I've been to Nebraska/Iowa many times. You don't have hills and canyons. You just think you do - go to Arizona if you want to see a canyon. Come to Colorado or CA if you want to see hill and MOUNTAINS. Definition of a hill - 2400 feet high..
As far as it goes - Omaha, etc are indeed quite pleasant as far as trees/green spaces go. But then you have humidity....ugh!
That is a good theory - but then the guy isn't on anything that you would call Flextime. Flextime means that you can shift your hours. You'll need to put in 8 minimum, but you should be able to set you worktime within limits.
For instance - we don't know that 7:30 isn't the time he agreed to under these terms. I do believe that a professional organization doesn't need a time keeper. Yet if the organization has a union involved some where you can bet that someone grieved against the professional bunch and they too get to punch a clock. Just the way it works (which sucks..)
Okay - I'm going to mention some reasons why perhaps it's a good reason to have this information as public info. Ham radio tries to be "self regulating." The information of where people are located is used in that effort.
This can be as simple as a polite note pointing out a problem with someone's signal quality (which would be a rules violation had the FCC heard it..) to peer pressure in the form of suggestion that the FCC will be informed if some particular bad behavior continues.
Note that when it gets to this stage, the beligerant has usually been located by direction finding means. The public directory is just used to find out who lives there.
Now those are the "enforcement" reasons for keeping the directory. There is another very non-threatening reason for keeping the information. We have this habbit (quickly disappearing..:-( of sending QSL cards to people we've enjoyed meeting over the radio. You get the address via the callsign lookup.
Lastly, this system has been in place for many many years, and I've personally never heard of an abuse. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I just haven't heard of it in over 25 years of being a part of the ham community.
Well - as one person already stated - RICO sounds like a good way to respond. If you DO get one of these little lovelies - turn it over to your state attorney general and ask for SCO to be investigated for RICO violations! They are threatening people under color of authority they haven't proved they have in court. IANAL - but that sounds like extortion to me.
I'm a hardware jock that has worked on 4 different commercial unix systems (from the development point of view.) All were multi-processors and I was doing this in 1982.
The first machine two machines I saw the work performed on was BSD! The last machines were Sys V plus Berkeley enhancements. These were in the mid 80's. So we're talking between 15 and 20 years ago. Not one of these companies was SCO by the way;-)
In any case- I've seen several different engineers with the requisite skill set do this, and it worked quite well thank you very much.
At the same time, it took on the average of 1-2 years for a couple of programmers to add the multi-processing features to the OS. Hmmm, and consider that Linux was multiprocessing on a more primitive level by 2.4 kernel (or was it 2.2?) In any case for at LEAST 2 years and actually more like 5 years. They have just been improving it!
My theory is the "Fortune 500" company is really Microsoft. They're double counting the money they got for MS?
Think about it.
We KNOW that MS has a few Linux boxes in their competitive analysis lab...so they put a few more hundred dollars on the table, and give SCO another PR bonanza!
That isn't completely true - SCO and IBM were in discussions for a while before SCO dropped the first nuke. At the same time, you get the gist of the way SCO thinks, i.e. talk to us about how much you want to pay us for Linux - yeah sure we'll talk. I'd guess that is roughly how they approached IBM too -
Sure sounds like a legal form of extortion doesn't it?
A few years ago I was involved with setting up an environment for allowing engineers to work at home. That sounds like no big deal, but I'm talking about 1995 or so when ISDN at home was something impressive.
We needed to have Xterminal access to the work environment and I suggested deploying Linux on people's home machines. We even went so far as to do 7 or 8 installs on people's home boxes.
The professional IT guys said they couldn't support this, even though we already stated that our department would handle he support internally. The IT guys came up with buying a $700 Xterminal and a $1000 ISDN modem as the ideal solution.
We estimated we would have saved about $100K if we had gone with the Linux/Home PC solution and a $300 ISDN modem.
The point to the story is that even in trying to sell it, I had the help of my direct manager who was ALSO a Linux fan and pushed the project on my behalf! I did the work, he did the sales.
So maybe you can get someone as a sales person to suits that can help you push your ideas.
What bugs me about the whole discussion is that we have been eating "Genetically engineered" Foods for hundreds of years! Ever since Mendel started "monk"eying around with plants, we've had genetically manipulated species!
