03 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are confused. You do seem to want to put words in my mouth suggesting I've
“…It never seemed to me Kelly ever implied 'Yes'….”
Look at page 8 third post down:
Kelly responds to:
“…Originally posted by twhitehead
You are essentially claiming that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw. …”
With:
“…I also am NOT claiming 'without absolute' knowledge either!...” (my emphasis)
How does the ...[text shortened]... early implied a “yes” answer to the above as well as others where he clearly implies “no”.
made points I have avoided making. I said you do not need absolute knowledge
which is God like, I have even said you or anyone can spot flaws depending on
what knowledge you have on a device. I have stressed a design flaw within a CPU
is beyond your ability to just look at and see, even a design engineer requires
special equipment and several tests to find them, yet you believe you can spot
one by looking at one.
Kelly
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd you believe that you know enough about CPUs to state unequivocally how much knowledge is required to spot a design flaw. Surely your claim requires more knowledge about CPUs than the the ability to spot a design flaw in a CPU?
I have stressed a design flaw within a CPU
is beyond your ability to just look at and see, even a design engineer requires
special equipment and several tests to find them, yet you believe you can spot
one by looking at one.
Kelly
For you to know what the minimum requirements are to spot a design flaw, you must have near perfect knowledge of all possible flaws and what is required to spot them.
03 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain with the "near perfect knowledge", why are you still using that? Have I said
And you believe that you know enough about CPUs to state unequivocally how much knowledge is required to spot a design flaw. Surely your claim requires more knowledge about CPUs than the the ability to spot a design flaw in a CPU?
For you to know what the minimum requirements are to spot a design flaw, you must have near perfect knowledge of all possible flaws and what is required to spot them.
you have to be God to spot a design flaw in a CPU at any time?
Minimum requirements are knowing what it is supposed to do where, when, and
knowing the root cause of the "error" involved. A design flaw is something that
is designed wrong/flawed causing an error and we are talking about very small
sections within a CPU and timings that are ultra fast so that special equipment is
required to ID where within the device under test the error shows up, and under
what conditions the error shows up.
You telling me that by looking at a CPU and seeing something wrong does not
tell me that a design error is going on, the root cause of the error could be
operator error, another piece of equipment gone bad, flakey software, and so on.
Kelly
03 Sep 10
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“….I said you do not need absolute knowledge
You are confused. You do seem to want to put words in my mouth suggesting I've
made points I have avoided making. I said you do not need absolute knowledge
which is God like, I have even said you or anyone can spot flaws depending on
what knowledge you have on a device. I have stressed a design flaw within a CPU
is beyond your ability to just look at an ...[text shortened]... ent and several tests to find them, yet you believe you can spot
one by looking at one.
Kelly
which is God like,….”
You said: “you do not need absolute knowledge” but where did you say “you do not need absolute knowledge that is GOD LIKE” (my emphasis)?
When we talk about “absolute knowledge” in this context, we mean complete knowledge of the CPU or whatever thing we want to spot a flaw in –you can have complete knowledge of it without being particularly “God like”.
I have complete knowledge of the rules of checkers; so I am “God like”?
Do I have to be “God like” to spot an illegal move in checkers?
“…you or anyone can spot flaws depending on WHAT knowledge you have on a device….” (my emphasis)
Obviously! But that doesn’t equate with being dependent on if you have ALL knowledge of the device!
“…I have stressed a design flaw within a CPU
is beyond your ability to just look at and see, …”
even if it is a really stupid and obvious one?
“…yet you believe you can spot
one by looking at one….”
Correct. And that’s what I have already said.
That’s because I have “sufficient” knowledge gained from my university courses to spot a flaw providing it is a sufficiently stupid and obvious one. And by “sufficient” I don’t mean knowledge of EVERY aspect of the CPU but just the relevant knowledge to spotting such a silly flaw. For example, I don’t need to know where all the CPU’s registers are located to spot a flaw of a wire leading to a dead-end BUT I do need some basic knowledge about how electricity works (which I do; I have a distinction in C&G electronics) to know that a wire leading to a dead-end in a CPU is just a useless waste of precious space.
Would you question my knowledge and ability in electronics despite my qualifications? If so, I think you are totally out of your depth here for what do you know about CPUs that I don’t? I can say a lot about them and know what I am talking about; can you?
Would you say that you DO need to know every aspect of a CPU to correctly spot a flaw of a wire leading to a dead-end?
If so, then are saying you need to know where all the CPU registers are located to spot a wire leading to a dead-end?
