Just to shove your face in it, I'll respond this last time. But surely, the effort is wasted...
>>What facts that I have stated are inaccurate?<<
As I said in reply 4107:
"Since you have no accurate information, obviously either can't accurately comprehend simple English or choose to spread lies, and have no other useful comments, why don't you so stop being annoying and just go away?"
Read the words Jon, not what you want them to say.
>>In other words, those "sound bites" are inaccurate, but that's OK, because the investors know better.
Or, it's OK to fib, as long as your investors are smart enough to know you are fibbing.<<
To your Lie #1, I had responded, "I never said nor implied anything of the kind. Reread my post." Do it. In post 4100 I said the people buying chips would know the difference and implied that the investors won't care. You lied about what I said.
>>If you don't think that that's OK, then stop perpetrating the fib by speaking in sound-bites about the PSC1000 being a "Java processor", which it isn't.<<
To your Lie #2, I had responded, "I also have never referred to the PSC1000 as a Java Processor. Reread all my posts." Check for yourself. You lied again as I never said that either.
>>It wasn't designed to be one, and it isn't one, plain and simple. It was, in fact, designed to be a Forth processor.<<
>>That the PSC1000 was designed as a Forth processor? Do you deny that?<<
As a matter of fact, I do. I've known the inventors, Mr. Fish, for almost 10 years, and Mr. Moore, for almost 20 years. I spoke to them frequently when the project started and throught its course. Forth is a software emulation of a stack architecture and the PSC1000 is a stack architecture so *obviously* they look alot alike and *obviously* the PSC1000 will execute Forth well. If the PSC1000 had any of the higher-level Forth instructions in silicon, like WORD, or NUMBER, I'd say you were right. But it doesn't. Not a one. Unlike picoJava that has many instructions only useful to object-oriented languages. PicoJava at the JVM description level is *only* for executing Java. Then again, if you throw out the Java-isms from picoJava, it looks alot like a Forth engine too. A large part of the PSC1000 architecture is there specifically to execute languages like C/C++ (Java) well. Specifically, the local registers and global registers. Mr. Moore's previous and subsequent processors (of which there are several), until the latest, *don't have these* because these processors are targeted only at Forth. The PSC1000 even has at least one instruction that is there only for C--TESTB, it's used to allow scanning 32-bits at a time to quickly find the null at then end of strings, and similar uses. Jon, if you understood architecture you would understand the reasons for using a stack architecture, just as Sun choose to do so for the Java runtime engine.
In fact, Jon, no one associated with the project has ever written and executed Forth on the PSC1000, not even Mr. Moore, while a C compiler was started as soon as funding was available when Nanotronics took over the project.
And, what I responded before still holds true, "We've been through this before, and it was clear then as it is now that you are netiher informed enough nor technically competent enough to comment. As I've suggested to you before, you had best check your facts before posting here."
>>If there are some other facts that you dispute, why don't you specify which ones, so that I can respond, rather than painting with a broad brush?<<
I did not paint with a broad brush, you still apparently have not taken the admonition to heart to learn to comprehend simple English and to check your facts. I quoted your errors directly as I just repeated them again above. Is your brower working properly? I expect so. PAY ATTENTION.
If you want to regain at least a small amount of credibility in subsequent posts I suggest you make a habit of using cut-and-paste to quote your sources, or embed a link. At this point, I can't trust anything you alledge to have seen/read/heard.
Benedict Arnold |
