Slashdot Mirror
The Apple News That Got Buried
An anonymous reader writes, "Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. They found that the two dual-core CPUs in the Mac Pro were not only removable, but that they were able to insert two quad-core Clovertown CPUs. OS X recognized all eight cores and it worked fine. Anandtech could not release performance numbers for the new monster, but did report they were unable to max out the CPUs."
Typing this on an 8-core Mac pro, I manged to get first post! Wow, it IS fast!
Hrmmm. Well, seeing as how I just took delivery of a new quad 3.0Ghz Mac Pro, this dulls my bragging rights a bit. However, this bodes well for the CPU upgrade market. Companies like Sonnett, Newer, Powerlogix and OWC have had a tough time with the IBM/Freescale market because of poor performance among other critical reasons. The old 1.0 Ghz G4 I have at home as a media server is still an adequate system that currently holds a terabyte of storage space and I'd love to drop a good 2.0 Ghz or higher chip in it for a reasonable cost. There are some 1.8Ghz chips out there that may do the job just fine, but the market has been stuck at 1.8Ghz for quite some time.
And yes, my blog is down until we get a new transformer installed at my building...... Hopefully tomorrow by noon as they are installing a new one as we speak.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"Crimson and Clover."
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I can't say I'm surprised that it works since it's pin compatible but I think it's good news that this works so easily. It definately bodes well for future upgrades.
Put This web site on one of those babies. It'll be maxed out for the next few hours :)
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Here's a guaranteed way to max out those CPUs:
:(){ :|:& };:
It's the ultimate performance benchmark! How fast does your system halt?
Shouldn't they be calling them "Apple Cores?"
"they were unable to max out the CPUs" that is ridiculous! On PC's in VB it's pretty simple:
dim Processor1Thread as new thread(addressof sub1)
dim Processor2Thread as new thread(addressof sub2)
Processor1Thread.start()
Processor2Thread.start()
dim x as integer
sub sub1()
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
sub sub2()
dim x as integer
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
and repeat for 6 other threads and subs. So they either proved it doesn't really work well at all or programming on a mac is impossibly hard...or they're lying to make it sound more dramatic. So whether they're lying about not maxing it out or they're lying and you just plain can't use all 8 cores at once, it's not as good as it sounds.
now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
The NeXT architecture of OS X has always been more “at ease” with multiple CPUs than various versions of NT. Not that NT can’t handle them, but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I’ve heard is much more capable once you move past four. That being the case, as multiple CPUs/cores become more commonplace, I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Try installing Vista.
...and everything to do with memory consumption??
Yeah, forget the set top box, forget the tinsy, tiny shuffle, forget all of that... what we really wanted to know is whether we could put in 6 more CPUs that we can afford into our Macs... THAT's what we really care about.
Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?
No, I'm not making a '640k will be enough for anyone' comment... I know 8 CPUs WILL be useful one day, and MAY be nice to have now, but generally... it's in no way the BIG news of today.
From TFA:
There's a big difference between unable to and had a difficult time. When I first read the summary I thought that there must be some problem with the system if they're unable to get all the CPUs under full load.
will it run windows?
Amdahl's Law might have been written for Big Iron, but it applies even more so to smaller sytstems.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'm not a macuser and I got a kick out of reading about that.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
I notice this machine was tested with XPSP2. Are the Macs able to run the 64-bit version of XP?
Now that Lightwave has a native OSX build, I can imagine all the 3D graphics nuts out there using Lightwave creaming themselves over machines like this. Or hell, anyone using largely multi-threaded apps would cream for a machine like this.
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
with 8 cores, that no one cares about Beowulf clusters anymore. :(
Yes, but can it run Vista/DN Forever?
Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
Trying this on macosx, the bomb dies when the number of forks exceeds a certain depth. So it's harmless. :(){ :|:& };:
$ bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
Done
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
NeXT multiprocessed the guts of OS X on 2-4 processors. The result is that the mach kernel doesn't scale the processors linearly. There isn't the straightline performance boost of adding another processor beyond 4 cores with Mac OS X's mach kernel.
