RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,07:07   

It’s nothing short of hilarious that KeithS and others at ATBC that have obviously not done a single bit of gate level hardware design in their lives are talking about how simulations of gate logic intended to verify a design prior to laying copper need only be modeled with boolean logic. The poor ignoramuses know nothing about analog considerations such as supply rail loading, bus loading, propagation delays, and race conditions just to name a few show stoppers that aren’t covered in simple boolean logic.

Dave!  I'm glad to see that you're still popping in and reading this thread.

Here are several clues for you:

- "Simulations of gate logic" are only done with boolean logic.  What other kind of logic do you think is simulated?

- Contrary to your strawman, nobody here said that analog considerations aren't important.  They just aren't part of gate-level modelling.

- Telling a group of strangers that they have "not done a single bit of gate level hardware design in their lives" seems a little presumptuous.  You might want to ask us about our backgrounds before going out on a limb like that.

- Some people brag incessantly about their alleged knowledge.  Others demonstrate it by earning degrees and publishing.  Since you have no degrees and no publications, I would think you would try to demonstrate your brilliance in some other way instead of just applying the word genius to yourself and expecting us to believe it.

- Back when you were bragging about your physics knowledge, I gave you three problems to solve.  You never solved any of them.  Don't worry, I'll give you an opportunity to put substance to your boasting of "hardware design genius".

- You've given us no reason to believe that you're a smart as you claim to be, and many reasons to believe otherwise.  (The 2nd Law is violated by typing sentences?  The earth and sun form a thermodynamically closed system?  “Statistically unexpected results from a well characterized physical process” is a valid Dembskian specification?)  I think the only people fooled by your habitual bluffing are BarryA and yourself.

"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]