|
Sorry to correct you - albeit slightly - but I was referring to the initial entry of Barrett. In a later interview, Richard Wright said:
"One thing that really stands out in my mind, that I’ll never forget; I was going in to the the Shine On sessions. I went in the studio and I saw this guy sitting at the back of the studio, he was only as far away as you are from me. And I didn’t recognise him. I said, ‘Who’s that guy behind you?’ ‘That’s Syd.’ And I just cracked up, I couldn’t believe it… he had shaven all his hair off… I mean, his eyebrows, everything… he was jumping up and down brushing his teeth, it was awful. And, uh, I was in, I mean Roger was in tears, I think I was; we were both in tears. It was very shocking… seven years of no contact and then to walk in while we’re actually doing that particular track. I don’t know – coincidence, karma, fate, who knows? But it was very, very, very powerful.”
Waters described the meeting as:
“I had no idea who he was for a very long time.”
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously it can't work that way, precisely because of the reason you give. So why is this even a question?
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: So why is this even a question?
Not everyone understands how a multi-tasking operating system works. Certainly plenty of "developers" in Q&A would seem not to.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though they may not know how it works, it should be immediately obvious that the way OP implied it might work is definitely impossible, especially since OP gave an argument for why that is so.
If you prove something can't work, then obviously it doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: it should be immediately obvious
Yes, but only if you have an undestanding of how an OS works, which is not always obvious to students, and others who are learning.
|
|
|
|
|
No. I'm not saying it should be obvious how a multi tasking OS works.
I'm saying that it should be obvious that if you disprove a theory, that means it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you think scientifically.
"Intelligent Design" has it's adherents, despite being a load of old cobblers...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Not everyone understands how a multi-tasking operating system anything related to a computer works. Certainly plenty of "developers" in Q&A would seem not to
FTFY!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I didn't want to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
And I wish it wasn't true...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: "developers" in Q&A
A rare beast...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
EbolaHost wrote: (random fact: Pink Floyd's wish you were here was written not for someone who died ,but for an ex member who went insane)
Syd Barrett[^] was the driving force and one of the original members of Pink Floyd. He released 2 solo albums; The Mapcap Laughs and Barrett but they didn't go very well. I have The Mapcap Laughs and it is a very strange album.
Along with Antimatter and Dark Matter they've discovered the existence of Doesn't Matter which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever!
Rich Tennant 5th Wave
|
|
|
|
|
both of his solo records are great. and they've influenced a ton of artists over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
No wonder why...he was nuts !
|
|
|
|
|
Just to add to the context switching answer...
The thing to remember is the CPU can only do one thing at once... just really really fast. Running two apps at once or two threads in an app at once is simply a software construct in things like the Windows subsystem. Hardware doesn't care.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The thing to remember is the CPU can only do one thing at once...
Erm...not quite. Each core is an "independent" processor which is part of the CPU - and two or more cores can be doing different things at the same time.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Erm...not quite. Each core is an "independent" processor which is part of the CPU - and two or more cores can be doing different things at the same time.
OP asked in the context of a machine with one [single core?] CPU.
... not that we should be discussing this kind of thing in the Lounge.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
H.Brydon wrote: ... not that we should be discussing this kind of thing in the Lounge.
Seeing that I have't been on CP in like, a decade, what happened to stuff like voting on posts?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
The voting toy was taken away from the children until they learn how to behave like grownups 
|
|
|
|
|
So...it won't be coming back then?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
There are no grown ups, just us wabbits! 
|
|
|
|
|
Ah. Makes sense actually.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
He was talking about a single core CPU.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores.
In my mind CPU = Core, although I can see how it might not mean that to other people.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores.
In my observation, your usage of "core" isn't quite right. My understanding is that a machine can have multiple CPUs and a CPU can have multiple cores. What distinguishes a core from a CPU is use of common cache, and ability to synchronize a subset of memory operations. A room full of compute servers is not a single CPU.
In 2007, I purchased a machine that contained 2 dual core CPUs.
To be fair, this is still vague and the terminology needs some polishing.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
