- in-class initialization of members - 1 Update
- Best way to use enum with classes - 22 Updates
- IMHO, some works of art... - 1 Update
- Your eternal soul is at stake - 1 Update
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Oct 27 10:26PM An initialization of a member as follows was possible already in C++98: static const int a = 4; , but in C++98 other members couldn't be initialized in the class specifier. Now, in C++17, all members can be initialized in the specifier. Around 2006, Bjarne Stroustrup wrote: »Not every feature accepted is in my opinion an improvement, though. For example, "in-class initialization of static const members of integral type with a constant expression" (...) [has] the dubious distinction of having been voted into C++ "over my dead body"«. Now, that we can initialize even more members in the class specifier, do you thing that Bjarne Stroustrup likes this even less or more? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 01:12PM +0200 On 27/10/16 04:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> irrelevant. > Only an incompetent idiot like you would even try to claim that software > RAID is the same as hardware RAID. If "hardware RAID" and "software RAID" were the same thing, there would be no need for two terms, would there? But both are RAID - in the same way that a "blue car" is not the same thing as a "red car", but they are both cars. And for a good many uses, it does not matter much which type of RAID you use. To the filesystem, it is usually all the same - it's just a big block device. (Some filesystems can use knowledge of the underlying geometry of the block device to improve performance, but that's a bit too technical for you.) >> likely to change these options in an existing system - it is possible, >> and occasionally useful, but not common. > And it's ability to corrupt the entire array due to a virus. When you invent an irrelevant and incorrect straw man in one post, you don't need to keep it up in other posts. > But a > COMPETENT person wouldn't even consider the need to change these > options, because he or she would make the right decision in the first place. Like any competent person, I would try to make the right (or at least, a "good enough") decision in the first place. But like any competent person, I know that circumstances may change in the future - and that may mean it is worth changing the RAID layout of your disks. > with their code in ROM - typically high security systems where the > software *must* not be changed. But you've never worked on any critical > systems - or even moderately secure systems, so you have no idea. I know where and why ROMs are used. And they are not used to store the software in a NAS. > And no, these servers are designed so that other software *cannot* run > on them and potentially corrupt the disks. Not that you would > understand the concept - it's way past your level of intelligence. Some let you run other software, some do not. You have this weird idea about "user code" and "viruses" destroying your disks, partitions or filesystems and that somehow hardware raid is immune to it but it is a common problem for software raid. It is simply utter nonsense, with not the slightest basis in reality. Your server OS sees hardware raid volumes and software raid volumes at the same level - there is a big logical volume which can be partitioned, and filesystems can be created on those partitions. Any "user code" or "virus" which can destroy the partitions on a software raid can do exactly the same thing on hardware raid. > You can't even understand how something works, as you have repeatedly > proven. And no, as any hardware designer will tell you - you can't > really understand how something works until you have designed it. Remind me never to buy anything /you/ have designed. > And > only you would consider a car engine to be similar to a RAID device. > Just more proof you don't understand RAID. Does the word "analogy" mean anything to you? >> maths for fun, I know, but there we have it. > You can find the theory as interesting as you like. But you don't > understand even the basics of a RAID system - only how to use one. So now you are ready to accept that I can /use/ a RAID system? I guess that is a big step forward. And you are happy to accept that I understand the mathematics behind RAID? But somehow you also think I can't understand even the basics of a RAID system? > For the same reason you are using an old or unusual RAID device. I'm > comparing apples to apples. But I know you can't do that, because it > destroys your arguments. /All/ raid cards as unusual. There is no real standard (some cards support DDF standards, to some extent). There are a few big players who make the controller chips and the basic card design, and there are a dozen companies who re-badge them. There may be some interoperability between them, but there may not - even if the chips are the same. You might have an IBM badged RAID card that will only talk to IBM badged disks, a Dell RAID card that will only talk to Dell disks, and an HP RAID card that will only talk to HP disks. It could be that all the disks are Toshiba inside, and all the cards have the same LSI controller. But "to make sure everything works together" or "by the terms of the service contract" or "for a consistent user experience", everything is vendor-locked. > And the old version of Linux may no longer be available, That would only be if you don't choose your Linux distribution sensibly, /and/ you don't keep track of your installation media. For most distros, old versions are easily available and you can install as much as you want (commercial