From ParkElam at katon.com Sun May 8 21:21:47 2005 From: ParkElam at katon.com (Elam Park) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 23:21:47 -0500 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E01iUM_C=ECALlSS_ViAGRR=E0?= Message-ID: <200505090322.j493M8if010680@pi.cubicle.net> Hello, Sure, now, how was I to guess that... that Colonel Bishop could whether the articles are repudiated. illusions. But the next dawn was to shatter them rudely and for Sir, you... you are insolent! But of an insolence that is government at home, and the war with France? played upon the cupidity that was the paramount inspiration of th head. to have done with it for ever. Yet here have I been committed by The Captain laughed. You old rogue, said he. Ye play upon my He cut short their greetings, and when they plagued him with ques It remained for Captain Blood to explain the difficulties when M. Have a nice day. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Wed May 11 10:16:03 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The moral of any story that starts out with "X is evil" (Where X is GOTO, Threads, Fortran, etc) is that the non black-n-white real answer is "use the right tool for the job". Can GOTO/Threads/Fortran/etc cause pain, of course they can. Does that mean no one should ever use them, of course not. In tridge's corner of the world threads are probably not the right tool. In my little corner of the world which often includes client facing GUI fun threads are a necessity. "X is evil" is a nice simplification for lesser engineers (ie. none of the people involved in this thread). Its like telling children not to play with fire, we all grow up and realize that used properly fire can be really really cool. ;) Rob. On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, matthew du puy wrote: > You live in a grown up world Chad. In the embedded computing world, trusting > an RTOS to manage its processes better than you manage your threads and > counting on virtually unlimited CPU power isn't always the best route. > People have re-invented the proverbial wheel so many times that every idiot > thinks he can write an OS. And while they are partially correct, they aren't > always thorough. I've run in to OSes that don't have an API for hooking, > enabling and disabling of interrupts. They leave the API to the BSP. Not > only does this make code in general much less portable but we're talking > about the GDFPOS BSP that some, fresh out of college, EE who thinks he knows > how to interface some simple embedded computer with the software world > wrote. I've run in to OSes that don't provide simple services for timing out > blocking calls. I've run in to OSes that pre-allocate primitives based on > compile time limits. I've run in to OSes who's process management and > context switching are so laughable that they eat up 10% of the CPU time > switching between two contexts on some platforms. I could list examples all > day but my point is, sometimes people work in a world where it is much > better to trust yourself and your design rather than attempt to force hard > constraints and trust an OS to manage things better than you can yourself. > Granted, almost all of the people reading this thread live in your world and > you are totally justified in your claim. I just want to make sure you know > your broad statement might have some little holes in it. > -M > >>> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but Tridge's speed argument (as Chad >>> related it) is fallacious, anyway. There is no memory protection between >>> threads like there is between processes (that's why they're threads, not >>> processes :p). Furthermore, when switching between threads in the same >>> process, you have the added speed ADVANTAGE of (gasp) not having to flush the >>> MMU (since all the memory is shared anyway). >> >> I think you misunderstood. His point was that you, the programmer, >> must implement your own memory protection in software, whereas with >> processes memory is much more efficient (because the processor is >> doing it for you in hardware). >> >> Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that Tridge used the exact >> same words that I do, going so far as to call them "Evil". Anyway, >> just one more person's opinion from down in the trenches. >> >> Regards, >> >> Chad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cplug mailing list >> Cplug at lists.cplug.org >> http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/cplug > > > _______________________________________________ > Chatter mailing list > Chatter at lists.cplug.org > http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter > From ctindel at gmail.com Wed May 11 10:46:36 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:46:36 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > "X is evil" is a nice simplification for lesser engineers (ie. > none of the people involved in this thread). Its like telling children not > to play with fire, we all grow up and realize that used properly fire can > be really really cool. ;) It is an attempt to counteract the damage done on college students by the oft-encountered academic philosophy that threads should be used in way more situations than they actually should, because coursework completely fails to prepare you for all the economic downsides associated with writing threaded applications (portability hell, debugging hell, etc). These are of course no concern in a 10-week course, but cause all kinds of problems in the real world. Chad From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Wed May 11 11:24:47 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Other than Dr. Staley, I don't think anyone at Poly teaches threads. In fact I have met very few just out of college engineers who know even the basics of threads (not that they would understand using multiple processes either). The real problem is as you say people are not being educated in the foundation of true engineering, that is the ability to weight their options. The 205/206/405/406 classes sort of touch on software lifecycle issues, but not even close to the real world. One of the things I never heard talked about at Poly was that in the real world the key issue in developing a new feature is often not developer bandwidth, but whether or not QA has the bandwidth to test it. Rob. On Wed, 11 May 2005, Chad Tindel wrote: >> "X is evil" is a nice simplification for lesser engineers (ie. >> none of the people involved in this thread). Its like telling children not >> to play with fire, we all grow up and realize that used properly fire can >> be really really cool. ;) > > It is an attempt to counteract the damage done on college students by > the oft-encountered academic philosophy that threads should be used in > way more situations than they actually should, because coursework > completely fails to prepare you for all the economic downsides > associated with writing threaded applications (portability hell, > debugging hell, etc). These are of course no concern in a 10-week > course, but cause all kinds of problems in the real world. > > Chad > From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Wed May 11 11:27:42 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: <53129ef705051110305a9adbde@mail.gmail.com> References: <53129ef705051110305a9adbde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law See Quirk's Exception near the bottom. Godwin's law can not be intentionally invoked. Sorry, them's the rules. ;) Rob. On Wed, 11 May 2005, Brian Wagner wrote: > Nazi. > > Consider Godwin's Law invoked. > > -Red > > On 5/11/05, Rob McCready wrote: >> >> >> The moral of any story that starts out with "X is evil" (Where X >> is GOTO, Threads, Fortran, etc) is that the non black-n-white real answer >> is "use the right tool for the job". Can GOTO/Threads/Fortran/etc cause >> pain, of course they can. Does that mean no one should ever use them, of >> course not. In tridge's corner of the world threads are probably not the >> right tool. In my little corner of the world which often includes client >> facing GUI fun threads are a necessity. >> >> "X is evil" is a nice simplification for lesser engineers (ie. >> none of the people involved in this thread). Its like telling children not >> to play with fire, we all grow up and realize that used properly fire can >> be really really cool. ;) >> >> >> Rob. >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, matthew du puy wrote: >> >>> You live in a grown up world Chad. In the embedded computing world, trusting >>> an RTOS to manage its processes better than you manage your threads and >>> counting on virtually unlimited CPU power isn't always the best route. >>> People have re-invented the proverbial wheel so many times that every idiot >>> thinks he can write an OS. And while they are partially correct, they aren't >>> always thorough. I've run in to OSes that don't have an API for hooking, >>> enabling and disabling of interrupts. They leave the API to the BSP. Not >>> only does this make code in general much less portable but we're talking >>> about the GDFPOS BSP that some, fresh out of college, EE who thinks he knows >>> how to interface some simple embedded computer with the software world >>> wrote. I've run in to OSes that don't provide simple services for timing out >>> blocking calls. I've run in to OSes that pre-allocate primitives based on >>> compile time limits. I've run in to OSes who's process management and >>> context switching are so laughable that they eat up 10% of the CPU time >>> switching between two contexts on some platforms. I could list examples all >>> day but my point is, sometimes people work in a world where it is much >>> better to trust yourself and your design rather than attempt to force hard >>> constraints and trust an OS to manage things better than you can yourself. >>> Granted, almost all of the people reading this thread live in your world and >>> you are totally justified in your claim. I just want to make sure you know >>> your broad statement might have some little holes in it. >>> -M >>> >>>>> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but Tridge's speed argument (as Chad >>>>> related it) is fallacious, anyway. There is no memory protection between >>>>> threads like there is between processes (that's why they're threads, not >>>>> processes :p). Furthermore, when switching between threads in the same >>>>> process, you have the added speed ADVANTAGE of (gasp) not having to flush the >>>>> MMU (since all the memory is shared anyway). >>>> >>>> I think you misunderstood. His point was that you, the programmer, >>>> must implement your own memory protection in software, whereas with >>>> processes memory is much more efficient (because the processor is >>>> doing it for you in hardware). >>>> >>>> Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that Tridge used the exact >>>> same words that I do, going so far as to call them "Evil". Anyway, >>>> just one more person's opinion from down in the trenches. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Chad >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cplug mailing list >>>> Cplug at lists.cplug.org >>>> http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/cplug >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chatter mailing list >>> Chatter at lists.cplug.org >>> http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chatter mailing list >> Chatter at lists.cplug.org >> http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter >> > From noah at cappaberra.com Wed May 11 11:59:20 2005 From: noah at cappaberra.com (Noah Pritikin) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:59:20 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42825608.4000804@cappaberra.com> beyondrob at cowpoly.net wrote: > > Other than Dr. Staley, I don't think anyone at Poly teaches > threads. In fact I have met very few just out of college engineers who > know even the basics of threads (not that they would understand using > multiple processes either). I had a few programs to write using the pthread library in both networks I (464) and OS I (453)... Smith & Haungs were the professors, respectively. So, yes, Poly teaches threads. -Noah -- "Energy is Eternal Delight" -William Blake Website: http://noah.cappaberra.com From phlog-cplug at netdrain.com Wed May 11 17:55:47 2005 From: phlog-cplug at netdrain.com (Travis Reitter) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:55:47 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1115859347.17095.1.camel@leela-unstable> > none of the people involved in this thread). Its like telling children not > to play with fire, we all grow up and realize that used properly fire can > be really really cool. ;) Like cutting Rob's hair. -Travis From husmith at calpoly.edu Thu May 12 09:08:03 2005 From: husmith at calpoly.edu (Hugh Smith) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:08:03 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) Message-ID: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> I do require a little threads programming in CPE464 (Networks I). I could call this threads lite since I don't really teach concurrent programming. The threads do not interact (unless the student makes a mistake.) Some of the faculty have identified this as a problem with the CSC curriculum. But given the limited time (4 years) the students are with us and the amount of material to cover I'm not sure where we can fit it in. CPE317 has really helped fill some gaps but there is not a lot of space in that course for new material. Its fun to see our grads learn about the real world. Learning outside the classroom is something we hope you pick up at school. We can only teach you the basics and some tools ... the rest is up to you. That's what I like about the CPLUG, its about learning outside the classroom. Also, as a student would you have believed us if we told you how the world really was? Hugh PS. No matter how old I get vi is still pure evil... although I've needed it a few times in the last month...but I showered afterwards. Noah Pritikin wrote: > beyondrob at cowpoly.net wrote: > >> >> Other than Dr. Staley, I don't think anyone at Poly teaches threads. In fact I have met very few just out of college engineers who know even the basics of threads (not that they would understand using multiple processes either). > > > > I had a few programs to write using the pthread library in both networks I (464) and OS I (453)... Smith & Haungs were the professors, respectively. So, yes, Poly teaches threads. > > -Noah > -- Dr. Hugh Smith Department of Computer Science California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo CA 93407 http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith (805) 756-2801 -- Dr. Hugh Smith Department of Computer Science California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo CA 93407 http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith (805) 756-2801 From ctindel at gmail.com Thu May 12 09:29:42 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:29:42 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> References: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: > Its fun to see our grads learn about the real world. Learning outside > the classroom is something we hope you pick up at school. We can only > teach you the basics and some tools ... the rest is up to you. That's > what I like about the CPLUG, its about learning outside the classroom. > > Also, as a student would you have believed us if we told you how the > world really was? I would in no way advocate teaching "how the real world is" in an academic setting, because, well, most academics have no idea. Obviously some do, but