07 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeIf it is doing everything it was designed to do, why would I call it a flaw? If it
wow - we're talking about CPUs and Motherboard's...cool. I'm not going to read everything that was written here, it takes too much time. All I'm going to ask is if the CPU was working correctly, would you still say it had a design flaw?
can be improved by some changes, that would just be another Rev and Stepping
of the product to do what it is designed for.
Kelly
07 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“…Yes, each CPU is designed, it will ..…”
Yes, each CPU is designed, it will match the mother board it suppose to work in.
It is not telling you which came first, it is telling you they have to match! The
CPU cost billions to put together, the mother board designers wait till they know
the CPU design has been set and then they start to build their mother boards NOT
the other way around. It is no different than hardware comes before software, that
is how things are done.
Kelly
Reminder of what it said: “each CPU is DESIGNED TO fit into a specific type of motherboard socket” (my emphasis)”
Note the words “DESIGNED TO”; this clearly is saying more than it was merely “designed”; it clearly specifically says it was designed TO fit into a specific type of motherboard socket. It doesn’t make any difference whether the CPU or the motherboard was designed first, the fact remains, it clearly implies that the CPU was designed TO fit into that socket and not the other way around.
Even if the CPU was designed first, it could have been designed with the specifications of the socket that was planned to be put on the motherboard before the motherboard itself was designed. It must be possible to decide what the socket specifications will be before designing the whole motherboard for the sake of getting on with the design the CPU before the motherboard is designed if, for whatever reason, they wanted to do it that way around. The motherboard may then be designed afterwards but, obviously, making sure it has a socket with those correct specifications. Alternatively, the motherboard could have simply have been designed first along with the socket. I don’t know which was designed first but, either way, no difference.
But it must have happened in one of these two ways because the statement “each CPU is DESIGNED TO fit into a specific type of motherboard socket” clearly implies that the specifications of the socket (and not necessarily the design of the whole motherboard –just its socket) came BOFORE the design of the CPU else how is it possible to design each CPU TO fit into a specific type of motherboard socket?
“…It is not telling you which came first,…”
And it makes no difference which came first for the reason I just said above.
07 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…if the CPU was WORKING CORRECTLY, would you still say it had a design flaw?...” (my emphasis)
wow - we're talking about CPUs and Motherboard's...cool. I'm not going to read everything that was written here, it takes too much time. All I'm going to ask is if the CPU was working correctly, would you still say it had a design flaw?
When you say “WORKING CORRECTLY” you are strictly referring to its function as opposed to its design.
It is important to not confuse the two because a “design flaw” does not necessarily equate with a “function flaw”!
So, in answer to your question; yes, I would call it a design flaw.
A design flaw that was clearly a stupid error on the part of the intelligent designer may not necessarily result in any significant reduction in how well that thing functions. For example, the designer might, without realising, have mistakenly put in an extra transistor in the CPU that is connected to absolutely nothing so does nothing! That would certainly be a stupid “design flaw” and one that indicates the thing that designed it is not an all-powerful all-knowing flawless deity but would it stop the CPU working properly? -No. Would it result in any significant reduction in how well that thing functions? -No. So you could say it is NOT a “function flaw”. In fact, the only thing it might do is waste a tiny bit of space in the CPU that could have been better used –something that at most would have such a tiny effect on the CPU’s functionality that it would probably be for all practical purposes impossible to detect that effect in its functionality.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI was interested to know what you would say since I know quite about a CPU. I do build my own computers after-all and have administered Computer Systems for many years. It is an interesting subject for me.
“…if the CPU was WORKING CORRECTLY, would you still say it had a design flaw?...” (my emphasis)
When you say “WORKING CORRECTLY” you are strictly referring to its function as opposed to its design.
It is important to not confuse the two because a “design flaw” does not necessarily equate with a “function flaw”!
So, in answer to your question ...[text shortened]... ld probably be for all practical purposes impossible to detect that effect in its functionality.
Back on topic: Is YOUR body perfect?
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“..Is YOUR body perfect?”
I was interested to know what you would say since I know quite about a CPU. I do build my own computers after-all and have administered Computer Systems for many years. It is an interesting subject for me.
Back on topic: Is YOUR body perfect?
No; some idiot (if you are to believe we were made by a deity) put my retinas back-to-front so that both the blood vessels and nerve connections for the retina are in front of the cone and rod cells instead of behind them thus they partly block and obscure the light and image shinning onto those light-sensitive cells.
Oh, and he also made my laryngeal nerve take a rather scenic but pointlessly long route.
Oh, and he made my body’s aging process so that I would inevitably die an unpleasant slow death from aging if I don’t die of anything else.
Oh, and he also gave me pointless male nipples.
Oh, and this is the most stupid thing he did, he put my balls on the outside of my body.
…..
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonand just think..here I am about to complain about my bald spot 😀
“..Is YOUR body perfect?”
No; some idiot (if you are to believe we were made by a deity) put my retinas back-to-front so that both the blood vessels and nerve connections for the retina are in front of the cone and rod cells instead of behind them thus they partly block and obscure the light and image shinning onto those light-sensitive cells.
...[text shortened]...
Oh, and this is the most stupid thing he did, he put my balls on the outside of my body.
…..
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt may not have been a 'stupid error' as you put it. What if this extra transistor was placed there because it would be needed in the future? This would not be a design flaw. In order to know it was a design flaw and wasn't placed there for some other reason, you would have to talk to the designer of that CPU. Without that, all you have is assumptions.
“…if the CPU was WORKING CORRECTLY, would you still say it had a design flaw?...” (my emphasis)
When you say “WORKING CORRECTLY” you are strictly referring to its function as opposed to its design.
It is important to not confuse the two because a “design flaw” does not necessarily equate with a “function flaw”!
So, in answer to your question ...[text shortened]... ld probably be for all practical purposes impossible to detect that effect in its functionality.
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh, and gave innocent children the possibility to gain cancer. The biggest flaw of all. That was indeed a major unitelligent design.
“..Is YOUR body perfect?”7
No; some idiot (if you are to believe we were made by a deity) put my retinas back-to-front so that both the blood vessels and nerve connections for the retina are in front of the cone and rod cells instead of behind them thus they partly block and obscure the light and image shinning onto those light-sensitive cells.
Oh, ...[text shortened]... les.
Oh, and this is the most stupid thing he did, he put my balls on the outside of my body.
Of course there is no intelligent designer out there somewhere. Especially not a christian god, nor any other.
09 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas“…Oh, and gave innocent children the possibility to gain cancer. The biggest flaw of all….”
Oh, and gave innocent children the possibility to gain cancer. The biggest flaw of all. That was indeed a major unitelligent design.
Of course there is no intelligent designer out there somewhere. Especially not a christian god, nor any other.
I think it might be. I find that one hard to top.
Perhaps to give innocent children the possibility to catch rabies?
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…It may not have been a 'stupid error' as you put it. What if this extra transistor was placed there because it would be needed in the future?...”
It may not have been a 'stupid error' as you put it. What if this extra transistor was placed there because it would be needed in the future? This would not be a design flaw. In order to know it was a design flaw and wasn't placed there for some other reason, you would have to talk to the designer of that CPU. Without that, all you have is assumptions.
It is not practical to use it in the future if that microscopically small (because it is in the CPU) transistor is not connected to anything.
Try and imagine it; a microscopically small transistor is embedded deep within the CPU’s circuitry and connected to nothing. Let’s suppose you now decide to use it; how? Are you going to open up the CPU and start adding wires to that microscopically small transistor? That would be so tedious and impractical to do that without damaging the CPU beyond repair. You would be better-off just throwing it away and getting a new CPU with a different design.
“….This would not be a design flaw. In order to know it was a design flaw and wasn't placed there for some other reason, you would have to talk to the designer of that CPU. Without that, all you have is assumptions….”
Not necessarily true; instead of “assumptions” you could know “facts” such as how electricity works etc.
You don’t have to “to talk to the designer” to know about how electricity works and to therefore be able to deduce that, all the time there are no electrical connections to a transistor, it isn’t going to do much!
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeIt is, I suppose impossible to distinguish, without talking to the designer, stupid errors in design, and deliberate but stupid designs. But I see no reason why we cannot judge them stupid. We could in theory be as good as, or better at making such judgments as the designer. Kelly admitted from the start that a skilled designer was in a position to judge others work. What was disputed was whether a minimum skill level was required to accurately spot certain errors (or shall we just call them 'bad designs' as they may in fact be deliberate).
.... you would have to talk to the designer of that CPU. Without that, all you have is assumptions.
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere are components on a CPU that are currently not connected to anything. certain pins come to mind. In order to know without a doubt it is a design flaw, you would indeed have to talk with the designer. How else would you know if there is something you didn't think of? I disagree of course with you.
“…It may not have been a 'stupid error' as you put it. What if this extra transistor was placed there because it would be needed in the future?...”
It is not practical to use it in the future if that microscopically small (because it is in the CPU) transistor is not connected to anything.
Try and imagine it; a microscopically small transistor is ...[text shortened]... all the time there are no electrical connections to a transistor, it isn’t going to do much!
10 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, I believe if you read what I said, even a design engineer would need a
It is, I suppose impossible to distinguish, without talking to the designer, stupid errors in design, and deliberate but stupid designs. But I see no reason why we cannot judge them stupid. We could in theory be as good as, or better at making such judgments as the designer. Kelly admitted from the start that a skilled designer was in a position to judge ...[text shortened]... t certain errors (or shall we just call them 'bad designs' as they may in fact be deliberate).
battery of tests to spot design flaws.
Kelly
10 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeAs I said, you might not know why the designer put the pin there, but you would not need to talk to him to decide whether or not that extra pin was a bad design. In fact talking to the designer would only tell you what his reasoning was when he put the pin there, it would not necessarily tell you whether or not the extra pin was a good design.
There are components on a CPU that are currently not connected to anything. certain pins come to mind. In order to know without a doubt it is a design flaw, you would indeed have to talk with the designer. How else would you know if there is something you didn't think of? I disagree of course with you.