In article <LyLDi.1770$s06.155@trnddc04>, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:9NFDi.31815$RX.3395@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>> In article <INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>> <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%tEDi.52676$YL5.29527@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"
>>><pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:JZzDi.1266$7P7.177@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> >> In article <13dtgtthjufh65f@news.supernews.com>, "HeyBub"
>>>> ><heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> >> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>>>> >> >> <pmcook@gte.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
>>>> >> >>> everything.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
>>>speed?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Waves hand!
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I do! I do! Pick me!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
>>>finite?
>>>> >
>>>> >First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All
>>>> >computers
>>>> >have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can
>>>> >only
>>>be
>>>> >passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
>>>> >clock we can employ
>>>>
>>>> You think so, do you?
>>>>
>>>> 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
>>>> light
>>>> moves in a nanosecond?
>>
>> [Lack of response noted]
>
>11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
>length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech
>she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> > therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
>>>> >are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock
>>>> >cycle.
>>>So
>>>> >in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace
>>>> >were
>>>1
>>>> >inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it
>>>already
>>>> >is.
>>>>
>>>> I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't
>>>> matter
>>>at
>>>> all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
>>>> approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and
>>>three
>>>> *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing
>>>processors
>>>> in that range.
>>
>> [Lack of substantive response noted]
>
>What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying because
>you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied
>computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff.

Oh, the old "argument from authority" fallacy. Too bad that formal logic
wasn't part of *your* computer science curriculum; it was in *mine*.
>
>>>
>>>Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made
>>>for a faster data transfer.
>>
>> No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that
>> "shortness means nothing".
>
>You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong. It
>sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is
>factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just plain
>wrong.

So say you. You've provided nothing to back that up, though.
>
>>>If we were talking photon switches (a
>>>theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will
>>>be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is
>>>the
>>>CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon
>>>melts
>>>into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
>>>speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a
>>>heat
>>>sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.
>>>
>>>We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast
>>>they
>>>can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised
>>>to
>>>the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?
>
>11.8 inches
>
>> At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch
>> and
>> three-inch signal path make a difference?
>
>186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough.

Lack of accurate response noted.
>
>> What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?
>>
>
>Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you
>know?

Lack of response noted.

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

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

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