then again they usually teach real world stuff anyway regardless of whether it is part of the curriculum, so that is a moot point. What is missing is a sort of meta-tool, which is, how to weigh the trade-offs between different kinds of tools. Sure, we took lots of classes and learned lots of different programming languages and paradigms, but no lip-service was ever paid to "Why might this tool be better than that one?" or "What are the downsides of using this tool?" or "What are the economic effects of using this tool?". These are the basic fundamentals of being a good engineer. Perhaps this is changing with a move towards a concentration (or is it a new major?) in Software Engineering. If I were Dean of the College of Engineering, I would require a major-specific course like this for every degree program in the College. Chad From akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu Thu May 12 09:55:19 2005 From: akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu (Aaron Keen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy Message-ID: <200505121655.j4CGtJgs021231@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> >I would in no way advocate teaching "how the real world is" in an >academic setting, because, well, most academics have no idea. Gee, thanks for the uplifting comments on this lovely morning. I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole of ignorance. >What is missing is a sort of meta-tool, which is, how to weigh the >trade-offs between different kinds of tools. Sure, we took lots of >classes and learned lots of different programming languages and >paradigms, but no lip-service was ever paid to "Why might this tool be >better than that one?" or "What are the downsides of using this tool?" >or "What are the economic effects of using this tool?". These are the >basic fundamentals of being a good engineer. This is a perfectly valid point. I'm all for it. Where would this fit in the curriculum? It's obviously a challenge to discuss the tradeoffs without understanding the tools. And it's impossible to discuss the tradeoffs that exist in the "real world" without the necessary context. Now, to echo the sentiment of Dr. Smith's comments, it is my goal to help the students learn to learn. It is impossible to teach a student all of the skills that he/she will need in their careers. Especially when 1) many students end up in careers not related to their majors and 2) a career in this field that spans 40 years will obviously require knowledge of "tools" that don't exist today. This is a university, not a vocational school. We aim to teach fundamentals on which students can build. So, on that line of reasoning, are threads "evil" simply because most people don't understand how to properly use them? Of course not. Should one use them at every imagined opportunity without consideration of tradeoffs? Of course not. But, then again, I'm just an academic. >Perhaps this is changing with a move towards a concentration (or is it >a new major?) in Software Engineering. Software Engineering is a major. >If I were Dean of the College >of Engineering, I would require a major-specific course like this for >every degree program in the College. Well, the current dean is retiring. But I think you missed your opportunity as the search is likely nearing its final stages. -Academic Aaron From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Thu May 12 10:24:35 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> References: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Threads being the advanced topic they are really can only be properly tackled in an advanced class. I've ranted about this before but I would say from my experiance that 25-50% of students couldn't handle threads anyways. Threads "lite" is ok, its better than students never seeing threads, but in a general class that all students have to take you could only really teach threads if it was considered a weed out course, which it would become. Which is why I mentioned that I think Dr. Staley is the only professor to really be teaching threads, not so much because its Dr. Staley, but because most/all of his classes are optional and only the top students take them. I would wager that there is an order of magnitude (probably more) higher ability as a group to cover material in a class of the top students than in a general class, hence in most Staley courses real threading warts and all is just one of the many core things that gets tackled. Dr. Staley taught a section of Networks I (back when it was CSC404 I think) that was insanely thread intensive. Anyone else that took it probably still remembers the TSList (Thread Safe Linked List on steroids). My personal feeling is that there should be more optional advanced classes for the top students. As for not believing professors about the real world. I'd have to agree with Chad that too many "Academics" don't know enough about the real world to warn students anyways. The funny thing is I got into more trouble with professor's for calling bullshit on things they said that was clearly at odds with the real world than anything else. Rob. On Thu, 12 May 2005, Hugh Smith wrote: > I do require a little threads programming in CPE464 (Networks I). I could > call this threads lite since I don't really teach concurrent programming. > The threads do not interact (unless the student makes a mistake.) > > Some of the faculty have identified this as a problem with the CSC > curriculum. But given the limited time (4 years) the students are with us > and the amount of material to cover I'm not sure where we can fit it in. > CPE317 has really helped fill some gaps but there is not a lot of space in > that course for new material. > > Its fun to see our grads learn about the real world. Learning outside the > classroom is something we hope you pick up at school. We can only teach you > the basics and some tools ... the rest is up to you. That's what I like > about the CPLUG, its about learning outside the classroom. > > Also, as a student would you have believed us if we told you how the world > really was? > > Hugh > > PS. No matter how old I get vi is still pure evil... although I've needed it > a few times in the last month...but I showered afterwards. > > Noah Pritikin wrote: > > > beyondrob at cowpoly.net wrote: > > > > > > > > Other than Dr. Staley, I don't think anyone at Poly teaches > threads. In fact I have met very few just out of college engineers who know > even the basics of threads (not that they would understand using multiple > processes either). > > > > > > > > I had a few programs to write using the pthread library in both > networks I (464) and OS I (453)... Smith & Haungs were the professors, > respectively. So, yes, Poly teaches threads. > > > > -Noah > > > > -- > Dr. Hugh Smith > Department of Computer Science > California Polytechnic State University > San Luis Obispo CA 93407 > http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith > (805) 756-2801 > > -- > Dr. Hugh Smith > Department of Computer Science > California Polytechnic State University > San Luis Obispo CA 93407 > http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith > (805) 756-2801 > > _______________________________________________ > Chatter mailing list > Chatter at lists.cplug.org > http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter > From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Thu May 12 10:49:25 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505121655.j4CGtJgs021231@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505121655.j4CGtJgs021231@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2005, Aaron Keen wrote: >> I would in no way advocate teaching "how the real world is" in an >> academic setting, because, well, most academics have no idea. > > Gee, thanks for the uplifting comments on this lovely morning. > I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole of ignorance. > Chad may have been a little blunt (as I probably was in my other email seconding his thought), but I know I didn't mean it as an insult (nor do I believe Chad did). Consider it more of a statement of opinion backed by our 4/5 years of college experiance while also working in the real world (both of us had many internships and/or college jobs). The truth is there are plenty of undergrads, graduate students, and even professors with the exact same amount of actual real world development experience, which is to say _none_. Does that mean the professors are bad? Of course not, there are a few not to be named professors that I really respect for the limited subjects they intensely understand and teach, yet whose ideas about how real development should work are obviously drug induced fantasies. Couple small examples of professors/grad students not having a real world clue: - I've had a professor basically slander the entire Linux Kernel team by claiming that a "good engineer" would never use GOTO, even after I pointed out its very valid use in the kernel. - I've worked with grad students who had never even heard of source control system, and this was on a corporate funded project of 5-10 people. - I've had the EE dept head tell me that I should not listen to fellow students about courses to take because they know nothing, that only professors knew what classes to take. There is academic experiance and there is real world development experiance. Is one more important than the other? Depends on what you are going to do. Is having no real development experience "ignorant", by definition yes, but so not having a PHd in np-completeness theory. Doesn't mean its a bad thing, nor an insult. Rob. From akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu Thu May 12 11:04:27 2005 From: akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu (Aaron Keen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy Message-ID: <200505121804.j4CI4RxF026747@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> > Chad may have been a little blunt (as I probably was in my other >email seconding his thought), but I know I didn't mean it as an insult >(nor do I believe Chad did). I didn't take it as an insult. Think of it as, as you say, "calling bullshit." >Consider it more of a statement of opinion >backed by our 4/5 years of college experiance while also working in the >real world (both of us had many internships and/or college jobs). And many of the faculty have had the same. In fact, some had industry jobs for a number of years. But this fact doesn't fit nicely into blanket statements. >professors that I really respect for the limited subjects they intensely >understand and teach, yet whose ideas about how real development should >work are obviously drug induced fantasies. How "real development" should work and how it actually does work are often two very different things. This doesn't mean that what happens in the "real world" is correct. > - I've had a professor basically slander the entire Linux Kernel >team by claiming that a "good engineer" would never use GOTO, even after I >pointed out its very valid use in the kernel. That's a matter of opinion then, isn't it. I personally have nothing against the use of GOTO in a well-defined context (the kernel being one such example). Professor's are allowed to have opinions too. Not everything that comes out of a professor's mouth is intended to be taken as fact. Andrew Tannenbaum infamously attacked Linux as well. It was his opinion. He was wrong. Or was he? > - I've worked with grad students who had never even heard of >source control system, and this was on a corporate funded project of 5-10 >people. This is certainly unfortunate. Of course, necessarily, most students work independently in school and some don't seem the value of a source control system in such a scenario. But many academics use source control systems all the time. > - I've had the EE dept head tell me that I should not listen to >fellow students about courses to take because they know nothing, that only >professors knew what classes to take. Again a matter of opinion. Certainly a bizarre one. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the difference between academia and the "real world" (in the context of academia vs. "real world" development). -Aaron From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Thu May 12 11:38:22 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505121804.j4CI4RxF026747@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505121804.j4CI4RxF026747@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: On rereading I noticed that Chad did unfortunaly say "most" academics, I tried hard in my emails to use the more restricted "many", "plenty" and "too many". I have no problem with bullshit being called, I just wanted to make sure people were not unintentionally insulted. My points were not that all/most academics had not real world experience but that there certainly are plenty at CalPoly that fit the category. There are of course plenty that don't fit the category. The Linus v. Tannenbaum thread is a great back and forth over architectural decisions Monolithic kernel v. Microkernel. Its also a great civilized flamewar. I've recommended it numerous times to OpSys (now 317) students, it should probably be required reading (hell, anyone on this list, stop reading this email and go find that thread and read it). This is entirely different from being told that no, you never use GOTO or you are a bad person. This whole thread started under the discussion of real engineers look at the trade offs. The professor was the one making blanket statements at odds with the real world, in their description of the real world there were no deadlines and requirements were always mathematically proven first. Lovely thoughts and all, but as I said, not exactly realistic. Could the real world work better, of course, but stating that people are bad engineers for living in the real world, while being an opinion, is a pretty dumb one. The grad student example was not an individual working alone, it was a group project, one of many at CalPoly not using source control. Thats definately one thing I would really like to see changed, the basic level classes should touch on source control. Get them while they're young and before they develop bad habits. Rob. PS: Over in the College of Business I'm sure they teach managers to be that workers never waste time at work on non-work email threads too. But here in the real world... ;) On Thu, 12 May 2005, Aaron Keen wrote: >> Chad may have been a little blunt (as I probably was in my other >> email seconding his thought), but I know I didn't mean it as an insult >> (nor do I believe Chad did). > > I didn't take it as an insult. Think of it as, as you say, > "calling bullshit." > >> Consider it more of a statement of opinion >> backed by our 4/5 years of college experiance while also working in the >> real world (both of us had many internships and/or college jobs). > > And many of the faculty have had the same. In fact, some had > industry jobs for a number of years. But this fact doesn't fit nicely > into blanket statements. > >> professors that I really respect for the limited subjects they intensely >> understand and teach, yet whose ideas about how real development should >> work are obviously drug induced fantasies. > > How "real development" should work and how it actually does work > are often two very different things. This doesn't mean that what happens > in the "real world" is correct. > >> - I've had a professor basically slander the entire Linux Kernel >> team by claiming that a "good engineer" would never use GOTO, even after I >> pointed out its very valid use in the kernel. > > That's a matter of opinion then, isn't it. I personally have > nothing against the use of GOTO in a