Calm down...
I wouldn't think that the inability to max out the core is a GOOD thing. Doesn't that just mean that the OS/apps/etc aren't properly optimized?
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
"they were unable to max out the CPUs." /dev/null & let i=i+1; done
They've apparently never tried this benchmark:
i=0; while [ $i -lt 9 ]; do time pi 1000000 >
Open Source is Common Sense: http://groovix.com/
At first, I saw the heading "The Apple News that got bruised"
"Women are just like ninjas; They lie even when it is more convenient to tell the truth." ~ Unknown
void main(){while(1){double i;fork();i*=0.123456789;}}
Or the slashdot posting was not proofread well. If you look at the article, all 8 cores are maxed out. What it says is that they had a hard time finding an application that could use all 8, not that they couldn't do it at all. But that's hardly a surprise.
My Mac Book, a wonderfully affordable Very Good Quality laptop, is now serving as my one and only machine at work. I'm an IT Manager for a 65/35 Windows/Mac house and I LOVE the fact that I now have options like Parallels and Crossover to give me true cross-platform ability. ...BUT...!
My CPU is maxed out. I've got plenty of RAM (2GB) and I can only wait to get a faster hard drive as >5400RPM SATA drives aren't readily available. Give me a user-installable multi-core CPU PLEASE!
I wish I could convey how wonderful it is to be able to support my Windows users from my very portable Mac. Once Crossover gets fully compatible, that looks to be the solution of choice as it performs quite well now. My only gripe with Parallels at this time is the load it puts on my CPU due to the running of the entire Windows environment.
This easy upgrade would solve that with an initial entry point of $1099 for the base CPU. While the 2GB RAM is an extra cost, a comparable Windows laptop might match the price, but not the cross-platform ability.
It's great for scientific computing. My software (which analyzes the structure of galaxy clusters) is fully parallelized. Its speed scales with the number of CPUs, i.e., if you double the CPUs you double the speed. A quad mac pro would be an enormous productivity boost for me.
Why don't I just farm the software out to a Beowulf cluster? Well, I do, but we have a queue for ours. When I'm testing the software I need to run, stop, and rerun the software, something which would be inefficient on a remote cluster with a queue.
Everyone is just wondering whether it runs Linux ...
Your 8-core mac is 100 degrees C and climbing fast. Yeah Baby!
Oooo, you're feisty.
You say you're the best at programming? Interesting. Have you ever heard of VHDL, or Verilog?
Okay, let's take this a step at a time...
they made me go early since I was so smart
I'm sure "they" held you at gunpoint.
forget that CS theory bullshit
Ah, you're kind of like me. I'm not a big fan of theory, I prefer the application of theory, for which it helps to know a bit of theory.
Or maybe they got lucky and wasted thousands of dollars on learning about Shakespear, atoms, Africa, grammar, and how to turn on a computer instead
Oh! Oh! You forgot to mention expressing their thoughts in a coherent way using paragraphs!
and finally got to programming in year 3
I dunno what four year colleges you looked at, but CS majors where I graduated from were doing C++ their first semester. VB was for the business students, who couldn't cut it in a real programming class. By year 3, we had been taught a few different languages...Java, C#, ASP, etc.
I'll be better at doing my job than any 4 year idiot with a CS degree
Yes, your training may be superior for your job. CS degrees from a good university are certainly superior for other careers.
Oh, right. As far as maxing out the cores, you're relying on a great deal of compiler and hardware mojo that you most likely never learned about. If you can fit your program in the register set, awesome, you can prolly max it out. If you go to L1 cache you'll prolly still be close, but if you can't fit in the L1 your program is going to block on I/O a lot.
You also forget about things like time-sharing pre-emptive operating system kernels which will boot your threads out every now and then, and probably block on some I/O while they're at it.
If I knew every command there was
Aah, the naivete of it all...knowing every command only gets you so far. You must have a skill for learning, and that you will keep you sailing well for a while. But it's the interactions of the commands, the intricacies of the architecture you target, the little things which will haunt you.
