From: Peter Olcott on 13 Apr 2010 00:54
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in
> The nice thing is that it ups my posting count (and
> Hector's, and you've got quite a few
> also). But if Microsoft just counts posting frequency,
> without looking at content, this
> might be the first AI program to get an MVP award!
I thought that there was this sort on incentive.
From: Peter Olcott on 13 Apr 2010 01:08
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in
> See below...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:43:38 -0500, "Peter Olcott"
> <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>>The scheduler pulls off the priority sorted jobs in
>>order. Since there are no high priority Jobs the scheduler
>>begins a 3.5 minute low priority job. Immediately
>>this a high priority job arrives. After the 3.5 minute job
>>completes, the scheduler begins the high priority job that
>>has now exceeded its real-time threshold by a factor of
> That's why I gave you the priority-inversion-prevention
> algorithm, which is if you have N
> handlers you never dispatch more than K < N large jobs,
> which means that you have (N-K)
> threads to handle the fast-turnaround jobs. But I guess
> you missed that part.
> And no thread priority fiddling is required to make this
> work correctly!
Then how is it that the high priority jobs would always get
at least most of the CPU?
> Pretty straightforward, easy to implement, easy to tune;
> you decide what value K needs to
> be to meet normal requirements. Simple, straightorward,
> easy to implement. What's wrong
> with it?
The fact that I still can't see any improvement than my less
complex strategy, and it still seems that my less complex
strategy would have superior performance.
>>I can neither prove nor disprove dogma, (there just isn't
>>enough to work with) I can only work with reasoning.
> Sadly, if I went back to my books on queueing theory, and
> found the appropriate formulae,
> I seriously doubt you could comprehend them. I suggest
> that if you think your approach is
> superior, you are guilty of presenting dogma, and you have
> not proven it, nor have you
> presented any sound reasoning to prove that it works
> better than SQMS.
Yes and if you don't still remember the details of this
there is no way to explain these details. Could you maybe
try to find me a good link, I don't know enough about this
stuff to know a good link from a bad one.
> Something about pots and kettles comes to mind here,
> something about color....
> You are guilty of the same issues you are accusing me of.
> You are using false assumptions
> and perhaps the I Ching to "prove" MQMS is necessarily
> better than SQMS, and your only
> evidence seems to be "I'm a superb designer". I, at
> least, have experience in queueing
> theory and realtime embedded systems.
I have seen no evidence showing that SQMS is better that how
I implemented MQMS. Perhaps there are certain design
principles and heuristics that tend to show this. I am
totally unaware of these. Whenever I use any design
heuristics or principles I endeavor to always find the
reasoning behind them, that way I never apply them in the
cases where they do not apply. When I do find this
reasoning, I tend to discard the heuristic and principle in
favor of this reasoning.
>>If they work better then there is a reason why they work
>>better if there is not a reason why they work better then
>>they don't work better. Please provide the reasoning. As
>>soon as I see sound reasoning that refutes my view, I
> You have already pointed out that you have not read my
> careful analysis, so why should I
> reproduce it here? I wrote it once already.
I never saw it and there was a whole day that I ignored half
of your messages because I was so annoyed with you. Now that
I think that I may have inferred the root cause of this
annoyance, there is no reason for this annoyance to continue
Could you find this message and tell me the time and date? I
will read it.
From: Hector Santos on 13 Apr 2010 01:17
Joe, lets not give this troll any further reason for living here.
Ignore him. Obviously he is here because the Linux people already
blew him off so lets do the same. I blocked his mail with Thunderbird
and so far its working! I don't see him any more! The urge to jump in
and comment on another moronic statement is gone! :)
Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
> The nice thing is that it ups my posting count (and Hector's, and you've got quite a few
> also). But if Microsoft just counts posting frequency, without looking at content, this
> might be the first AI program to get an MVP award!
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:29:31 -0400, "Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Live and learn. Which leads to the questions, if you are going to design
>>> for Linux, then;
>>> Why are you trolling in a WINDOWS development forum?
>>> Why are you here asking/stating design methods that defies logic
>>> under Windows when YOU think this logic is sound under UNIX?
>>> If you are going to design for Windows, then you better learn how to
>>> follow WINDOWS technology and deal with its OS and CPU design guidelines.
>> You haven't yet figured out the riddle of Peter Olcott despite the repeated
>> clues? When you look back at the posts after I tell you his little secret,
>> it should become obvious and you should have one of those "Ah-ha!" moments.
>> The truth of the matter is that there is no OCR technology at play here at
>> all but rather AI technology. The secret is that Peter Olcott is really an
>> AI program that is being entered to win the Loebner Prize.
>> Let's look at the evidence again shall we?? Peter originally posed a
>> question to the group. From each of the answers he recieved, his follow-up
>> questions contained an amalgam of the original question and the resulting
>> answer. In each case, the mixture could be made and perceived by humans to
>> be reasonably logical because the original respondant had already considered
>> the answer in the context of the original question. This is pretty common
>> with many Turing Test style programs (mixture of question and response). I
>> recall some of the games that I had back in the 80's that used this
>> technique to appear intelligent.
>> This also explains the magical morphing requirements and the circular
>> reasoning being used quite nicely. Each time a post was made by the Peter
>> Olcott program, it would incorporate the suggestions from previous posts by
>> members of this group. The interesting thing about this particular Turing
>> Test program is that if the group reached a consensus on a particular
>> approach, the program would respond *against* the suggestion even after many
>> attempts were made to justify the suggestion thus generating even more posts
>> to the affirmative that the program could respond to. The architecture of
>> this part of the "personality" was sheer genius because it simulates the
>> average clueless programmer who has no motivation and below average
>> Another clue must be the way the Turing Test program (Peter Olcott) fishes
>> for additional posts by always responding to *every* post on *every* branch
>> of a thread. The Turing Test program must make sure that its posts are the
>> leaf on every branch in order to ensure that *someone*, *somewhere* will
>> respond to it. Without responses, the machine is simply in wait state which,
>> of course, means that the program has failed to convince humans that there
>> is a human intelligence behind the posts.
>> I had originally thought that the real "programmer" would come forth on
>> April 1st and identify him/herself, but apparently the deception has gone so
>> swimmingly well that testing will continue so long as you and Joe post to
>> the threads. ;-)
>> In an effort to find out who the real programmer was behind the Peter Olcott
>> Turing Test machine, I consulted with the internet anagram server at
>> http://wordsmith.org/anagram/ and typed in the name Peter Olcott in the
>> hopes that the real culpret had simply tried to mask his identity. The
>> responses included:
>> Elect Pro Tot
>> Creep Lot Tot
>> Crop Let Tote
>> Cop Letter To
>> The bottom line is that while we may not know the true identity of the
>> programmers behind the Peter Olcott hoax, it is possible that the internet
>> anagram program may have come up with an appropriate response to his
>> spamming of a Windows newsgroup with questions that are to be implemented on
>> Linux... send a letter to a cop!
>> PS: Can we all get back to real MFC programs and real MFC programmers now???
> Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
> email: newcomer(a)flounder.com
> Web: http://www.flounder.com
> MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: DanB on 13 Apr 2010 01:46
Pete Delgado wrote:
> You haven't yet figured out the riddle of Peter Olcott despite the repeated
> clues? When you look back at the posts after I tell you his little secret,
> it should become obvious and you should have one of those "Ah-ha!" moments.
And maybe Peter is just running surrogate? Data mining...
I have dumped much of this thread, just a lot of 'mine is bigger'.
You may be right, but for the wrong target, yet right...
A human helper for the 'target' may be what this is all about. As I
recall, Peter is an old participant here. (My bad if that ain't so.)
But this is not the Peter I remember....
So curious is this thread as I read what I can, as 'real world'
solutions have been made long ago.
From: Peter Olcott on 13 Apr 2010 10:34
"DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message
> Pete Delgado wrote:
>> You haven't yet figured out the riddle of Peter Olcott
>> despite the repeated
>> clues? When you look back at the posts after I tell you
>> his little secret,
>> it should become obvious and you should have one of those
>> "Ah-ha!" moments.
> And maybe Peter is just running surrogate? Data mining...
> I have dumped much of this thread, just a lot of 'mine is
> You may be right, but for the wrong target, yet right...
> A human helper for the 'target' may be what this is all
> about. As I recall, Peter is an old participant here. (My
> bad if that ain't so.)
> But this is not the Peter I remember....
> So curious is this thread as I read what I can, as 'real
> world' solutions have been made long ago.
> Best, Dan.
I have been here for many years. I am more ignorant of the
topics being discussed now then prior topics in the past.
Most of the prior topics in the past have been of the form
what is the MFC syntax to do X? A question where a simple
verifiably correct factual answer can be provided, thus no
room for debate or judgment calls.
In the case where there is huge room for debate and judgment
calls I must have sound reasoning to verify the truth of the
answer and the precise degree that the answer is
appropriate. I had thought that people here continued to
infinitely dance around providing this reasoning only to
Now it seems that the real reason is that they simply forgot
what the original reasoning was, and instead use heuristics
and design principles as their measure of validity. They
danced around providing the reasoning to avoid the
embarrassment of divulging that they simply forgot this