In article <u6UDi.14794$eD5.596@trnddc07>, "Paul M. Cook" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:KURDi.1374$7P7.824@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> In article <LyLDi.1770$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.
>
>
>Yeah, ok whatever.

[Continued lack of response noted -- without surprise, this time]

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

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