Finally, how do you define "the best at programming"? Can you program embedded systems? Certainly the best programmer could target any architecture, and not just a PC...
When you can design memory-mapped peripherals in an FPGA for a USB microcontroller, program the micro to do data acquisition with the FPGA, wire up all the circuits, connect it to a PC, and write a multi-threaded PC application to log the data from the device, then we'll talk about being "the best". I am able to do all these activites thanks to the four-year degree I acquired from an ABET accredited institution. Excluding the circuit design (which is more like a CAD sorta thing) all of the above tasks are programming tasks.
:(){
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
There are many programs that do not take advantage multiple processors: legacy code,code that can't (or wont) utilize threads, etc.. Supposing you had, say, eight single-threaded apps, would you be able to somehow mitigate the their single-threaded nature by assigning the respective processes to it's own core? Can you do this in OSX (or Linux/Windows for that matter)?
If this feature doesn't currently exist, is it even theoretically possible? I'm not a computer engineeer, so if anyone can weigh in on this I'd be delighted.
Let's assume for the moment that none of us in this forum actually know anything factual about how many years Apple (or even NeXT before them) have been running Mach on machines with more than 4 processors on the corporate campus behind locked doors.
However, we can probably reason this out if we try. We're all bright geek types, right? There are several clues. NeXT bought Apple for a negative $400 million or so in what, December of 1996?
The heritage of NeXT that you mention is a pretty big clue. I don't recall off the top of my head how many processors were supported by the production shipping Mach build for SPARC and PA-RISC back in the NeXT days, but let's assume it was 2, just for the sake of argument. Both of those platforms offered ready availability of systems with many processors even way back then. Perhaps there were systems like that in the lab.
Mach was originally a research project with an interesting goal: clean support of certain abstractions in a platform-independent way. One of those abstractions was support for multiple processors, beyond the typical SMP architectures we see today, which means that the author's concept of platform-independent went quite some distance beyond a different instruction set in a different risk architecture. Dig this:
That text is unattributed at the Wikipedia page, but comes from this document: Appendix B from the book: Operating System Concepts
An excellent book entirely about Mach is: Programming under Mach, which also mentions the design intent.
The original project was funded by DARPA, with the specific goal of developing operating systems technologies which would support super computers with hundreds or thousands of processors.
The Mach project developed new techniques which have migrated directly (via actual Mach code to OSF, NeXT, Mac OS X, et. al.) or indirectly into pretty much every modern operating system.
Mach research spanned a very long period of time, and two Universities. Curious, bright, and arguably insane people (or they would have been making money instead of slaving away making Mach on grad-student salary) with access to multiple processor machines with DARPA funded directives to make it scale to hundreds of processors. Hmm... that seems like a clue.
NeXT was, and Apple is a hardware engineering company. Apple has been building multiple processor boxes since before the reverse acquisition. I know, I had the, uh, perverse and shameful pleasure of running BeOS on one of them for sport.
If any joker with a web site can get ahold of pre-
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Great post. Also good to see people talking of NeXT buying Apple.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I never eat an Apple with a fork.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
... an 8-cpu monster with only 2G of RAM and a standard disk setup.
The poor baby's probably starved for data to crunch, having only 256M of RAM per cpu and apparently just the standard disk setup.
And it appears that they left the default OS X limit of 100 tasks per user in place as well.
Gotta open things up to let those puppies breathe!
Listen dude, you sound like an attention whore when you finish a post on Slashdot informing everyone that your blog is down but you expect it up soon. Come on, who doesn't have a blog? Do you really think anyone is going to care? Do you really think anyone has ever heard of you? Or did you just want to say, "Hey everyone look at me! I have a blog. It will be back up soon so give it a look."
Even if there really is some person on Earth that found your blog being down distressing enough to email you about it, I'm sure you put their fears at ease with a return email right? I'm thinking it's pretty safe to say that your responsibility to the public ends there. I doubt someone is going to say, "Hey, I saw your post on Slashdot yesterday, what an ass, you didn't even update us on the status of your blog! We're on pins and needles here. If I give you my cell number would you please give me a call the moment it's back up?"
