Re: Ravenscar-compliant bounded buffer

[Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

'anon AT anon DOT org (anon)' wrote:

> MOVE ON TROLL, MOVE ON!

Hm, are you the group's traffic police man or its "Blockwart"? Since
so far you've labeled around 6 people here as trolls (or should that
be TROLLS? Is the capsing important?), I doubt you're representing
c.l.a. in any way. So stop policing.

> PROOF IS ACCREDITED WEB SITES SUCH AS ACM, IEEE, 
> UNIVERSITY, OR SOFTWARE COMPANY. NOT 
> SOME "wikipedia.org' THAT CAN BE ALTERED BY ALMOST 
> ANYONE WHO VIST THE WEB PAGE!

You're still CAPSing.

You seem to have an incomplete understanding how the historical
sciences (and to a certain extent all sciences) work: By a certain
majority of researchers agreeing on what should from then on should be
considered established fact. To that end, historians participating in
the debate are required to quote sources on what they want to
establish as facts. None of the sources is proof, though, because
source might err, or might have been falsified in the past by
interested parties. Only by drawing on a number of various sources,
weighting them in their context (and by reputation) a complete picture
emerges and consensus can be reached.

Regarding Wikipedia: I haven't quoted that as as source, but rather as
a short and readable summary of what I consider to be established
history.

Regarding you attempts to "proof" something: As I said there are no
proofs regarding history. But you haven't even quoted sources. The
only thing I've seen so far are claims the "the ACM says so" or
something to the effect. Apart from the fact that the ACM review
process might also be incomplete (has been, indeed), that is not
enough: Please quote verse and chapter as any proper scientist should
do. Thank you. 

(And BTW: the ACM doesn't "check" the papers, as you said, at least
not in the sense a criminalist or exmperimental scientist does: They
are just peer reviewed and dependend on the reviewer single facts
might plainly be wrong (but not having fallen in the scope of
expertise of the reviewers) - so much about _single_ ACM papers as
source of historical truth. They are only sources.)

You yourself don't count as a source: Since your credibility factor
has approached negative values, you're rather an anti-source so far.

As a last comment (in this post): Wikipedia is nearer to the ideal of
a scientific process than your spoutings:

  - Wikipedia is reviewed, almost constantly in fact. :-)
  - Wikipedia very often quotes and references external sources.

On the other hand

  - You don't reference identifiable sources

  - You're the only one claiming a number of things so far and have
    been rebutted repeatedly.

So if I would have to decide: Whom should I rather believe, you, or
WP?  Guess ...

(Fortunately I have other choices like, e.g. starting with reading the
papers referenced by Micheal Feldmann in "The Handbook of Programming
languages").

-- Markus