Why invention is different from discovery? [duplicate]

up vote-1down votefavorite	This question already has an answer here: Was mathematics invented or discovered? 26 answers You say that discovery discovers something pre-existing (in the world) whereas inventor comes up with a new idea. But, don't you discover the ideas? As I understand, there is an abstract world of ideas, where all abstract notions, i.e. ideas, live in. You just discover one or another. They usually tell you how to get from A to B in an optimal way. One way is bad, another is good. And what you do when solve a problem, you find those ways. Mathematicians know very well that solutions are not arbitrary. They exist before you discover them (nobody needs arbitrary solutions as nobody needs garbage). Is desired solution a discovery or an invention? Why do people, particularly academists, insist that there is a distinction between invention and discovery, once you realize that inventors just discover the ideas from the ideal world of ideas/solutions? terminology idea shareeditundeleteflag asked Aug 4 at 9:29 Little Alien 1025
marked as duplicate by Camil Staps♦, Dave, John Am, commando♦, Eliran H Aug 4 at 14:16 This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question. If this question is different, please edit itto explain how it is different or ask a new question. deleted by Community♦ Sep 10 at 0:51 (RemoveDeadQuestions) This question was automatically deleted. Please see the help center for more information.
	1 Welcome to Philosophy.SE. "As I understand, there is an abstract world of ideas..." - from what do you understand this? Plato? Please make your starting point clear. Also, could you articulate what exactly is your philosophical problem? (see also help/on-topic) – Camil Staps♦ Aug 4 at 9:33 @CamilStaps it's a view also held by more 'recent' philosophers, such as Frege. It is very controversial though, so maybe the question would be better without presupposing it. – Eliran H Aug 4 at 9:41 @EliranH in any case, the question needs elaboration. – Camil Staps♦ Aug 4 at 9:55 I am not considering somebody's doctrine. I consider the common sense. This means that the view is also shared by me, in addition to the whole math community. I gave you example where math (ideal world) assumes that there is a solution before it is found. It also holds for real world problems. There is no need to attribute such obvious thing to anybody, especially if you can find the historical names holding it yourself. You can explain why this view is wrong (and, thus, how invention can be different from the discovery) in your answer. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 10:01    What needs elaboration? Everybody needs to know what is invention, what is discovery and how are they different. I have gave you the obvious reason why the separation is artificial. What needs to be elaborated? Probably, I am wrong that philosophy is about common sense. I have heard that philosophy is a collection of ancient delirium that failed to be true and, thus, failed to be developed by branches of science. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 10:05    "The whole math community"? Platonism is a popular but not universal position in math. Moreover, mathematicians are generally ill-equipped to make claims of ontology. Third, common sense is often the prejudice of inexperience, and we prefer proofs and arguments to "it's obviously true" (I, for example, think it's common sense that ideas don't exist in any abstract way - and I've studied math). Fourth, what you have heard about philosophy is wrong. You're speaking with an unusual degree of hostility to what we do here, given you're asking for our thoughts. – commando♦ Aug 4 at 13:42  @commando It's funny that that question was highly upvoted while this gets such negative responses. It may be correct to close this as duplicate, but not for other reasons. I think some users here are being too harsh. – Eliran H Aug 4 at 14:13 @EliranH I agree that this shouldn't be closed for non-duplicate reasons. I think the votes are fair, though, because this question is phrased quite poorly and with the presupposition of being correct, while the other question is more open. – commando♦ Aug 4 at 14:15 'As I understand' is the 'presupposition of being correct' Mine question must be closed because it is stronger -- it is not limited to math. I do not understand why it should be confined to math. But, I understand that it would be fine if it only concerned a narrow subbranch of math, like algebra. At the same time, the humen say that stating the problem explicitly limits your freedom and, therefore, is a bad thing. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 14:56    comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews

Giving advises in individualist society [closed]

up vote0down votefavorite	I see that our society has transformed into individualist society and every individuals around me are quite individualistic. People are quite efficient at the work but their spendings at the private time, when I see them, is crazy. Yet, when I try to fix it with my deepest affections, they prefer to wound me to display that they need the money from me, not the advises. They are ready to listen only from the rich people. Should I start explaining them anything by my initiative when I feel that I need to? This answer raises also in case when the initiative is theirs, when they ask me anything to explain. I need to decide how deeply should I go in the answer. I can give a short answer, which hardly explains anything or go into the details that I feel critical and important. But, they are not even informed about such nuances ever exist and, therefore, do not ask about them. Should I start telling them something on my own initiative? Suppose now that one of them goes blindly to fall out of the window. Should I stop them, telling what they are essentially doing? I ask because I see a contradiction here. I should stop them from the ethics point of view, but, I should not from the individualist point of view. From individualist point of view I should silently let them to fall. This is their wish after all for me to keep my mouth shut to let them do quietly what they want to. Another contraction arises if their action harms me. For instance, you know that you must buy a household and a car(s). It is a must individualist lifestyle. Yet, it destroys the environment. The individualist lifestyle of the dream not only pumps out their budget, it also drains the oil reserves and destroys the planet that I live on. So, on one hand, I must defend my interest and tell them what they are doing. On the other hand, I should shut up and enjoy whatever they do. How to resolve this contradiction? ethics individualism shareeditundeleteflag edited Jul 31 at 23:35 asked Jul 31 at 20:20 Little Alien 1025
closed as unclear what you're asking by virmaior Jul 31 at 23:18 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question. deleted by Community♦ Aug 10 at 3:00 (RemovedAbandonedClosed) This question was automatically deleted. Please see the help center for more information.
	1 First off welcome to philosophy.SE. There may be a question in here, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding it. Could you edit and make this much clearer? – virmaior Jul 31 at 23:18 Good trolling, @virmaior, welcome! – Little Alien Jul 31 at 23:29    4 huh? I'm genuinely saying I don't understand the question you're asking about philosophy in there. I see a lot of writing and a lot of claims, but on the simplest level, what is your question about philosophy? – virmaior Jul 31 at 23:38  Saying that I have the claims but not questions when I have questions is trolling. You may say that my questions are not about philosophy but substituting "you have the questions about ethics and, thus, these are claims rather than questions" is trolling. Just tell that you do not bother to read beyond the first paragraph. Otherwise, you troll. When people say that white under their nose is nothing but black, they troll. – Little Alien Aug 1 at 8:38    Probably you should give it as answer. Your trolling suggests that people take individualism because they do not notice the contradictions. When you do not notice the contradictions that I put under your nose you basically demonstrate the way you deal with them. – Little Alien Aug 1 at 8:47    I'm really not following why you think I'm trolling. Can you highlight the specific answerable question about philosophy both here in a comment and by editing your question? The Philosophy.SE isn't meant for us to critique essays and write lengthy responses (as if it were a variant on code review SE), it's more like "What does :: mean in php?" type questions that work here... Again, what more specifically is your question? – virmaior Aug 1 at 10:15

Scalars vs. vectors

With the help of this discussion, I have finally realized the difference, why you cannot call any 1-dimentional vector a scalar. You can only do so for numbers since you can add and multiply any numbers. You can also add the cats but you can multiply them only by numbers. Mutiplying them with cats or dogs brings cats into another cat or cat-dog (vector) space. The cats are not additive to such "scaled" vectors. Therefore 1 can be either scalar or vector but 1 meter can only be a vector.

So, this definition

A scalar quantity is a one dimensional measurement of a quantity, like temperature, or weight.  A vector has more than one number associated with it.   A simple example is velocity.  

must be wrong. It assumes that you can scale something with the measured temperature if strip the degrees off. But, it does not make any sense.

My guess that p-value stands for Popper's falsification gets confirmed

I started to find posts that relate two. I have realized that Ho = all swans are white has a bell curve of delta-pulse at the white ordinal and zero elsewhere. This means that confidence interval is also located on this axis and all swans that we find should be white. As soon as first black is discovered, we fall off the confidence interval and reject the hypothesis.

If we can grade the swan to shades of gray between black and white, we can draw a bell curve and ... wait .. which bell curve? How do we get theoretical curve?

