Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460550 > unrolled thread

[OT] I got a JOB!!!

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:49 -0500
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 11:55 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 15:13 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:18 -0500
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 19:04 +0000
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:14 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 14:01 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-16 14:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:09 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:00 +1000
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 13:40 -0700
    [OT] I got a JOB!!! bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2017-05-16 12:27 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! eric.jacobsen@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 20:17 +0000
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 15:24 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 22:05 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:11 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 23:51 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 18:32 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +1000
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:35 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 19:03 +1000
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:31 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 23:07 +1000
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:10 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:34 +0100
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:59 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:04 +0100
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:02 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 17:56 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:42 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:57 +0800
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-16 15:04 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-18 16:00 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-18 16:18 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-18 19:14 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-18 21:40 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 20:02 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:40 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> - 2017-05-17 09:12 -0400
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-17 10:02 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:11 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:21 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:36 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:43 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:55 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:57 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:08 +0100
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-17 21:30 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-18 00:03 -0500
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:18 +0100
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-18 22:56 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 14:31 +0300
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-19 10:39 -0500
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 23:02 +0300
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 13:12 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-05-19 15:00 -0700
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-21 01:46 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-21 17:31 +0300
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-05-21 13:31 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-21 16:47 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#460606

On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
>hobby work or on the side.
>
>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
>proselytizing.

Sounds great. When I was looking for work when I got out of college, I
had an offer to work at a little company called Motion Message.
They did LED message displays, that was in 87. I got another offer and
I declined their offer. But I thought it was a neat idea at the time.


Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460614

On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
>hobby work or on the side.
>
>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
>proselytizing.

America, Great Again!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460655

Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:

> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
> hobby work or on the side.
>
> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
> proselytizing.

Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...

BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
yet? How do you like it?
-- 
Randy Yates, Embedded Firmware Developer
Garner Underground, Inc.
866-260-9040, x3901
http://www.garnerundergroundinc.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460664

On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
> 
>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>
>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>> hobby work or on the side.
>>
>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>
>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>> proselytizing.
> 
> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
> 
> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it yet?
> How do you like it?

I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker from 
FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of warily 
standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"

The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is it's 
probably good.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460672

On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>
>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>
>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>
>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>
>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>> proselytizing.
>>
>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>
>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it yet?
>> How do you like it?
>
> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker from
> FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of warily
> standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>
> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is it's
> probably good.

I expect you'll find it is the codification of
many of the development mentality and practices
that you have been using for a long time.

Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design
(i.e. finding things that work and clagging them
together) v.s. top-down design. TDD works naturally
with top-down design where all the yet-to-be-implemented
are well understood and feasible.

Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes
it is beneficial to do a "spike investigation" to
quickly validate key concepts from top-to-bottom, and
then to use that experience to do it "properly"
using full-blown TDD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460674

On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>
>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>
>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>>
>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>> proselytizing.
>>>
>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>>
>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it yet?
>>> How do you like it?
>>
>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of
>> warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>
>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is
>> it's probably good.
> 
> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the development
> mentality and practices that you have been using for a long time.
> 
> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design. TDD
> works naturally with top-down design where all the yet-to-be-implemented
> are well understood and feasible.
> 
> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial to do
> a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
> using full-blown TDD.

It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately, because 
it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II kit).  The 
user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue of SUBROUTINES 
(ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite gushy about how using 
subroutines make your code better.  And yet, I've worked on lots of 
crappy code that has subroutines.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460676

On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it yet?
>>>> How do you like it?
>>>
>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of
>>> warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>
>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is
>>> it's probably good.
>>
>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the development
>> mentality and practices that you have been using for a long time.
>>
>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design. TDD
>> works naturally with top-down design where all the yet-to-be-implemented
>> are well understood and feasible.
>>
>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial to do
>> a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>> using full-blown TDD.
>
> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately, because
> it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II kit).  The
> user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue of SUBROUTINES
> (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite gushy about how using
> subroutines make your code better.  And yet, I've worked on lots of
> crappy code that has subroutines.

:)

The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to
the point of being obtuse.

