On Jan 8, 8:56 am, Anne & Lynn Wheeler garlic.com> wrote:

First off, what exactly is the definition of a 'software engineer'?
It sounds very broad. As other poster noted, there are many sub-
specialties with "computer" in the job title.

In my day, it was divided "systems programmer" (the hardcore techies),
"application programmer", and "systems analyst". As time went on and
we evolved from pure assembler to higher and higher level languages,
the job and skill levels of the application programmer changed. The
original 1960 skill level was simply not sustainable for the growing
industry, not enough qualfieid people (education and inate skill).

What do we call someone who plays with Oracle all day long?

What do we call a web designer?

What do we call someone who plays with complex levels of VBA and Word/
Excel/Access to develop advanced tools?

What do we call someone who develops applications to be sold to run on
PCs? (i.e. the people who work for Adobe?)

On Jan 7, 8:59 pm, Anne & Lynn Wheeler garlic.com> wrote:

That was an interesting article; but at first I thought I wouldn't
worry too much that there is a conflict between Intel's objectives and
those of vendors of virtualization software. At least both would want
the cheap virtualization solution of x86 boxes to work for people.

IBM, presumably, would rather sell you an AS/400, oops, iSystem, for
more money - or a zSystem.

But then, I thought, Intel does have a pricier thing to sell - so it
might prefer people to get an Itanium-based system for the "real"
work. I've seen no sign of that, though.

Instead, though, I *would* see Intel intentionally limiting the
hardware virtualization capabilities, so that virtual machines
wouldn't be 100%% indistinguishable, to prevent them used for various
forms of hacking and software piracy. After all, it needs to protect
its core business.

Dave Wade wrote:

Greetings, C= and Ami aficionados,
Especially those in the Los Angeles area or those who plan to
visit the Los Angeles area. The second meeting of the Commodore/Amiga
Network (CAN) will be held on Saturday, January 19, at 4 p.m. in
Castaic (northern Los Angeles area), California. For the exact
address, send an e-mail to me at rbernardo(at)iglou.com
Because CAN is starting off as a new C= group, the style of the
meeting is still freeform. Talk and demonstrations will center around
Commodore and Amiga games and other applications. Other talk will be
concerned about the schedule of meetings, officers (if any), a CAN
webpage, etc.. Anybody with an interest in Commodore and Amiga is
invited to join us at the meeting.

Truly,
Robert Bernardo
speaking for CAN

It is often said that when attempting to duplicate a card with a odd
codes in a column the mini-printer of the 029 keypunch would break. I
was always warned that back in the day and recently several people
echoed it.

I know from experience that turning off the print shielded it from
being broken (someone said it would still break).

But now I wonder if it would even break at all. Here's why:

1) It was not uncommon to use the multi-punch to insert special vaild
characters into a punch card in routine applications. For instance,
we wanted lower case characters to appear in some literals and the
only way to get them in was tedious multi-punch.

2) Some output decks contained binary information.

3) Thus, it would be way too easy for someone to accidently break an
029 printer. That would mean a service call for IBM and a downed unit
with unproductive staff. Data center mgmt would not like that. It
seems easy to have the internal printer template revert to a null
position given a non-printing code; that was standard mechanical
design.

Check out this website for legal narcotic alternatives http://www.GetHighLegally.net/

PA7280@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (Ben Alford) writes:

i believe had cornell had 360/75 with 8mbytes of ampex lcs.

standard 360/75 (and 360/65) storage was 750 nsec for 8byte interleaved
access (some claim that 360/75 was a "hardwired" 360/65 to get extra
thruput).

some installations setup LCS as extension of (executable) main memory
... that just ran slower. other installations used it for "emulated"
electronic disks ... with emulated data transfers; this could be things
like "hasp" buffer records and/or executable images.

i believe the ampex lcs had 8msec access (better than 10 times slower).

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: