I had some remarkably simular experience. While in 4th grade, my mom recognized that I was mathematicaly percotious ( I was testing at a 12th grade level in standardized math exams). She saw something I was doing, so introduced me to negative numbers, which I already conceptual understood. When I demonstrated this knowlege, my mom got into trouble. I did not find this out for years, about my mom getting yelled at or my math scores. Its sure a good thing I did not mention that I though infinity and negative infinity were the same. I was a spacey little kid, into snakes and bugs. I had no idea I was gifted in math, or even that I would love it until I was in high school. I had pretty much figured out the core concepts of algebra, without knowing that what I was doing was algebra, by the time I was in 6th grade. I made some offhanded comment about fractions being the same as division. My 6th grade teacher told me I was wrong and started yelling at me. I decided that he was an idiot, and teachers are not to be trusted. I learned later that there are some teachers who love math. In 7th and 8th grade, my school was experimenting with a self study math program. I half-heartedly sped through all the sections within a few weeks. The problem was that this was a study. My instructor was busy collecting data. He either did not have the time to deal with me or felt that doing so would containimate the experiment. At least in the last half eight grade, he handed me an algebra book. I was so disapointed. All this magical higher math subject was, was some stupud simple stuff that I had mostly figured out years befor. My teacher should have given me a calc book, but he could'nt have known. I sure wished someone would have told me I was good at math, or encourage me to persue it. My mom would'nt, after being told explicitly not to. After all the school teachers are the experts are'nt they? I did not learn calculus untill my sophmore year, and that because of an instructor that got excited about math, and got his students excited also. The course was Geometry. During the second week of the semester, he showed us the proof for the pythagerian theorem. He was so excited; like this proof was the coolest thing in the world. I was entranced, it was literaly as if some door opened up in my head. He was right, the proof of A^2 + B^2 = C^2 was the coolest thing. Math is about proofs and proofs could be beautifull. To this day, the Proof of Pythageris, is my favorite. Well I burnt through the text book, so I grabbed my dads trig and calc books, and started working the problems. My geometry teach, not only knew, he ecouraged me. He would even answer my questions! So one good teacher can counteract a lot of bad teachers. Too bad that I was years behind where I could have been and that life after highschool would not leave much time for math. Now at 43, I can get back to doing what I love (besides my fourth love programming. Gods number one, my son number two!)
Oviously, I don't think math is just for kids.
Note that the two contrary examples are 40+. I just turned 43. I am reentering the world of math. I plan on making contributions. I can do this now that my son is now a young adult. It really is difficult to lay back with eyes closed, conceptulizing mathematical concept for hours at a time when one has a child to attend to. One of my greatest loves is math but it does not compare to my love for my son. Despite this, I have managed to derive some interesting theorems whilst in the "reading" room. I just need to get up the courage to live like a poor student while I get a real degree. That is going to be hard at my age.
Should it be in/etc or/usr/etc? I've got an old SuSE 7.0 distro and can't find it. Some one please help. I want to see this bug. Oh you mean I need to put THAT on my system... never mind!
I concede that my belief is theoretical. I have imperical evidence that it can be done for some things. But I just tried to figure out how to teach someone how I visualize an abstract ring. I don't think I can do it. BTW. I use abstract algebra and related concepts to map problem spaces onto systems to be implimented in software. By starting with such a map, I am less likely to put funcionality in the wrong place. I am also more likely to spot things that are missing in the original problem defination. The result is code that is easier to maintain and to adapt to changes in the targeted problem space. It also produces more generalized software that can often be reused. I sure wish I could show people how I do this. It would have saved me many many hours spent explaining things to team members that I see so easily. It would have also have saved the entire team many more hours in fixing code produced by some boneheaded programmers that ignored my ( and other team members) advice. I am also sure that some of my coworkes, who also use visualization techniques, wish they could explain what they do. As none of use have done it, maybe it is imposible.
This headline is dead, but I'll respond anyways. I don't think anyone will read it. I find that pure symbolic manipulations is a visual task. I find writing regex to be very visual. I think it is a matter of visual abstraction. I often visualize sets of abstractions to solve math and programming problems. Another commentor wanted an example. Its kinda lame but does demonstrate the use of sets of abstraction. Most people have little problem visualizing conic sections. Most people can visualize 3D quadratic surfaces. It is not too hard to visualize the conic section produced by the intersection of a plane with a quadratic surface. By abstraction, I think people generaly will be able to visualize quadratic surfaces as the intersection of a 4D "cone" with a "cube". 4D Quadratic surfaces can be visualized by passing a "cube" through the surface. Treating the direction of the pass as time, one gets a changing 3D quadratic surface. Combining the "movies" produced by different selections for the "time" direction creates a set of abstractions. And this set can be used to represent the 4D quadratic surface.