What about that Navel Orange you just enjoyed, or "GrapeFruit?"
The only significant difference is HOW the mutations are caused - that's it!
The 1.1RC version is considerably faster than the 1.0 tree - like nite and day literally! In powering up under Linux Mandrake 9.0 I'm seeing a couple second start time as compared to 8-10 seconds with Openoffice 1.0. So that is an improvement! As for compatibility - there is a reason this is an RC still - I've had it crash on me already reading Word docs that 1.0 can read.
Well - the point is that www.opencores.org has FAR surpassed what these guys have. You can build REAL SOC's out of the large selection at opencores, and they actually work!
I think you'll find that Handle C , System C, etc are not likely to be very popular with the run-of-the-mill designer. Most of these folks (me included) don't see the need for yet another design language. We get along fine with Verilog or VHDL.
There HAS been a need identified for verification constructs in the languages - Vera and E are examples of stand-alone verification languages that are used in conjunction with the RTL design in Verilog/VHDL. With the advent of Superlog/SystemVerilog these languages are being included within Verilog itself. This features the best of both worlds, i.e. old IP still runs, and new constructs are added to make verification easier.
So while there are a few adopters of SystemC, etc. I suspect they will fall by the way-side as SystemVerilog becomes a reality. It seems the EDA industry is going to back SystemVerilog above the other choices, and most designers seem to feel this is the best solution.
Re:Truly suprising colnclusion, OR NOT!
on
Analysis: x86 Vs PPC
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yep, and he is still stuck back in the 80's with his RISC vs CISC arguments. He says that internally they pretty much look the same (which they do) but they're some how different because RISC is easier to make happen.
Well - today's RISC's aren't very RISCy anymore.;-) Todays CISC's have the same aspect. The machines have all migrated to simpler cores running VERY fast, but then tagging on features like predictive branching, out-of-order execution, etc.
An example of where the guy goes wrong is in his discussion of the compilers. What he fails to understand is that one BIG reason that the Intel compiler is better than GCC is that the same kinds of compiler optimization that accounts for how the hardware schedules things work for both the PPC and the Intel architecture. This has been true since the original entry of the MIPs architecture for goodness sake. Intel KNOWS what the hardware is going to do, and built those smarts into the compiler! You can do the same thing for the PowerPC by the way..not saying you can't.
Nuff said - it was an interesting article but bowed to much towards RISC is Great - All Hail RISC bunch.
I've had their service since DirectTVDSL crashed. They are VERY Linux friendly - their terms of service are REALLY reasonable, for the most part "do what you want as long as it's legal." Did anyone notice they are one of the three repositories for rpmfind??
I don't know about that - I kinda lost interest when he went into the Gnu/Linux is the REAL name nonsense. I'm SO tired of that particular Richardism that I just quit reading after that point.
Ah but did you do it BEFORE or AFTER KA9Q? (Who reads/. I believe..;-) If you are a ham involved in the digital world at all - the answer to the above is obvious;-)
Yes it is a GWBism. If it ain't, it ought to be;-)
On to FD (which I'll be heading out to in about an hour) The idea is to set up using emergency power and contact as many places as you can. The attempt is to simulate/self-train for emergency operations.
It turns out to be GREAT fun while getting people to improvise. Murphy tends to come to field day alot. So you get to use your noodle in figuring out how to radiate when Murphy is conspiring against you - kinda like REAL emergencies.
Okay - fine, you disagree, and think that HOV lanes are a great idea. But I'll bet you are a SMALL MINORITY! That being the case - why is your BAD public policy shoved down the majority's throat????
Now maybe you live in a state where this isn't the case. In CA I've only met two people in the last 20 years that thought HOV lanes were a great idea.
Another GREAT example - one of the first freeways that HOV was installed on was the Santa Monica Freeway in Southern CA. This is one of the busiest if not THE busiest freeways in the world. Because of the poor implementation, it essentially has screwed up that freeway ever since it was installed.
Another great choke point here in the bay area is the 680 commute over the Sunol grade. To take care of the huge traffic jam that was a daily occurence - they installed an HOV lane. That was bright. Duh... Now - it IS true that the commute is MUCH lighter, but that is because the HUGE layoffs the area has suffered. Proof of concept. The nightly commute is usually as light as the morning commute now and there isn't an HOV lane going that way yet.