I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having
thought long and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective
employers were duly impressed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460677

On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:36:52 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
>>>>> yet?
>>>>> How do you like it?
>>>>
>>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of
>>>> warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>>
>>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is
>>>> it's probably good.
>>>
>>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the development
>>> mentality and practices that you have been using for a long time.
>>>
>>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design. TDD
>>> works naturally with top-down design where all the
>>> yet-to-be-implemented are well understood and feasible.
>>>
>>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial to
>>> do a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>>> using full-blown TDD.
>>
>> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately,
>> because it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II
>> kit).  The user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue of
>> SUBROUTINES (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite gushy
>> about how using subroutines make your code better.  And yet, I've
>> worked on lots of crappy code that has subroutines.
> 
> :)
> 
> The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to the point of
> being obtuse.
> 
> I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having thought long
> and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
> but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective employers were
> duly impressed.

The 1802 is neither a CISC processor nor a RISC processor -- it's a NHISC 
processor -- "Never Had Instruction Set Computer".

I wish I had the chops to organize a contest -- I think an annual "build 
the fastest 1802" contest would be fun to be involved in.  Imagine what 
you could do if the only basic rule was that it had to execute 1802 
machine code faithfully, with no constraints on how much happened per 
clock cycle.  Ditch TDA and TDB, keep the I/O command lines, Q, and the 
flags, and go to town.  Prefetch, pipelines, caches, parallel execution, 
predictive branching, everything -- all with that crazy 1802 instruction 
set.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460680

On 17/05/17 18:43, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:36:52 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>> How do you like it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of
>>>>> warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is
>>>>> it's probably good.
>>>>
>>>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the development
>>>> mentality and practices that you have been using for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>>>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design. TDD
>>>> works naturally with top-down design where all the
>>>> yet-to-be-implemented are well understood and feasible.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial to
>>>> do a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>>>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>>>> using full-blown TDD.
>>>
>>> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately,
>>> because it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II
>>> kit).  The user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue of
>>> SUBROUTINES (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite gushy
>>> about how using subroutines make your code better.  And yet, I've
>>> worked on lots of crappy code that has subroutines.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to the point of
>> being obtuse.
>>
>> I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having thought long
>> and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
>> but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective employers were
>> duly impressed.
>
> The 1802 is neither a CISC processor nor a RISC processor -- it's a NHISC
> processor -- "Never Had Instruction Set Computer".

:)

> I wish I had the chops to organize a contest -- I think an annual "build
> the fastest 1802" contest would be fun to be involved in.  Imagine what
> you could do if the only basic rule was that it had to execute 1802
> machine code faithfully, with no constraints on how much happened per
> clock cycle.  Ditch TDA and TDB, keep the I/O command lines, Q, and the
> flags, and go to town.  Prefetch, pipelines, caches, parallel execution,
> predictive branching, everything -- all with that crazy 1802 instruction
> set.

I hate all those with a vengeance, since they prevent hard
real-time software.

I'm currently experimenting with a /small/ XMOS device which
deliberately avoids all of those techniques so that it can
guarantee timing. So far I've been able to get the /software/
to reliably count the edges on two 20Mb/s input pins,
process the results and simultaneously shove them up a USB
link to a host PC.

Now I've got to understand the algorithms in reciprocal and
continuous timestamping frequency counters :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460681

On 17/05/17 18:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 17/05/17 18:43, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:36:52 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets someday...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>> How do you like it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>>>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind of
>>>>>> warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it is
>>>>>> it's probably good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the development
>>>>> mentality and practices that you have been using for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>>>>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design. TDD
>>>>> works naturally with top-down design where all the
>>>>> yet-to-be-implemented are well understood and feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial to
>>>>> do a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>>>>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>>>>> using full-blown TDD.
>>>>
>>>> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately,
>>>> because it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II
>>>> kit).  The user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue of
>>>> SUBROUTINES (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite gushy
>>>> about how using subroutines make your code better.  And yet, I've
>>>> worked on lots of crappy code that has subroutines.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to the point of
>>> being obtuse.
>>>
>>> I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having thought long
>>> and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
>>> but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective employers were
>>> duly impressed.
>>
>> The 1802 is neither a CISC processor nor a RISC processor -- it's a NHISC
>> processor -- "Never Had Instruction Set Computer".
>
> :)
>
>> I wish I had the chops to organize a contest -- I think an annual "build
>> the fastest 1802" contest would be fun to be involved in.  Imagine what
>> you could do if the only basic rule was that it had to execute 1802
>> machine code faithfully, with no constraints on how much happened per
>> clock cycle.  Ditch TDA and TDB, keep the I/O command lines, Q, and the
>> flags, and go to town.  Prefetch, pipelines, caches, parallel execution,
>> predictive branching, everything -- all with that crazy 1802 instruction
>> set.
>
> I hate all those with a vengeance, since they prevent hard
> real-time software.
>
> I'm currently experimenting with a /small/ XMOS device which
> deliberately avoids all of those techniques so that it can
> guarantee timing. So far I've been able to get the /software/
> to reliably count the edges on two 20Mb/s input pins,

Oops, 50Mb/s, i.e. 100Mb/s total and I might be able
to get it to 100Mb/s per input.


> process the results and simultaneously shove them up a USB
> link to a host PC.
>
> Now I've got to understand the algorithms in reciprocal and
> continuous timestamping frequency counters :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460682

On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:55:16 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 17/05/17 18:43, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:36:52 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems --
>>>>>>>> so any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets
>>>>>>> someday...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>> How do you like it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>>>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind
>>>>>> of warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it
>>>>>> is it's probably good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the
>>>>> development mentality and practices that you have been using for a
>>>>> long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>>>>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design.
>>>>> TDD works naturally with top-down design where all the
>>>>> yet-to-be-implemented are well understood and feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial
>>>>> to do a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>>>>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>>>>> using full-blown TDD.
>>>>
>>>> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately,
>>>> because it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II
>>>> kit).  The user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue
>>>> of SUBROUTINES (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite
>>>> gushy about how using subroutines make your code better.  And yet,
>>>> I've worked on lots of crappy code that has subroutines.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to the point
>>> of being obtuse.
>>>
>>> I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having thought long
>>> and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
>>> but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective employers were
>>> duly impressed.
>>
>> The 1802 is neither a CISC processor nor a RISC processor -- it's a
>> NHISC processor -- "Never Had Instruction Set Computer".
> 
> :)
> 
>> I wish I had the chops to organize a contest -- I think an annual
>> "build the fastest 1802" contest would be fun to be involved in. 
>> Imagine what you could do if the only basic rule was that it had to
>> execute 1802 machine code faithfully, with no constraints on how much
>> happened per clock cycle.  Ditch TDA and TDB, keep the I/O command
>> lines, Q, and the flags, and go to town.  Prefetch, pipelines, caches,
>> parallel execution, predictive branching, everything -- all with that
>> crazy 1802 instruction set.
> 
> I hate all those with a vengeance, since they prevent hard real-time
> software.
> 
> I'm currently experimenting with a /small/ XMOS device which
> deliberately avoids all of those techniques so that it can guarantee
> timing. So far I've been able to get the /software/
> to reliably count the edges on two 20Mb/s input pins, process the
> results and simultaneously shove them up a USB link to a host PC.
> 
> Now I've got to understand the algorithms in reciprocal and continuous
> timestamping frequency counters :)

Some guy has Verilog code for an 1802 in which he claims a 60MHz clock, 
one clock per instruction (or perhaps fetch).  That would be 
deterministic, and fast by some measures.

All the modern pipeline/predict/prefetch whiz-bang doesn't prevent hard 
real time, if only the processor manufacturers would publish the absolute 
maximum time it takes to execute any possible instruction, or (better) 
provide tools for finding the maximum time-from-interrupt for any given 
chunk of code.  Then you could just add up all the critical stuff and 
make sure it works.

In my experience there isn't THAT much variation -- you just need to know 
how much variation to allow for to meet hard real time criteria.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460688

On 17/05/17 19:28, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:55:16 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/17 18:43, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:36:52 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/05/17 18:21, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:11:22 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/05/17 16:02, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:12:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems --
>>>>>>>>> so any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations Tim. We'll have to exchange trade secrets
>>>>>>>> someday...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, does PS use a specific unit test framework? Have you used it
>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>> How do you like it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I start next week, so I don't know and no.  It's my former coworker
>>>>>>> from FLIR who's pushing TDD, and the manager who hired me is kind
>>>>>>> of warily standing on the sidelines going "what's the deal here?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The guy pushing it is extremely smart and capable, so whatever it
>>>>>>> is it's probably good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect you'll find it is the codification of many of the
>>>>>> development mentality and practices that you have been using for a
>>>>>> long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be cautious about how TDD applies to bottom-up design (i.e. finding
>>>>>> things that work and clagging them together) v.s. top-down design.
>>>>>> TDD works naturally with top-down design where all the
>>>>>> yet-to-be-implemented are well understood and feasible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anybody that /thinks/ will realise that sometimes it is beneficial
>>>>>> to do a "spike investigation" to quickly validate key concepts from
>>>>>> top-to-bottom, and then to use that experience to do it "properly"
>>>>>> using full-blown TDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not magic.  I've been geeking out on the COSMAC 1802 lately,
>>>>> because it was the first microprocessor I ever owned (I had an ELF-II
>>>>> kit).  The user's manual has an entire chapter extolling the virtue
>>>>> of SUBROUTINES (ooh, ahh) and how to implement them.  It's quite
>>>>> gushy about how using subroutines make your code better.  And yet,
>>>>> I've worked on lots of crappy code that has subroutines.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> The 1802's implementation of subroutines was, um, quirky to the point
>>>> of being obtuse.
>>>>
>>>> I hand built my first computer using a 6800, after having thought long
>>>> and hard about the 1802 and 8080. It was a mess,
>>>> but worked, I learned a heck of a lot, and prospective employers were
>>>> duly impressed.
>>>
>>> The 1802 is neither a CISC processor nor a RISC processor -- it's a
>>> NHISC processor -- "Never Had Instruction Set Computer".
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> I wish I had the chops to organize a contest -- I think an annual
>>> "build the fastest 1802" contest would be fun to be involved in.
>>> Imagine what you could do if the only basic rule was that it had to
>>> execute 1802 machine code faithfully, with no constraints on how much
>>> happened per clock cycle.  Ditch TDA and TDB, keep the I/O command
>>> lines, Q, and the flags, and go to town.  Prefetch, pipelines, caches,
>>> parallel execution, predictive branching, everything -- all with that
>>> crazy 1802 instruction set.
>>
>> I hate all those with a vengeance, since they prevent hard real-time
>> software.
>>
>> I'm currently experimenting with a /small/ XMOS device which
>> deliberately avoids all of those techniques so that it can guarantee
>> timing. So far I've been able to get the /software/
>> to reliably count the edges on two 20Mb/s input pins, process the
>> results and simultaneously shove them up a USB link to a host PC.
>>
>> Now I've got to understand the algorithms in reciprocal and continuous
>> timestamping frequency counters :)
>
> Some guy has Verilog code for an 1802 in which he claims a 60MHz clock,
> one clock per instruction (or perhaps fetch).  That would be
> deterministic, and fast by some measures.
>
> All the modern pipeline/predict/prefetch whiz-bang doesn't prevent hard
> real time, if only the processor manufacturers would publish the absolute
> maximum time it takes to execute any possible instruction, or (better)
> provide tools for finding the maximum time-from-interrupt for any given
> chunk of code.  Then you could just add up all the critical stuff and
> make sure it works.
>
> In my experience there isn't THAT much variation -- you just need to know
> how much variation to allow for to meet hard real time criteria.

It complicates things enormously, doubly so when all the
caches are involved. ISTR someone measuring a 486 with
its tiny caches, and finding the mean:max ISR time was
somewhere around 1:5. I expect I've still got a paper
copy, /somewhere/.

The XMOS tools claim to indicate the exact loop/function
times, assuming input is available and output can be
delivered (Occam channel semantics).

The event-driven multicore hardware+software
co-implementation looks to be rather nice too.
And the I/O is pleasantly high-level too: do
i/o on a specific clock cycle, wait until
there's a change, etc etc. Makes high speed
bit-bashing in software tractable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460750

On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
>hobby work or on the side.
>
>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
>proselytizing.


Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!

I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter everything
from scratch.

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460751

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:30:13 -0700, boB K7IQ wrote:

> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
> 
>>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>
>>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>hobby work or on the side.
>>
>>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>
>>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>proselytizing.
> 
> 
> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
> 
> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter everything
> from scratch.
> 
> boB

That page is very strange -- you gonna apply for a job?

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460759

On 18/05/17 05:30, boB K7IQ wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>
>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>
>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>> hobby work or on the side.
>>
>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>
>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>> proselytizing.
>
>
> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
>
> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter everything
> from scratch.

That would be unacceptable to me; I have (a few) cookies
that I use to make my life easier on a few frequently
visited websites.

Expecting me, without any explanation, to make my life
more difficult for their convenience makes me wonder if
they will have that self-centered (sociopathic?) attitude
to employees.

If they said /which/ cookies should be deleted, then
it would be less unacceptable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460903

On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:18:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/05/17 05:30, boB K7IQ wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>
>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>
>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>
>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>
>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>> proselytizing.
>>
>>
>> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
>> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
>>
>> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
>> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter everything
>> from scratch.
>
>That would be unacceptable to me; I have (a few) cookies
>that I use to make my life easier on a few frequently
>visited websites.
>
>Expecting me, without any explanation, to make my life
>more difficult for their convenience makes me wonder if
>they will have that self-centered (sociopathic?) attitude
>to employees.
>
>If they said /which/ cookies should be deleted, then
>it would be less unacceptable.


I was thinking the same thing.  Unacceptable but I'm not applying for
a job anyway.  But if I were and in the Portland area, it might be a
place to look  at.   Instead of applying online, probably going there
in person would be better.  Then I would also have a better idea on
commute time.

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460913

On 5/19/2017 8:56 AM, boB K7IQ wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:18:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/17 05:30, boB K7IQ wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>
>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>>
>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>> proselytizing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
>>> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
>>>
>>> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
>>> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter everything
>>> from scratch.
>>
>> That would be unacceptable to me; I have (a few) cookies
>> that I use to make my life easier on a few frequently
>> visited websites.
>>
>> Expecting me, without any explanation, to make my life
>> more difficult for their convenience makes me wonder if
>> they will have that self-centered (sociopathic?) attitude
>> to employees.
>>
>> If they said /which/ cookies should be deleted, then
>> it would be less unacceptable.
>
>
> I was thinking the same thing.  Unacceptable but I'm not applying for
> a job anyway.  But if I were and in the Portland area, it might be a
> place to look  at.   Instead of applying online, probably going there
> in person would be better.  Then I would also have a better idea on
> commute time.
>
> boB
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
Bob you're a ham?Ahahaha my country's hams are arseholes towards me 
because I am unable to get a licence and I have to broadcast 
illegally.They are a bunch of snobbs who think that because they have a 
paper they can do whatever they want with the radiowaves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460933

On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:31:51 +0300, Vassilis Spiliopoulos wrote:

> On 5/19/2017 8:56 AM, boB K7IQ wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:18:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/05/17 05:30, boB K7IQ wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
>>>> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
>>>> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter
>>>> everything from scratch.
>>>
>>> That would be unacceptable to me; I have (a few) cookies that I use to
>>> make my life easier on a few frequently visited websites.
>>>
>>> Expecting me, without any explanation, to make my life more difficult
>>> for their convenience makes me wonder if they will have that
>>> self-centered (sociopathic?) attitude to employees.
>>>
>>> If they said /which/ cookies should be deleted, then it would be less
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>>
>> I was thinking the same thing.  Unacceptable but I'm not applying for a
>> job anyway.  But if I were and in the Portland area, it might be a
>> place to look  at.   Instead of applying online, probably going there
>> in person would be better.  Then I would also have a better idea on
>> commute time.
>>
>> boB
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
> Bob you're a ham?Ahahaha my country's hams are arseholes towards me
> because I am unable to get a licence and I have to broadcast
> illegally.They are a bunch of snobbs who think that because they have a
> paper they can do whatever they want with the radiowaves.

Dunno about your country, but around here it's easy enough to get a 
license that the only people running illegally are the ones that hold the 
law in contempt.

Strangely, we think of them as -- assholes.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460975

On 5/19/2017 6:39 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:31:51 +0300, Vassilis Spiliopoulos wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2017 8:56 AM, boB K7IQ wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:18:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/17 05:30, boB K7IQ wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Planar Systems is one VERY cool company !  I had to look at their web
>>>>> site...  They even have displays in the SPAM museum !!
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why they want you to clear your cache and cookies before
>>>>> applying to a job application ?  Maybe so you have to enter
>>>>> everything from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> That would be unacceptable to me; I have (a few) cookies that I use to
>>>> make my life easier on a few frequently visited websites.
>>>>
>>>> Expecting me, without any explanation, to make my life more difficult
>>>> for their convenience makes me wonder if they will have that
>>>> self-centered (sociopathic?) attitude to employees.
>>>>
>>>> If they said /which/ cookies should be deleted, then it would be less
>>>> unacceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking the same thing.  Unacceptable but I'm not applying for a
>>> job anyway.  But if I were and in the Portland area, it might be a
>>> place to look  at.   Instead of applying online, probably going there
>>> in person would be better.  Then I would also have a better idea on
>>> commute time.
>>>
>>> boB
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>
>> Bob you're a ham?Ahahaha my country's hams are arseholes towards me
>> because I am unable to get a licence and I have to broadcast
>> illegally.They are a bunch of snobbs who think that because they have a
>> paper they can do whatever they want with the radiowaves.
>
> Dunno about your country, but around here it's easy enough to get a
> license that the only people running illegally are the ones that hold the
> law in contempt.
>
> Strangely, we think of them as -- assholes.
>
In my country the exam dates are set at extremely unsuitable dates eg. 
may 20 where most people under 25 have university entrance exams.Apart 
from that, you have to pay a large fee (20 euro---> while the average 
monthly salary is 600 euro) and the test questions are a bit hard to 
memorise (especially the technical part).Also you must get over 85% to pass
Apart from the questions being outdated and referring to older equipment.
Better off illegal and with a fake German callsign than having to deal 
with snobby fucks who think they own the airwaves.The airwaves should be 
free to use by anyone.Just sell VHF handhelds with certain settings 
blocked in order not to cause harmful interference.Or well educate 
people and enforce severe penalties in cases of non-compliance.
But licenses for something so easy?At least they could just sell the 
damn callsigns if their arses call for that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460976

On 5/19/2017 1:02 PM, Vassilis Spiliopoulos wrote:
> On 5/19/2017 6:39 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Strangely, we think of them as -- assholes.
>>
> In my country the exam dates are set at extremely unsuitable dates eg. may 20
> where most people under 25 have university entrance exams.Apart from that, you
> have to pay a large fee (20 euro---> while the average monthly salary is 600
> euro) and the test questions are a bit hard to memorise (especially the
> technical part).

You don't *memorize* the answers; you *know* them.  And/or can *deduce*
the correct answers from the information given.

Surely, you haven't MEMORIZED the product of 122287 * 387234, have you?
Yet, if you encountered that on an exam, I would assume you'd be able to
suss out the correct answer!

As to fees, I think the exam here (USA) is typically free (or close to it)
as it is typically administered by local clubs.  I'm not sure what the
license *fee* is after having passed the appropriate exam (to determine
your operating license class)

> Also you must get over 85% to pass

D'uh...  Did you expect a passing grade to be "D-"?  It's a technical
field, not like driving cars!

> Apart from the questions being outdated and referring to older equipment.
> Better off illegal and with a fake German callsign than having to deal with
> snobby fucks who think they own the airwaves.The airwaves should be free to use
> by anyone.

Sure!  And if I want to set up a kilowatt linear next door to you and
swamp the front-end of your rig, it should be my perogative to do so!  :>
If that interferes with commercial traffic, its *their* problem!

> Just sell VHF handhelds with certain settings blocked in order not to
> cause harmful interference.Or well educate people and enforce severe penalties
> in cases of non-compliance.

You mean, like LICENSE folks who have demonstrated an appropriate knowledge
of the technical issues and reegulations?  Gee, what a novel idea!

> But licenses for something so easy?At least they could just sell the damn
> callsigns if their arses call for that.

One minute, you're complaining how HARD it is to pass the exam; then you're
claiming its so EASY that it should be simply a matter of having enough money
to BUY the license (yet you complained about the *price*, earlier).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web