Bigots for memory kits

This is a private conversation with Tomshardware.co.uk moderator, started by "Religeous attitudes towards memory kits".

Private messages>

Subject: Notice

To: Valentin Tihomirov

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 15, 2013 12:54 PM

Unless you watch your language you will be banned.... And would suggest learning a little something before berating people and what they say when they try and help until you learn a little about the subject matter - you constantly refer to 1666 DRAM which there is none that I know of, DRAM specs to 1333, 1600, 1866 and higher, not 1666, if you knew a little about computers you should know this. This is simply a warning, your abusive behavior to others will not be tolerated

Tradesman1

Moderator

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 15, 2013 8:50 PM

Ban is an important tool in the toolkit of religious authority. I talk about frequency and reason. Your argument is like telling that I have a grammatical error and, therefore, my point is wrong. This is a manipulation.

Regarding, the grammatical error, go to Jedec specs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#JEDEC_standard_modules, and watch 1333 and 1666 frequencies yourself.

So, learn something about memories first before answering me, ok? I have told that I do not accept answers from bigotry.

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 15, 2013 8:58 PM

In my I consider what happens when we combine modules designed for different frequencies, A, and B > A. The actual values do not matter. As a bigot, you ignore the point and only come up with a meaningless cavil.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 12:23 AM

As far as the JEDEC Specs, the only thing listed as close is 10666 is in the peak MB/S column which equates to 1333 freq DRAM or the straight 666 for I/O bus clock, so you may want to take your own advice and look at the chart you reference and maybe even search for 1666 - it won't be found...And based on your continued insulting behavior you'll have 48 hours to try and learn a little about what you are talking about

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 12:32 AM

Sorry, I was talking about 166.6 vs 133.3 MHz. Logic remains the same. You do not need the accurate numbers addressing the reason and logic.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 12:52 AM

Yes you do, as most all people refer to DRAM according to the common nomenclature of freq 1066, 1333, 1600, 1866 etc, and when they do talk about the actual Memory Clock (which few even know about, to talk about) they will talk "1066 with 133 and 2/3s" rather than "1066 with 1333" for just that reason - to not confuse people. All of your references in your posts make no sense and make you appear to be an idiot ranting and raving about 1666 DRAM when there is none - and then you go on and accuse people of being bigots, saying B***S***, and the F bomb, etc ranting about things being religiously centered, etc - that type of behavior is not acceptable.

Also for informational purposes - DRAM testing is done to ensure that sticks will play together - because as you should know, ALL DRAM in a system runs at the same identical settings - you can't go in and say this stick will run at 1333 and we'll run this one at 1335 and this at 1600 and this at 1666 - they all run at the same freq, same base timings, same secondary and tertiary timings, same Command Rate and same voltage

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 2:38 AM

You is an idiot. I scream that my posts are not about 1666 rams at all. You is a blind bigot.

For informational purposes: you did not read what I say and sticks run at the same freaq not because they have matching settings. They run at the same freq because controller works at that frequency. What you "inform" here makes no sense because it sheds no light on what I asked and there is no need to test that params are matching when they are matching by definition. As any religious man, you produce tons of information, unconnected to the question that you are asked. You just do not listen and has no purpose to create connections. You broadcast your religion.

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 2:48 AM

I meant to say "sticks run at the same freq not because they have matching parameters but because controller has these settings" and you do not listen what I have asked. You broadcast your knowledge. You do not even try to understand what is asked or point to inconsistency. By saying that all my question is nonsense, you just demonstrate that you are not going to discuss it. I just do not understand what you are informing me afterwards. Yes, you broadcast your religion. All the purpose of the tomshardware questions-answers is to serve you a pretext to broadcast what you want, not what is asked.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 4:20 AM

Isn't it sort of hard to 'Broadcast your religion' if you don't have or claim one? So I don't understand your point as there isn't one in this regard, unless of course you have taken it upon yourself and decided that I am of some certain religion, and apparently one that you don't like....Branding people as you do, calling them Bigots, swearing in the forums is not acceptable yet you continue, so farewell.

