| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356774 is a reply to message #356760] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 09:33   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 16/11/2017 12:57, Peter Flass wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2017 22:22, Peter Flass wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Cost is a major factor in deciding what goes into imbedded systems. I can
>>> believe 8-bit, but I can't see that there'd be much of a cost saving today
>>> by using a 4-bit processor. Cost usually favors the most wifely used parts.
>>>
>>
>> Calculators used to use 4-bit processor chips. Good for decimal
>> arithmetic. I do not know what they use nowadays.
>>
>
> Probably Pentiums, but don't try to use them for division ;-)
>
Ah, yes. The Bugium!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356775 is a reply to message #356743] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 09:51 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/15/2017 4:40 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-11-15, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 11:13 PM, Questor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>>> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>>> to my stomach.
>>>
>>> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>>> have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>>>
>> Days, which could be subdivided by sundials, water clocks,
>> hourglasses, etc. If desired, a "standard" day (e.g. at equinox) could
>> be used, with any arbitrary number of subdivisions (just as seconds
>> are an arbitrary subdivision). Pendulums.
>>
>> We could and did deal with very small time increments long before
>> anybody could peer at a cesium atom, though the "ancient" constraint
>> skews toward standards that are easily observable. But if you're
>> willing to use the king's foot as a standard of length, there are lots
>> of possibilities. Most standards of measurement are arbitrary, anyhow.
>
>
> Its kinda nice to remember ones that depended on something `real', as
> in inch, foot, pace, acre (what a plough team could plough in a day)(
> or a different definition, how much land that would keep a cow). I
> never got there, but there is a town in scotland that has examples of
> common length chiseled on the walls of its market place. I wonder
> where the Sumerians got the idea of dividing time into sixtyieths.
>
It's *not* just time...
Sexagesimal (base 60) is a numeral system with sixty as its base. It
originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC, was
passed down to the ancient Babylonians, and is still used—in a modified
form—for measuring time, angles, and geographic coordinates.
The number 60, a superior highly composite number, has twelve factors,
namely 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60, of which 2, 3, and
5 are prime numbers. With so many factors, many fractions involving
sexagesimal numbers are simplified. For example, one hour can be divided
evenly into sections of 30 minutes, 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 12 minutes,
10 minutes, 6 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 1
minute. 60 is the smallest number that is divisible by every number from
1 to 6; that is, it is the lowest common multiple of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356776 is a reply to message #356755] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 09:54 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/16/2017 2:48 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-11-16, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2017 02:44, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> And why would the time it takes for the planet to make a rotation be any
>>> more relevant than the time it takes to make a revolution?
>>>
>>
>> A day and a year are both time measures used by animals and plants.
>> Therefore farmers have to use them to know when to feed their animals
>> and sow the seeds.
>
> It got to be a problem in England before they changed to Gregorian
> calendar.
>
> There was a time, I cannot remember where I read this, when there was
> an 'empty'day between years, may have something to do with putting
> out the fires on last day of the old year, and lighting from a
> 'blessed' fire on the first day of the new.
>
> Often mentioned in fairy tales.
>
> "The Gods are angry, they must be propiated(sp?)"
>
>
propitiated...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356777 is a reply to message #356757] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 09:58 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/16/2017 4:47 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I know animals [...] have circadian clocks But do they have a
>> 'circaannian' calendar
>
> Yes ... <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34351983>
Certain species of cicadas come out to mate every 13 years and another
species come out to mate every 17 years. Somehow these "bugs" are
counting up the time! The periodic cicadas spend most of their lives as
underground nymphs, emerging only after 13 or 17 years, which may reduce
losses by starving their predators and eventually emerging in huge
numbers that overwhelm and satiate any remaining predators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356778 is a reply to message #356769] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:04 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/16/2017 7:39 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 12:15:12 AM UTC-7, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>> A day and a year are both time measures used by animals and plants.
>> Therefore farmers have to use them to know when to feed their animals
>> and sow the seeds.
>
> I suppose the question isn't why we use the calendar and the clock that we do
> in daily life, but why computers are geared to them.
>
> Naturally, the SI second is also derived from them, but why shouldn't computers
> just deal with, say, units of 2^n seconds for varying values of n?
>
> Now, I think that an answer can be given. As just one example, timestamps on
> files ought to relate to the time and date the people using computers use in
> real life, so that when they look at a timestamp on a file, they can say, "oh,
> yes, I downloaded this last Wednesday".
>
Indeed, at least for now (until the AI cyborgs take over), computers are
here to be of service to humans.
ISTM. at first, high-level computer languages were viewed only as an
easier way to tell a computer what to do. Now it is realized that those
languages should mainly be for humans to understand and communicate to
other humans... what they are trying to do and to illustrate the
algorithms used.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356779 is a reply to message #356771] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:07 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/16/2017 7:57 AM, JimP wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:13:58 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2017 8:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> > bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> > software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> > systems.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> > might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>> I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
>>>> mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
>>>> system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
>>>> define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
>>>
>>> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>> to my stomach.
>>
>> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>> have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>
> Water clocks of various simple or complexity. Stone circles of various
> types.
>
Even today, people are still going around in circles and still getting
"stoned"... ;-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356780 is a reply to message #356737] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:10 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>
> Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
> cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed by the
> savings in software development costs.
>
Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler flip
phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on those
phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356781 is a reply to message #356738] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:15 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/15/2017 4:22 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 11:14 PM, Questor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:32 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>> >> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>>> >> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>>> >> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>>> >> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>>> >> sucker.
>>>> >
>>>> > Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>>>> > require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
>>>> > for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>>>>
>>>> I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
>>>>
>>>> I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Are you excluding embedded systems? I have read that 8-bit processors like the
>>> Z80 still vastly outnumber everything else.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>
>>
>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TMS1000
>>
>> Back 20 years ago a "full featured" home phone was build around such
>> 4-bit processors. The processor could even be used to generate the
>> DTMF dialing tones. Such phones typically had a memory that the
>> processor could use to store and recall phone numbers... attached to
>> certain buttons on the front of the phone.
>>
>> ISTM that many simple kitchen appliances could ge adequately served by
>> such 4-bit processors.
>>
>
> Cost is a major factor in deciding what goes into imbedded systems. I can
> believe 8-bit, but I can't see that there'd be much of a cost saving today
> by using a 4-bit processor. Cost usually favors the most wifely used parts.
>
The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356782 is a reply to message #356760] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:17 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/16/2017 6:57 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2017 22:22, Peter Flass wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Cost is a major factor in deciding what goes into imbedded systems. I can
>>> believe 8-bit, but I can't see that there'd be much of a cost saving today
>>> by using a 4-bit processor. Cost usually favors the most wifely used parts.
>>>
>>
>> Calculators used to use 4-bit processor chips. Good for decimal
>> arithmetic. I do not know what they use nowadays.
>>
>
> Probably Pentiums, but don't try to use them for division ;-)
>
"I am Pentium of Borg. Division is futile! You will be approximated!"
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356786 is a reply to message #356777] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:47 |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> The periodic cicadas spend most of their lives as
> underground nymphs, emerging only after 13 or 17 years
Yes I've heard of those, apparently their body-counters can get it wrong
so some emerge +/- 1 year or +/- 4 years from their brood's expected
year, and they're staggered so there's a brood due somewhere most years.
Still impressive if the only clue they get is by tasting changes in the
roots they nibble on.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356787 is a reply to message #356781] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 10:59 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> On 11/15/2017 4:22 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2017 11:14 PM, Questor wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:32 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>>> >>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>>> >>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>>> >>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>>> >>> sucker.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>>>> >> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
>>>> >> for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>>>> >
>>>> > I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
>>>> >
>>>> > I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
>>>> >
>>>> > The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> > bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> > software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> > systems.
>>>>
>>>> Are you excluding embedded systems? I have read that 8-bit processors like the
>>>> Z80 still vastly outnumber everything else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> > might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TMS1000
>>>
>>> Back 20 years ago a "full featured" home phone was build around such
>>> 4-bit processors. The processor could even be used to generate the
>>> DTMF dialing tones. Such phones typically had a memory that the
>>> processor could use to store and recall phone numbers... attached to
>>> certain buttons on the front of the phone.
>>>
>>> ISTM that many simple kitchen appliances could ge adequately served by
>>> such 4-bit processors.
>>>
>>
>> Cost is a major factor in deciding what goes into imbedded systems. I can
>> believe 8-bit, but I can't see that there'd be much of a cost saving today
>> by using a 4-bit processor. Cost usually favors the most wifely used parts.
>>
>
> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>
That might have been relevent a decade ago, but with current process
sizes of 10nm (and going smaller), floorspace isn't the issue. You can
pack a bunch of transistors in a very small space. ARM divides their
IP into three buckets - A (Applications - most powerful), R (Real-Time)
and M (mobile). You can get sythesizable 64-bit R or M cores that require
very little floorspace on the chip.
https://developer.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-m/corte x-m23
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356788 is a reply to message #356749] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 11:23 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:45:44 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:
>
>> On 2017-11-15, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2017 11:13 PM, Questor wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>>> > to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>>> > to my stomach.
>>>>
>>>> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>>>> have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>>>>
>>> Days, which could be subdivided by sundials, water clocks,
>>> hourglasses, etc. If desired, a "standard" day (e.g. at equinox) could
>>> be used, with any arbitrary number of subdivisions (just as seconds
>>> are an arbitrary subdivision). Pendulums.
>>>
>>> We could and did deal with very small time increments long before
>>> anybody could peer at a cesium atom, though the "ancient" constraint
>>> skews toward standards that are easily observable. But if you're
>>> willing to use the king's foot as a standard of length, there are lots
>>> of possibilities. Most standards of measurement are arbitrary, anyhow.
>>
>>
>> Its kinda nice to remember ones that depended on something `real', as
>> in inch, foot, pace, acre (what a plough team could plough in a day)(
>> or a different definition, how much land that would keep a cow). I
>> never got there, but there is a town in scotland that has examples of
>> common length chiseled on the walls of its market place. I wonder
>> where the Sumerians got the idea of dividing time into sixtyieths.
>
> One of those brilliant ancient insights that we know happened, but are
> unlikely to ever know how...
I'll take a stab...
In the absence of a positional notation system, ordinary arithmetic, especially
division, can become a right pain in the ass. Sixty has small common divisors.
which reduces the instance of remainders.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356793 is a reply to message #356783] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 11:58 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16/11/2017 15:07, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Even today, people are still going around in circles and still getting
>> "stoned"... ;-)
>
> Reminds me of the diligent drug dealer who fed cocaine
> to each and every seagull on the beach.
>
> He was determined to leave no tern unstoned.
<groan> I just throw rocks at them.
"I am a meticulous man, when when I portray baboons I leave no stern untoned."
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356795 is a reply to message #356780] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 11:58 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>
>> Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
>> cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed by the
>> savings in software development costs.
>
> Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
>
> On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler flip
> phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on those
> phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
Does that make me famous? :-)
Actually, my reasons are much more mundane. With my flip phone
I can place and receive calls, and even send and receive text
messages. Isn't that what a phone is for?
In addition it has a calendar that's good enough for my purposes,
as well as a rudimentary scratchpad. I can, if I want, even take
crappy pictures - without worrying about being interrupted by requests
to download software upgrades, like my wife's smartphone sometimes
does when she's trying to catch a short-lived opportunity for a photo.
And it doesn't need an expensive data plan; if I want to play on the
Web (or on this newsgroup) I can wait until my laptop is within range
of a wifi hotspot.
What more could one want?
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356797 is a reply to message #356762] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 12:08 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> Some plants respond to day length by starting to flower when the
> days shorten, when grown under artificial light flowering can often be
> induced or postponed indefinitely by adjusting the 'day' length.
i remember reading article some 50yrs ago about calculating apple
blossom festival ... it was approx some number of day*degrees above
something like 40 degrees. past post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#89 360 programs on a z/10
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#91 360 programs on a z/10
the ref in above post gone 404 ... but lives on at wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20050402185119/http://www.ncw.ws u.edu/treefruit/blomdeg5.html
The 1922 to present "official" bloom date site is the WSU Tree Fruit
Research and Extension Center in Wenatchee. Red Delicious trees here
have a historical average bloom date of April 29, 3 - 4 days later than
at the early sites near Wenatchee, and about 7 days earlier than apples
at the Airport. Bloom seems to be occuring ever-earlier over the past 15
years.
.... snip ...
found current web page
http://treefruit.wsu.edu/news/full-bloom-dates-for-red-delic ious-apples/
Daily high temperatures are used to predict bloom based on degree days
(DD) above 43degrees. As of April 27, Bloom DD in Wenatchee (TFREC)
were 778 DD and 902 DD in Mattawa which predict first pink and full
pink. Actual maturity is first bloom in Wenatchee on the TFREC sentinel
trees. 920 DD predict full bloom. This is significantly later than 2016
where Wenatchee was already at full bloom April 9. However, this is only
slightly behind the long term average with full bloom at April 27 in
Wenatchee. As always look at the trees. Models are never perfect.
.... snip ...
other articles reference variation because of micro-climates in
Wenatchee valley.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356799 is a reply to message #356788] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 12:48 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:45:44 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>
>>> On 2017-11-15, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2017 11:13 PM, Questor wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>>> >> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>>> >> to my stomach.
>>>> >
>>>> > What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>>>> > have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>>>> >
>>>> Days, which could be subdivided by sundials, water clocks,
>>>> hourglasses, etc. If desired, a "standard" day (e.g. at equinox) could
>>>> be used, with any arbitrary number of subdivisions (just as seconds
>>>> are an arbitrary subdivision). Pendulums.
>>>>
>>>> We could and did deal with very small time increments long before
>>>> anybody could peer at a cesium atom, though the "ancient" constraint
>>>> skews toward standards that are easily observable. But if you're
>>>> willing to use the king's foot as a standard of length, there are lots
>>>> of possibilities. Most standards of measurement are arbitrary, anyhow.
>>>
>>>
>>> Its kinda nice to remember ones that depended on something `real', as
>>> in inch, foot, pace, acre (what a plough team could plough in a day)(
>>> or a different definition, how much land that would keep a cow). I
>>> never got there, but there is a town in scotland that has examples of
>>> common length chiseled on the walls of its market place. I wonder
>>> where the Sumerians got the idea of dividing time into sixtyieths.
>>
>> One of those brilliant ancient insights that we know happened, but are
>> unlikely to ever know how...
>
> I'll take a stab...
>
> In the absence of a positional notation system, ordinary arithmetic, especially
> division, can become a right pain in the ass. Sixty has small common divisors.
> which reduces the instance of remainders.
That's the brilliant insight, not how it happened.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356800 is a reply to message #356779] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 14:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:07:11 -0600, Charles Richmond
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2017 7:57 AM, JimP wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:13:58 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2017 8:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> >> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> >> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> >> systems.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> >> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>> > I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
>>>> > mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
>>>> > system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
>>>> > define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
>>>>
>>>> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>>> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>>> to my stomach.
>>>
>>> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>>> have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>>
>> Water clocks of various simple or complexity. Stone circles of various
>> types.
>>
>
> Even today, people are still going around in circles and still getting
> "stoned"... ;-)
Hadn't realized I made a setup. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356801 is a reply to message #356713] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 14:57 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 2017-11-14, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>
>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>> sucker.
>
> Yes, such as Android dev tools from Google or a game management system
> like Valve's Steam. I guess there are others but those are the ones I've
> used.
>
> And how exactly did that make me a sucker?
I suppose (I'm not familiar with that software) in the Free Software
sense. Of course, not everyone has to agree with that.
And I note you snipped the part where I mentioned I used to do this
myself.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356915 is a reply to message #356795] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 16:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in
news:oukg2u2ckp@news4.newsguy.com:
> On 2017-11-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>
>>> Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
>>> cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed
>>> by the savings in software development costs.
>>
>> Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
>>
>> On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler
>> flip phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on
>> those phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
>
> Does that make me famous? :-)
>
> Actually, my reasons are much more mundane. With my flip phone
> I can place and receive calls, and even send and receive text
> messages. Isn't that what a phone is for?
>
> In addition it has a calendar that's good enough for my purposes,
> as well as a rudimentary scratchpad. I can, if I want, even take
> crappy pictures - without worrying about being interrupted by requests
> to download software upgrades, like my wife's smartphone sometimes
> does when she's trying to catch a short-lived opportunity for a photo.
> And it doesn't need an expensive data plan; if I want to play on the
> Web (or on this newsgroup) I can wait until my laptop is within range
> of a wifi hotspot.
>
> What more could one want?
>
Razor attachment.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356918 is a reply to message #356769] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 17:24 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Naturally, the SI second is also derived from them, but why shouldn't
> computers just deal with, say, units of 2^n seconds for varying values of
> n?
Many use a signed count of seconds based on some epoch time as the
fundamental measure of time.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356920 is a reply to message #356915] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 19:06 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-16, Kerr-Mudd,John <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in
> news:oukg2u2ckp@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> On 2017-11-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
>>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>>> > using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>>
>>>> Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
>>>> cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed
>>>> by the savings in software development costs.
>>>
>>> Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
>>>
>>> On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler
>>> flip phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on
>>> those phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
>>
>> Does that make me famous? :-)
>>
>> Actually, my reasons are much more mundane. With my flip phone
>> I can place and receive calls, and even send and receive text
>> messages. Isn't that what a phone is for?
>>
>> In addition it has a calendar that's good enough for my purposes,
>> as well as a rudimentary scratchpad. I can, if I want, even take
>> crappy pictures - without worrying about being interrupted by requests
>> to download software upgrades, like my wife's smartphone sometimes
>> does when she's trying to catch a short-lived opportunity for a photo.
>> And it doesn't need an expensive data plan; if I want to play on the
>> Web (or on this newsgroup) I can wait until my laptop is within range
>> of a wifi hotspot.
>>
>> What more could one want?
>
> Razor attachment.
Watch for the iCut, coming Real Soon Now...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356922 is a reply to message #356918] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 20:31 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:39:00 -0800 (PST)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Naturally, the SI second is also derived from them, but why shouldn't
>> computers just deal with, say, units of 2^n seconds for varying values of
>> n?
>
> Many use a signed count of seconds based on some epoch time as the
> fundamental measure of time.
>
Yes, but the second was originally fefined as a fraction of a "day."
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356925 is a reply to message #356708] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 22:19 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 14 Nov 2017 14:08:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Just think about what kinds of money banks could rake in if they
> could each have their own calendars.
They don't? I have seen various statements over the years about
deposits after such-and-such time will be treated as having been made
on the following day. Not any in years, fortunately.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356926 is a reply to message #356781] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 22:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 4:22 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2017 11:14 PM, Questor wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:32 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>>> >>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>>> >>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>>> >>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>>> >>> sucker.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>>>> >> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
>>>> >> for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>>>> >
>>>> > I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
>>>> >
>>>> > I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
>>>> >
>>>> > The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> > bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> > software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> > systems.
>>>>
>>>> Are you excluding embedded systems? I have read that 8-bit processors like the
>>>> Z80 still vastly outnumber everything else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> > might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TMS1000
>>>
>>> Back 20 years ago a "full featured" home phone was build around such
>>> 4-bit processors. The processor could even be used to generate the
>>> DTMF dialing tones. Such phones typically had a memory that the
>>> processor could use to store and recall phone numbers... attached to
>>> certain buttons on the front of the phone.
>>>
>>> ISTM that many simple kitchen appliances could ge adequately served by
>>> such 4-bit processors.
>>>
>>
>> Cost is a major factor in deciding what goes into imbedded systems. I can
>> believe 8-bit, but I can't see that there'd be much of a cost saving today
>> by using a 4-bit processor. Cost usually favors the most wifely used parts.
>>
>
> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356927 is a reply to message #356801] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 22:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 16 Nov 2017 19:57:24 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14, Anssi Saari wrote:
>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>
>>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Yes, such as Android dev tools from Google or a game management system
>> like Valve's Steam. I guess there are others but those are the ones I've
>> used.
>>
>> And how exactly did that make me a sucker?
>
> I suppose (I'm not familiar with that software) in the Free Software
> sense. Of course, not everyone has to agree with that.
>
> And I note you snipped the part where I mentioned I used to do this
> myself.
And if you're company that has the choice of paying a few thousand
bucks for the software or a few hundred million rewriting the code to
run on free software, then what?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356928 is a reply to message #356926] |
Thu, 16 November 2017 22:45 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:38:52 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
Although it certainly is true that one can put more on a single die today than
in the past, die size is still very much a concern. That's why we've only seen
eight-core chips enter the mainstream very recently, and chips like the Xeon Phi
are still expensive. Die size directly affects yield - and the smaller the
features are on a chip, the smaller a defect needs to be to spoil a chip.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356931 is a reply to message #356920] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 04:07 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-17, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-11-16, Kerr-Mudd,John <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in
>> news:oukg2u2ckp@news4.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On 2017-11-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
>>>> > Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>>> >> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>> >
>>>> > Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
>>>> > cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed
>>>> > by the savings in software development costs.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
>>>>
>>>> On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler
>>>> flip phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on
>>>> those phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
>>>
>>> Does that make me famous? :-)
>>>
>>> Actually, my reasons are much more mundane. With my flip phone
>>> I can place and receive calls, and even send and receive text
>>> messages. Isn't that what a phone is for?
>>>
>>> In addition it has a calendar that's good enough for my purposes,
>>> as well as a rudimentary scratchpad. I can, if I want, even take
>>> crappy pictures - without worrying about being interrupted by requests
>>> to download software upgrades, like my wife's smartphone sometimes
>>> does when she's trying to catch a short-lived opportunity for a photo.
>>> And it doesn't need an expensive data plan; if I want to play on the
>>> Web (or on this newsgroup) I can wait until my laptop is within range
>>> of a wifi hotspot.
>>>
>>> What more could one want?
>>
>> Razor attachment.
>
> Watch for the iCut, coming Real Soon Now...
>
Rebadged Gilette.. at $2000 a blade?
Sweeney Todd, how are you
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356933 is a reply to message #356754] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 04:54 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2017 08:43:35 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-11-16, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:13:58 GMT
>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient
>>>> mankind have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about
>>>> cesium atoms.
>>>
>>> Heartbeats and breaths have both been used.
>>
>> Regular?
>
> Heisenberg, heartbeat would be increased when it is being checked.
Those would be Heisenbeats.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356934 is a reply to message #356799] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 04:54 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:48:23 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:45:44 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-11-15, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 11/14/2017 11:13 PM, Questor wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:12:55 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>>>> >>> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>>>> >>> to my stomach.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What other regular, periodic, natural event would you suggest ancient mankind
>>>> >> have used to mark and measure time? They didn't know about cesium atoms.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Days, which could be subdivided by sundials, water clocks,
>>>> > hourglasses, etc. If desired, a "standard" day (e.g. at equinox) could
>>>> > be used, with any arbitrary number of subdivisions (just as seconds
>>>> > are an arbitrary subdivision). Pendulums.
>>>> >
>>>> > We could and did deal with very small time increments long before
>>>> > anybody could peer at a cesium atom, though the "ancient" constraint
>>>> > skews toward standards that are easily observable. But if you're
>>>> > willing to use the king's foot as a standard of length, there are lots
>>>> > of possibilities. Most standards of measurement are arbitrary, anyhow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its kinda nice to remember ones that depended on something `real', as
>>>> in inch, foot, pace, acre (what a plough team could plough in a day)(
>>>> or a different definition, how much land that would keep a cow). I
>>>> never got there, but there is a town in scotland that has examples of
>>>> common length chiseled on the walls of its market place. I wonder
>>>> where the Sumerians got the idea of dividing time into sixtyieths.
>>>
>>> One of those brilliant ancient insights that we know happened, but are
>>> unlikely to ever know how...
>>
>> I'll take a stab...
>>
>> In the absence of a positional notation system, ordinary arithmetic, especially
>> division, can become a right pain in the ass. Sixty has small common divisors.
>> which reduces the instance of remainders.
>
> That's the brilliant insight, not how it happened.
How do any of these things happen? Maybe Suzy Sumerian tried something
different, showed it to somebody else, and it caught on? Or perhaps Sammy
Sumerian made a mistake, and it turned out to work better than what he was
supposed to do. James Burke has made a tidy living writing about these kind
of happy accidents.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356936 is a reply to message #356786] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 07:52 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> The periodic cicadas spend most of their lives as
>> underground nymphs, emerging only after 13 or 17 years
>
> Yes I've heard of those, apparently their body-counters can get it
> wrong so some emerge +/- 1 year or +/- 4 years from their brood's
> expected year, and they're staggered so there's a brood due somewhere
> most years.
>
> Still impressive if the only clue they get is by tasting changes in
> the roots they nibble on.
Since I moved to NJ I've seen these 13 year guys 3 times.
I'm right in the thick of them.
They are the slowest clock ticking around me and each time
I see them I wonder how many more ticks I can experience.
The last one was 3 years ago and now I think I'm good for 2 more ticks
max. I'd be around 95 on the second one.
I think I've seen a few off cycle individuals but would not swear to it.
(Could be some other type of cicada.)
I know you start to see surface holes a year or 2 before they finally
emerge.
Really a deafening screech out of them for weeks at a time.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356937 is a reply to message #356928] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 08:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:38:52 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>
>> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
>> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
>
> Although it certainly is true that one can put more on a single die today than
> in the past, die size is still very much a concern. That's why we've only seen
> eight-core chips enter the mainstream very recently, and chips like the Xeon Phi
> are still expensive. Die size directly affects yield - and the smaller the
> features are on a chip, the smaller a defect needs to be to spoil a chip.
>
> John Savard
>
Of course they can put lots of cores on a chip and disable defective ones
to get the count they advertise.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356939 is a reply to message #356928] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 08:40 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:38:52 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>
>> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
>> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
>
> Although it certainly is true that one can put more on a single die today than
> in the past, die size is still very much a concern. That's why we've only seen
> eight-core chips enter the mainstream very recently,
You're not paying attention. We released a 48-core 64-bit ARM
chip a couple of years ago. We also have a 32-core 4-thread
(128 logical cores) chip that Cray is using in one of their
supers.
I was using 12-core two socket (24 total cores) Istanbul opterons in 2007.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356940 is a reply to message #356937] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 08:43 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:38:52 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>>>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>>>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>>>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>>>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>>
>>> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
>>> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
>>
>> Although it certainly is true that one can put more on a single die today than
>> in the past, die size is still very much a concern. That's why we've only seen
>> eight-core chips enter the mainstream very recently, and chips like the Xeon Phi
>> are still expensive. Die size directly affects yield - and the smaller the
>> features are on a chip, the smaller a defect needs to be to spoil a chip.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>
> Of course they can put lots of cores on a chip and disable defective ones
> to get the count they advertise.
That's not how it works. Chip area is still a scarce resource.
Now, one can fuse out nonfunctional cores and create a less expensive
SKU (called binning), but one doesn't add cores just for this purpose.
It still costs a create deal of money to make the necessary litho masks.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356949 is a reply to message #356931] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 13:44 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-17, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-17, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-11-16, Kerr-Mudd,John <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:oukg2u2ckp@news4.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-11-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 11/15/2017 3:18 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0600
>>>> >> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> ISTM that many embedded systems with minimal requirements... may be
>>>> >>> using 4-bit processors similar to the Texas Instruments TMS1000:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Very true but small 32 bit ARM SOCs are so cheap now that the
>>>> >> cost saving using a 4 bit processor is insignificant and overwhelmed
>>>> >> by the savings in software development costs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, the 4-bit processors are much harder to hack into!!!
>>>> >
>>>> > On a related point... some famous people are using older, simpler
>>>> > flip phones instead of smart phones because there are no pictures on
>>>> > those phone and the flip phones are harder to hack into.
>>>>
>>>> Does that make me famous? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Actually, my reasons are much more mundane. With my flip phone
>>>> I can place and receive calls, and even send and receive text
>>>> messages. Isn't that what a phone is for?
>>>>
>>>> In addition it has a calendar that's good enough for my purposes,
>>>> as well as a rudimentary scratchpad. I can, if I want, even take
>>>> crappy pictures - without worrying about being interrupted by requests
>>>> to download software upgrades, like my wife's smartphone sometimes
>>>> does when she's trying to catch a short-lived opportunity for a photo.
>>>> And it doesn't need an expensive data plan; if I want to play on the
>>>> Web (or on this newsgroup) I can wait until my laptop is within range
>>>> of a wifi hotspot.
>>>>
>>>> What more could one want?
>>>
>>> Razor attachment.
>>
>> Watch for the iCut, coming Real Soon Now...
>
> Rebadged Gilette.. at $2000 a blade?
>
> Sweeney Todd, how are you
He's going to need the MaxiCut version, priced somewhat higher.
Oven attachment optional.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356950 is a reply to message #356925] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 13:44 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-17, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2017 14:08:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Just think about what kinds of money banks could rake in if they
>> could each have their own calendars.
>
> They don't? I have seen various statements over the years about
> deposits after such-and-such time will be treated as having been made
> on the following day. Not any in years, fortunately.
And I once worked on some mortgage code where there was mention of
some U.S. banks basing their calculations on a 360-day year.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356951 is a reply to message #356926] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 13:45 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-17, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>
> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
If the marketroids hear about this, it'll be 400.4 Pentiums.
Or maybe they'll wait a generation or two until it actually can
hold 4004 Pentiums. And, if past behaviour is any indication,
none of them will be able to divide properly either.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356953 is a reply to message #356951] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 14:26 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/17/2017 12:45 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-11-17, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>>
>> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
>> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
>
> If the marketroids hear about this, it'll be 400.4 Pentiums.
> Or maybe they'll wait a generation or two until it actually can
> hold 4004 Pentiums. And, if past behaviour is any indication,
> none of them will be able to divide properly either.
>
Now Charlie, they *will* divide properly... they will divide the work
between 4004 Pentiums! ;-) If you add enough cores, soon each will
have *nothing* to do!!!!
<joke>
There was a row of women's bathing suits in a shop window. The
one-piece suit had a price of $20. The bulky bikini had a price of $30.
A skimpier bikini was priced at $40. A "string" bikini had a price of
$50. In the last space, there was *nothing* at all... and that nothing
had a price of $60!!!
</joke>
Quite logical.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356957 is a reply to message #356928] |
Fri, 17 November 2017 22:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:45:32 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:38:52 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:15:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>>> The 4-bit processors are so simple that they take minimal real estate on
>>> the chip. That leaves room for on-chip ROM, RAM, A-to-D, and even
>>> programmable logic array elements.. so for example one might implement a
>>> BCD-to-seven segment decoder or whatever else the application needs.
>>> And all this on *one* chip to keep down the total chip count.
>
>> That might have been a concern a long time ago. A chip the physical
>> size of the 4004 would today hold about 400 Pentiums.
>
> Although it certainly is true that one can put more on a single die today than
> in the past, die size is still very much a concern. That's why we've only seen
> eight-core chips enter the mainstream very recently, and chips like the Xeon Phi
> are still expensive. Die size directly affects yield - and the smaller the
> features are on a chip, the smaller a defect needs to be to spoil a chip.
Laddie, your information is vastly out of date. The machine I am
using now has 3500 cores.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