Funny, this is perfect. What I wrote, appears to be an example of what I was talking about. The only difference is that it is in english and not C. It is grammaticaly correct. The problem is that my sentence is sylisticly atrocious. I am kinda afraid of rereading the rest of what I wrote, so late at night. I think I will be writing farther posts in VIM. That way I can more easily read and edit what I'm writing. I might even attempt to use correct spelling... naw.
If students were taught how to visualise the math they are suppose to be learning, they would pick it up much faster. You will find that ALL people who are good with math have a natural capability for visualizing the concepts. It is my firm belief that visualization technique can be taught. I have done just this while tutoring. I found Linear Algebra extremely easy because it was so visual.
If you read all of my post, you would see that I conceed this point. Being a prorammer, I was more interessted in his code then his interview so that is what I started with. I was reading the interview while composing my post ( and yes, I'm highly multitasking). That is why I did not get to this point to the very end.
I have to say that I mostly agree with you. My main gripe is not with what is not taught, but rather by what is. Students are instructed to use techniques and practices that have no place in large projects. I've seen Introductory Programming textbooks that gave me the shivers. As I said in my post, most of the real programmers get past all this rather quickly. That is because they know that they have only just started to learn how to program. The only way to learn to program is to program as you said. I've been doing it for 30 years and I'm still learning and loving it.
When are they goining to start teach good coding practices in school? Most grads have to unlearn tons of bad habits. This kids code is no exception. If he submited this stuff for inclusion on any of my projects, I would end up rewriting it as an example of what is exceptable. Fortunatly, every university grad that I have worked with had a love of coding, and assumed that they would be doing a lot of their learning after graduating. These type quickly pick up the practices needed for real world programming. On the other hand, there are those that got into programming for the money ( ha big laugh!) This type usualy can not get passed what they learned in school. If the prof tells them "This is the way to do it", by golly thats how their gonna do it and no one is going to tell them different. I've seen this type but have not had to work with any. It is quite obvious that Dave is of the first type. His logic is also impecible.... oh never mind, I just finishe reading the interview. He does already understand that his competition code is not what he would use in real world programming. I'll submit anyways because I think it is important and has been a bit of a gripe of mine for awhile.
You don't undestand what was ment. If you have ever worked on maintaining and extending a large open ended project writen in C or C++, and a simular project written in Ada, you would know. The same can be said of Python vs. PERL. A tool written in Python using accepted Pythonistic techniques will generaly be easier for a Pythonista ( and even a non Pythonista) to read then the same tool written in PERL is for a PERL hacker. One needs to think more in decoding the syntax.
The fundimental reason Ada syntax is easier to read the C is straight forward. C syntax was designed to map very well onto the underlying computor hardware. The syntax of Ada was designed to map onto the problem space for which computors are applied.
I really don't care if no one uses Ada right now. It has got so many advantages over C that it is well worth learning. I use it for my personal coding. I have several projects cooking. Once they are stable ( and documented, even Ada need good documentation!) I will be releasing them GPLed. If the community ignors them because of the language, so be it. I don't care. I want secure maintainable code. The only real problem with Ada is that which is common to all strongly typed languages and that is it is easy to get carried away defining types. As more project leaders come to the conclusion that the most of the problems with modern code can be traced to errors that are a direct result of the characteristics of C/C++, the appeal of Ada will increase. The only other contender is Java but it carries too much baggage.
Not SPS, its MPS ( I think thats the correct acronym for the organization that handels microprocessors, its been awhile). And yes Apple has little if no clout with SPS, or at least they did'nt. Things might have changed. Apple is a very very flacky customer. Most of the time, that I was involved with them, they did not know what they wanted. I personaly had little respect for their engineering. They used to be incredibly myoptic and narrowly focused. This does not work well when they keep changing their minds. They also tended to come up with very specific solutions that had limited applicability, eshewing more general solutions that would have gotten them farther down the road. But their worst characteristic was allowing preconcived attitudes to take presidence over engineering realities. That is they would refuse to use technology that did not like even if it could be proved to be the best solution.
Re:In the market for a 64-bit workstation?
on
Inside the PowerPC 970
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I did not have much trouble getting GNOME working on a HP B180 with HP-UX 10.20 ( compiled with acc, HP-UXs standard compiler). BTW that is a 180MHz PA-RISC machine. It kicked a 1GHz Pentium based workstations butt, even after I put Gentoo on the Intel box ( it original had only Windows NT, shudder). Fast clock rates can't compensate for a moronic architecture in the hands of heavily multitasking users like me.
Concidering that the anti-evo crowd can not even find valid Biblical evidence to back up their beliefs, it is doubtfull that they would be able to find any valid physical evidence. It is understandable that most Christians would be ignorant of scientific matters. After all the general population is. But they should be experts in Biblical matters. If they can't find Biblical evidence, no one can.
The standard Fox-Miller experiment uses heat to produce steam that is condensed collected and reintroduced into the "reaction" area through siphoning. It is a minutatur version of what happens with volcanic heating of water in nature. How this is supose to invalidate the experiments, is beyond me. It is just like most of the anti-evolution arguments; geared to ignorant Christians ( to keep them in line) and not anyone who knows any real science.
As for your clay hypothesis, I designed and built an experiment, while in high school. It utilized kayolin ( alumina-silica). The point was not handedness, but to produce sugars (via Strecker synthesis). I think a modification of what I desinged might be usefull for investigating isomer ratios. Its quite funny that I remember my experiment so well. I did the thing in 1976 or so.
In another post, I describe a feedback mechinism. All it needs is a provible method of assembiling protiens with a preferential orientation that is likely to have been present in the prebiotic earth.
For your last point. It is truely amasing that some people are so buisy looking for miracles in the chain of events that yielded us, that they miss the biggest miracle of all. That is that the rules of the universe are such that they allowed us who are capable of wondering about those rules.
I sure don't know where you have gotten your information, but its mostly inaccurate. Any free oxygen in the prebiotic earths atmosphere was chemicaly insignifigant. Almost all free oxygen was quickly incorporated into metal oxides, e.g. rust. There is a huge body of geological evidence for this. D proteins are not "toxic", they are just chemicaly insignifigent.
What variations of the Fox-Miller experiment PROVE is that amino acids could have been produced by mechinisms present in the prebiotic earth. They do that quite well. They are not intended to demenstrate anything else. The earth is a big place. A lot of mechinisms are at work. A lab is a small place ( unless it is Dexters). Only a limited set of mechinisms can be investigated at one time. In other words, some other mechinism was at work that provided preferential treatment for L proteins. Note that once Amino Acids from proteins, they become more stable. The more complex the protein, the more stable they become. This is a positive feedback system. All it takes is for one factor to be present that increases ever so slightly, the chances of some L amino acids to form a protein. Unfortunatly some things can not be easily duplicated in a lab.
You Creationist wacos realy piss me off. Who are you to define what mechinisms, the Most High God, is allowed to use in accomplishing His works. Why do you people find it sooo hard to beleive that He might have actualy used the laws of physics, that He CREATED, to form life. And don't get me started on, "Well the Bible says this, and the Bible says that..." In all probability, I know the Bible better then you. I sometimes catch gruff from members of my church over the issue of evolution. Its all realy in good fun and we usualy stop befor any argument gets outa hand. My church family knows my sincerity and respect the my diligents in studying the Word of God. The also acknowlege that my understanding of Theological matters is very solid. That is because when I read the Bible for edification, I do so under the guidence of The Holy Spirit, even if that means I must trash some of my most cherished preconceptions. This is one of the reasons Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, I have heard all of the anti-evolution rhetoric and can easily blast any argument.
Now its time for the bomb shell. The main source of the anti-evolution arguments is the "Society for Creation Studies". They use intimidation, manipulation, and misiformation to farther their cause. Their name is even a lie. They are not pro-Creationists, they are anti-evolutionist. Last time I checked, these are the tools of Satan and his minions. I am very suspicious of anyone who uses Satans methods. You should be to. BTW, some of thier arguments effevtivly deny the Power in the Blood of Christ!!!
Satan does not work to control the world. The worlds his aready. On the other hand he is deeply involved with trying to control the Church. The main job of the Church is to spread the Word of God, and the good news of salvation through Jesus, the Christ of God. The enemy has put huge damper on this mission. Ask any non-Christian/.er about Christians. They will invaribly say that they are ignorant and uneducated because they deny scientific fact, so how can they be trusted about anything else?
This is enough for this rant. I think it is obvious that I could go on aout this subject at length. I might do a fuller write up later ( not as a post!).
Do you know what 2k equivelent yield is? Did'nt think so. Electronics manufacuring and semiconductor manufacturing are two very different fields. I've worked in both. BTW this is NOT a QA problem. It is a qualification problem.
Oh, Intel, I have 23 years experience in test development and qualification of new products. I have been involved in everything from DC to light. That is if you are looking for anyone willing to work for cheap.
In one sentence. You do not know what you are talking about and your "facts" are wrong. Thats what you get for using/. post as your primary source of info.
P.S. I worked for Motorola and then for HP. I've been following Microprocessor technology since the release of the 6805. Guess when that was?
Actuly I relie on spel chekers alot. I already know that my spelling is atrocious. More so when I am being distracted every few second by my son. He thinks that since I'm home, I'm there for him. My grammar on the other hand, is normally good. The problem comes when I'm in a hurry and unable to complete even one sentence without answering a silly question. I have been dedicating my 9 to 5 to writing my resume. Which has burnt out my language composition circuitry. Unfortunatly, most have my posts are about as bad as this one. Oh well.