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 4:31 AM

This is another manipulation. You say that you are infallible because if I your bad this only means that it is my fault. Here is what philosophy of science says about such sophistry:

(K.Popper):
Hegel's method of superseding Kant, therefore, is effective, but
unfortunately too effective. It makes his system secure against
any sort of criticism or attack and thus is dogmatic in a very
peculiar sense, so that I should like to call it a "re-inforced
dogmatism ". (It may be remarked that we find such re-inforced
dogmatism embodied in various dogmatic systems.)

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 4:39 AM

Actually, being an atheist is not a religion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc Atheists expose the religion dogmas but they are not bigots, despite religous men try to convince us. This is another sing of your religious behaviour.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 4:48 AM

Did I say I was an Atheist? No, don't think so, while I do appreciate the laughs you provide, you are becoming a bit of a bore...If you simply are looking to criticize someone about any old thing that pops into your head suggest you go look in a mirror - that person would be a prime candidate for you to criticize

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 4:57 AM

Who did say that I said you is an Atheist? You do not understand my argument: I expose that you use a bigotry argument. Claiming that "people who call other people bigots bigots are bigots themselves" is a dogmatic sophistry. I spotted that you use it. I respond that this is a wrong argument. I may call other bigots and stay an atheist. This is what I say. You just do not understand simple things. Meantime, you hurry to respond and translate your thoughts. Disregarding what people tell you is what I call the dogmatic thinking.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 5:48 AM

I don't understand your so called 'argument' because you have none. When people are ranting and raving and not making sense - and blaming everything on other people, calling them names, and offering idiotic arguments it reminds me of a 3 three year old....generally most kids are at least somewhat mature by 5 or so, how old are you? You are the one who thinks in a dogmatic manner, you are making assertions when A) you don't even know how something works and B) condemning any and everyone who tries to explain something to you - You have decided that you are right and everyone else is wrong...period....

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 6:36 AM

The fact that you are blind does not mean that your opponent has no point. You have decided that you are right and everyone else is wrong...period....

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 6:56 AM

Now repeating, paraphrasing what I say, that's about the level of a 2 year old, you're going backwards there mate   (again though thanks for the laughs, your responses are a very popular read, you're amusing a number of us now   )

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 9:32 AM

What you now say is a direct insult without any reference to anything at all. Insulting is very funny, I know, for morons.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 9:39 AM

Nothing needed for reference, I'm letting other read your babbling and they find it hilarious also  

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 9:41 AM

It is not difficult to guess that your company is not different from you.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 10:08 AM

There you go 'assuming' once again - talking when you have no idea of what you are saying...... Because actually my company (actually both of them, I have a systems consultancy as well as a home remodeling business) are me so yes they are the same, as far as the forums go, I'm a volunteer (am thinking of becoming a stand up comedian, can just stand up there and tell stories about people like you and how you go on and on and never make a single substantial statement.

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 10:13 AM

Blaming that others have no substantial statement is normal for people like you. The thieves are known to be the first who alarm about a theft. I have told you that ignoring points of your opponents does not make you right or nullifies the point they had.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 10:58 AM

The problem with that is you have yet to make a valid point about anything, and I don't consider you as an opponent, just a distraction, an amusing one, but still a distraction, though better than a cloud of mosquitos

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 11:03 AM

You ignore the argument, say that there is none, and, based on that say that you can troll. This is an unbeatable approach to troll anybody. You is a master of this business. Or simply an idiot.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 11:14 AM

What argument? Been asking that all along - you haven't presented anything...after all the junk about 1333 and 1666, then changing the story to 133.3 and 166.6 which I've already pointed out is the Memory clock, not the freq, it still made no sense, I also pointed out that all DRAM in a given system runs at the same settings, you can't individualize what each stick runs at. You appear to be intent on rationalizing to the nth degree just to get someone to agree with you, and anyone who has a bit of common sense and knows a little about DRAM won't agree with you because you have no valid basis to la=y your claims - when people say you are wrong, you just continue to rationalize and rant and rave and sound like a small spoiled child

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 11:37 AM

That is right. In order to agree with somebody you should at least understand what they are talking about. But you did not even try. You started by telling that I have no idea how systems work and continued me informing unimportant things. Then you have claimed that I have no point at all. You just claimed. You did not make any attempt to elaborate any of my complaints. And finally, now, you surprise me that you was asking me all along? Claiming that I have no idea is opposite to asking. So, you ignored my points and, based on that trolled me with "you have no point". Dictated me that I have no idea and now troll me with a "fact" that is was asking me. Labelling me a child is a good crowning of your behaviour. When you despise somebody, you should give them a degenerative label. You is a master of sophistry.

BTW, everything what stand-up comedians do is RANTING! Stand up comedians scorn stupid things. They tell stories about the stupid things they spot around. They complain. This is a boring RANTING, as you call it and punish it. When sombody comes to forum with "Hey, I see a flow in that argument. Why do they unnotice my objection, when I specifically draw their attention to it many times?" Your answer is "watch you language", "All you do is ranting. You have not point". Now you say that you should go stand up comedy (to do ranting yourself). I suspected that bigots are two-faced people.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 16, 2013 11:51 AM

It was explained to you that you had no idea what you were talking about, and you didn't and still don't, by a few people that tried to explain it to you - you chose not to listen and took to swearing and throwing religion into your your so called argument - stand up comedy is often using real life instance to relate that are hilarious, like dealing with people like you - you have no valid points, you don't even know what you are/were referencing....but according to you - you are right! That's generally called a God complex, which you excel in, so congrats, go look in the mirror and talk to your only friend

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 16, 2013 7:29 PM

> It was explained to you that you had no idea what you were talking about

You have dictated that to me. It is I who explained. Explaining would look like


"you tell that this your argument was ignored. Yet, they address it here, look"

or

"you tell that memory is attached to the controller rather than another memory and this is much more important to test memories against specific controller. However, ..."

or

"you tell that attaching 1666 MHz memory to 1333 MHz memory better favours the performance than pairing matched specifications in one channel because of reduced capacitive load. However, you overlook .."

These are 3 points in my post. They can be disputed/explained. I did not ask to agree with them. You have not even noticed them, not to mention "explaining them." All your explanation contained in saying that 1. I have no idea and 2, my numbers, 1333 vs 1666 are not absolutely correct. Once, I have made clear that I am here to discuss the principle and concrete numbers do not matter, you decided that it is time to claim that I have points at all and returned to blind preaching about importance of testing sticks against each other, what I called "religious attitude" in my post and asked to refrain.

You cannot explain me anything when disregarding the key points that I ask. You say that I don't on the basis of competently ignoring the 3 points above. When you tell somebody that "they have no idea. period" without discussion of your opponent points, you do not explain/discuss anything, you just go fuck. Preaching your favorite thing, regardless what people ask and openly disregarding their question may work for others but when I ask for reason, I want the answer. As prof. Zain Navabi once mentioned, this distinguishes me from other students. Might be it is a childish behavior, but it is better than succumbing authority and opposite to what you attributed to me.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 17, 2013 12:33 AM

DRAM is complex, but can be quite simple - and yes numbers do matter - DRAM in of itself is a 64 bit device as seen my the MC - when running in dual channel it is seen by the MC as a single 128 bit device - thus each stick has to run with the same exact parameters as far as freq, base timings, secondary and even tertiary timings, as well as CR and voltage. And this applies to both channels in dual channel...what you propose is akin to taking a two cylinder engine and trying to run it effectively with two totally disparate spark plugs - it's not going run right

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 17, 2013 1:22 AM

You interpret what I say so loosely that this I do not recognize my speech. Thanks for the accuracy, that you pursuit.

Also, thanks for demonstrating your competence. The car engine and memory controller obviously have something in common but they also have immense differences and it is not clear what better applies here.

I do not understand why automechanics are chosen to moderate the tomshardware. All I see in your vague "simplification" is that you cannot/do not wish to discuss the substance. You could tell that directly, without the pretending metaphore, which proves nothing (otherwise, you should tell exactly which point of my post you address). Might be you simply do not have the competence to answer my questions (might be even to understand them) and look for excuses and preach things that you know but which do not contribute to my questions whatsoever. This time, however, you started the open lies.

