~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want to get rid of this annoying header, AND
help stop flooding and other abuse?
See: http://216.154.65.55/misc/ublockem.html.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <woger.steps.in.another.one@houston-hunks.com>
Stagger Backpedal Boy Lee <SLee@houston-hunks.com> when caught 
with his pants down whined:

That lisp is really showing ignorant Backpedal Boy......

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:54:32 +0000 (UTC), Secwet Woger

Poor Backpedal Boy, in addition to his brain tumor, he has a 
terminal case of harelip.

<anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:

: Here's one of Backpedal Boy's other posts where he makes an ass
: of himself, an everyday occurance:
:
: From: Martin <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd>
: Organization: ml*
[126 lines snipped]

Yeah, I'd run away from your embarrassment If I was you too, 
Backpedal Boy.
And, where ARE those articles you "claim" you've had "published."
<guffaw!> But you never seem to cite those articles or where 
they can be found.
And what about all the Google diving you do for _my_ posts, 
Backpedal Boy?

AS usual, you don't back up what you say...........

<restore what Backpedal Boy ran aweay from>

From: Martin <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd>
Organization: ml*
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) 
Gecko/20030630
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.sci.seti
Subject: Re: Is this time ok?
References: <UGbqb.309637$9l5.60412@pd7tw2no> 
<bodp7m$bea$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl> 
<09807787.55477644@houston-hunks.com> 
<cs3lqvkq16loh3ituleutud0jfn7a9fk69@4ax.com> 
<878125677.7545464722@houston-hunks.com> 
<e8Dqb.629$QC3.1979@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> 
<878125677.7545464744@houston-hunks.com> 
<JdOqb.896$JH3.499@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net> 
<878125677.7545464788@houston-hunks.com>
In-Reply-To: <878125677.7545464788@houston-hunks.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.1.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <VLLrb.1616$gS4.630@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:46:30 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.108.73.51
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net 1068468341 81.108.73.51 
(Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:45:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:45:41 GMT


Stagger Lee wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:45:39 +0000, Martin <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote:
: Stagger Lee wrote:
: > On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:08:50 +0000, Martin <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote:
: > : Stagger Lee wrote:
: > : [...]

 [...]

: >
: > I am amazed at your own arrogantly profound ignorance.
: >
: > :
: > : However, to be brief:
: > :
: > : 'Hyperthreading' is an Intel marketing term for a very old trick of
: > : keeping the multiple internal CPU functional units simultaneously busy.
: > :
: > : To the OS, the one physical CPU appears to be two distinct CPUs. Hence,
: > : if only one process is running, the best reported utilisation is 50% (or
: > : rather, 100% for one of the two hyperthread CPUs).
: > :
: > : You can run a second process to keep the second 'hyperthread' CPU busy.
: >
: > That just isn't right.  I don't know where this non-cited information
: > was obtained, but my original citation (look it up in the thread
: > yourself) explains why the *entire* CPU will be devoted to the task at
: > hand, contrary to your incorrect explanation.  It is an intrinsic part
: > of the hyperthreading algorithm that the virtual CPU units all
: > coalesce into one unit when that is the optimal configuration.
: > Hyperthreading *does not* split the CPU up into some minimum number of
: > virtual CPUs which is larger than one.
: [...]
:
:
: Insults aside. You are very misinformed.
:
: This non-cited information is elementary Computer Science!
:

Better tell Intel about your theories.  From the Intel Technology Journal,
Vol 6, Issue 1:

"A third goal was to allow a processor running only one active
software thread to run at the same speed on a processor with
Hyper-Threading Technology as on a processor without this capability.
THIS MEANS THAT PARTITIONED RESOURCES SHOULD BE RECOMBINED WHEN ONLY
ONE SOFTWARE THREAD IS ACTIVE." [Emphasis mine.]

As I said, the hyperthreading algorithm is implemented intellegently
enough that the processor does not sit there with half of its
architecture inactive when it has only a single task (thread) to
process.  As my first citation indicated, and AS THE INTEL LITERATURE
STATES, the virtual processors become one and do not remain partitioned.

[...]


All of the above snippets describe various aspects of the same 
thing
from a slightly different perspective. All are partially correct
depending on context, and some are just poorly described.

Shame you don't have any understanding of what the words 
describe, or
what the descriptions represent.

You're welcome to stay lost and doomed in your shallow blind 
impatient
arrogance.


Or... You could _try_ communicating...

Martin



--
----------   Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today.
- Martin -   Teach him how to fish and he won't bother you for 
weeks!
- 53N 1W -   - Anon
----------

<end resrtore>

First you demonstrated that you don't really understand SWR,

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA....You proved you didn't know a gaoddamned thing 
about SWR when you blathered:

Stupid Lee (Stagger Lee@ houston-hunks.com) provides yet another 
example of his idiocy in
<way.way.beyond.woger@houston-hunks.com>:
"That's because transmission line loss and SWR are not directly 
related."

and now
you want to discuss hyperthreading?  [At this point, I should insert a
"MUA HAHAHAHA!" just to make Woger feel at home.]

You're already off to a bad start, because you obviously can't read
what's directly in front of you.

Someone who presented himself as an expert on hyperthreading was <backpedaling excuses and more of Backpedal Boy's ignorance>

Somebody presented that you were in essence, rehashing the same 
points and trying to present them as your own. I agree it is a 
shame you have no comprehension skills and that you are a 
complete, utter, fucking imbecile.
And speaking of sticking to things, you need to concentrate on 
actually learning something before you open your ignorant mouth, 
like when you "claimed" Eric Clapton wrote a "song" about some 
obscure ham radio operator's wife in

Fuckup Stagger Lee <SLee@houston-hunks.com>  proves he's as 
ignorant of music as he is in everything else when he utters the 
following stupidity in <k8mn.is.a.god@houston-hunks.com>:
"Eric Clapton even wrote a song about Leila!"

When EVERYBODY knows (except you, obviously) that "Layla" (or as 
YOU spell it "Leila") was written about Clapton's attraction for 
Patty Boyd Harrison, George Harrison's then wife,  who later 
divorced George Harrison and married Eric Clapton.
Even when the Eric Clapton website proved what I said was correct
http://www.ericclaptonfaq.com/questions/Do_any_of_the_songs_that
_Clapton_recorded_or_performed_live_have_an_interesting_story_be
hind_them.htm
you stubbornly clinged to your ignorance as fact.

Or how about when YOU "claimed ther was an "International Radio 
License" issued by the UN or that the Marshall County, Alabama 
ARES website was the one for Marshall County, WV.

"FUCKUP Lee" <SLee@houston-hunks.com> geography idiot and 
imbecile fucks up
as usual when he thinks Marshall County, Alabama
and Marshall County, West Virginia are the same place in message 
<afvsc2$6aa$1@pita.alt.net>:
" Then what is at http://www.geocities.com/skywarncanwarn/ 
doodle brain?
It sure looks like the Marshall County ARES, and it even has a 
place to
send email."

As usual you are talking out of your wide, ample fatass.
--
Stagger Backpedal Boy Lee who claims to be an expert on 
everything electronic/computer
reveals why he's such an "expert" because he plagiarizes from 
other sources in <woger.steps.in.another.one@houston-hunks.com>:
"I finally quoted the Intel literature..."