 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now if I could figure out what a typical MIPS rating for a normal PC
>> today is, I'd have something dissimilar to compare it to. :-}
<snip>
> By running many jobs concurrently we make full use of the machine. If I could
> port POVRAY to our mainframe, I'm sure it would be slower than most current PCs.
> But cpu intensive work is not what the mainframe does best.
I've always been tempted to try povray on one of our mainframes even if
it was running from within linux on ZOs.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_zSeries)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Verm <a@b> wrote:
> >> Now if I could figure out what a typical MIPS rating for a normal PC
> >> today is, I'd have something dissimilar to compare it to. :-}
> <snip>
> > By running many jobs concurrently we make full use of the machine. If I could
> > port POVRAY to our mainframe, I'm sure it would be slower than most current PCs.
> > But cpu intensive work is not what the mainframe does best.
>
> I've always been tempted to try povray on one of our mainframes even if
> it was running from within linux on ZOs.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_zSeries)
So have I. Whenever I get time I would like to install zLinux in a test lpar to
see how well it runs. Of course the first app I would try to port would be
povray. Unfortunately getting the spare time is the hard part. I no sooner get
done with one project and two are stacked in the queue. Oh well, maybe someday.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always has
to spend several seconds mentally adjusting any number over 1000 she heard
about, because (for example) 10,000 and 100,000 have their own words in chinese.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>>>
>>> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
>>
>> I doubt that's going to work.
>
> That's your problem. ;-)
As with so much in life, it seems...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think the "real" difference between a desktop and a server is
>> probably fault-tolerance.
>
> Yep. And when downtime starts costing you thousands of dollars per
> second, you start doing things like having two independent entirely
> separate power companies supplying the power to your building, along
> with several independent ways of getting to your networks, including
> both satellite and land lines, as well as several leased lines
> guaranteed not to be in physical proximity and terminated in different
> states.
>
> Now, maybe a large bomb in the building or an airliner crashing into it
> would have taken it out, so they're probably behind the times compared
> to (say) google, but it was pretty impressive for 20 years ago.
Fortunately, my employer does not need to go to such lengths. ;-)
Dealing with *one* ISP is quite hard enough... (And then there's the
fact that in the UK there is only one IP carrier. Unless you happen to
live in London.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even today, I see people selling "servers" which are really like
>> "desktops". (1.2 GHz Intel Celeron with 512 MB RAM? I don't think so...)
>
> Depends on what the server is doing. If it's just serving files up,
> that's more than adequate; hell, I used to do file & print on an 80286
> with 16 MB of memory.
Depends on how many files, of what size, to how many users.
Now the Domain Controller? *That* requires almost no hardware at all...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 wrote:
> Reliability and redundancy is one of the strong points of IBMs last few
> generations of mainframes. If any page of memory fails, the error can be
> corrected, if it is a hard error, that page of memory will be automatically
> taken offline. If a processor fails, there are spare processors that can take
> over and continue the operation if one fails. Multiple paths to all i/o devices
> where possible. Of course redundant power supplies. Much of the machines
> circuitry has redundant components. When a component fails, the machine phones
> home and reports the failure. Many time operations is completely unaware of any
> problem until an IBM CE shows up at the door with a replacement part in hand.
> And many components can be replaced on the fly, with out any downtime. The
> latest machines are not totally fault tolerant, but each new generation is
> better than the last. I think the latest z/9 and z/10 models have a MTBF of
> over 30 years.
That's pretty impressive, really...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (And then there's the
> fact that in the UK there is only one IP carrier. Unless you happen to
> live in London.)
When you get up to this point, you're running your own personal wires
(fibers) into other cities to connect to other ISPs. Or probably directly
into the backbone, for that matter.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 6:16 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>>>>
>>>> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
>>>
>>> I doubt that's going to work.
>>
>> That's your problem. ;-)
>
> As with so much in life, it seems...
>
<Sigh>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:16:27 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>>>>
>>>> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
>>>
>>> I doubt that's going to work.
>>
>> That's your problem. ;-)
>
> As with so much in life, it seems...
Well, as I've said up here before, you can either let life happen to you,
or you can do something about it.
Took me a long time to learn that lesson myself.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:18:28 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Even today, I see people selling "servers" which are really like
>>> "desktops". (1.2 GHz Intel Celeron with 512 MB RAM? I don't think
>>> so...)
>>
>> Depends on what the server is doing. If it's just serving files up,
>> that's more than adequate; hell, I used to do file & print on an 80286
>> with 16 MB of memory.
>
> Depends on how many files, of what size, to how many users.
Generally not, because file/print is I/O intensive, not CPU intensive.
Unless you start adding things like compression, encryption, block
suballocation, and the like to the picture.
> Now the Domain Controller? *That* requires almost no hardware at all...
