mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: NorthernAmerican
User Name: NorthernAmerican
Forum Rank: Newbie
Gender: None Specified
Joined: Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Last Visit: Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:02:07 PM
Number of Posts: 14
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Register vs. Cache
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:14:50 AM
Thanks everyone!

RamufAznag wrote:

So, in your example, the cache would possibly be used if you were to execute the same operation regularly (say, 1 million times in a row) or use the same operand(s) on different operations (again) regularly. Registers, on the other hand have to be used every single time an operation occurs.

So a register is used... even when using a cache? (I'll assume that 'executing the same operation regularly' is an operation and thus requires a register.) It makes sense that a register(s) would have to be used so often if they are so close to the processor.

peaty wrote:

A register is physically and logically part of the computer's processor (CPU or core). Machine instructions typically operate directly on registers.

Is a register a type of RAM? I know not in the way that my 204-pin 1066Mhz DD3 4GB RAM is 'RAM', but in the way that it is random access memory - albeit very small. ("Word-sized") I understand it wouldn't be included in 'RAM' when we're talking about it (my understanding is that registers are tiny)

peaty wrote:

A cache is logically part of the computer's memory (RAM), although the lowest level (L1) may be physically located on the CPU chip

This is very helpful. Where are L2 and L3 generally located then? (Let's say on the average new desktop computer)

peaty wrote:

RAM is shared between processors, but registers are private to each one.

This is also helpful...
how many registers does a typical 'single core' processor have (if those even exist anymore.)
Just 1?
And would a dual core have 2? and quad 4, and 6core 6, etcetcetc

PS: don't make fun of my RAM. example.. my Mac is from 2009 and don't have money to invest in a new one so just ordered this particular piece of RAM today... Boo hoo!

Topic: I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 12:21:52 AM
Daemon wrote:
I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Jack London (1876-1916)

Neil Young wrote:

"It's better to burn out than to fade away."

(From the song 'Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black)'

Neil Young wrote:

"The rock'n'roll spirit is not survival. Of course the people who play rock'n'roll should survive. But the essence of the rock'n'roll spirit to me, is that it's better to burn out really bright than to sort of decay off into infinity. Even though if you look at it in a mature way, you'll think, "well, yes ... you should decay off into infinity, and keep going along". Rock'n'roll doesn't look that far ahead. Rock'n'roll is right now. What's happening right this second. Is it bright? Or is it dim because it's waiting for tomorrow - that's what people want to know. And that's why I say that."

Jack London... rock 'n' roll.

Just saying you'd rather live life loud... however you understand 'glorious' or 'beautiful'... pour yourself into every 'right here, right now'... love every moment because the present is all you really have.

You can be safe and calculated and you may just live to be older, have a better sleep at night, have a tidy little house one day, a big, organized plan, and a neat little schedule. You can always get 8 hours of sleep and have lunch made for work.

Or you can drench yourself in the present and live as a 'superb meteor'...

On a side note... I think there is a way to minimize the feeling of 'regret for not doing something', while still being able to do some of those more useful 'sleepy and permanent planet' things.

There's not too much 'meteoric' about waking up late, having to skip the shower, and lumbering into work hung over; 3 days in a row; multiple times a month...

(p.s. If you have children and still want to 'live like a meteor'... it's admirable but there are more important things to worry about.)

Topic: Register vs. Cache
Posted: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:11:24 PM
Hey everyone,

I'm having a bit of trouble making a distinction between these two computer components.
I know processors have a register and things called L1, L2, L3 caches. (L1 is closest to the processor)
But my understanding is that these cache's close to the processor are used to temporarily store frequently used data.
I'm trying to truly understand the difference but it seems both can act as sort of 'scratch pads' while the CPU processes stuff.
Just to clarify - I'm not referring to a cache in a browser, where images etc are saved - this is a little more clear to me.
What are some of the physical and functional differences between these two?


6. (Computer Science) computing one of a set of word-sized locations in the central processing unit in which items of data are placed temporarily before they are operated on by program instructions


3. a piece of computer hardware or a section of RAM dedicated to selectively storing and speeding access to frequently used program commands or data.

So let's say a computer is adding 2+2 (10+10 if we want to use binary Angel ) would the Cache even be involved?

I'm missing something ( a lot of things?) Thanks hope someone can help!

Topic: "not much snow", but not "much snow"
Posted: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:02:47 PM
I'm not sure, but I have much interest in finding out (hehe not sure if that works)
I'm just talking out the idea eni8ma because I'm as confused as you about the exact reason.

I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that 'snow' is not singular. Whereas 'debate' can be singular
Snow is a mass noun i think... like you don't say "We ate a snow".
But you can say "We had a debate".
You can even say "We ate a debate" as you would "We ate an apple." (though it would require some weird superpowers to actually do such a thing)

Let's use RICE as a comparison...

Is there much rice?
No, there is not much rice.
There is too much rice.
Much of the rice has been eaten by now.

I think it has to do with singular/mass nouns thing.

I'd say "considerable amount of snow" over "a lot of snow"...

Topic: conserve today, preserve tommorow
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:31:51 PM
Hey mcurrent - i'll do my best to answer here.
The words are VERY similar in meaning - I think the 'today' and 'tomorrow' aspect are the most telling signs.
Many nations have a politically CONSERVATIVE party,
but I've never seen a PRESERVATIVE party.
(insert joke about old ladies pickling...)

Okay, so based on how verbs work, I'm going to assume that both these words are in their INTRANSITIVE VERB.
That means there are no DIRECT OBJECTS.