Back to the original subject. I did not intend to imply that AMD does not do appropriate qualification of their new products. I am sure they do. If they did not, they would not be in buisness very long. What I am saying is that the class of problem, Intel is know investigating, is appearently new. The flak from the majority of the/. crowd is silly. It comes from ignorance of semiconductor manufactering and a dislike of Intel. Problems will always crop up when extending technologies reach. In all probability, Intel could have chosen to keep the problem quiet and continue to ship, and no one would have ever seen the problem. It is, after all an exceding rare event. There are indications that AMD has done just this befor. The other thing Intel could have done is to update the Final Test plan to weed out these defects. Intel did the right thing by stopping production. The engineers want to understand the cause and fix the problem. They do not want to apply a bandaid. This is what they should be given credit for.
Current simulation technology is incapable of modeling all known phenomina. The math is just not there yet. Once there are devices to test, it would literaly take YEARS to go through all instruction sequences, with all possible data, for all devices the qualified process is likely to produce, over the entire speced operating enviroment range. ( How do you like that grammar!?) Once the current problem has been quantified, models will be updated ( if possible). Future designs will minimize the chance of any problems ( i.e. more tollerent of process variation). Process will be modified to yield device with tighter specs for whatever characteristic "turns on" the problem.
I have worked in semiconductor industry for 15 years. My first eight years involved devices that usualy pushed technology, with no room for error ( all Level S stuff). On top of that, I grew up around IC manufacturing. My dad was an engineer. He sometimes took work home. I asked a lot of questions. I heard a lot of tales. Through my own experiences and what I learned from my dad, I could relate many many horror stories. I've seen combinations of events so unlikely that Mojo Jojo ( Powerpuff Girls) would not have thought of them. I would relate a few of the wierder( okay I can't spell, and I'm to tired to look it up) one but it is late, my son just got home, and I want to spend time with him ( after putting him off all day.)
Hey, the first sane post I've read. I might mention that physical phenomina effect on hardware is often not linear, nor monotonic, nor even continuous. In fact it is often catastrophic in 10 to 20 dimensions ( hystrisis is a one dimensional catastrophy, fight or flight responce is a two dimensional catastrophy). Okay so the phenominas effect on a single piece of hardware is nearly impossible with current math. On top of this, modeling an ideal device does no good. All of the possible devise variation that the process will produce also need to be modeled, and the effects of any particular process variation can be decidedly discontinuose, so catching the corner cases or major transitions does no good.
And one last point. In software a one is a one, a zero is a zero, and a bit can only be a one or zero. In hardware, a one is a range of voltages (that can change), a zero is a range of voltages, and a bit can be effectivly somewhere in between.
Itanium is a very new architecture. It has the potential for kicking i386 chips in the butt once it has a chance to grow up. With anything as radicaly new as the Itanium, there is a high probability of unexpected problems. AMD has not had this sort of problem resently because they don't have any balls. All they ever do basicaly amounts to minor tweeks of a stable design. Even their 64 bit extensions fall into this catagory.
The type of problem Intel is dealing with could very well be in a new class. I have a hunch that it has to due with either unexpected capacitive coupling ( possibly related to an in-spec extreme of the process variation) or thermal transients causing timing skew. These types of phenomena are nearly impossible to model, especial if its tied to a particular set of process deviations. That is why manufacturer do such extensive qualification testing. Unfortunatly this testing can not be done untill there are enough units to test ( like in the 1000s). This does not happen untill the device is ready for production. Technicaly, this is the Pilot phase of development.
One needs to give Intel some credit for learning a lesson from the Pentium fiascos ( not just the math error, but also the original ( 5V) 90Mhz burn-up issue). At least they are doing the right thing now. Corporations, like people, sometimes need to learn the hard way. Unfortunatly, though people usually retain their lessons, Corporations sometimes need to relearn them, especialy when being run by greedy BODs ( or board members with hidden agendas). AMD has yet to learn this particular lesson. One of these days, they will try to cover up a problem and its not going to work. They have gotten away with some stuff already because everyone loves to hate Intel ( me included, 68000 and PowerPC for me!)
Unless your familiar with LSI semiconductor manufacturing, you should not be commenting. Because you don't have a clue as to what is going on. The posts I've read so far, remind me of what a class of 10 year olds would right in criticing Joseph Conrads "Heart of Darkness".
Have you noticed how many of the charlettons empires have crumbled. The current televangelist that I am familiar with, like Jack Hayford, live very modest lives, usualy below the standard of living for other profesionals with eight year degrees ( which many have). At least some of the wealthy televangilists have gotten that way through means other then their ministry. Wise money managment is Biblical. There is nothing wrong with becoming rich through investment. As for any crooks still out there, their days are numbered. Their money changing tables will be overturned. Its happened in the past, it will happen again.
Well it sure obvious you have not read much of the Bible yourself. Your statment is quit obsurd. Nor do you think much. Post again after you learn to reason for yourself instead of paroting what your pedophilic profesor told you.
Slashdot Mirror
I had some remarkably simular experience. While in 4th grade, my mom recognized that I was mathematicaly percotious ( I was testing at a 12th grade level in standardized math exams). She saw something I was doing, so introduced me to negative numbers, which I already conceptual understood. When I demonstrated this knowlege, my mom got into trouble. I did not find this out for years, about my mom getting yelled at or my math scores. Its sure a good thing I did not mention that I though infinity and negative infinity were the same. I was a spacey little kid, into snakes and bugs. I had no idea I was gifted in math, or even that I would love it until I was in high school. I had pretty much figured out the core concepts of algebra, without knowing that what I was doing was algebra, by the time I was in 6th grade. I made some offhanded comment about fractions being the same as division. My 6th grade teacher told me I was wrong and started yelling at me. I decided that he was an idiot, and teachers are not to be trusted. I learned later that there are some teachers who love math. In 7th and 8th grade, my school was experimenting with a self study math program. I half-heartedly sped through all the sections within a few weeks. The problem was that this was a study. My instructor was busy collecting data. He either did not have the time to deal with me or felt that doing so would containimate the experiment. At least in the last half eight grade, he handed me an algebra book. I was so disapointed. All this magical higher math subject was, was some stupud simple stuff that I had mostly figured out years befor. My teacher should have given me a calc book, but he could'nt have known. I sure wished someone would have told me I was good at math, or encourage me to persue it. My mom would'nt, after being told explicitly not to. After all the school teachers are the experts are'nt they? I did not learn calculus untill my sophmore year, and that because of an instructor that got excited about math, and got his students excited also. The course was Geometry. During the second week of the semester, he showed us the proof for the pythagerian theorem. He was so excited; like this proof was the coolest thing in the world. I was entranced, it was literaly as if some door opened up in my head. He was right, the proof of A^2 + B^2 = C^2 was the coolest thing. Math is about proofs and proofs could be beautifull. To this day, the Proof of Pythageris, is my favorite. Well I burnt through the text book, so I grabbed my dads trig and calc books, and started working the problems. My geometry teach, not only knew, he ecouraged me. He would even answer my questions! So one good teacher can counteract a lot of bad teachers. Too bad that I was years behind where I could have been and that life after highschool would not leave much time for math. Now at 43, I can get back to doing what I love (besides my fourth love programming. Gods number one, my son number two!) Oviously, I don't think math is just for kids.
Note that the two contrary examples are 40+. I just turned 43. I am reentering the world of math. I plan on making contributions. I can do this now that my son is now a young adult. It really is difficult to lay back with eyes closed, conceptulizing mathematical concept for hours at a time when one has a child to attend to. One of my greatest loves is math but it does not compare to my love for my son. Despite this, I have managed to derive some interesting theorems whilst in the "reading" room. I just need to get up the courage to live like a poor student while I get a real degree. That is going to be hard at my age.
Should it be in /etc or /usr/etc? I've got an old SuSE 7.0 distro and can't find it. Some one please help. I want to see this bug. Oh you mean I need to put THAT on my system ... never mind!
PS Sorry could'nt help it.
I concede that my belief is theoretical. I have imperical evidence that it can be done for some things. But I just tried to figure out how to teach someone how I visualize an abstract ring. I don't think I can do it. BTW. I use abstract algebra and related concepts to map problem spaces onto systems to be implimented in software. By starting with such a map, I am less likely to put funcionality in the wrong place. I am also more likely to spot things that are missing in the original problem defination. The result is code that is easier to maintain and to adapt to changes in the targeted problem space. It also produces more generalized software that can often be reused. I sure wish I could show people how I do this. It would have saved me many many hours spent explaining things to team members that I see so easily. It would have also have saved the entire team many more hours in fixing code produced by some boneheaded programmers that ignored my ( and other team members) advice. I am also sure that some of my coworkes, who also use visualization techniques, wish they could explain what they do. As none of use have done it, maybe it is imposible.
This headline is dead, but I'll respond anyways. I don't think anyone will read it. I find that pure symbolic manipulations is a visual task. I find writing regex to be very visual. I think it is a matter of visual abstraction. I often visualize sets of abstractions to solve math and programming problems. Another commentor wanted an example. Its kinda lame but does demonstrate the use of sets of abstraction. Most people have little problem visualizing conic sections. Most people can visualize 3D quadratic surfaces. It is not too hard to visualize the conic section produced by the intersection of a plane with a quadratic surface. By abstraction, I think people generaly will be able to visualize quadratic surfaces as the intersection of a 4D "cone" with a "cube". 4D Quadratic surfaces can be visualized by passing a "cube" through the surface. Treating the direction of the pass as time, one gets a changing 3D quadratic surface. Combining the "movies" produced by different selections for the "time" direction creates a set of abstractions. And this set can be used to represent the 4D quadratic surface.