At first, numbers do not matter when we discuss a general principle. The principle is a thing that applies to any numbers. Otherwise, you should tell why the numbers change the answer to my question. The only reason I hear so far is that you do not want to answer my questions and use the fact that I do not report frequences accurately is a good pretext to do that. Secondly, I actually have the multichannel board that operates its channels at different timings (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1688218/sticks-channel.html):

when I plug two such sticks into the same channel, I get 8-8-8 in
the overloaded channel. Other channels still operate at 7-7-7,

I did not hide this from you. I spread this information (information is something that is not known). I wanted the people to know about common misconceptions and modern memory controller capabilities. Despite of this, you keep spreading the false beliefes. You ignore the facts, call my references "making no sense" and use other sophistry. That is, you demonstrate the bigotry every time you open a mouth. You behave like you have a dogma that only identical modules can work together and only with fully identical settings and want to hide the fact that alternatives to this simple model are possible. Yes, the reality is different from your simple multicilinder metaphor.

In general you produce a lot of "information". However, all the infromation you spread is well known, occasionally wrong, and is always irreleveant to my questions (otherwise, you must show the connection and which part of my question you do answer). The information that you spread is not information but is misinfomrmation, intended to hide the true information (aka substance) and meaningful discussion. It is not surprising that you hate to hear about the bigots.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 17, 2013 1:31 AM

Can you provide screen shots of what you are saying - I'm thinking you are looking at the SPD info - which is simply suggested settings from the SPD of the sticks, not what they are running at

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 17, 2013 1:47 AM

Yes, please. Just do not tell that Thread dumps and PCI is also important

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 17, 2013 1:57 AM

That shows, as labeled - "Memory SPD" - the SPD is simply information about the sticks not what they are running at - if you look in CPU-Z in the Memory tab it will show what each stick is actually running at

  http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=10565

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 17, 2013 2:11 AM

Frequency is the same for all sticks, 533 DRAM and 2130 the bus.

The timings are reported from BIOS. 8/8/8+7/7/7+7/7/7 is the bios report. CPU-z says that my memory operates in triple channel. That is, 888 works it triple channel with 777, as opposed to your claim.

What are you trying to say? I did no claim that channel frequencies are different, ok? I feel it is what you want to twist. Be concrete. I know the difference between frequency, e.g. 1333 MHz, and timings, e.g. 7-7-7.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 17, 2013 5:45 AM

Never mind, you simply try and keep changing what you are saying, twisting things around, no matter what anyone says you will just change things yet again, maybe start saying the color of the heatsinks will play into it....tired of wasting my time, and the humor has become somewhat pathetic - am closing down the responses

From: Valentin Tihomirov

Sent on: December 17, 2013 10:05 PM

> Never mind, you simply try and keep changing what you are saying, twisting things around

What exactly? So far, you have connected no of your generalizations to what I say. You have just sucked. And what you do? You do interpret my attempt to prevent your twisting as my attempt to twist. You is a dirty brainless conscienceless bastard.

> humor has become somewhat pathetic

Yes, you are in real ass, your wrong stereotype was exposed, it was broken and this means that

> am closing down the responses


Your car engine model fucked up because in real car, all cilinders drive the single rotor. The rotor synchronizes the cylinders. Yet memories store different pieces of data in different channels. This means that it is stupid to synchronize the assesses and PC designers struggle to decouple the channel dependencies. This is what your model does not admit and fucks up. The fact with 888 running simulatneously with 777 proves that. By saying that I twist, you cover your false claim about timing dependencies. You is a dirty religeous bastard.

Your manner of reasoning "DRAM is complex, therefore, I am right", followed by "DRAM is simple, therefore, I am right" can persuade only ignorant person.

From: Tradesman1

Sent on: December 17, 2013 11:59 PM

There's an old saying "Ignorance is bliss", so it would appear you are a very, very Blissful individual