I can remember running 8 DCs (Windows 2000) on a Dual processor P2
Proliant 6000. Not for production, of course, but for testing an AD
design. VMware was pretty good for that setup. :-)
CPU becomes important when the server does actual processing tasks;
memory when the server is doing other things as well - for example,
running Apache, or using memory as a disk cache.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:16:27 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>>>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that's going to work.
>>>
>>> That's your problem. ;-)
>>
>> As with so much in life, it seems...
>
> Well, as I've said up here before, you can either let life happen to you,
> or you can do something about it.
>
> Took me a long time to learn that lesson myself.
>
> Jim
Words of wisdom, James. Words of wisdom.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 6:17 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Dealing with *one* ISP is quite hard enough... (And then there's the
> fact that in the UK there is only one IP carrier. Unless you happen to
> live in London.)
Or Hull, or Manchester, or Birmingham or Glasgow or Edinburgh or ...
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:06:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> Well, as I've said up here before, you can either let life happen to
>> you, or you can do something about it.
>
> Words of wisdom, James. Words of wisdom.
One of these days I'll follow it more than I do now - I still have a lot
of areas where I actively engage in avoidance where I shouldn't, and I
just let things happen rather than directing them.
It's something I've been reading a lot about recently as I look at my own
career development path.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Even today, I see people selling "servers" which are really like
>>>> "desktops". (1.2 GHz Intel Celeron with 512 MB RAM? I don't think
>>>> so...)
>>> Depends on what the server is doing. If it's just serving files up,
>>> that's more than adequate; hell, I used to do file & print on an 80286
>>> with 16 MB of memory.
>> Depends on how many files, of what size, to how many users.
>
> Generally not, because file/print is I/O intensive, not CPU intensive.
I was thinking more that you'd need more RAM, not CPU power.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 8:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:06:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Well, as I've said up here before, you can either let life happen to
>>> you, or you can do something about it.
>>
>> Words of wisdom, James. Words of wisdom.
>
> One of these days I'll follow it more than I do now - I still have a lot
> of areas where I actively engage in avoidance where I shouldn't, and I
> just let things happen rather than directing them.
>
That is the human condition.
> It's something I've been reading a lot about recently as I look at my own
> career development path.
>
Don't read, act. Or rather think then act.
See you in Edinburgh soon. :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-5-2010 22:31, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 1980, except that it was the next day and not six months later.
>
> To be clear, they pretty much stopped making that sort of machine in the
> late 70s, but many of them lasted into the 90s before they ahd to be
> retired, often for lack of parts.
>
What I actually meant that when I started at uni (1982) we could still
hand over a deck of cards at a front office and collect our results next
day. It was also the first year we could also do it using terminals,
though we still had to collect our output ourselves. The machine the
programs were run on was, IIRC, a Cyber 205 in the central super
computing facility.
At the medical physics department we had a VAX, this was retired in
about 85 after running against an IBM compatible. Although the VAX won
by 60% there was a small difference in cost. The IBM compatible costed
about $2000 or so whereas the VAX consumed a couple of $100000 just in
electricity and maintenance per year. (forgot the actual numbers but the
difference was a factor in that ballpark).
We also had a VAX in the experimental cardiology department, where I am
working now. That one was retired around 1998, after a colleague and me
wrote a program that could finally do on a PC what the VAX had been
doing until then. Although it is even now hard to duplicate the 4000 by
4000 resolution we had on our display monitor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/05/2010 8:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:06:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, as I've said up here before, you can either let life happen to
>>>> you, or you can do something about it.
>>>
>>> Words of wisdom, James. Words of wisdom.
>>
>> One of these days I'll follow it more than I do now - I still have a
>> lot of areas where I actively engage in avoidance where I shouldn't,
>> and I just let things happen rather than directing them.
>>
>>
> That is the human condition.
Yeah, that's true enough. Passivity is easy; activity is hard. People
tend for the easy.
>> It's something I've been reading a lot about recently as I look at my
>> own career development path.
>>
>>
> Don't read, act. Or rather think then act. See you in Edinburgh soon.
> :-)
Maybe a holiday this year, the way the dollar is comparing against the
pound, it's looking like this could actually happen this year. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:27:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Even today, I see people selling "servers" which are really like
>>>>> "desktops". (1.2 GHz Intel Celeron with 512 MB RAM? I don't think
>>>>> so...)
>>>> Depends on what the server is doing. If it's just serving files up,
>>>> that's more than adequate; hell, I used to do file & print on an
>>>> 80286 with 16 MB of memory.
>>> Depends on how many files, of what size, to how many users.
>>
>> Generally not, because file/print is I/O intensive, not CPU intensive.
>
> I was thinking more that you'd need more RAM, not CPU power.
There again, it depends. If you're doing multi-gigabyte file
distribution for system imaging, there isn't enough RAM available to
cache the file sizes we're talking about, so it's better to fully
optimize the I/O channels from end to end.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>
> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
> has to spend several seconds mentally adjusting any number over 1000 she
> heard about, because (for example) 10,000 and 100,000 have their own words
> in chinese.
Yep that happens here with all my Japanese colleagues (I think they have
words for 10e4 and 10e8 there). At first I just thought they were really
dumb because it took them 10 seconds to translate a number! Our Japanese
teacher (who is not technical at all) usually just gave up with big numbers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That is the human condition.
>
> Yeah, that's true enough. Passivity is easy; activity is hard. People
> tend for the easy.
When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
hard to find motivation...
Required XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/187/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Dealing with *one* ISP is quite hard enough... (And then there's the
>> fact that in the UK there is only one IP carrier. Unless you happen to
>> live in London.)
>
> Or Hull, or Manchester, or Birmingham or Glasgow or Edinburgh or ...
Name one company in Hull that actually owns wires under the ground, not
just rented from BT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:33:23 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
> hard to find motivation...
Because like so many other people, you have unrealistic expectations.
http://www.johndiesattheend.com/updates/?p=1071
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/05/2010 4:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Maybe a holiday this year, the way the dollar is comparing against the
> pound, it's looking like this could actually happen this year.:-)
>
Keep us updated.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/05/2010 9:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Dealing with *one* ISP is quite hard enough... (And then there's the
>>> fact that in the UK there is only one IP carrier. Unless you happen to
>>> live in London.)
>>
>> Or Hull, or Manchester, or Birmingham or Glasgow or Edinburgh or ...
>
> Name one company in Hull that actually owns wires under the ground, not
> just rented from BT.
Ha ha! You fell for it. :-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull#Telephone_system
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Ha ha! You fell for it. :-P
I guess you think that's clever, eh?
Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing a cream telephone box while
walking around Hull...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/05/2010 1:03 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Ha ha! You fell for it. :-P
>
> I guess you think that's clever, eh?
>
Yes :-D
> Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing a cream telephone box while
> walking around Hull...
Neither have I but then I’ve only been there for a couple of days about
ten years ago.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:29:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/05/2010 4:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Maybe a holiday this year, the way the dollar is comparing against the
>> pound, it's looking like this could actually happen this year.:-)
>>
>>
> Keep us updated.
Shall do. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:33:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> That is the human condition.
>>
>> Yeah, that's true enough. Passivity is easy; activity is hard. People
>> tend for the easy.
>
> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
> hard to find motivation...
BTDTGTTS. Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and-
error process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
> Required XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/187/
That's a good one and extremely relevant. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing a cream telephone box while
>> walking around Hull...
>
> Neither have I but then I’ve only been there for a couple of days about
> ten years ago.
You'll notice I picked a city that I've actually visited...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/05/2010 6:16 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing a cream telephone box while
>>> walking around Hull...
>>
>> Neither have I but then I’ve only been there for a couple of days
>> about ten years ago.
>
> You'll notice I picked a city that I've actually visited...
>
Sucker punch :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I had always assumed that the first computers were like current
> computers, just using relays or whatever instead of transistors, and
> with vastly inferior specifications.
A lot of the theory behind information processing, and especially on
finding the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a specific task,
comes from this era. When a single clock cycle of computer time costs
enough money to show up on a balance sheet, efficiency in computing
becomes something of interest.
> For that matter, does anybody have a broad timeline of when various
> technologies were in use? What are the dates for things like core
> memory, drum memory, punch cards, magnetic tape, relays, vacuum tubes,
> transistors, ICs, etc?
In the early 80s my high school went and bought a card reader for use in
quickly tallying input from the 2000+ students on things like student
council elections and so forth. They wanted me to help get the system
going, but I never spent more than an hour or so with it.
The US military had 50s-era cryptologic equipment, using vacuum tubes
and magnetic cores, in active service until the late 80s. The
transmitter and receiver together took up an entire equipment rack. It
was widely rumored among Air Force crypto technicians that the designer
of the system had been committed to an insane asylum, and that nobody
else fully understood how it worked.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/20/10 00:31, scott wrote:
> Yep that happens here with all my Japanese colleagues (I think they have
> words for 10e4 and 10e8 there). At first I just thought they were
We have a word for 10e8 here. It's called "billion".
--
The meek shall inherit the dearth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/19/10 09:51, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>
> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
Wow. Another one. I wonder how long this has been going on without
people noticing.
I recently bugged a guy at work for doing this.
--
The meek shall inherit the dearth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/19/10 09:51, Darren New wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
>
> Wow. Another one. I wonder how long this has been going on without
> people noticing.