So like the other guy said, nobody cares that your blog is down. To go one further, nobody cares that you even have a blog so don't fool yourself into thinking you are going to impress anyone by telling them you have a blog. "Hey baby, how's about we go back to my place for a drink? We can get a little more comfortable and have a nice long talk, right after I check my blog. Oh yeah, you heard me right baby. That's right, I'm a blog star."
As for calling into question the validity of a person's opinion because they posted AC, Slashdot should have policies to protect people like you from yourself. How ignorant is it to post on Slashdot, especially engaging in any sort of confrontational banter, using your name and having links to your blog in your profile? Where someone can easily google all sorts of the critical information you have sprawled all over the web in just minutes. While you can know nothing more than I exist, I can know everything about you. The person with a problem isn't the person posting AC, it's the person with their full name, address, phone number and place of employment in their sig. Wether you know it or not, that's what you have been doing every time you post on Slashdot.
Welcome to the internet. Please stow all personally identifiable information in public forums where it is likely you will draw unwanted attention to yourself. Keep your hands, feet, and self promoting blogs to yourself at all times.
What is ? The title and first page is "something Mac", then they describe in great detail installation and benchmarking .. XP .. ?!?
http://revj.sourceforge.net
This is a story about putting processors that aren't even on the market yet into a current Mac and having them work without any modification. That is in contrary to the past where typical Man processor upgrades would require many hardware modifications and software hacks from companies like Sonnet. Saying this new development makes Sonnet's job easier is like saying fuel injectors make the job of a carburetor mechanic easier.
You go on to talk about how you've been wanting to upgrade your G4 based Mac with a processor over 2 GHz but they've been stuck at 1.8 GHz for a long time, as if this story about Intel based Macs with Intel processors has anything to do with that what so ever. So you think that since Intel quad processors work in current Intel Macs that somehow, somewhere, someone is going to make a faster G4 processor? Just where and how did you draw that conclusion?
Who moderated this dazed rambling interesting? Funny sure.
would you be able to somehow mitigate the their single-threaded nature by assigning the respective processes to it's own core?
First, pretty much any application on the Mac is multithreaded just because of the way the user interface works. Apple's OpenGL implementation is partly software, for example... this is why you can run hardware T&L on the Mac mini with its GMA950 GPU - the OS does that in software on the second core even in single-threaded games.
Second, OS X does a pretty goodjob of distributing applications to cores without having to explicitly bind them. Binding an application to a core would most likely slow it down... unless the program has been written to use a lot of fined grained shared state between threads... and what you're doing with processor affinity is *preventing* it from multiprocessing.
Processor affinity is like 64 bit. Unless you're doing something on the edge you probably don't need it, and if you need it you're probably already doing it.
Here's the summary:
The bad news is that OS X doesn't provide a hook for processor affinity. The good news is that Mach does support it, and you could use the Darwin sources to figure out how to implement it in OSX using direct Mach calls. The bad news is that it's really hard. The good news is you don't need to do it unless you're trying to prevent multiprocessing anyway.
Summary of the summary: Don't worry, be happy.
in XP Pro go to Task Manager->Processes then right click on the process and choose "Set Affinity..."
:)
The good news is that Windows NT (from Windows 2000 at least) has had pretty good support for processor affinity.
The bad news is that you're almost always going to do better by letting the OS manage it, for any modern OS, and Windows is no exception.
Oh, wait, that's really good news too!
what about the Mac Book Pro? anyone know if they plan to release the quad core for it?
That article says "We definitely had a difficult time stressing 8 cores in the Mac Pro". It doesn't say they couldn't max them out. Just looking at the CPU monitor graphic in the F article one can see they did max out the CPU.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
An apple computer that is finally user upgradeable!!!! What was steve thinking?
Holy crap dude, great post, but you sort of brought a gauss rifle to a knife fight. :)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If you're having trouble maxing a CPU you obviously haven't visited distributed.net.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I lol'd.
You say the "SMP" model, and then describe hyperthreading.
This system already uses the SMP model, but it doesn't have hyperthreading. If it did, it would have 16 virtual cores!