You can CONSERVE energy by turning off the lights when you're not home (Energy is a DIRECT OBJECT - the CONSERVING is acting on the ENERGY)
You can't literally CONSERVE today, as today isn't really a thing. (Unless you have a new technology can trap SPACE-TIME...Think )
But you can (plan ways to) CONSERVE (various things in your life) today.

You can PRESERVE milk by keeping in the fridge. (Milk is a direct object - you are preserving the MILK by keeping it cold.)
You can't literally PRESERVE tomorrow (Again... Tomorrow is the future... not a real physical 'object').
But you can (assume that if you plan things correctly) PRESERVE (and have enough supplies, be happy, etc until) tomorrow (and into the future).

Because of the URL (energy advantage) and the subheadings ("Burnbrae Farms Road To Sustainability"), this article must refer to being an environmentally friendly business

So let's go with the definitions...


To economize: tried to conserve on fuel during the long winter.

Conserve seems to mean 'to use less' or 'use efficiently', to maintain what you already have or 'get the most out of what you already have.'


1. To treat fruit or other foods so as to prevent decay.

So preserve seems to imply actions to ensure something remains in a good state for use in the future.

You can conserve energy by turning the lights off today.
You can preserve a fruit by treating it in some way, so it will still be good to eat next week.

So my answer to your question, mcurrent is:

The difference is that conserving seems to act on things you already have.
You're using energy today - but you can conserve it by using it less.
Preserving something seems to imply more 'specifically so it will be there tomorrow'.
You're preserving fruit today - so you can use it tomorrow.

The point is:

IF we (Canadians, North Americans, humans, etc) make sure to limit how much resources we use today (conserve)
so we can survive and thrive into the future (preserve).

Topic: the proper use of "kindly"
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:01:09 PM
I've worked in customer service with immigrants for whom English is a second or third language.
I've noticed they use 'kindly' in customer service e-mails, inter-department requests, etc - almost exclusively text based communication.
I'm wondering if it's a less 'presumptuous' way of saying 'please' - when you don't have the important semantic information that comes with audible qualities like tone, emphasis, etc, the fine distinction is important.
(They were all very polite but perhaps when you learn English as a second language, the 'command' connotation of 'please' made them avoid using it?)

Maybe it's just me, but 'kindly' seems less likely to be taken as an order, or demand. It sounds friendlier.

"Kindly process a credit of $43.50 for the customer. She says she requires it by Friday."
"Please process a credit of $43.50 for the customer. She says she requires it by Friday."

I also think it can be a more concise way of saying something like:

"Hey I was wondering if you could send me those demos we spoke about on Tuesday?"
"Kindly send me the demos we spoke about on Tuesday."
"Please send me the demos we spoke about on Tuesday."

"Would you be able to complete that form and send it to me?"
"Kindly complete the form and send it to me."
"Please complete the form and send it to me."

The 'kindly' version sounds more... kind/polite than 'please' Think
Topic: A speaker
Posted: Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:31:25 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

That sounds like a good explanation, to me.

It is not always true - there are other methods. The differences are mostly in the mechanical engineering, not the electrical bits.

In some the coil is held stationary, and the permanent magnet is attached to the cone.
In others, there is no permanent magnet, just a lump of iron (not so sensitive, I think).
In a telephone earpiece, the speaker is just an electromagnet and a flat steel disk (a diaphragm not a cone) the magnet attracts the disk and releases it. (Awful tone and sensitivity)

The idea is very much the same though.

Thank you! I guessed that there must be different types of speaker engineering, but if this accounts for the 'traditional' speaker, I'm set. I figure start with the basic before moving on to the exceptions.

Topic: Word that means anger born of guilt
Posted: Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:34:49 PM
Good question.
As other posters have said, the lumbering psychoanalytic terms seem to be the only ones that (accurately) express what this person is doing.
Though I think when someone says 'They started blaming me', I get the impression that the 'blamer' is guilty. I sense negative/shamed connotations with the word 'blame'.
In the courtroom, we say things like 'accused' and 'charged' over 'blamed'.
When you said 'jumps from his vehicle' 'screamed' 'fault'... it sounds like he is looking for a scapegoat.

1. a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

I've heard 'scapegoating' before... though it's not perfect, I think it's close. I sense a more 'formal' quality with 'scapegoating' - more menacing/scheming.

Topic: A speaker
Posted: Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:47:08 PM
*I'm posting this here as I've seen non-language related tech/science posts in here from time to time. If this post falls outside of the topic, I apologize.*

I want to know if my explanation of a speaker is accurate - I'm not as much worried about grammar/vocabulary as I am knowing I understand the (basic) operation of speakers.

All sound is made up of waves caused by matter vibrating.
A speaker contains 3 main components - a permanent magnet, an electromagnet(coil), and a cone (connected to the coil)
When an electrical signal (audio data in electrical form) passes through the electromagnet(coil), it's magnetic field fluctuates (back and forth) with that electrical signal.
The permanent magnet has a magnetic field but unlike the electromagnet(coil), it remains constant.
The permanent magnet is held in place (stationary) and as it's magnet field interacts with the coil.
The coil vibrates from this 'opposites attract' type action - vibrating towards and away from the permanent magnet.
This movement vibrates the cone, projecting an 'audible copy' of the original signal.

Topic: to work upon appetite
Posted: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:14:04 PM
Yes - I believe Thar answered this well.

The metaphor here is that APPETITE is a THING of which there is a QUANTITY that can be measured.

When I woke up today, I ate breakfast. After eating my breakfast, my APPETITE (hunger) was zero. (0)

After I shoveled snow for myself and my neighbors, my APPETITE went UP - my APPETITE level is now 9.

In your example, Dr. Koray, the cat has been hunting and this 'working' (expending energy) has increased the cat's APPETITE. (The cat has worked UP his APPETITE (hunger).)