>
> I recently bugged a guy at work for doing this.
Heh. It's rather confusing to *me* when she starts talking about "there was
at first a hundred thousand people, then a thousand thousand people!" and
similar convolutions. We don't have a word for ten thousand as such, or I'm
sure it would get even more confusing instead of just a pause while the
translation goes on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:20 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 10e8
Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/05/2010 2:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> We don't have a word for ten thousand as such, or I'm sure it would get
> even more confusing instead of just a pause while the translation goes on.
Try Myriad that can be used for 10,000 as well as a very large number.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 10e8
>
> Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
I think you (and I) can't count!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
>> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
>> hard to find motivation...
>
> BTDTGTTS.
I wonder if it's possible to use some kind of Markov-chain method to
probabalistically determine what random initialisms mean?
> Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and-
> error process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
Sure. If some things worked and some things didn't, I could handle that.
But when *nothing* works, where do you go next?
>> Required XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/187/
>
> That's a good one and extremely relevant. :-)
That's why I chose it. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A lot of the theory behind information processing, and especially on
> finding the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a specific task,
> comes from this era. When a single clock cycle of computer time costs
> enough money to show up on a balance sheet, efficiency in computing
> becomes something of interest.
I'l bet it does...
Of course, today efficiency has nothing to do with how many instructions
it takes and depends *only* on how good its cache behaviour is.
> In the early 80s my high school went and bought a card reader for use in
> quickly tallying input from the 2000+ students on things like student
> council elections and so forth. They wanted me to help get the system
> going, but I never spent more than an hour or so with it.
Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
> The US military had 50s-era cryptologic equipment, using vacuum tubes
> and magnetic cores, in active service until the late 80s. The
> transmitter and receiver together took up an entire equipment rack.
Ah yes, but that's military equipment. It takes a lot of time, money and
effort to design mil spec equipment. If it still works, why change it?
(Or rather, "who's going to pay to redesign it?")
> It
> was widely rumored among Air Force crypto technicians that the designer
> of the system had been committed to an insane asylum, and that nobody
> else fully understood how it worked.
That totally sounds like something the Air Force would rumour. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/21/2010 3:00 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>
What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle of
2000? Those were punch cards... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>
> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle of
> 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
...there was a US Election in 2000?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/21/2010 8:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>>
>> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle
>> of 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
>
> ...there was a US Election in 2000?
There's one every 4 years ... the last one was in 2008.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle
>>> of 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
>>
>> ...there was a US Election in 2000?
>
> There's one every 4 years ... the last one was in 2008.
My point being that the rest of the world probably doesn't take as much
notice as the US itself does. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:56:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
>>> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
>>> hard to find motivation...
>>
>> BTDTGTTS.
>
> I wonder if it's possible to use some kind of Markov-chain method to
> probabalistically determine what random initialisms mean?
http://tinyurl.com/24egq37
>> Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and- error
>> process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
>
> Sure. If some things worked and some things didn't, I could handle that.
> But when *nothing* works, where do you go next?
Ask for advice from someone with more experience. And then follow that
advice. Iterate until success is achieved.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:58:27 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle
>>>> of 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
>>>
>>> ...there was a US Election in 2000?
>>
>> There's one every 4 years ... the last one was in 2008.
>
> My point being that the rest of the world probably doesn't take as much
> notice as the US itself does. ;-)
Actually, a fair amount of the world does take notice, because the US is
seen by many to be the one remaining "superpower" and the presidential
election has a pretty significant effect on the rest of the world.
But Mike is wrong about there being an election every 4 years; there's an
election every 2 years, just the "big" ones are every 4 years.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:59:36 +0200, scott wrote:
>>> 10e8
>>
>> Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
>
> I think you (and I) can't count!
<g>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:59:36 +0200, scott wrote:
>>> 10e8
>>
>> Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
>
> I think you (and I) can't count!
Or indeed, looking at it now, 10e8 = 1e9. Duh. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/20/10 18:12, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 05/19/10 09:51, Darren New wrote:
>>> scott wrote:
>>>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>>> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
>>
>> Wow. Another one. I wonder how long this has been going on without
>> people noticing.
>>
>> I recently bugged a guy at work for doing this.
>
> Heh. It's rather confusing to *me* when she starts talking about "there
> was at first a hundred thousand people, then a thousand thousand
> people!" and similar convolutions. We don't have a word for ten thousand
> as such, or I'm sure it would get even more confusing instead of just a
> pause while the translation goes on.
Eh. I wasn't referring to the vagaries of the Chinese number system naming.
To give you a clue, 5e3 is not 125.
--
AD&D Famous last words: Me first. Me first!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Eh. I wasn't referring to the vagaries of the Chinese number system naming.
Yeha, yeah, fine. You understood well enough to correct me, I'll notice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
