Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > #44330

Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Paul wrote:
> When the things they do, are closer to being software
> subroutines (adhoc state machines and so on), it's a lot
> easier to make mistakes. One chip had 4096 registers in
> the interface, and we would make a software program to
> "watch" the register contents. There were some "defined"
> parts of the registers, we could understand what those
> were doing. But you would see some other addresses where
> the detail of the chip was "undefined" and these were observation
> points and stuff was flashing on and off. That's what the
> more "random" functions look like. The people at the other
> company who made the chip, knew what they did, but they
> don't have to document those observation points for other
> to use. It took about four tries,

You made a grand spelling error in that sentence. It should say, "for 
others to use." What I see is that you are irresponsible and probably 
going to electrocute yourself to death. Don't play with electricity. Bad 
juju all around.

-- 
We eat the night, we drink the time
Make our dreams come true
And hungry eyes are passing by
On streets we call the zoo

Back to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:00 +0800
  Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-19 16:00 -0400
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:40 -0600
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:40 -0400
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:49 +0800
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:48 -0400
        Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 18:17 +0800
        Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0800
          Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 10:48 -0400
            Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:24 +0800
          Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-06-20 20:14 +0200
            Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:18 +0800
              Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-21 06:34 -0400
                Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:34 +0800
                Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-22 01:53 -0400
                Re: Are chips ... electronics dies & releaas "magic smoke"?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:09 +0800
  Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-06-21 17:49 +0800
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 20:59 +0800
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:20 -0600
        Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 00:28 +0800
          Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? pitter_smith <70620b9261c622c2c6443cb36988dd78336be458fd9f13499dd358523b105d91@example.com> - 2026-07-05 04:30 +0000
            Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 13:00 +0800

csiph-web