Funny, this is perfect. What I wrote, appears to be an example of what I was talking about. The only difference is that it is in english and not C. It is grammaticaly correct. The problem is that my sentence is sylisticly atrocious. I am kinda afraid of rereading the rest of what I wrote, so late at night. I think I will be writing farther posts in VIM. That way I can more easily read and edit what I'm writing. I might even attempt to use correct spelling ... naw.
If students were taught how to visualise the math they are suppose to be learning, they would pick it up much faster. You will find that ALL people who are good with math have a natural capability for visualizing the concepts. It is my firm belief that visualization technique can be taught. I have done just this while tutoring. I found Linear Algebra extremely easy because it was so visual.
If you read all of my post, you would see that I conceed this point. Being a prorammer, I was more interessted in his code then his interview so that is what I started with. I was reading the interview while composing my post ( and yes, I'm highly multitasking). That is why I did not get to this point to the very end.
I have to say that I mostly agree with you. My main gripe is not with what is not taught, but rather by what is. Students are instructed to use techniques and practices that have no place in large projects. I've seen Introductory Programming textbooks that gave me the shivers. As I said in my post, most of the real programmers get past all this rather quickly. That is because they know that they have only just started to learn how to program. The only way to learn to program is to program as you said. I've been doing it for 30 years and I'm still learning and loving it.
When are they goining to start teach good coding practices in school? Most grads have to unlearn tons of bad habits. This kids code is no exception. If he submited this stuff for inclusion on any of my projects, I would end up rewriting it as an example of what is exceptable. Fortunatly, every university grad that I have worked with had a love of coding, and assumed that they would be doing a lot of their learning after graduating. These type quickly pick up the practices needed for real world programming. On the other hand, there are those that got into programming for the money ( ha big laugh!) This type usualy can not get passed what they learned in school. If the prof tells them "This is the way to do it", by golly thats how their gonna do it and no one is going to tell them different. I've seen this type but have not had to work with any. It is quite obvious that Dave is of the first type. His logic is also impecible. ... oh never mind, I just finishe reading the interview. He does already understand that his competition code is not what he would use in real world programming. I'll submit anyways because I think it is important and has been a bit of a gripe of mine for awhile.
If Ada code writen by C programers still thinking in C is anything like C code writen by EEs still thinking in BASIC, I don't want to see it.
You don't undestand what was ment. If you have ever worked on maintaining and extending a large open ended project writen in C or C++, and a simular project written in Ada, you would know. The same can be said of Python vs. PERL. A tool written in Python using accepted Pythonistic techniques will generaly be easier for a Pythonista ( and even a non Pythonista) to read then the same tool written in PERL is for a PERL hacker. One needs to think more in decoding the syntax. The fundimental reason Ada syntax is easier to read the C is straight forward. C syntax was designed to map very well onto the underlying computor hardware. The syntax of Ada was designed to map onto the problem space for which computors are applied.
I really don't care if no one uses Ada right now. It has got so many advantages over C that it is well worth learning. I use it for my personal coding. I have several projects cooking. Once they are stable ( and documented, even Ada need good documentation!) I will be releasing them GPLed. If the community ignors them because of the language, so be it. I don't care. I want secure maintainable code. The only real problem with Ada is that which is common to all strongly typed languages and that is it is easy to get carried away defining types. As more project leaders come to the conclusion that the most of the problems with modern code can be traced to errors that are a direct result of the characteristics of C/C++, the appeal of Ada will increase. The only other contender is Java but it carries too much baggage.
Not SPS, its MPS ( I think thats the correct acronym for the organization that handels microprocessors, its been awhile). And yes Apple has little if no clout with SPS, or at least they did'nt. Things might have changed. Apple is a very very flacky customer. Most of the time, that I was involved with them, they did not know what they wanted. I personaly had little respect for their engineering. They used to be incredibly myoptic and narrowly focused. This does not work well when they keep changing their minds. They also tended to come up with very specific solutions that had limited applicability, eshewing more general solutions that would have gotten them farther down the road. But their worst characteristic was allowing preconcived attitudes to take presidence over engineering realities. That is they would refuse to use technology that did not like even if it could be proved to be the best solution.
I did not have much trouble getting GNOME working on a HP B180 with HP-UX 10.20 ( compiled with acc, HP-UXs standard compiler). BTW that is a 180MHz PA-RISC machine. It kicked a 1GHz Pentium based workstations butt, even after I put Gentoo on the Intel box ( it original had only Windows NT, shudder). Fast clock rates can't compensate for a moronic architecture in the hands of heavily multitasking users like me.
Concidering that the anti-evo crowd can not even find valid Biblical evidence to back up their beliefs, it is doubtfull that they would be able to find any valid physical evidence. It is understandable that most Christians would be ignorant of scientific matters. After all the general population is. But they should be experts in Biblical matters. If they can't find Biblical evidence, no one can.
The standard Fox-Miller experiment uses heat to produce steam that is condensed collected and reintroduced into the "reaction" area through siphoning. It is a minutatur version of what happens with volcanic heating of water in nature. How this is supose to invalidate the experiments, is beyond me. It is just like most of the anti-evolution arguments; geared to ignorant Christians ( to keep them in line) and not anyone who knows any real science. As for your clay hypothesis, I designed and built an experiment, while in high school. It utilized kayolin ( alumina-silica). The point was not handedness, but to produce sugars (via Strecker synthesis). I think a modification of what I desinged might be usefull for investigating isomer ratios. Its quite funny that I remember my experiment so well. I did the thing in 1976 or so. In another post, I describe a feedback mechinism. All it needs is a provible method of assembiling protiens with a preferential orientation that is likely to have been present in the prebiotic earth. For your last point. It is truely amasing that some people are so buisy looking for miracles in the chain of events that yielded us, that they miss the biggest miracle of all. That is that the rules of the universe are such that they allowed us who are capable of wondering about those rules.
I sure don't know where you have gotten your information, but its mostly inaccurate. Any free oxygen in the prebiotic earths atmosphere was chemicaly insignifigant. Almost all free oxygen was quickly incorporated into metal oxides, e.g. rust. There is a huge body of geological evidence for this. D proteins are not "toxic", they are just chemicaly insignifigent.
/.er about Christians. They will invaribly say that they are
What variations of the Fox-Miller experiment PROVE is that amino acids could have been produced by mechinisms present in the prebiotic earth. They do that quite well. They are not intended to demenstrate anything else. The earth is a big place. A lot of mechinisms are at work. A lab is a small place ( unless it is Dexters). Only a limited set of mechinisms can be investigated at one time. In other words, some other mechinism was at work that provided preferential treatment for L proteins. Note that once Amino Acids from proteins, they become more stable. The more complex the protein, the more stable they become. This is a positive feedback system. All it takes is for one factor to be present that increases ever so slightly, the chances of some L amino acids to form a protein. Unfortunatly some things can not be easily duplicated in a lab.
You Creationist wacos realy piss me off. Who are you to define what mechinisms, the Most High God, is allowed to use in accomplishing His works. Why do you people find it sooo hard to beleive that He might have actualy used the laws of physics, that He CREATED, to form life. And don't get me started on, "Well the Bible says this, and the Bible says that..." In all probability, I know the Bible better then you. I sometimes catch gruff from members of my church over the issue of evolution. Its all realy in good fun and we usualy stop befor any argument gets outa hand. My church family knows my sincerity and respect the my diligents in studying the Word of God. The also acknowlege that my understanding of Theological matters is very solid. That is because when I read the Bible for edification, I do so under the guidence of The Holy Spirit, even if that means I must trash some of my most cherished preconceptions. This is one of the reasons Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, I have heard all of the anti-evolution rhetoric and can easily blast any argument.
Now its time for the bomb shell. The main source of the anti-evolution arguments is the "Society for Creation Studies". They use intimidation, manipulation, and misiformation to farther their cause. Their name is even a lie. They are not pro-Creationists, they are anti-evolutionist. Last time I checked, these are the tools of Satan and his minions. I am very suspicious of anyone who uses Satans methods. You should be to. BTW, some of thier arguments effevtivly deny the Power in the Blood of Christ!!!
Satan does not work to control the world. The worlds his aready. On the other hand he is deeply involved with trying to control the Church. The main job of the Church is to spread the Word of God, and the good news of salvation through Jesus, the Christ of God. The enemy has put huge damper on this mission. Ask any non-Christian
ignorant and uneducated because they deny scientific fact, so how can they be trusted about anything else?
This is enough for this rant. I think it is obvious that I could go on aout this subject at length. I might do a fuller write up later ( not as a post!).
Do you know what 2k equivelent yield is? Did'nt think so. Electronics manufacuring and semiconductor manufacturing are two very different fields. I've worked in both. BTW this is NOT a QA problem. It is a qualification problem.
Oh, Intel, I have 23 years experience in test development and qualification of new products. I have been involved in everything from DC to light. That is if you are looking for anyone willing to work for cheap.
In one sentence. You do not know what you are talking about and your "facts" are wrong. Thats what you get for using /. post as your primary source of info.
P.S. I worked for Motorola and then for HP. I've been following Microprocessor technology since the release of the 6805. Guess when that was?
Actuly I relie on spel chekers alot. I already know that my spelling is atrocious. More so when I am being distracted every few second by my son. He thinks that since I'm home, I'm there for him. My grammar on the other hand, is normally good. The problem comes when I'm in a hurry and unable to complete even one sentence without answering a silly question. I have been dedicating my 9 to 5 to writing my resume. Which has burnt out my language composition circuitry. Unfortunatly, most have my posts are about as bad as this one. Oh well.
/. crowd is silly. It comes from ignorance of semiconductor manufactering and a dislike of Intel. Problems will always crop up when extending technologies reach. In all probability, Intel could have chosen to keep the problem quiet and continue to ship, and no one would have ever seen the problem. It is, after all an exceding rare event. There are indications that AMD has done just this befor. The other thing Intel could have done is to update the Final Test plan to weed out these defects. Intel did the right thing by stopping production. The engineers want to understand the cause and fix the problem. They do not want to apply a bandaid. This is what they should be given credit for.
Back to the original subject. I did not intend to imply that AMD does not do appropriate qualification of their new products. I am sure they do. If they did not, they would not be in buisness very long. What I am saying is that the class of problem, Intel is know investigating, is appearently new. The flak from the majority of the
Current simulation technology is incapable of modeling all known phenomina. The math is just not there yet. Once there are devices to test, it would literaly take YEARS to go through all instruction sequences, with all possible data, for all devices the qualified process is likely to produce, over the entire speced operating enviroment range. ( How do you like that grammar!?) Once the current problem has been quantified, models will be updated ( if possible). Future designs will minimize the chance of any problems ( i.e. more tollerent of process variation). Process will be modified to yield device with tighter specs for whatever characteristic "turns on" the problem.
I have worked in semiconductor industry for 15 years. My first eight years involved devices that usualy pushed technology, with no room for error ( all Level S stuff). On top of that, I grew up around IC manufacturing. My dad was an engineer. He sometimes took work home. I asked a lot of questions. I heard a lot of tales. Through my own experiences and what I learned from my dad, I could relate many many horror stories. I've seen combinations of events so unlikely that Mojo Jojo ( Powerpuff Girls) would not have thought of them.
I would relate a few of the wierder( okay I can't spell, and I'm to tired to look it up) one but it is late, my son just got home, and I want to spend time with him ( after putting him off all day.)
Hey, the first sane post I've read. I might mention that physical phenomina effect on hardware is often not linear, nor monotonic, nor even continuous. In fact it is often catastrophic in 10 to 20 dimensions ( hystrisis is a one dimensional catastrophy, fight or flight responce is a two dimensional catastrophy). Okay so the phenominas effect on a single piece of hardware is nearly impossible with current math. On top of this, modeling an ideal device does no good. All of the possible devise variation that the process will produce also need to be modeled, and the effects of any particular process variation can be decidedly discontinuose, so catching the corner cases or major transitions does no good.
And one last point. In software a one is a one, a zero is a zero, and a bit can only be a one or zero. In hardware, a one is a range of voltages (that can change), a zero is a range of voltages, and a bit can be effectivly somewhere in between.
Itanium is a very new architecture. It has the potential for kicking i386 chips in the butt once it has a chance to grow up. With anything as radicaly new as the Itanium, there is a high probability of unexpected problems. AMD has not had this sort of problem resently because they don't have any balls. All they ever do basicaly amounts to minor tweeks of a stable design. Even their 64 bit extensions fall into this catagory.
The type of problem Intel is dealing with could very well be in a new class. I have a hunch that it has to due with either unexpected capacitive coupling ( possibly related to an in-spec extreme of the process variation) or thermal transients causing timing skew. These types of phenomena are nearly impossible to model, especial if its tied to a particular set of process deviations. That is why manufacturer do such extensive qualification testing. Unfortunatly this testing can not be done untill there are enough units to test ( like in the 1000s). This does not happen untill the device is ready for production. Technicaly, this is the Pilot phase of development.
One needs to give Intel some credit for learning a lesson from the Pentium fiascos ( not just the math error, but also the original ( 5V) 90Mhz burn-up issue). At least they are doing the right thing now. Corporations, like people, sometimes need to learn the hard way. Unfortunatly, though people usually retain their lessons, Corporations sometimes need to relearn them, especialy when being run by greedy BODs ( or board members with hidden agendas). AMD has yet to learn this particular lesson. One of these days, they will try to cover up a problem and its not going to work. They have gotten away with some stuff already because everyone loves to hate Intel ( me included, 68000 and PowerPC for me!)
Unless your familiar with LSI semiconductor manufacturing, you should not be commenting. Because you don't have a clue as to what is going on. The posts I've read so far, remind me of what a class of 10 year olds would right in criticing Joseph Conrads "Heart of Darkness".
Have you noticed how many of the charlettons empires have crumbled. The current televangelist that I am familiar with, like Jack Hayford, live very modest lives, usualy below the standard of living for other profesionals with eight year degrees ( which many have). At least some of the wealthy televangilists have gotten that way through means other then their ministry. Wise money managment is Biblical. There is nothing wrong with becoming rich through investment. As for any crooks still out there, their days are numbered. Their money changing tables will be overturned. Its happened in the past, it will happen again.
Well it sure obvious you have not read much of the Bible yourself. Your statment is quit obsurd. Nor do you think much. Post again after you learn to reason for yourself instead of paroting what your pedophilic profesor told you.