well-defined context (the kernel > being one such example). Professor's are allowed to have opinions too. > Not everything that comes out of a professor's mouth is intended to be > taken as fact. Andrew Tannenbaum infamously attacked Linux as well. It > was his opinion. He was wrong. Or was he? > >> - I've worked with grad students who had never even heard of >> source control system, and this was on a corporate funded project of 5-10 >> people. > > This is certainly unfortunate. Of course, necessarily, most > students work independently in school and some don't seem the value of > a source control system in such a scenario. But many academics use > source control systems all the time. > >> - I've had the EE dept head tell me that I should not listen to >> fellow students about courses to take because they know nothing, that only >> professors knew what classes to take. > > Again a matter of opinion. Certainly a bizarre one. But I'm not > sure what this has to do with the difference between academia and the > "real world" (in the context of academia vs. "real world" development). > > -Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > Chatter mailing list > Chatter at lists.cplug.org > http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter > From ctindel at gmail.com Thu May 12 11:58:22 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:58:22 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505121655.j4CGtJgs021231@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505121655.j4CGtJgs021231@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: > >I would in no way advocate teaching "how the real world is" in an > >academic setting, because, well, most academics have no idea. > > Gee, thanks for the uplifting comments on this lovely morning. > I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole of ignorance. OK, first of all, I didn't say "no academic has any idea". I also didn't say "Professor Aaron Keen at Cal Poly SLO has no idea". So it is possible that this comment doesn't apply to you. Furthermore, if you would agree with the statement "Most academics understand how large-scale development works in the real world", then we might have something to disagree about. It is an issue of where one has concentrated one's professional efforts. I certainly wouldn't go around marketing myself as qualified to teach university courses, because I haven't spent much time preparing for such work. Likewise, there are plenty of professors that have spent little or no time doing industrial, large-scale software development. And if someone hasn't done it, they probably didn't learn it. > This is a perfectly valid point. I'm all for it. Where would > this fit in the curriculum? It's obviously a challenge to discuss the > tradeoffs without understanding the tools. And it's impossible to discuss > the tradeoffs that exist in the "real world" without the necessary context. Could be done in any multitude of ways. It could be some sort of seminar at the end, presumably after students have had exposure to lots of different kinds of "tools", and after they have taken economics and game theory and understand analysis and decision making. Or, you could just make sure it is part of every class, so that they are constantly getting exposed to the idea that they need to use the right tool for the job. For example, when you take 330, the class should discuss "What kinds of programs would be better to write in Scheme, or Ruby, or C++, or Postscript?" Or if you take databases the class should discuss "What is the tradeoff of using Oracle vs. MySQL vs. Postgresql?" You catch my drift. I can not think of a single class I ever took at Cal Poly where that discussion took place, except maybe in the abstract at the beginning of 205... "What are the tradeoffs of the waterfall model vs. the XP model?", which was fairly contrived, because at the time we hadn't done either, and the class only concentrated on the waterfall model anyway. > It is impossible to teach a student all of the skills that he/she will need in > their careers. Agreed. > This is a university, not a vocational school. We aim to teach fundamentals > on which students can build. The two concepts aren't distinct. A university, especially one like Cal Poly with it's "Learn By Doing" motto necessarily produces students with specials skills that are useful in pursuing a trade. The difference between that and a vocational school is that it ALSO teaches the fundamentals of the trade. > So, on that line of reasoning, are threads "evil" simply because > most people don't understand how to properly use them? Of course not. > Should one use them at every imagined opportunity without consideration > of tradeoffs? Of course not. But, then again, I'm just an academic. No, I say threads are "evil" because it is a programming model that is just asking for abuse, and the fact that most people don't use them properly causes pain all over the world. It would be sort of like saying "Nuclear Missiles are evil". I contend that the average person would probably agree with this statement. The reason they agree is because they understand that in the wrong hands (terrorists that would actually use them) they could cause pain all over the world. What they don't understand is that when in the right hands (like the United States and Russia), they are the best deterrent to war that could possibly exist. > Software Engineering is a major. Cool. I remember when Staley et al were getting this going, but I haven't tracked it closely enough. Is it the same program as CSC for the first 2 years, with differentiation in the last 2 years? > Well, the current dean is retiring. But I think you missed your > opportunity as the search is likely nearing its final stages. Hahhahaha. I doubt they'd consider a non-academic for the job. ;-) Chad From ctindel at gmail.com Thu May 12 12:16:07 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:16:07 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505121804.j4CI4RxF026747@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505121804.j4CI4RxF026747@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: > How "real development" should work and how it actually does work > are often two very different things. This doesn't mean that what happens > in the "real world" is correct. I don't even understand this statement. The way it works in the real world is the way it works in the real world, and that is all we can deal with. There is no "right" or "wrong" way of doing it. Companies can do "real development" in a multitude of ways and still make tons of money. It is sort of like when people say "Politics shouldn't have anything to do with programming". It REALLY bugs me when people say that, because programming (most programming, anyway) is a team-oriented project, and you can't interact with other people without politics getting involved. That is how "real development" works, and it will never change, even though lots of people think it is incorrect. Chad From akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu Thu May 12 12:29:13 2005 From: akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu (Aaron Keen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy Message-ID: <200505121929.j4CJTD3O018897@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> >> Software Engineering is a major. > >Cool. I remember when Staley et al were getting this going, but I >haven't tracked it closely enough. Is it the same program as CSC for >the first 2 years, with differentiation in the last 2 years? Pretty close, but they will actually differ a bit more than that starting with the new catalog for next year. -Aaron From akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu Thu May 12 12:38:22 2005 From: akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu (Aaron Keen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy Message-ID: <200505121938.j4CJcM35019804@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> >OK, first of all, I didn't say "no academic has any idea". I also I know. I just like to annoy you. >I certainly wouldn't go around marketing myself as qualified >to teach university courses, because I haven't spent much time >preparing for such work. Fair enough. But you do keep stating how the curriculum be structured. >class should discuss "What is the tradeoff of using Oracle vs. MySQL >vs. Postgresql?" You catch my drift. Yep. From rdubois at calpoly.edu Thu May 12 14:06:23 2005 From: rdubois at calpoly.edu (Ryan Du Bois) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:06:23 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG] Re: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads Are Evil (reprise) In-Reply-To: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> References: <42837F63.3090108@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: At least none of you are like me. I've written threads before Cal Poly, and I still pronounce it "thrEEds" on occasion. Laugh and I'll kill you. Cheers! ---------------------- )'( Ryan Du Bois www.ryandubois.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin On May 12, 2005, at 9:08 AM, husmith at calpoly.edu wrote: > I do require a little threads programming in CPE464 (Networks I). > I could call this threads lite since I don't really teach > concurrent programming. The threads do not interact (unless the > student makes a mistake.) > > Some of the faculty have identified this as a problem with the CSC > curriculum. But given the limited time (4 years) the students are > with us and the amount of material to cover I'm not sure where we > can fit it in. CPE317 has really helped fill some gaps but there > is not a lot of space in that course for new material. > > Its fun to see our grads learn about the real world. Learning > outside the classroom is something we hope you pick up at school. > We can only teach you the basics and some tools ... the rest is up > to you. That's what I like about the CPLUG, its about learning > outside the classroom. > > Also, as a student would you have believed us if we told you how > the world really was? > > Hugh > > PS. No matter how old I get vi is still pure evil... although I've > needed it a few times in the last month...but I showered afterwards. > > Noah Pritikin wrote: > > > beyondrob at cowpoly.net wrote: > > > >> > >> Other than Dr. Staley, I don't think anyone at Poly teaches > threads. In fact I have met very few just out of college engineers > who know even the basics of threads (not that they would understand > using multiple processes either). > > > > > > > > I had a few programs to write using the pthread library in both > networks I (464) and OS I (453)... Smith & Haungs were the > professors, respectively. So, yes, Poly teaches threads. > > > > -Noah > > > > -- > Dr. Hugh Smith > Department of Computer Science > California Polytechnic State University > San Luis Obispo CA 93407 > http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith > (805) 756-2801 > > -- > Dr. Hugh Smith > Department of Computer Science > California Polytechnic State University > San Luis Obispo CA 93407 > http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith > (805) 756-2801 > > _______________________________________________ > Chatter mailing list > Chatter at lists.cplug.org > http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter > From ctindel at gmail.com Thu May 12 14:17:42 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:17:42 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505121938.j4CJcM35019804@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505121938.j4CJcM35019804@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: > Fair enough. But you do keep stating how the curriculum be > structured. I'm less concerned with how it is structured than I am with what is actually being taught. My main wish is for more focus on real-world skills, which can be done in a variety of ways. You might have an entire class dedicated to real-world kinds of issues. Perhaps you could change the professional ethics course to a more generalized "real world issues" course, of which professional ethics is just one issue. You could also add a section on organizational politics and how this affects technical decisions. This has the benefit that these students will already have had economics and (maybe) game theory and have a basis for analysis and decision-making regarding these kinds of issues. Or you could sprinkle it throughout all the courses, which has the benefit that it is being touched upon early and often. Or maybe it isn't coursework, but instead is just lectures where the department brings in people from industry. I know they used to have funds for this when I was there, because the CSC department helped us bring Rasterman down from the bay area for one of the first CPLUG meetings. Or perhaps it is a combination of all three, or something else entirely. I've never been a teacher and I don't know the best way to structure curriculum; I just know what I'd like to see more of with respect to new Cal Poly graduates. Cal Poly already has a great reputation for producing quality engineers, and I would love to see that reputation continue to improve. Academia doesn't have this problem (because you can't offshore the job of a professor), but here in the corporate world your professional existence needs continual justification, as upper-level managers make decisions to move jobs out to 3rd world countries where the cost of employing people might be 1/20th of an American engineer. American Software Engineers of the future will be focusing more and more on customer consultations, architecting products/solutions, and leading remote development teams. Knowing Java, Ruby, and C++ will no longer be enough to guarantee your job, because so will everybody in India, China, Russia, and Brazil. I just spent the last few weeks in Germany, and while I was there I had a conversation with a woman who teaches Economics and Informatics. At her school they no longer teach ANY programming languages. They are trying to prepare their students for what they see as the jobs of the future, so they focus on Software Design, Pseudocode, and things like that. Only time will tell if they are doing the right thing for their students; personally, I think that American engineers will not only need to be better at all the tools of the trade than their 3rd-world colleagues, but they will also need the soft skills and the ability to see the big picture in order to justify the high salaries that are required for living in the United States. To the extent that these are a part of the fundamentals that you teach at American Universities you will be doing your students, and the American job market/economy a great service. And as for you Dr. Keen, keep up the good work. I've talked with Cal Poly people who have taken your classes, and they had good things to say. I wish you would have been teaching there when I was a student. The fact that you actively participate here and converse with alumni helps you stay in touch with industry, and makes me like you all that much more. ;-) Regards, Chad From akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu Thu May 12 14:28:46 2005 From: akeen at falcon.csc.calpoly.edu (Aaron Keen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy Message-ID: <200505122128.j4CLSkjA000841@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> >You might have an entire class dedicated to real-world kinds of >issues. Perhaps you could change the professional ethics course to a >more generalized "real world issues" course, of which professional Interesting idea. This is something that Professor Turner might be interested in discussing. >Or you could sprinkle it throughout all the courses, which has the >benefit that it is being touched upon early and often. I respect the intent, but sprinkling of many different topics (this being just one of many that have been proposed) tends to quickly build into a waterfall of additional content. These kinds of discussions are often brought up at the Industry Advisory meetings. With new topics added, what should be removed? As you would expect, it is hard to come to any sort of consensus. >Or maybe it isn't coursework, but instead is just lectures where the >department brings in people from industry. I know they used to have >funds for this when I was there, because the CSC department helped us >bring Rasterman down from the bay area for one of the first CPLUG >meetings. This is also a very good idea. The issue, as I understand it, isn't funding by the department, but rather people interested in giving lectures. Will you volunteer? >Cal Poly already has a great reputation for producing quality engineers, >and I would love to see that reputation continue to improve. As would I. Which is why I take the time to read what you write. >Academia doesn't have this problem (because you can't offshore the job >of a professor), but here in the corporate world your professional >existence needs continual justification, as upper-level managers make >decisions to move jobs out to 3rd world countries where the cost of >employing people might be 1/20th of an American engineer. American >Software Engineers of the future will be focusing more and more on >customer consultations, architecting products/solutions, and leading >remote development teams. Knowing Java, Ruby, and C++ will no longer >be enough to guarantee your job, because so will everybody in India, >China, Russia, and Brazil. We understand that. We are also looking at how we can provide students with the skills necessary to continue to compete and excel. -Aaron From ctindel at gmail.com Thu May 12 16:40:17 2005 From: ctindel at gmail.com (Chad Tindel) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:40:17 -0600 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: <200505122128.j4CLSkjA000841@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> References: <200505122128.j4CLSkjA000841@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: > >Or maybe it isn't coursework, but instead is just lectures where the > >department brings in people from industry. I know they used to have > >funds for this when I was there, because the CSC department helped us > >bring Rasterman down from the bay area for one of the first CPLUG > >meetings. > > This is also a very good idea. The issue, as I understand it, > isn't funding by the department, but rather people interested in giving > lectures. Will you volunteer? As you might guess, I've never turned down an offer to show up and give my thoughts, opinions, and experiences. ;-) I've come back several times to speak at Dr. Keller's 454 class as well as things like Secure Your Machine that CPLUG used to sponsor. I imagine other lurking loud-mouths like Matt Dupuy (and Rob?) would be willing to come back and talk about real-world software engineering issues. Regards, Chad From phlog-cplug at netdrain.com Thu May 12 23:15:22 2005 From: phlog-cplug at netdrain.com (Travis Reitter) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:15:22 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Threads are Spiffy In-Reply-To: References: <200505122128.j4CLSkjA000841@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: <1115964922.17091.5.camel@leela-unstable> > As you might guess, I've never turned down an offer to show up and > give my thoughts, opinions, and experiences. ;-) I've come back > several times to speak at Dr. Keller's 454 class as well as things > like Secure Your Machine that CPLUG used to sponsor. I imagine other > lurking loud-mouths like Matt Dupuy (and Rob?) would be willing to > come back and talk about real-world software engineering issues. > > Regards, > > Chad Start organizing your notes, because I'll be asking you guys to put your money where your mouth is, this Fall :) -Travis Reitter (The New Management) From Alonzo at kachiko.com Mon May 16 07:01:26 2005 From: Alonzo at kachiko.com (Danut Alonzo) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:01:26 -0500 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_V=E011iUM_Vl=E0GGRA_CI=C0LIS?= Message-ID: <200505161302.j4GD2Xif027386@pi.cubicle.net> Hello, the truth in the end. Be sure of that. That with his own hands he should do that which most men of his She shivered, as if cold, and setting her elbows on the table, sh suave urbanity invited. He took his meals in the great cabin wit nature of the enterprise to be undertaken. boats, cried an officer impatiently. But how should a debtor come with money to buy a boat? The ques That is so. I knew your colonel. If you please, Don Miguel, but that is the very thing you must n At supper, and for long thereafter he talked of nothing but Blood That is so, said Nuttall, who conceived that for him this was Why, so you shall, villain; so you shall. His lordship's voice Have a nice day. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From service at paypal.com Thu May 19 06:46:05 2005 From: service at paypal.com (PayPal Account Review Department) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:46:05 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Notification of Limited Account Access Message-ID: <20050519134605.EDF631B79E7@hostingweb1.webcorelabs.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jdwallac at calpoly.edu Thu May 19 15:04:15 2005 From: jdwallac at calpoly.edu (Jeff Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:04:15 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Spamming the list with a job promotion ;) Message-ID: <428D0D5F.10903@calpoly.edu> Just thought I'd spam the list promoting a job. The company I'm working for, Avistar Communications, is looking for a couple entry-level fulltime software engineers. Since I'm sure no one on the list has heard of Avistar, I'll give a rough synopsis. Avistar develops a suite of applications for video communications for over IP such as conferencing and presentations. An applicant: -- needs to know C++ and Object oriented design fundamentals (such as Design Patterns) -- should know network fundamentals (would be a plus, but not required) If any near-grads have questions or are interested in sending a resume, send me an email at jwallace at avistar.com , and I'll forward it to my boss. Unfortunately, the company doesn't have any internship positions available. From beyondrob at cowpoly.net Thu May 19 15:27:36 2005 From: beyondrob at cowpoly.net (Rob McCready) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Spamming the list with a job promotion ;) In-Reply-To: <428D0D5F.10903@calpoly.edu> References: <428D0D5F.10903@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Relevant information you forgot to provide: Where? Looks like Silicon valley. What OS? Looks like windows. Salary Range? ok I'd just like to know for no reason. Probably shouldn't be spamming windows jobs to CPLUG, although in general I'd wager a Linux savy grad makes a better windows programmer than a grad with no unix experiance. Rob. On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jeff Wallace wrote: > Just thought I'd spam the list promoting a job. > > The company I'm working for, Avistar Communications, is looking for a couple > entry-level fulltime software engineers. > > Since I'm sure no one on the list has heard of Avistar, I'll give a rough > synopsis. Avistar develops a suite of applications for video communications > for over IP such as conferencing and presentations. > > An applicant: > -- needs to know C++ and Object oriented design fundamentals (such as Design > Patterns) > -- should know network fundamentals (would be a plus, but not required) > > If any near-grads have questions or are interested in sending a resume, send > me an email at jwallace at avistar.com , and I'll forward it to my boss. > Unfortunately, the company doesn't have any internship positions available. > _______________________________________________ > Chatter mailing list > Chatter at lists.cplug.org > http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/chatter > > From postmaster at smsnet.com.tr Fri May 20 03:37:25 2005 From: postmaster at smsnet.com.tr (postmaster at smsnet.com.tr) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 13:37:25 +0300 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Message-ID: This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. jane at smsnet.com.tr -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Subject: HELLO Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:38:21 +0300 Size: 2165 URL: From jdwallac at calpoly.edu Fri May 20 10:18:36 2005 From: jdwallac at calpoly.edu (Jeff Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:18:36 -0700 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Spamming the list with a job promotion ;) In-Reply-To: References: <428D0D5F.10903@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: <428E1BEC.1090802@calpoly.edu> Yes, the important info. > Where? Looks like Silicon valley. It is in Redwood City. Those who are unfamiliar with the area can refer to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=555+Twin+Dolphin+Dr,+Redwood+City&hl=en > What OS? Looks like windows. Client applications use Windows, servers are cross platform, and theres a bunch of code that runs on a certain Motorola chip (I can't remember the name of it off hand). > Salary Range? ok I'd just like to know for no reason. I'll give details of my salary, which is an entry level SW engineer's salary, on an individual basis. > Probably shouldn't be spamming windows jobs to CPLUG, although in > general I'd wager a Linux savy grad makes a better windows programmer > than a grad with no unix experiance. I agree about the Unix experience. And I'm sure my employers must have agreed since I was hired with pretty much only Linux experience. -- Jeff From Bowi2297 at kaleidoscape.com Tue May 24 10:38:24 2005 From: Bowi2297 at kaleidoscape.com (Vartouhi Bowie) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:24 -0500 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Re: Ready for Round TTwo Message-ID: <200505241738.j4OHcjif000509@pi.cubicle.net> Hello, played upon the cupidity that was the paramount inspiration of thosegalleons.She leaned across the table to interrupt him, and he observed thatjust said. All that I have done has been to provide the ransomarticles already obtaining between each captain and his own men."You think, perhaps, this your Captain Blood is the good God. Thatsailed along o' Bishop. But Bishop didn't trust us. He knew tooa score of wild, hairy, half-naked men, who - save that they appeared"I've done it," said Wolverstone. "Thank God, ye had the sense to"Is it impossible to award us the one-fifth share?" quoth CaptainMiguel.only ships to be seen in the harbour were the Arabella and theadventuring, he was now embarked upon the career for which he hadunspeakable imprisonment had moved his mind to a cold and deadlyhalf, and become the subjects of France; religious houses andknown as much of him before as I know to-day, I don't doubt I should -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 44bertram at 2sun.ru Sat May 28 11:54:25 2005 From: 44bertram at 2sun.ru (Kendra L. Brown) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:54:25 +0000 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?B?QWxsIHNvZnR3YXJlIC0gd2hvbGVzYWxlIHByaWNl?= Message-ID: <236001c563b6$73eeb37c$2071d37d@2sun.ru> Get all the software you ever imagined for extremely low prices! We sell software 2-6 times cheaper than retail price. Examples: $79.95 Windows XP Professional (Including: Service Pack 2) $89.95 Microsoft Office 2003 Professional / $79.95 Office XP Professional $99.95 Adobe Photoshop 8.0/CS (Including: ImageReady CS) $179.95 Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (Including: Dreamweaver MX + Flash MX + Fireworks MX) $79.95 Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional $59.95 Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 Special Offers: $89.95 Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional $149.95 Adobe Creative Suite Premium (5 CD) $129.95 Adobe Photoshop 7 + Adobe Premiere 7 + Adobe Illustrator 10 All main products from Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, etc. And many more... Visit us at: http://www.oemdisks.biz Best, Kendra Brown _____________________________________________________ To be taken off future campaigns, go: http://www.oemdisks.biz/uns.htm _____________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 081desaree at accenture.com Sat May 28 11:54:25 2005 From: 081desaree at accenture.com (Kendra L. Brown) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:54:25 +0000 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?B?V2luZG93cyBYUCAtIHZlcnkgbG93IHByaWNl?= Message-ID: Access all the software you ever imagined for wholesale prices! Our software is 2-10 times cheaper than sold by our competitors. A few examples: $79.95 Windows XP Professional (Including: Service Pack 2) $89.95 Microsoft Office 2003 Professional / $79.95 Office XP Professional $99.95 Adobe Photoshop 8.0/CS (Including: ImageReady CS) $179.95 Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (Including: Dreamweaver MX + Flash MX + Fireworks MX) $79.95 Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional $59.95 Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 Special Offers: $89.95 Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional $149.95 Adobe Creative Suite Premium (5 CD) $129.95 Adobe Photoshop 7 + Adobe Premiere 7 + Adobe Illustrator 10 All main products from Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, etc. And many other... Please visit us at: http://www.oemdisks.biz Best, Kendra Brown _____________________________________________________ To change your mail preferences, go here: http://www.oemdisks.biz/uns.htm _____________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 96linc at 1stconnect.com Wed May 25 04:04:47 2005 From: 96linc at 1stconnect.com (Richard K. Lee) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:04:47 +0000 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?B?Q2lhbGlzIC0gNzUlIE9GRg==?= Message-ID: <4db501c56119$df4fecf4$34d47181@1stconnect.com> Fast erection Prolonged effect No prescription required Give it a try! CIALIS - http://www.wonderpills.biz/sv/ VIAGRA - http://www.wonderpills.biz/vt/ Delivered in a discreet package _________________________________________________________________________ To be taken off future campaigns, go here _________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwight at 39dollarglasses.com Wed May 25 04:04:47 2005 From: dwight at 39dollarglasses.com (Richard K. Lee) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:04:47 +0000 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] =?iso-8859-1?B?Q2lhbGlzIC0gdmVyeSBsb3cgcHJpY2U=?= Message-ID: Perfect erection Long lasting effects No prescription asked Only $2.99/$1.99 per dose (2 doses in each pill): CIALIS - http://www.wonderpills.biz/sv/ VIAGRA - http://www.wonderpills.biz/vt/ Delivered in a discreet package _________________________________________________________________________ To change your mail details, go here _________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From service at paypal.com Mon May 30 11:26:04 2005 From: service at paypal.com (PayPal Account Review Department) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:26:04 -0400 Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Notification of Limited Account Access Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: