Do you use any computer based tool for doing project layout?

I'll get roasted for this, but it seems to me Krenov made a career out of one medicine cabinet. A very nice cabinet and one I wish I'd done, but the same one over and over. Variations on a theme. Same as some authors, James Patterson comes to mind, write the same book over and over.

Reply to
LDosser
Loading thread data ...

GE? The Datanet 30?

Reply to
LDosser

Used to Stand on the wires to flatten the mess out!! And, invariably, you'd need one more wire and everything left was too short ...

The prototype RCA 501 would sometimes come up with a write memory error and I complained to the tech. He wander back along the rows of cabinets with a ball peen hammer banging on doors and yelling "That fix it?" Riffling boards was another favorite for fixing glitches in those days.

Our year end stuff used to Print for a week. Just Print. What a BORE.

Reply to
LDosser

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Not true. The (add and subtract) operations use the same logic. Now, multiply and divide are a whole different kettle...

Reply to
keithw86

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:35:05 -0700, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:

To be sure. Openly taunting the Gods of Woodworking like that can get you into big trouble, too, Lob. RIP, my friend.

I think the cabinet was his principle incarnate, and that's what made him famous. People love it, and that's why his books became widely read. Yes, lovely cabinet, and I,too, wish I'd created it, but it wouldn't fit in my house style or lifestyle. David Marks puts out such a wide variety of articles that I could definitely see some of his stuff in my home...whenever I get off my arse and clean my shop. I have copies of some of his plans from when he first released them. I followed his TV program from start to finish. He's my hero. (You can keep your flannel-shirted Norms and polying Dresdners, TYVM.)

Do you feel that Maloof was a one-rocker pony, too?

Never having read him, I Amazoned his work and see that he may be a

3-trick pony. Alex Cross, Woman's Murder Club, and Maximum Ride. Or are they all riding the same pony?

-- Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn. -- John Muir

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Few creative artists stray from an established theme. It is the core of their creativity and they will strive to 'better' that core, offer variations, but mostly their art will have identity of some sort. A Moore sculpture is relatively easy to identify. Many painters have a 'style' (some even call theirs 'De Stijl'.) Krenov had a style. Van Gogh had a style and to have the nerve to say that he did the same painting over and over will get you shot at dawn.

How many careers revolve around One Hit? (Now they call them a 'signature song'.)

They're milking it, folks! Wouldn't you?

Reply to
Robatoy

FWIW, it was Krenov's book, "The Fine Art of Cabinet Making" that I was referring too. I've got them both on my "current reading" shelf and sometimes I alternate. In case anyone is would like to know, something that makes these books special is the Reverence with which he wrote about his craft. He also wrote with a sadness about the market for truly finely made furniture. He was a very thoughtful worker of wood.

Bill

Reply to
Bill

One could probably find a more respectful way to describe what is going on. You're basically casting a black shadow over All Artists...

Bill

Reply to
Bill

Economics suggests that as long as marginal gain exceeds marginal cost, there will be production. That's as simple as it gets.

Bill

Reply to
Bill

...as long as there is nothing else with a higher profit.

Reply to
keithw86

I viewed "forsaken opportunities" as part of the marginal cost. Not being a bonafide economist, I'm not sure whether this is allowed or not. One probably shouldn't mix micro and macro economics, no?

Bill

Reply to
Bill

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:48:57 -0400, the infamous Bill scrawled the following:

You can buy a copy for only about a grand on Amazon right now.

formatting link
-no- indication that they might be signed. Don't you hate blatant opportunists? These same 3 guys probably sold bottled water for $25 a pint after Katrina.

-- Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn. -- John Muir

Reply to
Larry Jaques

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:02:04 -0400, the infamous Bill scrawled the following:

A thorn, by any other name...?

Reply to
Larry Jaques

A fair deal is when both buyer and seller agree on a price. Amazon only shows the seller's side. They won't get any bites at that price.

There's a considerable difference between a non-essential book and the substance of life (h2o).

I'd take $900+ for my copy of 'The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking' if anyone offers ...

scott

Reply to
Scott Lurndal

There are waaaay too many people who call themselves artists. They do all the casting of the black shadows all by themselves.

Reply to
Robatoy

To which "waaay too many people" are you referring, and what black shadows are they casting? Let's nail down who you're PO'ed about! : )

Reply to
Bill

Yuppers. It simulated addition via table-look-up. I never programmed on one of those.

The 6000 series were nice machines, but they did have their quirks.

I, *unintentionally*, was responsible for one University machine crashing nearly _two_dozen_ times in approximately a 1-week period. This accounted for over 90% of all the crashes the machine experienced in two years.

It took a while to establish cause-and-effect, because *nobody* was willing to believe that that 'innocent little job" -- nothing more than 4 standard statements in the system control language -- could _possibly_ be the culprit. Until they ran it as the _only_ job in the system, and watched the machine crash.

The entire job consisted of: 1) request a tape mount 2) copy a file from disk to the tape 3) rewind the tape 4) copy from the tape back to a new file.

{_first_ time using a mag tape, and was checking my understanding of 'how things worked.}

The job _never_ got to step #4

The log file showed a bunch of strange messages, that -nobody- (I took it to the help desk, asking "what's thin mean?") understood. The help desk would puzzle over the job output, look at the 4 punch-cards, look back at the log, say "*OH*!! that was when the system crashed, why don't you try running it again." so I did, when I next had a chance. *sigh*

Experimentation showed that it was the "rewind the tape" command, itself, that was crashing the system.

I think the 6600 had Burroughs beat -- it could *lie* to you in the core- dump of a program that aborted due to a hardware exception (e.g. address out-of-range, using an 'infinite' operand {result of 'n' divided by zero} or using an 'indefinite' operand {result of dividing zero -by- zero}).

i.e., the program attempted to perform that illegal operation, generated a hardware exception which triggered a core dump, and there was *NO* evidence in _any_ register of the 'illegal' data that triggered the exception.

The systems programmers, just for fun, handcrafted a small assembler-code program that triggered _all_three_ of the possible exceptions, _and_ entirely covered it's tracks in the core-dump.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

I agree that subtraction, GENERALLY, "*is* adding the negative".

Now go back and read what _this_ machine actually did.

I repeat, this multi-million-dollar super-computer "couldn't ADD".

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

The early BCD burroughs machines (medium systems) would do BCD math on BCD fields that contained 'undigits' (i.e. 1010b - 1111b); needless to say, the results were unusual. Later versions of the architecture would 'catch a cow' (report Undigit Arithmetic Exception) if such a thing was attempted.

scott

Reply to
Scott Lurndal

Really? I've -never- seen an IC chip that did subtraction directly. 'Adder' chips, however, are common as dirt.

You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a bunch of inverters on the second input (and ignore the overflow).

True 'subtract' logic _is_ more complicated -- because the states in the operation table do not collapse as well. Addition: operand1 OR operand2 == 0 => zero result, zero carry operand1 XOR operand2 == 1 => one result, zero carry operand1 AND operand2 == 1 =? zero result, one carry

Subtraction: operand1 EQ operand2 => zero result, zero borrow operand1 EQ 1 AND operand2 EQ 0 => one result, zero borrow operand1 EQ 0 AND operand2 EQ 1 => one result, one borrow

To expound on the 'difference' between addition and subtraction, consider hardware that uses "ONES COMPLEMENT" arithmetic. Where the 'negative' of a number is represented by simply inverting all the bits of the positive value. e.g. the negative of "00000010" is "11111101".

Note well that in _THIS_ number representation scheme there are *TWO* bit- values that evaluate to -zero-. "0000000' is 'positive zero, and '11111111' is 'negative zero'.

It is *HIGHLY*DESIRABLE* that numeric computations which give a "zero" result, have the bit-pattern of 'positive zero'. If you 'subtract' '00000011' from '00000011' by 'complement and add', you get '00000011' +'11111100' =========== '11111111' which is 'negative zero'

if you do it by 'actual' subtraction '00000011' -'00000011' =========== '00000000' which is 'positive zero', the desired result

To get the 'desired result' of 'positive zero', using _adder_ circuitry, one has to have an additional stage that examines -every- result for the 'negative zero' bit-pattern, and inverts all the bits.

The 'does addition by complement and subtract' was *NOT* unique to the CDC machines. *every* machine that used "1's complement" arithmetic internally did things the same way.

There are advantages to "1's complement" over "2's complement", notably _all_ numbers have a positive and negative representation. (In 2's complement math, it is *NOT*POSSIBLE* to represent the complement of the 'largest possible negative negative number'. you _can_ have '-2**n' but only '+((2**n)-1)'. The disadvantage is that there are -two- values for 'zero'. But that's just 'nothing'.

On the other side of the fence, there _are_ advantages to "2's complement", notably that all numbers have a single _unique_ representation. The disadvantages are that there =is= a negative value that you cannot represent as a positive number. And 2's complement math _IS_ just a little bit slower -- by one gate time -- than 1's complement. As processor speeds became faster, that 'one gate time' difference became less significant, and the world settled on _not_ dealing with "+/- zero".

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.