service contracts are, of course, time limited). > and new > versions may not run on the old device. What "old device"? You are putting the old disk into a new machine, you are not using old devices. >> ever configured a raid system and installed an OS on a PC that uses raid? > I've been using RAID since the 80's. But I've never installed an OS on > a PC that uses RAID. They are too insecure. Which means that your actual real /usage/ of RAID is limited to a few basic hardware RAID systems, and your experience with installation, configuration and setup is zero, as is your experience with partitioning, filesystem creation, OS installation, etc. That explains some of your outdated ideas, and the gaping holes in your knowledge. You are a fine example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - you know a little about one corner of a subject, and think you are an expert on it all. > user computer can corrupt individual files the user has permission to > write. But there is no way it can corrupt other files or the disks, as > can happen with software emulation. A hardware RAID card (we are talking about hardware RAID cards here, not NAS systems) presents its raid sets as virtual disks to the OS running on the server itself. The /server/ runs whatever code you want - and if you have a security breach, it may also run code that you /don't/ want. No one suggests that the virus is running on the RAID card, any more than they suggest that the virus would run on the disk controller processors on the hard disks. > partitions on a disk. But that violates your earlier statement that one > of the advantages of RAID is to be speed up access by spreading the data > over multiple physical disks. Which is it? I said that the RAID layer - whether hardware or software - presents the RAID sets as virtual disks to the OS. If you have four 1TB harddisks set up as RAID-5, the OS sees a single 3 TB virtual disk for partitioning and filesystems. It is also correct that software RAID can use multiple partitions on a disk independently as block devices for the RAID set. It can also use other RAID sets as block devices, for layered RAID setups. Different partitions can be attached in RAID setups in different ways to provide different balances between speed, redundancy, and space efficiency. A key advantage of software raid is you have the flexibility to choose what makes sense to /you/. As a simple example, you might have four 1 TB disks, sda through sdd. You could partition them as: 1: 512 MB 2: 4 GB 3: 4 GB 4: about 1 TB (the rest of the disk) The four sd?1 partitions you set as a four-way RAID-1 mirror, md0 at 512 MB. You use this for /boot and the bootloader. Then the system will always be able to boot from any disk, and the bootloader does not have to understand RAID formats because the layout is identical to a non-RAID layout. The four sd?2 partitions you set as swap. There is no redundancy (usually you don't need that for swap, but it's possible if you want it). The OS will automatically handle them as though it were a 16 GB RAID-0 array - there is no need for an explicit md raid device. The four sd?3 partitions you set as a RAID-10 array md1, and use the 8 GB for root for the OS. This gives you fast, low-latency access to all the small files of the OS, with redundancy. The four sd?4 partitions you set as a RAID-5 array md2 for greater space efficiency (but less speed), with 3 TB available for /home for user files. /Flexibility/ is the key property of software raid. With the same RAID setup, it will usually be faster than hardware raid - but that is only one if its benefits. >> fast snapshots, or do it slowly without such support. > Sure. And you can fly to the moon if you have a big enough rocket. But > RAID can do it automatically, with no speed reduction. No, RAID cannot do snapshots. Not hardware RAID, not software RAID - it is not part of what RAID is or does. > But the hardware RAID card can easily be a backup solution. The most > obvious way is by configuring it for RAID 1. > But once again you show your ignorance by your statements. Attempting proof by repeated assertion, yet again? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 01:26PM +0200 When you talk about "RAID devices", do you mean SAN ("Storage area network") systems? i.e., a box that has a lot of disk in a RAID array, and is connected to the server by Fibre Channel, iSCSI, AoE, etc.? That might explain a little of your horrendous misconceptions. SANs make use of hardware or software RAID (the distinction is a bit blurred in a dedicated device). But RAID is certainly not limited to such devices. Or is this what you think /true/ RAID systems look like: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/sainz/3015818920/> |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 01:42PM +0200 On 27/10/16 05:29, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> drop-off of the electric field, and the potential is the integral of >> that (in which case I understand the 1/r factor)? > From a point source, it is 1/r². As Christian confirmed (since he knows the physics better than I), that is the drop-off for the electric field, not the potential. > From a surface, it is 1/r. But then > you should know that - after all, you're an expert in everything. I know that when you have an inverse square law (such as gravity, or in this case the electric field), then the drop-off from a point is 1/r². The drop-off from a /line/ (infinitely long wire) is 1/r. The drop-off from a surface - an infinitely extended plane, is 1. There is /no/ drop-off. (Of course in reality you don't have infinitely big lines or planes, and there is absorption