Nicholas Jordan

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Sep 17, 2006
Cows and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Nicholas Jordan

I'm gonna go with Cameron's cleaning compound, carbon tetra-chloride sounds too much like stuff I have gotten into. I'll send the help to get some. BTW - every time, I mean every time I try to move the mouse over a hyper-link ..... this is totally serious folks, a ripp's bizarr buzzard ~ every time I try to position the arrow cursor over a hyper-link the grapic moves smoothly right up to the hyper-link boundary. The graphic stops, literally between pixel boundaries. I can then decide to go to another hyper link and the graphical pointing indicator will slide over the link it stopped on like it is not there.

I actually tried intending to go to another link and got it to click, several times. Has anyone else experienced this, will cleaning the mouse pad help?
9 years ago
I just shut out the work and stepped to the door intneding to go to the buffet. The office help has placed a mouse-pad in the sink having washed it in soap and water. I never washed mine because I could not decide what to use. Should I follow the lead on this?
9 years ago
[Rusty Shackleford:]Because the program you are writing is not inherently parallel.  
Well since OP sought to open discussion, I counter that sales will write mono-code path in parallel, invoking sophisticated compiler optimizations ~ then do bulky, tiered ops in squeak - the micro language. This is sorta sophisticated nuance splitting for engineers, but I am sure we see it too often and I have a degreed risk-analysis engineer so I actually seek any feedback. I have better things to do with my time than drivel on masters.

[Rusty Shackleford:]Because the extra time it takes to refactor it outweighs any speed benefit.  
In such arena, the J2EE Architect should deal with the client, they have soft-skills ~ I do not.

[Rusty Shackleford:]Because the code you programmed in parallel runs slower on multiple cores.  
Ditto, that's for the Architect.

[Rusty Shackleford:]At least on the desktop, the future is not parallelized programs. In my opinion, the future is the OS running a process on one core, another on the second, etc. In many cases, be it desktop, server or whatever, this will be a more optimal solution.  
Agreed, largely. Crossing process boundaries is costly in the time domain, selection of supervisor program such as operational allocation of i/o resources may not require dedicated processor architecture and in fact preliminary concepting on asymetric, transfer function of 1/(scale * processorCount + 1) to determine allocation of supervisor circuitry from application circuitry may yield OP's goals in our work.

[Rusty Shackleford:]If a program, no matter what space is runs in, can be made to run in parallel that doesn't mean it is going to run faster. Take an extreme example: a program that has be written so that 80% of the execution time can run in parallel will not double in speed on 2 cores. It won't speed up 4x on cores, etc. In fact, with 4 cores you won't see a 2x performance boost. It all depends on the program and the processor architecture. Do the separate L1 caches need to communicate often? Is L2 shared? Write-through? Write-back?  
Cache consistency is not likely to be achieved effectively in client code presented in routine business. ( ?... speculative look ahead ) In my opinion, some artificial intelligence could be put on BUS<sub>n</sub> to do reliability in large-sclae socialization structures that has not yielded to cryptographic efforts. [ the password on the monitor problem ]

[Rusty Shackleford:]There is not enough information to be able to respond in any meaningful way. Java may hide the hardware details from the programmer but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant in terms of performance.  
A classic case of Engineering School being packed with attentive, focused minds sweating on pencil and paper dreading time consuming calculations has been replaced ( speculative ) with hoards of role-playing minds fascinated to The Glass Eyed Monster. { CRT }

[Raj Chaud:]Nicholas, I don't even understand what you are getting at with that "linguistic" comment, so I am going to ignore it.   Linguistic is a generalized terminology for human-readable code such as Java, C/C++, Perl, Lisp, ADA and any of the written codes vis-a-vis some speculative Point & Program tool such as IDE's could potentially become, if not already.

[Raj Chaud:]Anyway, you're missing the point. The whole idea, or selling points behind JAVA (and I've been doing this since just about they came out with this thing over a decade ago) was platform independence, pure scalability, and oh yeah, platform independence.   I missed nothing in your post, I calcualted my comments EXACTLY to pull in the heavyweights we see posting. Now that I have some twenty-thousand-pound-elephants, watch me make them dance!

[Raj Chaud:]the whole idea was to let developers spend time writing effective code that would perform business tasks and support a business, not for us old devs to see how good we could get at it, although, to some extent it has turned out that way. )   What Java is becoming in fact is an effective training platform for CS students. That was ( opening the door to open development ) how the mighty M$ publishing empire came to be on the front of software innovation. ( spare me, folks ) Then we have a development concept ( Java ) by what may be modeled as a competition player, not-dissimilar, evoking very effective discussions such as we have here. I doubt we will rule, such as experience shows, but for those of us who want to keep up with issues in J2EE so that we know what will be coming in the door, then we have a cross-platform linguistic we are skilled in and thus may not be wrapped is silk but nevertheless make our work here productive.

[Raj Chaud:]point being bro,   Please do not use variant spellings, it drags beginners in where Pro-Bro's must hammer the 304 Stainless.

[Raj Chaud:]if I have to go about coding too specific for the platform, then why the hell am I still not writing C++? may as well manage the memory, and threading, etc, etc, etc from there YES? No!   Proposals, anyone?.... (snicker, snicker)

[Raj Chaud:]That is the whole point. So the question is, if I hadn't written any platform specific code (and anyone that doesn't think that writing code specific to the machine is platform specific = CRAZY) like the normal dev on my team would do 3 years ago, would it speed up if I went to a multi-core machine.Why do you want to speed it up?

[Raj Chaud:]the answer I have found is NO, well, i.e., not much. java does execute a little faster, but the gains are minimum. so, I know why this is, but I was just asking if everyone else had similar experiences...............because, this will set us up in the industry in the next near period to discuss how we can speed up single threaded code from a machine standpoint.We speed it up by allocating some un-used processor power to thwarting weekend ruiners.
9 years ago
Well why would it? We get a wide range of skills here, just to ask the question suggested to me you would recognize the need to apply the linguistic effectively, that was the first program I wrote in Java.

Why would one NOT code to parallelization?.....

That would be an app that could gain nothing from multi-core, no?
9 years ago
Well it should, dispatching to multiple cores, busses or whatever nomenclature may be used is profoundly dependent on implemtation of parallelizing compiler. In fact, I wrote my first Java program intending to take advantage of scalability to Solaris ( as a base platform for prototyping ) believing that migration across commercial domains would resolve to writing test harness (s) to detect conformant implementation on candidate customers. Here's the actual code, little changed from some bloated discussions at JR nearly a year and a half ago:

It initially ran close to 1,000 lines because I suffered beginner grandeur and stuffed it to resemble finished size, since cut back to about 500 lines.
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ]
9 years ago

According to the JLS (S15.16.3) Java's floating point remainder (using the '%' operator) is *different from* the java.lang.Math.IEEEremainder()
function. The operator is based on truncating division while the
function is based on rounding division. You might think that this
won't add up to much, but 8.0 % 3.0 results in -1.0 with rounding
division versus 2.0 with truncating division.

Source: Floating point remainder in Kaffe
9 years ago
There are several profilers ( probably ) try the Sun website, enter profiling tools into the search box. Here is a link to get started:

Originally posted by Shanmugam nagaraj:
How to use this profiler can give me one hello world example for that?
Or Give some urls links to search

9 years ago
Think of the dots in the package name being translated to the slashes of directory structure: Where would everything be, or need to be put?
9 years ago

Originally posted by Ram Manoj:
(...snip...)This struck me a lot. The quote kept buzzing me every time I was likely tense or hurrying up. It kept me relaxed all the way.