It's a DUMB DUMB DUMB idea.
Stop trying these social engineering experiments. If you are going to pay for infrastructure - spend it on infrastructure that everyone can use!
Yes - I'm aware of this lane. According to my father (an LA driver of some 50 years experience..) the company that runs this operation is bankrupt. Apparently, the damn thing doesn't pay for itself.
On top of this (if you are accurate about who built it) MY TAXES paid for this fiasco.
There are a couple of major problems with this thinking.
As a practical matter - Car Pooling lanes do NOT cause car pools to form. That is a statistical fact. In CA - the number of multi-occupant cars does NOT go up as a car pool lane is introduced on a freeway. The only people that manage to use car pools are either 1) existing pools, or 2) Soccer Mom's. That's about it.
Another problem with this logic is that cars produce MORE polution as they sit and idle in a traffic jam than they would if they were operating at speed at their optimum performance, i.e that gas gets burned more thoroughly.
The last problem I have with commuter lanes is that the rest of us paid for them, but only 7% of the population can/does take advantage. That is STUPID public policy!
Now - let's talk about the Seattle concept. So - here my taxes have already PAID for the lane, and being a normal government entity they want to charge me for using the lane again... HUH???
Another dumb idea brought to you by government bureaucrats.
You got to use a High level language on your first computer. Bah- Humbug!
I learned to program on an Ollevetti Programma 101. A programmable calculator circa 1965 or so - though I was using it in 1972. Then I learned Gotran (fortran II) followed by Fortran IV where I got to run on IBM 1130's and at USC on a 370(which was WAY COOL) followed by PASCAL on a 11/45 running RSTS/E. We had Basic on it too - but it wasn't your Father's basic;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to Nebraska/Iowa many times. You don't have hills and canyons. You just think you do - go to Arizona if you want to see a canyon. Come to Colorado or CA if you want to see hill and MOUNTAINS. Definition of a hill - 2400 feet high..
As far as it goes - Omaha, etc are indeed quite pleasant as far as trees/green spaces go. But then you have humidity....ugh!
That is a good theory - but then the guy isn't on anything that you would call Flextime. Flextime means that you can shift your hours. You'll need to put in 8 minimum, but you should be able to set you worktime within limits.
For instance - we don't know that 7:30 isn't the time he agreed to under these terms. I do believe that a professional organization doesn't need a time keeper. Yet if the organization has a union involved some where you can bet that someone grieved against the professional bunch and they too get to punch a clock. Just the way it works (which sucks..)
Okay - I'm going to mention some reasons why perhaps it's a good reason to have this information as public info. Ham radio tries to be "self regulating." The information of where people are located is used in that effort.
This can be as simple as a polite note pointing out a problem with someone's signal quality (which would be a rules violation had the FCC heard it..) to peer pressure in the form of suggestion that the FCC will be informed if some particular bad behavior continues.
Note that when it gets to this stage, the beligerant has usually been located by direction finding means. The public directory is just used to find out who lives there.
Now those are the "enforcement" reasons for keeping the directory. There is another very non-threatening reason for keeping the information. We have this habbit (quickly disappearing..:-( of sending QSL cards to people we've enjoyed meeting over the radio. You get the address via the callsign lookup.
Lastly, this system has been in place for many many years, and I've personally never heard of an abuse. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I just haven't heard of it in over 25 years of being a part of the ham community.
Well - as one person already stated - RICO sounds like a good way to respond. If you DO get one of these little lovelies - turn it over to your state attorney general and ask for SCO to be investigated for RICO violations! They are threatening people under color of authority they haven't proved they have in court. IANAL - but that sounds like extortion to me.
I'm going to add just about 2 cents worth here.
;-)
I'm a hardware jock that has worked on 4 different commercial unix systems (from the development point of view.) All were multi-processors and I was doing this in 1982.
The first machine two machines I saw the work performed on was BSD! The last machines were Sys V plus Berkeley enhancements. These were in the mid 80's. So we're talking between 15 and 20 years ago. Not one of these companies was SCO by the way
In any case- I've seen several different engineers with the requisite skill set do this, and it worked quite well thank you very much.
At the same time, it took on the average of 1-2 years for a couple of programmers to add the multi-processing features to the OS. Hmmm, and consider that Linux was multiprocessing on a more primitive level by 2.4 kernel (or was it 2.2?) In any case for at LEAST 2 years and actually more like 5 years. They have just been improving it!
Not Rocket science.
My theory is the "Fortune 500" company is really Microsoft. They're double counting the money they got for MS?
Think about it.
We KNOW that MS has a few Linux boxes in their competitive analysis lab...so they put a few more hundred dollars on the table, and give SCO another PR bonanza!
That isn't completely true - SCO and IBM were in discussions for a while before SCO dropped the first nuke. At the same time, you get the gist of the way SCO thinks, i.e. talk to us about how much you want to pay us for Linux - yeah sure we'll talk. I'd guess that is roughly how they approached IBM too -
Sure sounds like a legal form of extortion doesn't it?
I want to second this approach -
A few years ago I was involved with setting up an environment for allowing engineers to work at home. That sounds like no big deal, but I'm talking about 1995 or so when ISDN at home was something impressive.
We needed to have Xterminal access to the work environment and I suggested deploying Linux on people's home machines. We even went so far as to do 7 or 8 installs on people's home boxes.
The professional IT guys said they couldn't support this, even though we already stated that our department would handle he support internally. The IT guys came up with buying a $700 Xterminal and a $1000 ISDN modem as the ideal solution.
We estimated we would have saved about $100K if we had gone with the Linux/Home PC solution and a $300 ISDN modem.
The point to the story is that even in trying to sell it, I had the help of my direct manager who was ALSO a Linux fan and pushed the project on my behalf! I did the work, he did the sales.
So maybe you can get someone as a sales person to suits that can help you push your ideas.
What bugs me about the whole discussion is that we have been eating "Genetically engineered" Foods for hundreds of years! Ever since Mendel started "monk"eying around with plants, we've had genetically manipulated species!
What about that Navel Orange you just enjoyed, or "GrapeFruit?"
The only significant difference is HOW the mutations are caused - that's it!
No - just REALLY liberal - as are most of the comments on this toppic.
Oh well...
AND I have Moderator points and I know how to use them!
Whoops! DAMN! If I post - I can't moderate this series - but MAN was I tempted!
The 1.1RC version is considerably faster than the 1.0 tree - like nite and day literally! In powering up under Linux Mandrake 9.0 I'm seeing a couple second start time as compared to 8-10 seconds with Openoffice 1.0. So that is an improvement! As for compatibility - there is a reason this is an RC still - I've had it crash on me already reading Word docs that 1.0 can read.
Well - the point is that www.opencores.org has FAR surpassed what these guys have. You can build REAL SOC's out of the large selection at opencores, and they actually work!
I think you'll find that Handle C , System C, etc are not likely to be very popular with the run-of-the-mill designer. Most of these folks (me included) don't see the need for yet another design language. We get along fine with Verilog or VHDL.
There HAS been a need identified for verification constructs in the languages - Vera and E are examples of stand-alone verification languages that are used in conjunction with the RTL design in Verilog/VHDL. With the advent of Superlog/SystemVerilog these languages are being included within Verilog itself. This features the best of both worlds, i.e. old IP still runs, and new constructs are added to make verification easier.
So while there are a few adopters of SystemC, etc. I suspect they will fall by the way-side as SystemVerilog becomes a reality. It seems the EDA industry is going to back SystemVerilog above the other choices, and most designers seem to feel this is the best solution.
Yep, and he is still stuck back in the 80's with his RISC vs CISC arguments. He says that internally they pretty much look the same (which they do) but they're some how different because RISC is easier to make happen.
;-) Todays CISC's have the same aspect. The machines have all migrated to simpler cores running VERY fast, but then tagging on features like predictive branching, out-of-order execution, etc.
Well - today's RISC's aren't very RISCy anymore.
An example of where the guy goes wrong is in his discussion of the compilers. What he fails to understand is that one BIG reason that the Intel compiler is better than GCC is that the same kinds of compiler optimization that accounts for how the hardware schedules things work for both the PPC and the Intel architecture. This has been true since the original entry of the MIPs architecture for goodness sake. Intel KNOWS what the hardware is going to do, and built those smarts into the compiler! You can do the same thing for the PowerPC by the way..not saying you can't.
Nuff said - it was an interesting article but bowed to much towards RISC is Great - All Hail RISC bunch.
I've had their service since DirectTVDSL crashed. They are VERY Linux friendly - their terms of service are REALLY reasonable, for the most part "do what you want as long as it's legal." Did anyone notice they are one of the three repositories for rpmfind??
I'm a happy customer!
I don't know about that - I kinda lost interest when he went into the Gnu/Linux is the REAL name nonsense. I'm SO tired of that particular Richardism that I just quit reading after that point.
Ah but did you do it BEFORE or AFTER KA9Q? (Who reads /. I believe.. ;-) If you are a ham involved in the digital world at all - the answer to the above is obvious ;-)
73 de KA6S
Yes it is a GWBism. If it ain't, it ought to be ;-)
On to FD (which I'll be heading out to in about an hour) The idea is to set up using emergency power and contact as many places as you can. The attempt is to simulate/self-train for emergency operations.
It turns out to be GREAT fun while getting people to improvise. Murphy tends to come to field day alot. So you get to use your noodle in figuring out how to radiate when Murphy is conspiring against you - kinda like REAL emergencies.
But that has been the term used in the Radio industry for decades (25 years minimum that I can swear to directly - and more likely 60 years..)
So they are trademarking it within the same area that it is already used?
This type of car pooling doesn't happen CA. Consequently, the point is incorrect.
Okay - fine, you disagree, and think that HOV lanes are a great idea. But I'll bet you are a SMALL MINORITY! That being the case - why is your BAD public policy shoved down the majority's throat????
Now maybe you live in a state where this isn't the case. In CA I've only met two people in the last 20 years that thought HOV lanes were a great idea.
Another GREAT example - one of the first freeways that HOV was installed on was the Santa Monica Freeway in Southern CA. This is one of the busiest if not THE busiest freeways in the world. Because of the poor implementation, it essentially has screwed up that freeway ever since it was installed.
Another great choke point here in the bay area is the 680 commute over the Sunol grade. To take care of the huge traffic jam that was a daily occurence - they installed an HOV lane. That was bright. Duh... Now - it IS true that the commute is MUCH lighter, but that is because the HUGE layoffs the area has suffered. Proof of concept. The nightly commute is usually as light as the morning commute now and there isn't an HOV lane going that way yet.
It's a DUMB DUMB DUMB idea.
Stop trying these social engineering experiments. If you are going to pay for infrastructure - spend it on infrastructure that everyone can use!
You are probably for progressive taxation too!
Yes - I'm aware of this lane. According to my father (an LA driver of some 50 years experience..) the company that runs this operation is bankrupt. Apparently, the damn thing doesn't pay for itself.
On top of this (if you are accurate about who built it) MY TAXES paid for this fiasco.
That is doubly dumb!
There are a couple of major problems with this thinking.
As a practical matter - Car Pooling lanes do NOT cause car pools to form. That is a statistical fact. In CA - the number of multi-occupant cars does NOT go up as a car pool lane is introduced on a freeway. The only people that manage to use car pools are either 1) existing pools, or 2) Soccer Mom's. That's about it.
Another problem with this logic is that cars produce MORE polution as they sit and idle in a traffic jam than they would if they were operating at speed at their optimum performance, i.e that gas gets burned more thoroughly.
The last problem I have with commuter lanes is that the rest of us paid for them, but only 7% of the population can/does take advantage. That is STUPID public policy!
Now - let's talk about the Seattle concept. So - here my taxes have already PAID for the lane, and being a normal government entity they want to charge me for using the lane again... HUH???
Another dumb idea brought to you by government bureaucrats.
Ah - someone from MY generation.
;-)
You got to use a High level language on your first computer. Bah- Humbug!
I learned to program on an Ollevetti Programma 101. A programmable calculator circa 1965 or so - though I was using it in 1972. Then I learned Gotran (fortran II) followed by Fortran IV where I got to run on IBM 1130's and at USC on a 370(which was WAY COOL) followed by PASCAL on a 11/45 running RSTS/E. We had Basic on it too - but it wasn't your Father's basic
Anyway - seeing RSTS/E made me smile.