in the media, etc.) >> I suppose the potential phi of an object is the energy it takes to move >> one Coulomb of charge from an infinite distance to the neutral object? > There is no such thing as a "neutral object". An electrically neutral object is one where the positive charges balance the negative charges. Most of the stuff you find around you is neutral (to a fair degree of accuracy, anyway). > And it would take an > infinite amount of energy to move anything, including a charge, an > infinite distance. You do realise that such descriptions are mathematical conveniences, not suggestions for practical physics experiments? To make them, you disregard loses, assume infinite time, an otherwise empty universe, etc. The energy needed in such circumstances is not infinite - it is defined, can be calculated, and provides a very useful number. It is like gravitational escape velocity. The escape velocity for the earth is about 25,000 mph at the surface. That means that if there were no other influences involved, if you launched from the surface at that speed then you would continue moving away without ever stopping and being pulled back to earth. This is referred to as being able to reach a point of infinity. |
| Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Oct 27 08:48AM -0500 On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 01:58:31 +0200, David Brown >Also note that this sort of continuous off-site replication is not a >common usage, and it is certainly not supported by any hardware raid system. Well, depending on how one stretches the definition of "'Hardware RAID", better storage arrays (IBM DS8000 series, for example), most do support offsite replication, at least as an option. Current DS8880s actually offer two levels of that, a short distance option (300km, aka "Metro Mirror") with "zero" data loss, and a long distance option ("Global Mirror") with a 5* second window. Metro does add a bit to I/O write latency (since the remote site needs to acknowledge receipt before the local DS8880 can report the I/O write as committed), although at shorter distances it's quite reasonable. Global Metro does not add latency, but does have a data loss window. Obviously both options are at the mercy of the link bandwidth for overall write throughput. But it's not something that exists on the typical PCIe "RAID controller" card. *The DS8880 may actually be 3s, but at least some DS8000s are 5s. |
| Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Oct 27 08:55AM -0500 On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:48:31 -0500, Robert Wessel >But it's not something that exists on the typical PCIe "RAID >controller" card. >*The DS8880 may actually be 3s, but at least some DS8000s are 5s. And FWIW, a DS8880 runs a full copy of AIX. And you can load additional software onto it, although that's obviously not recommended, except in specific cases. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 10:28AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 10:43 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> http://wiki.qemu.org/Main_Page >> So is RAID emulation. No difference. > I guess the real world and Jerry world will have to disagree on that one. The real world and my world agree on this. But the "expert" who a few days ago admitted he knew little about RAID disagrees. ROFLMAO! > To confuse you further: ZFS can emulate Redundant Array of Independent > Disks by using disk files as emulated disks. So what? Can't you even stay on topic? No - when you can't counter an argument, you change the subject. Typical of a troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 10:31AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 10:57 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> Only an incompetent idiot like you would even try to claim that software >> RAID is the same as hardware RAID. > Which is why David didn't. You have already proven you can't read. Here's another instance. >> Or you just get another RAID device and move your disks to that device. >> No problem. > A Redundant Array of Independent Disks device, that's a new one. The solution to the problem. Just like moving disks to a new computer is the solution to the problem of a computer failure. >> a PC that uses RAID. They are too insecure. > By the way you describe things, you stopped using RAID in the 80s as > well. There's me thinking Jerry world was stuck in the 90s. Nope. Still using them. Got one about 4 feet from me, in fact. But that's another of the the same old arguments from you. You can't counter what I'm saying, so you claim I'm out of date. From someone who just a few days ago admitted he knew very little about RAID. But suddenly you are an expert. ROFLMAO! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:11AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 7:12 AM, David Brown wrote: > be no need for two terms, would there? But both are RAID - in the same > way that a "blue car" is not the same thing as a "red car", but they are > both cars. That isn't what you said earlier. You said RAID was RAID, whether implemented in software or hardware. Now you're claiming it isn't? > block device. (Some filesystems can use knowledge of the underlying > geometry of the block device to improve performance, but that's a bit > too technical for you.) No, it doesn't matter to YOU whether you use RAID or RAID emulation. But it does to a lot of people - especially people concerned with not losing data. >> And it's ability to corrupt the entire array due to a virus. > When you invent an irrelevant and incorrect straw man in one post, you > don't need to keep it up in other posts. Not at all irrelevant or incorrect. It is entirely possible for your RAID emulation to get corrupted and corrupt the entire disk. > "good enough") decision in the first place. But like any competent > person, I know that circumstances may change in the future - and that > may mean it is worth changing the RAID layout of your disks. A competent person would be able to predict the future needs with a fair amount of accuracy. People I work with do this regularly, because having to make changes due to a bad decision can cost the company millions. They are not 100% right - but their success rate is very high. It has to be or they don't maintain the positions they are in. >> systems - or even moderately secure systems, so you have no idea. > I know where and why ROMs are used. And they are not used to store the > software in a NAS. You know nothing. High security systems don't allow FLASH for device code. If there needs to be a change to the software, the ROM must be physically replaced. It is one technique which prevents changes to any of the software. But the Play Station you work on isn't a high security system, so you wouldn't know. >> on them and potentially corrupt the disks. Not that you would >> understand the concept - it's way past your level of intelligence. > Some let you run other software, some do not. No, the servers I am talking about are designed so that other software *cannot* run on them. Period. But I know you don't understand that because it's beyond your level of intelligence. > can be created on those partitions. Any "user code" or "virus" which > can destroy the partitions on a software raid can do exactly the same > thing on hardware raid. Not at all. If no externally-sourced code can be executed on the hardware RAID, it is impossible for any user code or virus to corrupt the disk. However, RAID emulation is just another part of the OS - an OS running user code and who knows what else. And I never said it was a *common* problem. But it *is* a potential problem - one that always concerns security experts, as it should. But once again that is beyond your limited ability to comprehend. >> proven. And no, as any hardware designer will tell you - you can't >> really understand how something works until you have designed it. > Remind me never to buy anything /you/ have designed. I wouldn't sell it to you! >> only you would consider a car engine to be similar to a RAID device. >> Just more proof you don't understand RAID. > Does the word "analogy" mean anything to you? Yes, and it is not an analogy. It is a straw man argument. > that is a big step forward. And you are happy to accept that I > understand the mathematics behind RAID? But somehow you also think I > can't understand even the basics of a RAID system? Sure, you can *use* a RAID system. My wife can use a RAID system - she does it every time she backs up to our NAS. But then she is more intelligent than you. But no, you do not understand either the mathematics or basics of a RAID system, as you have repeatedly shown. > controller. But "to make sure everything works together" or "by the > terms of the service contract" or "for a consistent user experience", > everything is vendor-locked. Once again you claim to be an expert on every device ever made. But then you're an expert in everything, aren't you? In reality your head is so far up your arse that you can see your tonsils. And once again you just proved it. Guess what? RAID devices use SATA disks. All SATA disks use the same interface - it IS a standard. And basic disk partitioning is the same. Now the file systems on the disks may differ - but those are generally standard file systems, also. And there are standards for the various RAID designs - all RAID 5 devices work similarly, for instance. And because of all of this, you can often take a disk out of a brand X RAID and install it in a brand Y RAID. Not always, but quite often - just as you can usually take a disk out of one computer and install it in another computer. > /and/ you don't keep track of your installation media. For most > distros, old versions are easily available and you can install as much > as you want (commercial service contracts are, of course, time limited). In some cases, yes. Others, no. Can you get a SUN Unix from 1991? If you still have the tape, is it readable? A real question - I know of one company who is still running that on some machines because the specialized hardware they are using won't work in modern computers. But also the vast majority of the world does NOT run Linux. >> versions may not run on the old device. > What "old device"? You are putting the old disk into a new machine, you > are not using old devices. The machine above still has a disk. Although they are going to have a hard time replacing it when it finally fails. They had a hard enough time finding a replacement disk on the last failure; they bought out all the supplier had (about a dozen, IIRC). But it still works, and would cost them a lot more money to have the specialized hardware redesigned and rebuilt. > You are a fine example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous > thing - you know a little about one corner of a subject, and think you > are an expert on it all. Wrong again. You read way too much into what other people say. And you are wrong on all counts. No, I have never installed RAID emulation. I have, however, installed and configured many hardware RAID devices over the years. But unlike you, I understand the vulnerabilities on every computer running user code. > No one suggests that the virus is running on the RAID card, any more > than they suggest that the virus would run on the disk controller > processors on the hard disks. Sure, but while the virus can overwrite data on the RAID drives, it cannot destroy the partitioning, etc. on the RAID - that is fixed in the RAID configuration. Neither can it change data on one drive but not another. ALL it can do is change the data. Your software RAID emulation allows all of the above. > /Flexibility/ is the key property of software raid. With the same RAID > setup, it will usually be faster than hardware raid - but that is only > one if its benefits. And vulnerability is also a key property of software RAID. But you make these claims that is will "usually be faster than hardware RAID". And it may be - if you have a slow RAID adapter and only use your computer for playing FreeCell. But then you've never used hardware RAID, so once again you have no idea what you're talking about. People who use it regularly know better. >> RAID can do it automatically, with no speed reduction. > No, RAID cannot do snapshots. Not hardware RAID, not software RAID - it > is not part of what RAID is or does. What do you think the second drive on a RAID 1 device is if not a continually updated snapshot of the first drive? But I guess you're only talking about static snapshots. There are dynamic ones, also. But once again you try to change the subject because you can't counter the facts. >> obvious way is by configuring it for RAID 1. >> But once again you show your ignorance by your statements. > Attempting proof by repeated assertion, yet again? Just repeated observations, David. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:11AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 11:00 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> Oracle engineered systems all use ZFS. >> Oh yes? You know every Oracle system? > I work with Oracle storage. And you know every Oracle system? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:17AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 11:07 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> So that is different from your previous claim that the major use is for >> fast access? > I made no such claim. You didn't? I guess there's another Ian Collins here, then. >> And reliable data storage requires data backup. > Indeed. The two are not the same. Not according to you. Data backup means a second (or third or whatever number) of copies of the data. This can be static backups - what you might do once a year or so, if forced by your manager to do so. But you can also have copies updated when the original file is updated - as in a RAID 1 setup. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:19AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 2:55 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > Incidentally, the game you continue to refer to is from the early 90s. I > think you should patent the time machine you are using. > Christian Actually, it's from much earlier than that. But it's still above David's level of competence. And I write the posts in an effort to correct many of the misunderstanding some people have about topics they obviously have no real idea on, except what they might have read in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. But maybe some others will learn. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:20AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 7:26 AM, David Brown wrote: > in a dedicated device). But RAID is certainly not limited to such devices. > Or is this what you think /true/ RAID systems look like: > <https://www.flickr.com/photos/sainz/3015818920/> No, that's more modern than your concepts. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:21AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 11:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > Where did I say I know very little about RAID? Come on, show the quote > and prove me wrong. > I've been in the storage business for a very long time. Early in this thread you admitted you didn't know much about RAID configurations. Or was that another Ian Collins? And according to your claims, you've been in EVERY business for a very long time. Your lack of knowledge belies that. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:29AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 3:04 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > range, you can forget about nonlinearities and assume Ohm's Law is > correct. For many other practical applications, it isn't. A diode (or > LED) does NOT obey Ohm's "law". That does not change the fact Ohm's law is one of the basic laws of physics. And DC current in a conducting medium always follows Ohm's law. Of course, too much current can heat the conducting medium and change the amount of current flowing - but that's because the resistance of the medium changes. Hooke's law applies to mechanical aspects of a spring, and has no relation to Ohm's law. And no, diodes and LEDs do not follow Ohm's law. But they are not resistances, either. >> is the difference in charges between two points. > Nope, difference between potential. Charge and potential are related by > Maxwell's equations, a set of partial differential equations. Yes, they are related, so it is also the difference in charges. I'm trying to keep this simple enough for some of the non-engineers here to understand. >> no relationship between the points. > Jerry's lecture notes on physics. Nice. > Christian Nope. Fact. Take two identical 1.5V batteries. Attach one lead of a voltmeter to the positive electrode (anode) of one battery. Attach the other voltmeter lead to the negative electrode (cathode) of the other battery. Set the batteries on two different tables. Now your voltmeter is connected between a positive and a negative electrode. But what does it read? 3V? Guess again. Both batteries have a potential (charge). But there is no difference between the two because there is no common reference between the two. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:30AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 5:14 AM, Chris Vine wrote: >> have an infinite resistance, you can have no charge difference >> because there is no relationship between the points. > You are clueless. Not at all. Very basic - something I learned back in 5th grade science class. See my previous post for an example. You obviously have no idea. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 11:37AM -0400 On 10/27/2016 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote: >> From a point source, it is 1/r². > As Christian confirmed (since he knows the physics better than I), that > is the drop-off for the electric field, not the potential. That is correct. And there is a direct relationship between the potential and the electric field. > drop-off. > (Of course in reality you don't have infinitely big lines or planes, and > there is absorption in the media, etc.) Incorrect again. The drop off from a wire is 1/r² perpendicular to the wire, and no drop off parallel to the wire. The drop off perpendicular to a surface is 1/r. > An electrically neutral object is one where the positive charges balance > the negative charges. Most of the stuff you find around you is neutral > (to a fair degree of accuracy, anyway). There is no such thing as a "neutral object". It is all relative. When you have a difference of 100V between two objects, you can claim one has a +100V charge or the other has a -100V charge. Or you could claim +40 and -60. Or anything else in between. It's all relative. > disregard loses, assume infinite time, an otherwise empty universe, etc. > The energy needed in such circumstances is not infinite - it is > defined, can be calculated, and provides a very useful number. Even as a mathematical convenience it would take an infinite amount of energy to move anything, including a charge, an infinite distance. > speed then you would continue moving away without ever stopping and > being pulled back to earth. This is referred to as being able to reach > a point of infinity. That is not the "point of infinity". That is simply Earth's escape velocity. And BTW - all it would do is escape Earth's gravitational field. It would still be orbiting the sun. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 08:41PM +0200 On 27/10/16 17:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Give it up, David. The hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper. I will give up this "discussion" - it is just too tedious. I thought perhaps there might be a limit to how many things you could get wrong, but it seems not. (I knew there was no limit to how unpleasant and rude you would be.) It is clear to everyone that you know only little about RAID (or almost anything else you talk about), despite your claims of expertise. I say that you know a little - it would take very bad luck to guess incorrectly as consistently as you do, so I assume that you mix your bad guesses with intentional rubbish. Almost everything you say is in direct contradiction to widely available knowledge - anyone reading this thread who does not know you from before, and might be tempted to give you some credibility, will be able to check your "facts" with a few minutes web search. I am going to stop here, in the full knowledge that your other latest posts are also wrong, before I start using words that would make dear Wood Brian get his knickers in a twist. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 28 07:53AM +1300 On 10/28/16 03:31 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> RAID is the same as hardware RAID. >> Which is why David didn't. > You have already proven you can't read. Here's another instance. Time to end this. This snippet sums you in your own words. Too much of your twaddle is bad for the digestion. -- Ian |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Oct 27 08:43PM +0100 > Time to end this. This snippet sums you in your own words. Too much > of your twaddle is bad for the digestion. Praise the f**king Lord, as Brian would very nearly almost say. |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Oct 27 09:56PM +0200 On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:43:35 +0100 > > Time to end this. This snippet sums you in your own words. Too much > > of your twaddle is bad for the digestion. > Praise the f**king Lord, as Brian would very nearly almost say. There is no need to mask 'fucking' as there are no moderation bots on usenet... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Oct 27 10:52PM +0200 Am 27.10.16 um 17:29 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > law. Of course, too much current can heat the conducting medium and > change the amount of current flowing - but that's because the resistance > of the medium changes. That's because the resistance is *defined* by Ohm's Law, but it does not (and cannot) state that the resistance is constant. For some material this is a reasonable approximation, for others it's not. The resistance of a light bulb is not constant, neither that of a fuse, a diode or even an air gap which is used to protect electronic equipment from lightning strokes. The basic equations of electric (and magnetic) fields are Maxwell's equations. > Hooke's law applies to mechanical aspects of a spring, and has no > relation to Ohm's law. The analogy was that both are material