rgb@sequent.UUCP (Bob Bond) (12/21/88)
I have heard "Parity is for farmers" attributed to Cray. Does anyone know if this is accurate?
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #) (12/22/88)
In article <8841@sequent.UUCP>, rgb@sequent.UUCP (Bob Bond) writes: > I have heard "Parity is for farmers" attributed to Cray. > Does anyone know if this is accurate? I know the CDC 6600, Cyber 70 and 170 series machines did not have parity. From what I heard Seymour felt that parity didn't buy much -- detection of a parity error meant death for the running program at the least and maybe even for the OS. There was always the chance that the parity error would occur in the parity bit, causing a parity error when there was no actual data error. The Cray line has error correction/double error detection, an innovation (not pioneered by them) that buys a good deal more than parity detection alone, hence it's in there. Disclaimer: It was a long time ago, far far away, and may have been apocryphal to begin with. Another Seymour quote: "Thank heaven for startups. Without them there'd never be any innovation." -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious -- karl@ficc.uu.net encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis O. Brandeis
smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.edu (Scott H. McMahon) (12/22/88)
In article <8841@sequent.UUCP> rgb@sequent.UUCP (Bob Bond) writes: >I have heard "Parity is for farmers" attributed to Cray. >Does anyone know if this is accurate? I believe this to be true, only because the person who first told it to me had the "honour" of working with him (and I to this person). He believed that Seymour meant that parity is just the first line of defence and that the whole system should be made super reliable. Those who rely soley on parity are "farmers". This may not be the case but is a nice rule to follow.. especially after the quote posted to the net referring to how he isn't cost driven when designing a computer. Just my opinions anyhow... -Scott -- S.H. McMahon - 4A Electrical Engineering - University of Waterloo UUCP : {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde,uunet}!watmath!watvlsi!smcmahon BITNET: smcmahon@watvlsi.UWaterloo.ca CDNnet: smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.cdn
bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) (12/22/88)
In article <2523@ficc.uu.net>, karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #) writes: > I know the CDC 6600, Cyber 70 and 170 series machines did not have parity. > From what I heard Seymour felt that parity didn't buy much -- detection > of a parity error meant death for the running program at the least and > maybe even for the OS. There was always the chance that the parity error > would occur in the parity bit, causing a parity error when there was > no actual data error. The Cyber 170s have single error correction, double error detection. The 170s also had parity on the channels, extended memory and the PPs. I think most of the design (if not all) for the 170s were done after Cray left CDC, so maybe that was a factor.
bron@bronze.SGI.COM (Bron Campbell Nelson) (12/23/88)
In article <2523@ficc.uu.net>, karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #) writes: > Another Seymour quote: > "Thank heaven for startups. Without them there'd never be any > innovation." My favorite (undoubtably apocryphal and wrongly attributed) quote is his comment on virtual memory: "Memory is like orgasm. It's a lot better if you don't have to fake it." -- Bron Campbell Nelson bron@sgi.com or possibly ..!ames!sgi!bron
bron@bronze.SGI.COM (Bron Campbell Nelson) (12/24/88)
In article <4148@watvlsi.waterloo.edu>, smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.edu (Scott H. McMahon) writes: > In article <8841@sequent.UUCP> rgb@sequent.UUCP (Bob Bond) writes: > >I have heard "Parity is for farmers" attributed to Cray. > >Does anyone know if this is accurate? > > He believed that Seymour meant that parity is just the first line > of defence and that the whole system should be made super reliable. > Those who rely soley on parity are "farmers". Sorry. "Parity" is a term used in the U.S. regarding government price supports for farm goods. Thus, this is actually a pretty good pun. -- Bron Campbell Nelson bron@sgi.com or possibly ..!ames!sgi!bron
urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (12/26/88)
But there is also supposed to be a follow-u[ quote made later when he put parity back in something like [But farmers buy lots of my computers] refering perhaps to the senators who voted appropriations for the goverment agencies that buy his creations.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/26/88)
>> He believed that Seymour meant that parity is just the first line >> of defence and that the whole system should be made super reliable. >> Those who rely soley on parity are "farmers". > >Sorry. "Parity" is a term used in the U.S. regarding government >price supports for farm goods. Thus, this is actually a pretty good >pun. More on parity: When Jimmy Carter was president, the farmers lobbied for price supports to achieve "parity", that is, "We should be allowed to make the same kinds of profits we made in the early 1970's (or whenever)". I was under the impression that in the early 70's, the farmers made more percentage profits than at any other time in the history of the U.S., and that the argument was selfish/bogus. That's why I don't understand Seymour's joke. I thought that "asking for parity" was an unreasonably selfish request. It turns out that "asking for parity" is asking for too little, or at least, asking for the wrong thing. If this is all true, then it's not *THAT* great of a pun. Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies
jml@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) (01/04/89)
>>> Those who rely soley on parity are "farmers". >>Sorry. "Parity" is a term used in the U.S. regarding government >>price supports for farm goods. Thus, this is actually a pretty good >>pun. >More on parity: When Jimmy Carter was president, the farmers lobbied >for price supports to achieve "parity", that is, "We should be allowed >to make the same kinds of profits we made in the early 1970's (or >whenever)". Ahem. For all you city boys out there, parity refers to the relationship in price between a bushel of wheat and a barrel of oil, fixed at some point in the late sixties/early seventies. It does NOT refer to prices supports/subsidies except in the sense that they might be used to achieve parity. Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ivory!jml
3ksnn64@pur-ee.UUCP (Joe Cychosz) (01/09/89)
In article <616@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jml@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) writes: >Ahem. For all you city boys out there, parity refers to the relationship >in price between a bushel of wheat and a barrel of oil, fixed at >some point in the late sixties/early seventies. Actually the fix point is the price relationships of farm goods verse the cost of goods used for farming (for example oil as you have said) in the year 1914.