Boycott Baby Oil!

On Apr 16, 11:13*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote

Get your facts straight. I was an independent small business owner
with a staff of 4. It was the third business I built from the ground
up and then sold for a nice lump of coin. I now have one business
left, my CNC millwork business.
=====================

Congrats on another biz success/transition.

You must be a lousy retiree.

Did you get kicked out of your shop?

Just how is the CNC biz in your neighborhood? *Do you see this as a growth
biz?

Thank you. I do not know how to to do nothing.
I still have my shop and my office. I will be here till the new owners
are properly trained and certified, probably till fall. Meanwhile it
has become obvious to me that the demand for CNC work is a lot more
varied than I had even dreamt possible. From a commemorative plaque in
1-1/2 walnut to 1200 round pvc tags for a cattle farmer. Then a huge
16 x 4 ft carved sign for a marina (pics to follow once a local artist
paints it.) and now somebody wants barber-poles of all things. I am
learning about different feedrates in different materials (yet to
break a bit) the software learning curve is easy initially but pretty
steep if you want some really cool stuff. (Vectric Aspire) I will be
adding an 'a-axis' spindle/indexer for more fun stuff.
In the next 18 months, the last daughter will be off to school, and
Angela will be done with her NP. Then we will consolidate everything
and build somewhere where I can work with my CNC from home where Ang
will hang her shingle as well. Maybe Maritimes, maybe British
Columbia. Who knows.

A growth business? Hell yes. The guys at Vectric have done a fantastic
job creating the Aspire software making it, in relative terms, a lot
easier to create works of art. Even though my cnc is a General, the
ShopBot community is just incredible with help for newbs like myself.

I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.

"Robatoy" wrote

A growth business? Hell yes. The guys at Vectric have done a fantastic
job creating the Aspire software making it, in relative terms, a lot
easier to create works of art. Even though my cnc is a General, the
ShopBot community is just incredible with help for newbs like myself.
===

You make a lousy neander.

===
I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.
=========

I would guess that the technology, support, CNC machines, etc are much
better today than ten years ago. And Morris had not built his machine and
begun his CNC subversiveness.

Oh well...., better late than never.

On 4/16/2010 10:48 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:

I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.

8-|

=========

I would guess that the technology, support, CNC machines, etc are much
better today than ten years ago. And Morris had not built his machine and
begun his CNC subversiveness.

Subversive... moi? snicker

Oh well...., better late than never.

True, and I'm wishing I'd learned earlier just how to go about being
"subversive"...

....I'm just now starting to have real fun with this stuff:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/

Rob, when/if you tire of the CNC, you're welcome to play along with a
really interesting group of "subversives".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Apr 16, 11:48*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote

A growth business? Hell yes. The guys at Vectric have done a fantastic
job creating the Aspire software making it, in relative terms, a lot
easier to create works of art. Even though my cnc is a General, the
ShopBot community is just incredible with help for newbs like myself.
===

You make a lousy neander.

LOL...I have made some facsimiles of furniture and stuff. I own a hand
plane and a scorp, not to mention an adz. I have created adztech.

===
I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.
=========

I would guess that the technology, support, CNC machines, etc are much
better today than ten years ago. *And Morris had not built his machine and
begun his CNC subversiveness.

Oh well...., *better late than never.

It *is* indeed Morris' fault. Absolutely. I will be forever grateful
for his subversiveness. Sometimes I need a nudge. I was always cnc-
curious. Damned machines made way too much sense but were boat-loads
of money when I last looked at them. Those machines were always a
proposition that included fully booked work schedules, trained staff
and very expensive software. Now they make sense on a more one-off
custom level.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oy/VV2part.jpg

On Apr 16, 12:17*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 4/16/2010 10:48 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:

I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.

8-|

=========

I would guess that the technology, support, CNC machines, etc are much
better today than ten years ago. *And Morris had not built his machine and
begun his CNC subversiveness.

Subversive... moi? snicker

Oh well...., *better late than never.

True, and I'm wishing I'd learned earlier just how to go about being
"subversive"...

...I'm just now starting to have real fun with this stuff:

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/

Rob, when/if you tire of the CNC, you're welcome to play along with a
really interesting group of "subversives".

Looks like you hit the ground running. Excellent!

"Robatoy" wrote

LOL...I have made some facsimiles of furniture and stuff. I own a hand
plane and a scorp, not to mention an adz. I have created adztech.

===
I just can't help myself.

Adztech, eh?

