First of all we'll go over DSL. The further you are from the CO, the slower your speeds will be.
And as for cable, you must remember that your neighborhood is on a hub that has a max speed. If they oversubscribe this hub, you won't get the advertised speeds.
Fortuantely, I live in an area were not many people have cable modems, so the hub is not oversubscribed, and therefore I get speeds in the 5.4Mbps area. (Depending on the destination, of course.)
If you could get an idea of the scheme used to decide where the little dots go, you could just print out a bunch more in your document to foil the unique identification. IMHO this is just another case of 'the bad guys can get around it if they want to, while the "good" guys get the screw in some form or another'
There are currently two CS Sun labs here; the machines are SB100s and U5s running Solaris. We will most likely be upgrading both sometime soon - one with SB1500s that will run Solaris and the other with Sun W1100zs running Red Hat Linux.
We are also increasingly using Linux in place of Solaris in the datacanter. The switch is mainly because of cost and saturation; we can provide more services at the same price and can get help from the community if we run into any problems (of course we have enterprise level support, but thats been around for awhile). Another big part of this decision is AMD's HyperTransport. We don't run Linux on the Intel architecture due to the I/O limitations. AMD can handle high loads and get throughput almost as good as SPARC.
Is a vectorized fox with flames shooting out of his ass burning the world to a crisp really the image we want for firefox...? I would say that image is apt for Micr... oh nevermind...
I'm sorry - enumerate is not the right word. Replace 'enumerated' with 'displayed', 'printed', or otherwise 'outputted'. Is outputted a word?!:)
The reason i say this is that enumeration is another term in Theory of Computation which may confuse those informed individuals. Besides that, its just not the right word... sorry again for the confusion.
When I read 'verifying computer' in the article, I thought the same exact thing as the parent; i.e. "Ummm... has this asshole ever heard of the halting problem?!"
But then I remembered a loophole... You see, in the theoretical world, a Turing Machine has an infinite tape, and therefore and infinite number of configurations uqv. (Where q is the state, u is the contents of the tape left of the read/write head, and v is the contents under and to the right of the read/write head).
However, in the real world there is only a finite number of configurations since there is only a finite amount of memory. If each configuration was enumerated while the program in question was running, you would be able to see if a certain configuration was repeated. I.e., the computer is the exact same configuration as it was at a previous point in time - same state, same memory contents, etc. Viola - you have found a loop, or a program which doesn't halt.
So, in the real world, one of three things can happen:
1) The program halts
2) The program loops
3) The program exhausts the resources of the machine
The key is in option #3. The reason the halting problem is a problem in the theoretical world is because the program can run forever and never repeat configurations. In the real world, you will always get one of those three outcomes. Granted, you can never be sure if a the program eventually halts or not if you run into option #3, but if the program completely exhausts the memory resources of the system (or the universe) its pretty much a moot point now isn't it? That program would never be used.
My uncle got himself a 286 with a color display... He had this floppy disk with pictures of nekid ladies... That's all it took for me - the desire to get as much porn as humanly possible.
I guess this isn't exactly what you are looking for, but in an enterprise setting, the (high paid) developers should not be doing any testing. That ever so fun task of QA testing should be delegated to the (lower paid) testers.
Its a fundamental rule of business. Why pay developer cash for tester skill? Seperate it. The developers can get more done (faster deployment time, more features, better code, etc) by not 'wasting' their time on testing. Plus, it makes for a happier developer; a happy developer is a productive developer. And don't stop there; break it out into one more level - Software Engineers, Developers, Testers. IMHO the rule of three is the way to go.
Of course, this could backfire... The PHB might just come to the conclusion that we can loose some developers, hire testers, and cut costs. Silly PHB - ticks are for kids. (get it? bugs, ticks - kids,... oh never mind...)
If you get a kick out of this stuff, like myself, you should check out Logic Works & Design Works.
I've only used Logic Works, and it has every possible component imaginable. From D flip flops to light bulbs to quartz crystals. You can even enter a chip number (such as the 555 timer chip). It is an incredible program - i would love to try design works. (Fortunately, they have a 30 day free trial! Methinks i've found what i'm doing with my friday night...)
Logic Works is the student version, and can be purchased at Amazon with a book for $87. Design Works is the professional version, and can be purchased at http://www.capilano.com/.