If not, then I CAN correctly spot and identify a flaw in a CPU without knowing every aspect of it; what is stopping me?
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayRead my post again. I did not say you said that. I am saying that for you to know whether or not a flaw could be spotted by an amateur, you would yourself have to know what possible flaws may exist and what skills are required to spot them ie you would need near perfect knowledge of the design in question.
Again with the "near perfect knowledge", why are you still using that? Have I said
you have to be God to spot a design flaw in a CPU at any time?
Minimum requirements are knowing what it is supposed to do where, when, and
knowing the root cause of the "error" involved. A design flaw is something that
is designed wrong/flawed causing an error and we are talking about very small
sections within a CPU and timings that are ultra fast so that special equipment is
required to ID where within the device under test the error shows up, and under
what conditions the error shows up.
The problem is you clearly believe you have extensive knowledge of CPU design and you are therefore overlooking the obvious.
Suppose I receive in the post a CPU. It says on the package it is designed to fit into my motherboard and lists the model number of my motherboard. I take it out of the package and find that it simply cannot physically fit in the socket on my motherboard. Maybe it has too many pins, maybe it has no pins or is a different shape. Whatever the case, there is clearly a design flaw. Even I can tell that without even knowing what voltage the thing is supposed to run on.
03 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead“…I take it out of the package and find that it simply cannot physically fit in the socket on my motherboard. Maybe it has too many pins, maybe it has no pins or is a different shape. Whatever the case, there is clearly a design flaw. Even I can tell that without even knowing what VOLTAGE the thing is supposed to run on…” (my emphasis)
Read my post again. I did not say you said that. I am saying that for you to know whether or not a flaw could be spotted by an amateur, you would yourself have to know what possible flaws may exist and what skills are required to spot them ie you would need near perfect knowledge of the design in question.
[b]Minimum requirements are knowing what it is ...[text shortened]... law. Even I can tell that without even knowing what voltage the thing is supposed to run on.[/b]
Exactly! And you will be able to spot this flaw EVEN if you have absolute and total ignorance of the internal workings of the CPU!
Even if you don’t know that it contains “transistors”!
In fact, you would be able to correctly spot such an obvious flaw even if you had FALSE knowledge of the internal workings of the CPU! Such as the belief that there are little people in there doing the calculations! So you definitely do not need to know every aspect of the CPU to correctly spot such an obvious flaw.
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou spend so much time twisting what I say I've grown tired of correcting you.
“….I said you do not need absolute knowledge
which is God like,….”
You said: “you do not need absolute knowledge” but where did you say “you do not need absolute knowledge that is GOD LIKE” (my emphasis)?
When we talk about “absolute knowledge” in this context, we mean complete knowledge of the CPU or whatever thing we want to spot a flaw in –yo ...[text shortened]... ectly spot and identify a flaw in a CPU without knowing every aspect of it; what is stopping me?
If you can limit your posts that the points presented we can continue.
Kelly
03 Sep 10
9 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]That is not a design flaw of the CPU that is a design flaw of the motherboard
Read my post again. I did not say you said that. I am saying that for you to know whether or not a flaw could be spotted by an amateur, you would yourself have to know what possible flaws may exist and what skills are required to spot them ie you would need near perfect knowledge of the design in question.
[b]Minimum requirements are knowing what it is flaw. Even I can tell that without even knowing what voltage the thing is supposed to run on.
the CPU has nothing wrong with it; it fits in the sockets it was DESIGNED to fit
into, you attempting to put a CPU into a board that wasn't supposed to accept it
is not a design issue with the CPU trust me. Companies who make motherboards
get CPU when they are in the design phase so they know what they are supposed
to do. They know what the pin definitions are on the CPU, nothing is left to
chance. If some company thinks they have the design spec builds a mother board
that does not have the proper pins laid out or the CPU foot print is not correct on
the socket it is not a company I'd buy a mother board from. The mother boards
are built around the CPU not the other way around.
Your error could even be a package error, a typo, but again that is not CPU design
error.
Kelly
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAgain, you don't have a clue if you think that is an example of a CPU design flaw.
“…I take it out of the package and find that it simply cannot physically fit in the socket on my motherboard. Maybe it has too many pins, maybe it has no pins or is a different shape. Whatever the case, there is clearly a design flaw. Even I can tell that without even knowing what VOLTAGE the thing is supposed to run on…” (my emphasis)
Exactly! An ...[text shortened]... u definitely do not need to know every aspect of the CPU to correctly spot such an obvious flaw.