Have you made an adztech calendar?

ouch

On Apr 16, 12:37*pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote

LOL...I have made some facsimiles of furniture and stuff. I own a hand
plane and a scorp, not to mention an adz. I have created adztech.

*===
I just can't help myself.

Adztech, eh?

Have you made an adztech calendar?

ouch

I have.

On Apr 16, 12:48*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:37*pm, "Lee Michaels"

wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote

LOL...I have made some facsimiles of furniture and stuff. I own a hand
plane and a scorp, not to mention an adz. I have created adztech.

*===
I just can't help myself.

Adztech, eh?

Have you made an adztech calendar?

ouch

I have.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...anCalender.jpg

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:33:55 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 4/14/2010 11:39 PM, Steve wrote:
On 2010-04-13 22:30:35 -0400, Larry Jaques
said:

All I can say is
http://www.poopreport.com/BMnewswire/complex_****.html

http://gizmodo.com/205693/japanese-g...ellphone-charm

The more I learn about the Japanese, the more I realize that they are
very strange.

I think that may be an Anime reference of some sort, but weird is
global, mon. Global.

--
STOP THE SLAUGHTER! Boycott Baby Oil!

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:
On 4/16/2010 10:48 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:

I just wish I had done this 10+ years ago.

8-|

=========

I would guess that the technology, support, CNC machines, etc are much
better today than ten years ago. And Morris had not built his machine and
begun his CNC subversiveness.

Subversive... moi? snicker

Oh well...., better late than never.

True, and I'm wishing I'd learned earlier just how to go about being
"subversive"...

It's *EASY*.

You just dive in, and start reciting poetry! (underwater, that is


No, i'm not going to explain sub-verse-ive.

I have used Quick CAD (no longer available) for a years but
have started to use Sketchup. I struggled with it for a time, set it
aside, viewed the tutorials, tried it again, set it aside, and
tried it again with the idea I would learn it some how.... Then while
browsing in a book store found Skechup 7 for Dummies ($25). What an eye
opener!!! Much better then what can be found online and really has
helped understanding its use. Very clear and concise with many
illustrations.

Recommended, this time I won't set it aside.

Marty

On 4/10/2010 7:07 AM, Dick Snyder wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

On Sat, 01 May 2010 15:58:12 -0400, Marty wrote:

I have used Quick CAD (no longer available) for a years but
have started to use Sketchup. I struggled with it for a time, set it
aside, viewed the tutorials, tried it again, set it aside, and
tried it again with the idea I would learn it some how.... Then while
browsing in a book store found Skechup 7 for Dummies ($25). What an eye
opener!!! Much better then what can be found online and really has
helped understanding its use. Very clear and concise with many
illustrations.

Recommended, this time I won't set it aside.

Thanks for the report. I too have put Sketchup down several times. After
hints here about it not being "CAD", rather a modeling package, I got a
somewhat different perspective of it and that helped. Now, sometimes I "get"
it, sorta, and sometimes I just can't seem to grab what I want. Organizing
components still escapes me. Maybe "Dummies" would help.

...

I'm more of a Sketchup user than a woodworker.
I was a graphic designer. The more I learn about
SKUp, the more sophisticated it gets and the more
intuitive, but a lot different than Photoshop & others
that I'm used to as far as zooming, moving around
the screen, etc. It's easier than 3D programs I've
used, mostly Strata .... well anyway ...
I'm looking forward to getting the Dummies book
that I ordered yesterday. And to building my own
library. You've got to like the price for Sketchup
and it's isn't that limited, especially for real projects
as opposed to presentations and print media -
resolution is lower. The SU library is huge and the
models can be modified (not dynamic models in
free version of SU). I used it to rough out ideas for
my garage workshop. I really don't know the extent
of the library. There seems to be some new area
mentioned somewhere I din't expect that has hundreds
of models ... and everyone seems to be sharing.


"Marty" wrote in message
...
I have used Quick CAD (no longer available) for a years but
have started to use Sketchup. I struggled with it for a time, set it
aside, viewed the tutorials, tried it again, set it aside, and
tried it again with the idea I would learn it some how.... Then while
browsing in a book store found Skechup 7 for Dummies ($25). What an eye
opener!!! Much better then what can be found online and really has
helped understanding its use. Very clear and concise with many
illustrations.

Recommended, this time I won't set it aside.

Marty

On 4/10/2010 7:07 AM, Dick Snyder wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do
now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to
adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD
program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder