On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:12:45 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Rick I have seen you carry on this way here over the years. You are not superior to everybody you argue against, and I see below you are keeping it up . This is not acceptable. You have been proven wrong most times in this email too.. Time to give it a break!. It's not I who have problems following things. "It's" was the historical possessive, as explained.

OMG! By "historical possessive" you mean this is how it was spelled some 300 years ago? We are living in the present, not the past. Do you write your s's like f's? You are absurd and you are trying to call me out? This is not about superiority. This is about you making mistakes and treating fallacies as facts. Own up to it or show me wrong. That's all it takes. Show me wrong.

> You know that GA, has talked about being approached to develop options to demonstrate (presumably based on the existing chip) but the client obviously went with another option. That is usually protected by NDA. As I rightly said in business, NDAs can cover these things, whatever type of NDA document, incase you were planning on going there.. If you have an axe to grind don't take it out on people. You also notice I, and others here, don't say GA did things contrary to what is known.

I never asked for anything covered by NDA to be discussed. I made the point that GA has not talked about any actual activity in sales (without mentioning who the other party might have been), showing they are essentially moribund. You countered with the NDA claim and we've been arguing over what an NDA would cover. Now you retreat to saying discussions with other companies would be covered by NDA which I've never disagreed with. In fact you seem to be acknowledging that GA has had no sales of any significant quantity which is what this started with. GA bought some minimum number of parts and would have crowed loudly had they sold enough to warrant another order from GA's supplier even if they could not discuss who the parts were sold to.

> > Now, I don't know about 'is' actually being used as a verb there, rather than a place (adjective, possession of place, which is obvious), and not traveling to the place, but where the place maybe in 5 years time. But then again "it's about" is that doing something (probably) or possessing something? But, "it's" originally used to be the possessive, and I still use it that way, and it is a form of usage. But the modern usage of "it's" is a corruption of the original word "ist". "Is" is the indicative mood of "Be", so maybe the be in maybe constitutes a verb in the adverb, do it's still makes sense.
>
> Wow! You really need to go back to school to get a proper education. "It's" is not possessive. "Its" is possessive. "Is" is the verb of the sentence.. Read the definition of "is" in a dictionary and it will explain how to properly use it. "Is" has a number of meanings, but as used above it is an intransitive verb, present tense third-person singular of be with a meaning as listed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be
>
> "It's" is discussed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it's
>
> "Its" is discussed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
> See my previous true statements about it.

Both of these links AGREE with me 100%. It's is a contraction of "it is" and its is the possessive form. 'Tis true that your use of it's as possessive is from many centuries ago.

> But, one says it with understanding.

Just not it's with understanding.

> That's definitely wrong. You said you have a one product company for some military application?

I never said anything about the military.

> You wouldn't know from that experience.

> It's the activities related to the client they keep safe, and their books otherwise, to attract more clients. Occasionally they shared something, and the client would have OK'd that.

Exactly. They are free to discuss their own information without revealing the nature of their contracts with their customers.

> So what is your military product you mentioned?

You are mistaken.

> You are arguing about it.

Indeed. I often do self destructive things like eat candy and ice cream.

> Failure is a classic subjective term. What's failure to one, is mild success to the other doing it. If I ran something like this, I would be depressed. There is just so much that could be done.

So what is the meaning of "is"?

> How do you get that from what I. I am writing? I know this is very limited, and what could have helped a bit.
> At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.
> With memory, that the 8086 didn't have, otherwise it would be close to 1000-4000 transistors per actual processor. I would dump the execution memory for the core hooked to external execute memory. Actually, were we talking about a piece of wire (ultra narrow) chip, 5ghz, maybe 8 core? That was talking about a modern process. So, it should fit.

There is no point in discussing the number of transistors. In a modern process the CPU itself has so few transistors as to be counted as zero. What is useful. is doing something of value with the transistors. The GA144 failed to do that. It would also fail in a more modern process. The design was a thought experiment that someone found money to put into silicon. It has gone no further. It is essentially dead, moribund, an ex-CPU and will be relegated to the halls of the extinct minor processors of the world. Chuck isn't working on new designs and I don't see much sign of anyone else carrying the torch in the same way. I think having invented a language gives one a certain gravitas that helps to sell unique ideas even when they are not well thought out.

> One thing I must say. Is the GA, can be thought as a chip where you can stick custom routines in each address space in a fab run, and use the processor memories as further customisations and working memory.

Which by itself is pointless. It has to be shown how to use this for applications. The two big limitations are the poor point to point communications and the tiny memory of each processor. Both because no one wrote any significant code before making the chip. Intel tests every chip they make with many, many lines of code in simulation long before laying out any mask sets. GA could have done this as well. Instead they wait for silicon and end up cobbling a few (very few) examples that impress no one. 10 Mbps Ethernet??? Why not just say, "we can't do useful Internet on this device". How do you do USB support? Add an MCU chip with Ethernet!

> Otherwise, it just gets close to being a software filter stage, and not much more fitting in the memories of the current end user chip. My old application, a projection video game, the single core with a main memory, would have been fine, as I was going do vector graphics, and use the array for calculations and limited 3D calculations. Very simple and close to what I needed. But, they didn't give one core that mount of power. I could sit here all day and talk about ways to improve the design, then I would be just giving away most of my secrets here for nothing. The issue was, they didn't do this. Why didn't they sit down and nut out some simple improvements like these?

You seem to misunderstand the F18A. It is a thought experiment, a concept not intended to do anything in particular, but an idea looking for a purpose. The GA144 is another thought experiment about cobbling together many small processors, again without trying to solve any problem. Talking about larger memory on a single processor offends both of these ideas.

> Rick, you are splitting hairs bringing in old 1 micron, and the speed and size compared to the current as if that was the only thing available. While, the move to 0.8 or 0.6, makes a huge difference to your arguments, not splitting hairs.

Sorry, but you were the one who brought up old tech, not me. 1 um vs. 0.8 um makes no difference, 0.6 still not much. Again, sorry. I will say again, the GA144 used a process that was 10 years old at the time. Now you want to use the latest and greatest process to compare to devices made over an entire decade.

> It would be reasonable to say the architecture fits at whatever speed and size and number of processors it could do back then. The only logical thing, is how it would compare to other chips back then. Didn't the mup get 80-100mips in 1990, so we could reasonably expect lower energy for a unit of speed. You would also know, that the reason 180nm was chosen, was the energy performance of the process, not just that it was an old process.

So the GA144 idea is not useful in a more modern process, yeah, I get that.

> Why are you ignoring new interfaces, why are you trying to justify on old standards only, and ignoring what is being talked about.

What are you babbling about??? I had said the GA144 could be used for an entirely software radio and you start saying it can't be because you pick applications where the data rate is too high. Bluetooth is a CURRENT application selling billions of chips every year. Why are you so frenetic about this?

> If it was me, I would have something better tomorrow. I advise you to look up the latest Bluetooth standards, as with many things here. The GA solution just can not be as good as a good ASIC version can be, for an new Bluetooth solution, or for many solutions. It is also obvious that what is being transmitted matters on the x18, as "modern high end communications" is beyond it, and Bluetooth is old. I'm talking about sports car tyre, and you throw in a wagon wheel in comparison.

Ok, fine. I agree that the GA144 is worthless.

> If you say Bluetooth is suitable, then do top end Bluetooth and prove it. You have the wealth and health and been talking about this for many years.

You are a pure bullshit artist.

> You are not following again. That's the talk back then, right or wrong back then. It uses virtually 0 power if not connected, so you shouldn't be trying to change what I said.

You are right. Static RAM has no purpose in this discussion and the GA144 is pointless without it.

> Stop! You know I said "probably" and you wrongly said I said 'must'. This is not on, and it's not the only time things have been changed to make a falsified argument.

Oh! You are using waffle words. Words that let you say something but allow you to deny that you said it. Fine.

> You are not being true again. Re-read things, it's talking about a type of memory capable of being put on a ASIC process. Please don't come and try to win and muddy everything, again. Whole irrelevant posts do not help, it's time to stop.

I don't see where you said anything to be muddied. Also, whatever you are using to access these groups does not manage attribution properly. So it's harder and harder to read the conversations.

> Then it probably pays to be silent, if you can't talk to others properly.

Very good advice when the person I'm discussing things with can't grasp the difference between facts and wishes.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209