It seems like a simpler (yet more complex) 'The Incredible Machine'! Man, I loved that game... He should definately open source this puppy - i can think of at least five good improvements off the top of my head. Anybody made an ALU yet?
Yes, you are correct. We currently use RAV in our setup, and it works very well. Unfortunatly, since Microsoft bought them updates have become less regular, so we were forced to start testing FProt. Good ol Microsoft sticks it to me once again!!! Ugh...
After seeing the first Slashdot story announcing the letter (and reading the letter) I decided to send an email to ol' ESR. Check it out:
I sent:
Eric-
If you really want your letter to be taken seriously by Sun, you must change the section about stock price:
*
But the casual equation between "open source" and "zero revenue" suggests that on another level you don't really know what you're talking about. Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had a share price over triple Sun's when I just checked.
*
Do you think Sun will take business advice from somebody that doesn't understand something as fundamental as stock price? I beg you - please change this. Talk about market cap, earnings, whatever - stock price is completely irrelevant. Sun could set their share price at $1000000 tomorrow if they wanted to (well, not tomorrow - the market is closed.:) ).
Just replace the last sentance with:
Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had earnings last quarter. Sun, on the other hand, lost money.
Thanks again for writing this letter - we're all with you.
------
And he replied:
No it isn't irrelevant. Sun cannot "set" a share prise; the market does
that, and it reflects investor expectations of future earnings per share.
----
And to that I replied:
Just FYI - a company can set the share price to whatever they want by doing a split or reverse split. I would recommend focusing on the fact that RedHat has been profitable for the past 5 quarters, while Sun has either lost money or broken even for the past 5. Growth might be something to mention as well.
I don't want to get into a whole big thing here; we're on the same side - i agree with you 100%!
Again, thanks for writing the letter - I hope it gets some results!
-----
Didn't get a response to that last one. He's just one of those typical computer guys that talks out of his ass. You know the type - they won't admit that there's something that they don't know. When will those people learn?! Admitting ignorance is the first step to knowledge, and in turn, wisdom.
Hopefully this episode will teach him a thing or two.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all we'll go over DSL. The further you are from the CO, the slower your speeds will be.
And as for cable, you must remember that your neighborhood is on a hub that has a max speed. If they oversubscribe this hub, you won't get the advertised speeds.
Fortuantely, I live in an area were not many people have cable modems, so the hub is not oversubscribed, and therefore I get speeds in the 5.4Mbps area. (Depending on the destination, of course.)
If you could get an idea of the scheme used to decide where the little dots go, you could just print out a bunch more in your document to foil the unique identification. IMHO this is just another case of 'the bad guys can get around it if they want to, while the "good" guys get the screw in some form or another'
There are currently two CS Sun labs here; the machines are SB100s and U5s running Solaris. We will most likely be upgrading both sometime soon - one with SB1500s that will run Solaris and the other with Sun W1100zs running Red Hat Linux.
We are also increasingly using Linux in place of Solaris in the datacanter. The switch is mainly because of cost and saturation; we can provide more services at the same price and can get help from the community if we run into any problems (of course we have enterprise level support, but thats been around for awhile). Another big part of this decision is AMD's HyperTransport. We don't run Linux on the Intel architecture due to the I/O limitations. AMD can handle high loads and get throughput almost as good as SPARC.
Is a vectorized fox with flames shooting out of his ass burning the world to a crisp really the image we want for firefox...? I would say that image is apt for Micr... oh nevermind...
I'm sorry - enumerate is not the right word. Replace 'enumerated' with 'displayed', 'printed', or otherwise 'outputted'. Is outputted a word?! :)
The reason i say this is that enumeration is another term in Theory of Computation which may confuse those informed individuals. Besides that, its just not the right word... sorry again for the confusion.
When I read 'verifying computer' in the article, I thought the same exact thing as the parent; i.e. "Ummm... has this asshole ever heard of the halting problem?!"
But then I remembered a loophole... You see, in the theoretical world, a Turing Machine has an infinite tape, and therefore and infinite number of configurations uqv. (Where q is the state, u is the contents of the tape left of the read/write head, and v is the contents under and to the right of the read/write head).
However, in the real world there is only a finite number of configurations since there is only a finite amount of memory. If each configuration was enumerated while the program in question was running, you would be able to see if a certain configuration was repeated. I.e., the computer is the exact same configuration as it was at a previous point in time - same state, same memory contents, etc. Viola - you have found a loop, or a program which doesn't halt.
So, in the real world, one of three things can happen:
1) The program halts
2) The program loops
3) The program exhausts the resources of the machine
The key is in option #3. The reason the halting problem is a problem in the theoretical world is because the program can run forever and never repeat configurations. In the real world, you will always get one of those three outcomes. Granted, you can never be sure if a the program eventually halts or not if you run into option #3, but if the program completely exhausts the memory resources of the system (or the universe) its pretty much a moot point now isn't it? That program would never be used.
My uncle got himself a 286 with a color display... He had this floppy disk with pictures of nekid ladies... That's all it took for me - the desire to get as much porn as humanly possible.
I guess this isn't exactly what you are looking for, but in an enterprise setting, the (high paid) developers should not be doing any testing. That ever so fun task of QA testing should be delegated to the (lower paid) testers.
Its a fundamental rule of business. Why pay developer cash for tester skill? Seperate it. The developers can get more done (faster deployment time, more features, better code, etc) by not 'wasting' their time on testing. Plus, it makes for a happier developer; a happy developer is a productive developer. And don't stop there; break it out into one more level - Software Engineers, Developers, Testers. IMHO the rule of three is the way to go.
Of course, this could backfire... The PHB might just come to the conclusion that we can loose some developers, hire testers, and cut costs. Silly PHB - ticks are for kids. (get it? bugs, ticks - kids,... oh never mind...)
If you get a kick out of this stuff, like myself, you should check out Logic Works & Design Works.
I've only used Logic Works, and it has every possible component imaginable. From D flip flops to light bulbs to quartz crystals. You can even enter a chip number (such as the 555 timer chip). It is an incredible program - i would love to try design works. (Fortunately, they have a 30 day free trial! Methinks i've found what i'm doing with my friday night...)
Logic Works is the student version, and can be purchased at Amazon with a book for $87. Design Works is the professional version, and can be purchased at http://www.capilano.com/.
It seems like a simpler (yet more complex) 'The Incredible Machine'! Man, I loved that game...
He should definately open source this puppy - i can think of at least five good improvements off the top of my head. Anybody made an ALU yet?
Yes, you are correct. We currently use RAV in our setup, and it works very well. Unfortunatly, since Microsoft bought them updates have become less regular, so we were forced to start testing FProt. Good ol Microsoft sticks it to me once again!!! Ugh...
After seeing the first Slashdot story announcing the letter (and reading the letter) I decided to send an email to ol' ESR. Check it out:
:) ).
I sent:
Eric-
If you really want your letter to be taken seriously by Sun, you must change the section about stock price:
*
But the casual equation between "open source" and "zero revenue" suggests that on another level you don't really know what you're talking about. Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had a share price over triple Sun's when I just checked.
*
Do you think Sun will take business advice from somebody that doesn't understand something as fundamental as stock price? I beg you - please change this. Talk about market cap, earnings, whatever - stock price is completely irrelevant. Sun could set their share price at $1000000 tomorrow if they wanted to (well, not tomorrow - the market is closed.
Just replace the last sentance with:
Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had earnings last quarter. Sun, on the other hand, lost money.
Thanks again for writing this letter - we're all with you.
------
And he replied:
No it isn't irrelevant. Sun cannot "set" a share prise; the market does that, and it reflects investor expectations of future earnings per share.
----
And to that I replied:
Just FYI - a company can set the share price to whatever they want by doing a split or reverse split. I would recommend focusing on the fact that RedHat has been profitable for the past 5 quarters, while Sun has either lost money or broken even for the past 5. Growth might be something to mention as well.
I don't want to get into a whole big thing here; we're on the same side - i agree with you 100%!
Again, thanks for writing the letter - I hope it gets some results!
-----
Didn't get a response to that last one. He's just one of those typical computer guys that talks out of his ass. You know the type - they won't admit that there's something that they don't know. When will those people learn?! Admitting ignorance is the first step to knowledge, and in turn, wisdom.
Hopefully this episode will teach him a thing or two.
Cheers!
ThePseudoGenie