Personally I'm not in the market for 4 (real) cores let alone 8.
FB-DIMMs is the best system outside of AMDs NUMA for feeding lots of cores. Maybe Apple was right to use FB-DIMMs.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
GP claims correctness because he was one of the best programmers at his school, and he started school at 17. I started university at 15 and similarly out-performed (most of) the (largely mediocre) students at my (less-than-prestigious) university as well as many of the professors. Ergo, if we assume the GP's correctness, my opinions must carry equal or greater weight than the GP's, by his own arguments.
However, I agree with the parent and think the GP is full of crap. This contradicts the starting assumption that the GP's premise is correct; therefore we see, via proof by contradiction, that the only conclusion able to be drawn is that the parent is correct and the GP is, like myself, a pretentious youth with a crappy education.
Quod erat demonstrandum. (Saying things in Latin TOTALLY clinches an argument!)
They changed out the proccessors and they worked, this is news how?
Thehe original story begs an answer to the question:
Did Apple fix mach IPC overhead congestion on mulitple cpu's
OR
Has Intel accommodated mach overhead in hardware?
As for 8-16 cpu secret servers mythology,:
I bought surplus Intel machines out of Apple's R&D. Yes, they had pre-production CPU's w/o ser nos. and graphics. My experience is that Job's doesn't waste resources on one-off hotrods. He uses everything he sells. He just gets it first and much earlier than you do. Job's sees absolutely no money to be made in the narrow market of 16cpu server machines. He'd rather you just buy 8 or 16 towers and cluster them, ala Virginia Tech
Very interesting, and informative. Thanks! However --
Some random guy with a web site was the first guy ever to run Mach on 8 CPUs? Let's just say I doubt it, and leave it at that.
I'm sure you're right. However, this is the first we of the general public have heard of it being done. And, the relative simplicity of "Throw out old CPUs, pop in two shiny new ones" is very illustrative of just how well designed Mach and OSX were. Not only that, it seems that it reflects well on the quality of Apple's general engineering of the platform hardware.
I know I'm much more interested in one now. =D
When I am doing web work, I will often have a bunch of apps going: Photoshop, upload program, coding IDE, browser(s), music player, instant messenger, and possibly others for specific tasks. I often wish that my music player could have its own dedicated processor because it will often skip when I'm saving a large PSD file or uploading.
Is it possible to dedicate CPUs to a certain task/app/processes? Or is the OS smart enough to do it autmatically in its load balancing?
Apple is not all perfect: http://malfy.org/
shooting by
passing through
nearly or entirely without mass?
ephemeral without interception
like a neutron
through a mind
unnoticed
The poem "a point" is Copyright © 2006 Gary W. Longsine, All Rights Reserved.
Perhaps I was insufficiently succinct. Let me clarify. I will assume that you are genuinely curious about the Mach kernel, and not merely a trolling closeted Windows Fan Boy
You made an entirely bogus claim about Mach performance above the 2-4 CPU count which you did not support. Your follow-up makes it clear that you have read the Wikipedia page, but perhaps don't fully grok the IPC microkernel performance issue which is the stuff of Monday Night Hacker armchair kernel designer legend.
In contrast, I provided as a counter argument:
(Please check yourself into to the Argument Clinic for further treatment regarding the mechanics of argument.)
One-off hot rods are not required. Apple could buy or rent large systems from companies that have them off the shelf, like Unisys, Fujitsu and otheres (Intel), Sun (SPARC), HP (PA-RISC) or IBM (Power) . At various times since at least 1992 the NeXT/Apple version of the kernel compiled on some or all of those hardware architectures. It probably still does in the labs, even if Darwin, the fork of the source that builds production releases of Mac OS X, may not. Steve Jobs has demonstrated that he values the portability of Mach, and is willing to devote resources to make sure that it remains portable. If market conditions changed, Steve Jobs could wake up one day and decide he wants to ship Mac OS X for SPARC and have it running on his desk by the end of the week if not the end of the day. In a few months, Mac OS X Server for SPARC could be a shipping product. People doubted this for years when NeXT Fanboys said this, but history has proven that this can happen. It can be running and ready to hand out a CD to thousands of developers before IBM even knows you're going to switch processors to one that has a roadmap that extends beyond 2003. You doubt such a scenario? What if Google one day decided they want to convert their data centers to SPARC because they can squeeze 64 cores into the power envelope used by 4 cores in their current data centers, and that they wanted to use development tools for Mac OS X to build a new service. Do you think Apple would be in position to take advantage when a member of the board calls Steve and says something like, "Hey Steve, I have an idea I want to talk with you about..." You bet your stock options, Apple could have a demo in front of Google ASAP.