characterisation "laws" which only hold in a certain range for reasonable material, as opposed to Maxwell's equations. Those only break down at the quantum level, e.g. at length scales below the Planck length. This stuff is then beyond my knowlegde, TBH. > And no, diodes and LEDs do not follow Ohm's law. But they are not > resistances, either. Sure they have a resistance defined by Ohm's law. It's just not very useful, and therefore rarely given. Usually I/U plots are given. > Yes, they are related, so it is also the difference in charges. I'm > trying to keep this simple enough for some of the non-engineers here to > understand. Ah I see. Well I think I can follow. > Set the batteries on two different tables. > Now your voltmeter is connected between a positive and a negative > electrode. But what does it read? 3V? Guess again. It will not necessarily by 3V, but the potential difference *can* be computed, and maybe even measured. It depends on the exact placement of the batteries and - in case they are close - the geometry of the poles. To first approximation, the electric field of a battery is that of an electric dipole. I'm not in the mood to do the math for you, but if you are interested, look up dipole and quadrupole moment. > Both batteries have a potential (charge). But there is no difference > between the two because there is no common reference between the two. The "voltmeters" you have in your lab are only approximations to a true voltmeter. In fact they do not measure voltages, but they measure the current through a very large resistance and compute the voltage as R*I. This breaks down very soon; imagine a battery where you connect a 1GΩ resistor to one pole. What's the voltage between the other pole and the second end of the resistor? 1.5V. However if you connect a "voltmeter" with only 100MΩ resistance of the amplifier, you'll measure 0.14V. It *is* possible to measure voltage without draining current, for instance by measuring the force on a charged particle, or balancing a capacitor. This will be my last post on the topic. I'm not going to waste my time here any further. Christian |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Oct 27 09:53PM +0100 >> Praise the f**king Lord, as Brian would very nearly almost say. > There is no need to mask 'fucking' as there are no moderation bots on > usenet... Nevertheless, I choose to do so. |
| red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid>: Oct 27 01:16PM -0700 On 10/25/2016 6:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> I can code RCU in C++! Nice... Has the RCU patent expired? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 27 05:29AM -0700 On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:19:24 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote: > We know you quite well. You are a dishonest self-righteous hypocrite > who thinks that his magical incantations will influence people over > the internet. Juha, how do you conclude "self-righteous hypocrite?" I admit that I am a sinner in need of a savior. I am not saying, "Look to me, for I have it all figured out (as if on my own)," but rather I point you to the One I have found and ask you to "Seek the truth and learn of Jesus, for His is the way of forgiveness and eternal life." I ask you to test my claim for yourself. It's not magic. It's a real process: 1) We all have sin, the result of Adam and Eve's fall. 2) We have also all sinned on our own. 3) We are three-fold beings, soul, body, spirit. 4) Because of sin, we are spiritually dead, but bodily alive. 5) Jesus came to the Earth and had no sin, and died on the cross. 6) When Jesus died, since He had no sin, He was able to transfer our sin onto Himself and die with it. The price of one sin is death, as is the price of a trillion sins, before a holy God. 7) Jesus was able to take on all sin for all who would believe in Him because He had no sin of His own, and in so doing die with our sin on His account. 8) His taking our sin away left us sin-free, which means we are then alive again spiritually. The Bible calls this "born again." 9) Once we're alive again spiritually, we begin to have a new sense we didn't have before. New input into our being, and it is that new input which changes us from within. 10) In Christ, all things are made new. Sin is forgiven, the spirit nature is alive again, and we are new creations that are not like the old. It is a literal rebirth. It's not magic. It's the system God setup to allow for this contingency should man sin. He made a way out so that we could be saved. The Bible even teaches that Jesus was "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world," meaning God had this plan in place before He ever created us, to save us should we fall, while still maintaining fullest law and order in His eternal Kingdom. It's all there, Juha. It's easy to understand. Logical to follow. It has real depth and information, and it's free to all who will receive it. Jesus saves souls from Hell by restoring them to eternal life (spiritual life). The body is an outward vessel. Here we have our bodies, but when we get to Heaven we will be shed this sinful body and be given an incorruptible body: http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_corinthians/15.htm The Resurrection Body 35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Jesus] was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. It's not some mysterious thing impossible to see. It just requires an honest pursuit of the truth, and some research. Everything in the Bible aligns with reason, and is well explained through study. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment