If you are an engineer, manager or other technical career.... OR a MANAGER of anybody who falls into those categories, this should be *required* reading every few years.
Truths I've learned from this book include...
"If one woman can make a baby in 9 months... Then let's get 9 to make one it 1 month..." is a logical fallacy often used by management.
"Technical teams should be clearly scoped and fairly small or the amount of effort required for communications and coordination will consume more resources than the actual work. "
All I think is he served the worst president of all time(GW) and possibly played a hand in bringing us the patriot act among other privacy removing laws brought in through secret courts and other BS.
I had hopes for Trump, but he just seems to be serving the billionaires club.
You sir, don't know much history...
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. Those who do know history are bound to sit and helplessly watch while those who don't repeat it.
And I had Russian dressing on my salad..... Ho Boy, a *CONNECTION*!
What doesn't exist is any evidence of collusion (or better conspiracy) between the Russians and any Trump associate to "hack the election" which has been the whole justification of the "investigations" going on.
Come on.. PLEASE engage in some critical thinking. What is being alleged here that is a crime? Once you figure that out, then look at the evidence and tell me what we have that supports somebody associated with Trump did it...
So, PLEASE respond with 2 things.. 1. What is the alleged crime... AND 2. What is the evidence you think shows it might have happened?
Actually, Flynn resigned when he was asked to do so. Comey and some DA's where fired, but Flynn wasn't. Yea, I know it's a fine point, but hey, let's be accurate.
Oh no, you took me wrong... There are two alternate readings of this...
There is the joke angle "What difference does it make at this point..." (From Hill's congressional testimony on Benghazi) A bad joke, I know.
OR.
I'd LOVE to see Bill and Hill sent to the big house and I'm pretty sure they would deserve it. However, at this point the politics of it all makes it unlikely to be successful and the amount of time between now and when the possible crimes took place makes prosecution even more unlikely. It would be a waste of time, money and effort to try at this point.
Besides.... There is one judgment they will not escape....
Personally, I like the money I've saved going VOIP. Ooma is "cheap cheap cheap" phone service and we generally use our cell phones anyway. Of course, my network is pretty much rock solid, low latency, fast and reliable where I live.
My Ooma device is pretty nice and very cheap alternative to land lines. It is VOIP based. However, I will admit that the major issue with VOIP call quality usually is the network, not the technology. If your network is too slow, has wildly varying latency times and/or is dropping packets, you have little hope of getting a useable VOIP connection.
Sorry, I made a bad assumption... The *57 causes the complete signaling information for the call to be recorded for disclosure to the police upon request but only for the last call.
The Caller ID part of SS7 ISUP is not what's used to route the call. Caller ID is an optional bit of data tacked onto the calls signaling and can literally be set to ANYTHING the originator wishes. It happens all the time.
Give me some time, an PBX and the president's phone number and You too can receive a call from the Oval Office of the Whitehouse to show your friends on your caller ID. Of course it will be MY voice on the other end, but your Caller ID will prove who called you right? (Saw this done once.)
So when you get the telemarketing call with a CID in your local area, they just set the optional data in the SS7 ISUP signaling to indicate that when they originated the call... It's not hard.. It happens all the time for legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
I think we should just turn off the ability to block or spoof CallerID (except for the verified commercial numbers who are granted exceptions after proving their identity). Problem solved.
Problem NOT solved... The issue of Caller ID won't be fixed by just making it illegal to block the CallerID because it doesn't fix the spoofed Caller ID problem. Make that illegal? Criminals will break that law too..
The issue here is that SS7 ISUP signaling doesn't require the Caller ID stuff be filled out in order to route a call, it's optional. A whole lot of stuff in bunches of legacy code and equipment would have to change to now require this information that is now optional. Also, there would be no way to verify the Caller ID information provided is actually valid without a bunch more changes to legacy hardware/software and a huge database of information (that doesn't now exist). This isn't technically impossible, it's just hugely expensive.
No sir, passing a law requiring Caller ID for every call doesn't fix anything, but it does break a lot of stuff..
What idiot uses a land line to make a threat from? Besides, who on earth has land lines anyway...
Also, I may be wrong, but the *57 doesn't work for calls where the caller has requested to block his Caller ID information, or for instances where the caller ID information has been spoofed (which is an exceptionally easy thing to do from a PBX or a lot of VOIP services).
In the public switched network, they surely know where the call comes from and where it's going, SS7 Signaling requires it to set up the bidirectional audio connections for the call. What doesn't exist is the requirement to allow the retrieval of this information AFTER the call is set up.
Phone companies routinely capture only the data they need to bill the call in a CDR (Call Detail Record) and at that point, they don't need (or likely want) the additional information about the source and destination numbers, especially for Cell calls, where the actual source/destination numbers used to route the call are often NOT the actual phone number anyway.
So I guess I'm saying that phone networks cannot easily trace a call AFTER it's setup, but only because they don't now always capture the necessary information when they had it.
Human Error accounts for 99% of actual power outages in my experience. It's ALWAYS some idiot throwing the wrong switch, unplugging the wrong thing, yanking the wrong wires or spilling something in the wrong place...
You simply cannot engineer around stupid well enough to fix it, regardless of how hard you try..
That being said... For a mission critical system in a multi-million dollar company like BA where was the backup site in a different geographic location that was configured to take over in the not-so-uncommon event of an outage? I don't care if it WAS a human that messed up and turned everything off, you need a contingency plan to deal with such things. Why? Because outages WILL happen no matter how much engineering and resources you pile into your primary location.
And it's a good time to note that Trump's cabinet wasn't confirmed for MOST of that 100 days because democrats where knuckle dragging all the way though the process.... Which, by the way, set a record for how long Congress took to confirm ANY new president's cabinet.
Not to mention... Most of this was accomplished and what was not accomplished was attempted or requires the actions of other parties (including the democrat obstructed congress) to be done. (with ONE exception that I see, the proposing of a constitutional amendment, which arguably he's already done what he can, given the president has no authority to initiate amendments to the constitution in the first place, only Congress and the States may do that.) Trump is attempting to keep his promises, unlike the pervious administration which had a habit of lying when is was convent for them....
So.. I'm now going to ask you if you expected Hillary to keep her promises? If so, she made some she had zero chance of actually keeping too... You want to play who's blacker the pot or kettle here or what?
This is political posturing, on BOTH sides. It's been going on in this country for over two centuries now, though in the last few decades it's been made into a blood sport.
I put more time and effort into defeating liberals than I have on anything else in a long long time.
The efforts of others and myself killed Hillary's chances.
And guess what? We won by the skin of our teeth!
FIFY
I voted for Trump, but you have to understand that he won by a narrow margin in the key states he took from the blue team. While historic, this was a skin of your teeth win for him and we'd do well to remember that.
Nonsense. What Putin wants is to make Russia into an empire again, but without all the baggage the Soviet Union had. A weak U.S. is a step towards weakening NATO, which is a major roadblock standing in the way of the conquest of Eastern Europe. Wouldn't at all be surprised if Russia was influencing the UK with regards to Brexit, since the UK leaving the EU will weaken the EU as well, which is to Russias' advantage, too. In general: Foment chaos in Europe, making it easier to build an empire. That's what Putin is after.
Putin didn't choose his horse very well then. Trump is a problem for his Russian nationalism popularity that keeps him in office, barely. Trump is making Putin look a bit weaker than Obama did (and one would assume Hillary would do the same).
If the Russians actually tried anything, it was to weaken Hillary, not get Trump elected. My guess is that they didn't really care who took office before January 20th but are calling that into question now. Why all the saber rattling by Putin over Syria and North Korea? I think they would have preferred a weakened Hillary over this.
OK you young head full of mush who doesn't have much reading comprehension ability... Given you don't want to accept my input and think you can make confident contrary assertions about things I've been doing for 25 years, I'm done with you. I tried to enlighten you, you refused to listen. You are on your own.
You seriously need to understand how Make works.... I'm fully aware of the -j option and it's meaning. I am also intimately aware of how make works and why it works the way it does after 25 years of using it. "-j" only limits the number of parallel process Make can use, but it doesn't force Make to use all those "jobs". Make is a system that allows you to process dependencies (like building all the object files before linking a library, or building al the libraries before you compile and link the executable). This means that all the allowed jobs will NOT be usable at all times.
But that begs the issue here. I'm contending that building the Linux Kernel (to use your example) is going to be IO bound, not CPU bound, even on a modest number of cores (say 8). You won't see great improvement when you add cores if you are I/O bound. I suggest you grab your best I/O capable system with 4 cores and see for yourself. Set the -j option to whatever you want as long as it's above 2x # cores and I will be VERY surprised if building the Linux Kernel maxes out your CPUs but your IO bandwidth will be swamped. Trust me, I do this every day on some fairly reasonable hardware..
1. All Hail the Grammar Nazis of the world, I promise to do better next time...
2. You will still be I/O bound for compilation, video editing and even trans coding, none of which are easily logically parallel tasks. You will find the process limited by your I/O bandwidth, which, even for SSD's will be fairly limited compared to how fast 18 cores could do their thing. Remember my comment is about how much you can speed up the afore mentioned tasks by adding cores and for any of them I seriously doubt there will be much improvement going from 8 to 18 cores. Why? You will still have to get all that data off and back on the disk and I'd imagine that 8 cores were not fully utilized to start with, already being I/O bound even on the best of I/O systems you can buy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are an engineer, manager or other technical career.... OR a MANAGER of anybody who falls into those categories, this should be *required* reading every few years.
Truths I've learned from this book include...
"If one woman can make a baby in 9 months... Then let's get 9 to make one it 1 month..." is a logical fallacy often used by management.
"Technical teams should be clearly scoped and fairly small or the amount of effort required for communications and coordination will consume more resources than the actual work. "
All I think is he served the worst president of all time(GW) and possibly played a hand in bringing us the patriot act among other privacy removing laws brought in through secret courts and other BS.
I had hopes for Trump, but he just seems to be serving the billionaires club.
You sir, don't know much history...
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. Those who do know history are bound to sit and helplessly watch while those who don't repeat it.
And I had Russian dressing on my salad..... Ho Boy, a *CONNECTION*!
What doesn't exist is any evidence of collusion (or better conspiracy) between the Russians and any Trump associate to "hack the election" which has been the whole justification of the "investigations" going on.
Come on.. PLEASE engage in some critical thinking. What is being alleged here that is a crime? Once you figure that out, then look at the evidence and tell me what we have that supports somebody associated with Trump did it...
So, PLEASE respond with 2 things.. 1. What is the alleged crime... AND 2. What is the evidence you think shows it might have happened?
Name these people, please.
Flynn, for starters.
Actually, Flynn resigned when he was asked to do so. Comey and some DA's where fired, but Flynn wasn't. Yea, I know it's a fine point, but hey, let's be accurate.
Oh no, you took me wrong... There are two alternate readings of this...
There is the joke angle "What difference does it make at this point..." (From Hill's congressional testimony on Benghazi) A bad joke, I know.
OR.
I'd LOVE to see Bill and Hill sent to the big house and I'm pretty sure they would deserve it. However, at this point the politics of it all makes it unlikely to be successful and the amount of time between now and when the possible crimes took place makes prosecution even more unlikely. It would be a waste of time, money and effort to try at this point.
Besides.... There is one judgment they will not escape....
Ah, the conspiracy theories live on.... Vince Foster in Fort Marcy Park anyone?
You got to admit, a lot of strange deaths seem to surround the Clintons....Why? Who knows, and at this point, who cares.
Personally, I like the money I've saved going VOIP. Ooma is "cheap cheap cheap" phone service and we generally use our cell phones anyway. Of course, my network is pretty much rock solid, low latency, fast and reliable where I live.
That's not the right I was making reference to. You have more than just free speech rights.
It may not reflect the actual phone number either if it's a cell phone....
My Ooma device is pretty nice and very cheap alternative to land lines. It is VOIP based. However, I will admit that the major issue with VOIP call quality usually is the network, not the technology. If your network is too slow, has wildly varying latency times and/or is dropping packets, you have little hope of getting a useable VOIP connection.
Sorry, I made a bad assumption... The *57 causes the complete signaling information for the call to be recorded for disclosure to the police upon request but only for the last call.
The Caller ID part of SS7 ISUP is not what's used to route the call. Caller ID is an optional bit of data tacked onto the calls signaling and can literally be set to ANYTHING the originator wishes. It happens all the time.
Give me some time, an PBX and the president's phone number and You too can receive a call from the Oval Office of the Whitehouse to show your friends on your caller ID. Of course it will be MY voice on the other end, but your Caller ID will prove who called you right? (Saw this done once.)
So when you get the telemarketing call with a CID in your local area, they just set the optional data in the SS7 ISUP signaling to indicate that when they originated the call... It's not hard.. It happens all the time for legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
I think we should just turn off the ability to block or spoof CallerID (except for the verified commercial numbers who are granted exceptions after proving their identity). Problem solved.
Problem NOT solved... The issue of Caller ID won't be fixed by just making it illegal to block the CallerID because it doesn't fix the spoofed Caller ID problem. Make that illegal? Criminals will break that law too..
The issue here is that SS7 ISUP signaling doesn't require the Caller ID stuff be filled out in order to route a call, it's optional. A whole lot of stuff in bunches of legacy code and equipment would have to change to now require this information that is now optional. Also, there would be no way to verify the Caller ID information provided is actually valid without a bunch more changes to legacy hardware/software and a huge database of information (that doesn't now exist). This isn't technically impossible, it's just hugely expensive.
No sir, passing a law requiring Caller ID for every call doesn't fix anything, but it does break a lot of stuff..
So that justifies just tossing away our constitutional rights? Um, I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
What idiot uses a land line to make a threat from? Besides, who on earth has land lines anyway...
Also, I may be wrong, but the *57 doesn't work for calls where the caller has requested to block his Caller ID information, or for instances where the caller ID information has been spoofed (which is an exceptionally easy thing to do from a PBX or a lot of VOIP services).
In the public switched network, they surely know where the call comes from and where it's going, SS7 Signaling requires it to set up the bidirectional audio connections for the call. What doesn't exist is the requirement to allow the retrieval of this information AFTER the call is set up.
Phone companies routinely capture only the data they need to bill the call in a CDR (Call Detail Record) and at that point, they don't need (or likely want) the additional information about the source and destination numbers, especially for Cell calls, where the actual source/destination numbers used to route the call are often NOT the actual phone number anyway.
So I guess I'm saying that phone networks cannot easily trace a call AFTER it's setup, but only because they don't now always capture the necessary information when they had it.
Human Error accounts for 99% of actual power outages in my experience. It's ALWAYS some idiot throwing the wrong switch, unplugging the wrong thing, yanking the wrong wires or spilling something in the wrong place...
You simply cannot engineer around stupid well enough to fix it, regardless of how hard you try..
That being said... For a mission critical system in a multi-million dollar company like BA where was the backup site in a different geographic location that was configured to take over in the not-so-uncommon event of an outage? I don't care if it WAS a human that messed up and turned everything off, you need a contingency plan to deal with such things. Why? Because outages WILL happen no matter how much engineering and resources you pile into your primary location.
And it's a good time to note that Trump's cabinet wasn't confirmed for MOST of that 100 days because democrats where knuckle dragging all the way though the process.... Which, by the way, set a record for how long Congress took to confirm ANY new president's cabinet.
Not to mention... Most of this was accomplished and what was not accomplished was attempted or requires the actions of other parties (including the democrat obstructed congress) to be done. (with ONE exception that I see, the proposing of a constitutional amendment, which arguably he's already done what he can, given the president has no authority to initiate amendments to the constitution in the first place, only Congress and the States may do that.) Trump is attempting to keep his promises, unlike the pervious administration which had a habit of lying when is was convent for them....
So.. I'm now going to ask you if you expected Hillary to keep her promises? If so, she made some she had zero chance of actually keeping too... You want to play who's blacker the pot or kettle here or what?
This is political posturing, on BOTH sides. It's been going on in this country for over two centuries now, though in the last few decades it's been made into a blood sport.
I put more time and effort into defeating liberals than I have on anything else in a long long time.
The efforts of others and myself killed Hillary's chances.
And guess what? We won by the skin of our teeth!
FIFY
I voted for Trump, but you have to understand that he won by a narrow margin in the key states he took from the blue team. While historic, this was a skin of your teeth win for him and we'd do well to remember that.
Mod parent up.. Where are my MOD points today...
Nonsense. What Putin wants is to make Russia into an empire again, but without all the baggage the Soviet Union had. A weak U.S. is a step towards weakening NATO, which is a major roadblock standing in the way of the conquest of Eastern Europe. Wouldn't at all be surprised if Russia was influencing the UK with regards to Brexit, since the UK leaving the EU will weaken the EU as well, which is to Russias' advantage, too. In general: Foment chaos in Europe, making it easier to build an empire. That's what Putin is after.
Putin didn't choose his horse very well then. Trump is a problem for his Russian nationalism popularity that keeps him in office, barely. Trump is making Putin look a bit weaker than Obama did (and one would assume Hillary would do the same).
If the Russians actually tried anything, it was to weaken Hillary, not get Trump elected. My guess is that they didn't really care who took office before January 20th but are calling that into question now. Why all the saber rattling by Putin over Syria and North Korea? I think they would have preferred a weakened Hillary over this.
Trump ran on this position.. I'm not surprised he's doing this... Like him or not, you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...
OK you young head full of mush who doesn't have much reading comprehension ability... Given you don't want to accept my input and think you can make confident contrary assertions about things I've been doing for 25 years, I'm done with you. I tried to enlighten you, you refused to listen. You are on your own.
Now get off my lawn!
You seriously need to understand how Make works.... I'm fully aware of the -j option and it's meaning. I am also intimately aware of how make works and why it works the way it does after 25 years of using it. "-j" only limits the number of parallel process Make can use, but it doesn't force Make to use all those "jobs". Make is a system that allows you to process dependencies (like building all the object files before linking a library, or building al the libraries before you compile and link the executable). This means that all the allowed jobs will NOT be usable at all times.
But that begs the issue here. I'm contending that building the Linux Kernel (to use your example) is going to be IO bound, not CPU bound, even on a modest number of cores (say 8). You won't see great improvement when you add cores if you are I/O bound. I suggest you grab your best I/O capable system with 4 cores and see for yourself. Set the -j option to whatever you want as long as it's above 2x # cores and I will be VERY surprised if building the Linux Kernel maxes out your CPUs but your IO bandwidth will be swamped. Trust me, I do this every day on some fairly reasonable hardware..
1. All Hail the Grammar Nazis of the world, I promise to do better next time...
2. You will still be I/O bound for compilation, video editing and even trans coding, none of which are easily logically parallel tasks. You will find the process limited by your I/O bandwidth, which, even for SSD's will be fairly limited compared to how fast 18 cores could do their thing. Remember my comment is about how much you can speed up the afore mentioned tasks by adding cores and for any of them I seriously doubt there will be much improvement going from 8 to 18 cores. Why? You will still have to get all that data off and back on the disk and I'd imagine that 8 cores were not fully utilized to start with, already being I/O bound even on the best of I/O systems you can buy.