Wait till you have to speak in front of a thousand people, remaing calm for a test is easy after that.
Think of it this way, given some Object, not otherwise defined: If one may use the word synchronized to control the use of that object such that multiple parts of a program would not interfere, it would have to be that several things could be going on at once. This is somewhat challenging to explain in that operating systems that can do more than one thing at a time exists. Also, systems that can only do one thing at a time.

How to explain synchronization then? Like they did.

Try thinking of what they are saying as though multiple computers could use the object at the same time. Changing something while another is using something does not work.
The term Singleton is vastly overused, a few lines of code in a large program that is only used once is a candidate for just unrolling the loop and placing the code directly in the instruction stream. Doing so avoids several issuse that in compiler design may become nasty in unrecognized ways.

If your data structure is exposed to more than one thread, use synchronized data structures. To do otherwise is speculative.
9 years ago
Your observations are welcome. I do not fathom what just don't intends, but we get these people who have had some remarkably sophisticated work in trainng and are a burden on the team because of lack of practical utility. It gets to the point that they have to be dismissed, so I am eager to grasp the just don't remark - why, if Original Poster has to ask what thesis ground to invest in would we do otherwise than to call up a company and ask what is actually of value vis-a-vis imaginary preconditions based on self-fulfilling belief systems?

I actually have invested enormous amounts in what I am asking you. I walked on traditional education, putting up my Master's Thesis a few years ago from actual life experience. Hard won nuances that passed the split of my Risk Analysis Specialist, a degreed Industrial Engineer.

I have several incidents that would be supporting, I do not want the level of attention that would bring as that would be counter productive. It is practice in the school of business to quit at the MBA level, "because let's get on with it"

Writing and asking what is needed may not get replies, but I have found better than expected results by writing letters and asking companies what they need.

For the grant proposal, yes - but maybe that would cause the poster to think. No? Could cause the poster to consider what might interest a funding body, thus arriving at a thesis candidate.


Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

[ June 09, 2008: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ]
9 years ago
Best practice is to make an Interlock. A grid, no matter how minor such that the system will continue to function in a reliable manner with 20% of the system broken, often this lattice brings Trust, Logging, Training, Observation and Rollback. Risk/Reward must be given some place in the analysis matrix, logon authentication is complexified by the fact that people will stickum the password on the front of the monitor.

One would not do that with keys to a storage shed.
9 years ago
There are only two Agent Types, so saving Population ( persist ) consists of a List of Ordered-Pairs of Positions. Starting with a List of Ordered-Pairs gives us a naive theory ( non-formalized ) of a data structure that acts as an actual file would. We initially template a minimal population as an array in the source code, doing Arrays.asList() to open an expansion path to all of Collections, which are now are candidates for achieving Utility.

IOW - The code design scales in that the hardcode array may be replaced by an actual file.

A possible design model is T - Total Agents; R - Ratio Good|Evil IP - InitialPositions .... To distinguish Good we could have bunnies, DumbBunnies. For evil, we could have a simple graphic of a gasoline nozzle being used as a pistol. Trying to make the motion of a displayed graphics clock to a reasonable rate is known, but I have not done that yet. Probably a Timer. Number of Good Bunnies equals Total Agents minus Bad Bunnies. Drawing intially consists of setting each of the ordered pairs in the two lists to a hue for each of the lists in an NxN array of type Color.

Note the inclusion of the Position in the Agent class. Suprisingly, all movement of the Robotic is done by changing the x,y variable. To show the movement, the clock has to subordinate to the graphical display rate available. Some fiddling usually works.

The author of the book I am using states that getting AI into field practice is the hope of the book. If we make some progress, we have fulfilled licensing stipulations.

We know that artificial intelligence is built into my machine because whenever I try to position my cursor, it will go anywhere but where I try to put it.

Also, for what it's worth:

[ June 09, 2008: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ]
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ]
Mail thirty or fourty companies, see what is actually wanted. You may well land a bloated research budget.
9 years ago