User talk:Jeh/Archives/2010/September

Re: WWV time code format diagram

I listened to one of Mike Weiskopf's recordings, which was a direct capture of the output of WWVH's time code generator, opened it up in my audio editor and analyzed it. When a bit is being transmitted, the 100 Hz component is 15 dB below full scale, and between bits it drops to 30 dB below full scale, full scale referring to the maximum amplitude that can be represented in a digital recording without clipping. --  Denelson83  09:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Windows library files

An article that you have been involved in editing, Windows library files, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows library files. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Per your desire for a deletion discussion, I have initiated this to reach a consensus decision.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

modulation

You are right, thanks for the updates. 152.160.14.154 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: The time code format table WWVB

Suggestion taken, thanks. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Software freedom vs. Open Source

Can you please have a look at Talk:Cloud computing#Software freedom vs. Open Source? Thanks.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 15:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Svchost.exe link

Could I undo your link deletion on Svchost.exe?
Sorry, I'm newbie here on wikipedia (but I'm not a svchost.exe newbie ;-)
IMHO SvchostAnalyzer is 100% freeware. There is only a button "About" which open the homepage of the developer (there you can find other freeware and shareware). I think almost all freeware programs have such "About" button or menu item. The program is helpfull for the reader, especially if the user is no tech geeks had.
I read the Wiki linkspam definition, but I do not know exacly if such a link to a freeware is spam or not?
--Achimew (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Address space layout randomization

Windows Internals 5th Ed Page 759

You can control ASLR behavior by creating a key called MoveImages under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentcontrolSet\Session Manager\Memory Management. Setting this value to 0 will disable ASLR, while a value of 0xFFFFFFFF (-1) will enable ASLR regardless of the IMAGE_DLL_CHARACTERISTICS_SYNAMIC_BASE flag. (Image must still be relocatable, however.)

I made it to the origin of the edit of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.127.229.23 (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the Time from NPL table.

I figured I'd add a time code table to the last page missing one. See what you think. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. I like how you presented the two bits per second (strange decision on NPL's part!). I have no basis for evaluating the actual info, but I'm sure from your history that you did a fine job. Jeh (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Important information

Removing things like is against editing rules. If you want to remove it you have to remove entire sentence together. 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)~

Uh.. "citation needed" for that one, anon. Jeh (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Interface article

Thanks for your support on the interface issue in the SMD article.

Please take a look at Draft - Interface (computer science) User:Tom94022/Interface (computer science) - The current version of Interface (computer science) is all about software interfaces, so I rewrote it to add hardware interfaces, leaving software interfaces alone and linking to user interfaces. It isn't pretty but I think it is better.

Any comments, suggestions? (I am watching this page) Tom94022 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I will look at it this evening - I'm still doing Real Work today. :) Jeh (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See fork, Dave Cutler

Thanks for the support. See there. A personal question, where do "real programmers" find work today? In 7 years I have always been turned down in my job search by HR recruiters. Don't they know real progammers any more? Please forgive the personal question OT for the article, but your answer would help much. 70.137.152.65 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to ask as I've been an independent consultant for a long time now. Since the emphasis these days is so much on prewritten apps I guess most full time programmers are working for the companies that write those. Then there is a lot of work in customizing and adapting apps to specific companies' needs, but that isn't really programming. The key to getting through the HR department is to first have someone inside the org who wants you, and who tells HR "hire this person." You probably need to find others who are into the same sorts of things you are, and let "networking" work for you. LinkedIn might be of help. Sorry I can't be of more aid. Jeh (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Last thing I did was some assembly programming on a VLIW for performance estimates. Seemingly there is almost no demand for programming on the bare metal. 70.137.133.203 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... most of the bare metal stuff that's done these days is in microcontrollers. PIC, ATmega, MPS430, etc. Jeh (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact small-embedded has historically a different culture than e.g. VLIW number crunching. In small embedded it is rarely possible to play out mathematical/numerical skills or advanced architectural skills I think. Maybe somebody writing a math package in microcode would be more in line with past experience. Or bringup/bug hunting in a new chip of that kind. 70.137.158.105 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello, I noticed that you undid the revision of MrOllie on 17 september in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serial_port&action=history At this moment, that MrOllie tries to remove two external links in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Data_Format (pls check the history of this article) Because you seems to be more reasonable, can you have a look at it and give your opinion? Thanks. --Theo177 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see by his contribs, this is the WP:SPA that has been adding promotional links to teuniz.net. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

(regarding S-VHS)

It does site references. Therefor, it stays off. Hinata talk 20:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First, your manner is not appropriate. You don't just declare that you've made a decision and that's final. That's not how consensus is achieved.

Second, discussions relating to article content belong on the article talk page. I will address that issue there. Jeh (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgivemebut

If I asked you what 'hdslhas;dklhgauosd hjdhfahsdof jdhfkahsdjfhol' was, and when you answered 'those aren't even words' I laughed, wouldn't you think I was an ass?

I am not attacking you, by the way. Actually, I need your help. This is a BIG problem on wikipedia. Normal individuals like yourself are beginning to fall into a traditional mode of edition, where it is assumed that certain traditions are to be the rule, however being human we make mistakes.

I assure you, the first thing that should be stated in a wikipedia article is a definition of terms. BUT you must realize, definition isn't dictionary. Dictionaries take into account all forms of a word, but a simple definition of the topic is not this. You simply must realize this. If you have joined the wikipedia community in a quest for perpetuating quality knowledge, you must realize this. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.

IF an individual does not understand the terminology, they will be in a state of confusion until the terminology is understood. IT does not in any way need to take the form of a dictionary.

MY point is mine, it is my own, but I would like to share it with you.

I don't know what half of this means, except that you are once again trying to get your way against consensus on the Perpetual motion page. If you want to change WP:MOS to support the inclusion of etymology, the way to do it is not to continue to edit against consensus, but to open a discussion at WP:MOS's talk page. As for your continued efforts on Perpetual motion you really need to engage on the article talk page. It is very clear that consensus is against you, and the only way to get consensus to change will be to engage in a discussion, not to continue your belligerence. Jeh (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To war

To war is to be in a state of confusion. If you held the value of words with higher respect, you would understand this. Please, explain why I am incorrect and also,if you would, explain how my edits are 'confusing' because unless they are, I am not 'warring'.

Oh, and I have talked about this in the talk page. I have been TRYING to talk about this for MONTHS AND MONTHS. I'm done with the talk page.

Do what you like, but you are mongering war. You are deleting valuable information. In doing this, you are confusing people. You are creating confusion by not understanding what I am saying & violently opposing it. Take a minute and realize, you are actually flawed. I've been peacefully contemplating this for the greater part of a year, and you fail to communicate in any way other than ' I RIGHT, YOU WRONG'... Think about it, I appreciate you and in no way wish to war, but you need to see how it is you that started this. I will remain peaceful, please don't be angry or upset, your knowledge is most important and everything you say, I will learn from.

You need to discuss before deleting. That is the linear process of things, if you wish to discuss, that is. Otherwise, you are taking the offensive stance, & as I have already stated, I have made many efforts to resolve this issue, & your offensive action is at faultLawstubes (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is at the article talk page. I will delete all further comments by you here on this or any similar subject. Jeh (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gripe

Doesn't anyone know how to craft a talk page section title any more? Jeh (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)