This issue regarding Mach IPC that has your undies in a bunch is pretty clearly not a problem in the production kernel, judging by the SPECint and SPECfp and other benchmarks that Apple is getting on multiple CPU architectures. Don't take my word for it. Get a box yourself and put Linux , FreeBSD, and Windows on it and see if you come up with similar numbers. Undoubtedly you would. If the IPC inside the Mach kernel was such a performance problem with multiple CPU, this problem would undoubtedly be measurable in a dual or quad core system. The fact that the internet isn't abuzz with people posting bona fide exposes about this issue probably means it's not an issue. (Be sure to use benchmarks which are designed to measure performance on multi-processor machines like the Spec Int Rate benchmark).
Better yet, get a friend at a university or at some place that makes such iron, a
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
yeah, it's a fine line between "funny" and "troll", I guess. hahaha
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I can always count on Anandtech to demonstrate how useful Adblock is.
Here are what I found useful recently at Anandtech:
*.dealtime.com/*
*.doubleclick.*
*.linksynergy.com/*
*.mediaplex.*
*.smarttargetting.com/*
*.zedo.com/*
http://anandtech.com/fuseads/*
While Jones's transformer gets installed, don't forget that my blog is directly connected to the grid so we pretty much never have a power loss. Today I mostly covered the resolution of the piece of cheesy-poof that was stuck between the letters Z and X on my keyboard (those that have been reading my blog know the entire tale). Well, to summarize, I spilled a little diet coke in that same area just this morning, the food soaked it up, and voila, out it popped. Anyway, check it out, it's at www.foopy-seech.net
maybe you didnt realize you could.
That may or may not mean they hit a performance wall. In multiple CPU configurations there can be many reasons that not all 8 CPUs were used. The implication of the statement was, "Gee, this thing must be SO fast that they couldn't find enough work for all 8 CPUs to do." However equally possible is that even though there was computable work to do, the OS, application environment and hardware archtecture was not able to take advantage of use all 8 CPUs. In which case having all those CPUs is a pure waste of money.
;)
This comes from twenty years of multiple CPU OS performance work. OpenVMS has had effective multiple CPU environments for that long. As the number of CPUs increases, there is always more tweaking to be done to take advantage of the CPUs.
I now little about how the Unix based Mac OS uses multiple CPUs. I suspect that few others do too.
I couldn't help but notice this discussion thread. You might be a smart guy and a brilliant programer, but your social skills are really lacking. You need to know when to hold back. Working with other people and learning to take real or implied insults with out childishly returning them IS a part of any non trivial job. If you are confident in who you are and what you do, you have nothing to prove to some random strangers on slashdot. You might also just want to ask questions instead of posting vb code. Its just part of the rules here. If you want to impress people here you'll have to do it in another language ( c, perl, python, bash, assembly, heck even regular basic)
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Wow, this is awesome. Are you for real? I mean, do you actually believe what you're writing, or are you simply trying to annoy people? You're a troll either way, I'm just wondering whether it's a conscious behaviour on your part.
You wouldn't work for me if I was the last person on earth? Uhm, yeah, that seems obvious. Me being the last person on earth implies that you don't exist anymore. At least not on earth. So you couldn't possibly be working for me.
I'm a manager (and engineer) at a software company, and I'd sooner hire a chimpanzee than hire someone with an attitude like yours.
Just FYI.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
...that you remember having made this comment when you take your 'compiler design' course in a year or two.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.