Kelly
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo once again you are essentially claiming your own superior knowledge is sufficient in identifying that something is not a design flaw.
Your error could even be a package error, a typo, but again that is not CPU design
error.
Kelly
Surely you would have had to have designed a CPU before you can be making such claims? Why should I believe you? Surely when it comes to CPUs I should only trust the word of AMD or Intel?
Or are you being somewhat inconsistent?
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJay“…That is not a design flaw of the CPU that is a design flaw of the motherboard
That is not a design flaw of the CPU that is a design flaw of the motherboard
the CPU has nothing wrong with it; it fits in the sockets it was DESIGNED to fit
into, you attempting to put a CPU into a board that wasn't supposed to accept it
is not a design issue with the CPU trust me. Companies who make motherboards
get CPU when they are in the desig ...[text shortened]... r error could even be a package error, a typo, but again that is not CPU design
error.
Kelly[/b]
the CPU has nothing wrong with it; it fits in the sockets it was DESIGNED to fit
into,…”
suppose it was DESIGNED to fit into a motherboard with a design to that motherboard that doesn’t exist because a mistake was made when collecting and copying a record of the design of the motherboard? Then the CPU will have a design flaw because it is designed to fit into a slot with a shape that doesn’t exist.
“…Companies who make motherboards
get CPU when they are in the design phase so they KNOW what they are supposed
to do….” (my emphasis)
yes, because they are intelligent and so you wouldn’t expect them to make a stupid mistake; and that’s precisely the whole point! ; just as you wouldn’t expect an all knowing “intelligent designer” of a giraffe’s neck to make a stupid mistake.
“…The mother boards
are built around the CPU not the other way around….”
Not necessarily so. Why wouldn’t a designer of a CPU design it around a particular motherboard? This is perfectly plausible.
Actually, the answer to that is totally irrelevant to the argument because, even if you are correct, we could simply switch from talking about a flaw in a CPU consisting of it not fitting into the motherboard to talking about a flaw in a motherboard consisting of it not allowing the CPU to fit into it!
03 Sep 10
1 edit
Kelly
I remember when I went to tutorials at university when I did my programming courses.
Sometimes I and other student wrote programs that didn’t work as they should so presumably they had bugs.
So we sometimes show each other these programs in the hope that someone could spot the flaws in the programs.
Typically, I make a program that didn’t work properly and I get frustrated in not seeing my mistake so I show another student to see what he thinks the flaw is. Sometimes, when I do this, the other student spots and points out a really silly flaw in my program before I even have a chance to say what the program does or how it works.
For example, I vaguely remember a particular occasion when a fellow student immediately spotted and point out that, in the very first line of my program that I designed that was giving me grief, I had inserted in the letter ‘O’ in a integer literal where I should have inserted in the numerical digit ‘0’ in it and he did this BEFORE I had a chance to even begin to explain to him what the program is for and how it is supposed to work.
So he did NOT have much knowledge of my program. In fact, he had virtually no knowledge at all! Certainly he didn’t have complete knowledge of my program! Far from it! And yet he instantly and correctly spotted a flaw and I said something like; “oh yes, you are right, that is wrong! “ and then corrected the flaw and found the program then worked perfectly thus confirming this WAS a flaw!
So, here is my question:
Would you deny that this is a clear example of something (a program in this case) that was designed (by me in this case) and somebody (another student in this case) CORRECTLY and rationally spotted and identified a flaw in it (the flaw being an invalid literal in this case)?
04 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not claiming superior knowledge, I even said earlier that a design engineer
So once again you are essentially claiming your own superior knowledge is sufficient in identifying that something is not a design flaw.
Surely you would have had to have designed a CPU before you can be making such claims? Why should I believe you? Surely when it comes to CPUs I should only trust the word of AMD or Intel?
Or are you being somewhat inconsistent?
could not do what you are claiming you can do without proper equipment and
a battery of tests. Since you are not reading my posts and keep coming up with
things I have not said, why should I bother having this discussion?
Kelly
04 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonRead these words really slowly, this will be the last time I repeat them.
In what way is a CPU being the wrong shape to fit into a motherboard it was designed to fit in NOT be a design flaw?
The CPU comes before the socket on the mother board, the mother board makers
do not design a socket to put a CPU in and tell Intel and AMD what size their
next product has to be. If there is a motherboard that is not the right size for a
CPU, it is the wrong motherboard for that CPU, that is not a design error on the
CPU side of the equation, I can see now why evolution sounds so good to you.
Kelly