Fortunately at the sub-atomic level, my CF code has no bugs at all ;-) Michael Traher Systems Manager
-----Original Message----- From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 September 2003 15:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [WAS Re: machII(too much)] > I think that the concepts are different. The questions concerns what > it's called when you change the environment, the Heisenberg uncertainty > principle says that you MUST change your environment (specifically the > thing being tested). > > Or am I just being too damn pedantic in the morning? ;^) > > Jim Davis Actually, that's not what the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle (HUP) says at all. Since it's hard put equations and Greek letters in an email, we'll settle for text. The HUP simply says that if you've got two conjugate variables (specifically either momentum and position OR energy and time) of a particle (specifically an electron), increasing precision in the measurement of one leads to a less precise measurement of the other. No more, no less. A good quote from the American Institute of Physis site: "it [the HUP] tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events" which turns out to be delta[conjugate1]*delta[conjugate2]>=h/4pi (h being Planck's constant -- a really, really, really small number". Having spent 3 years in graduate quantum physics classes and having had to use the HUP to solve problems/calculate results/beat-myself-silly-with-math I'm pretty particular about how it's used to. Good discussion is at http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm and related links. Regards, John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:18 AM Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:20 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > > > The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sounds about right. :O) > > It just fits with my annoyance at incorrectly used science clichés. ;^) > > The uncertainty principle certainly "works" at the quantum level - but > even there it doesn't really say the same thing. This question is "what > is it called when you change the environment you're testing?" > > The uncertainty principle, however, concerns the fact that you can't > test anything without changing your environment. Basically that the > very act of testing changes the thing you were testing. > > This is actually true at the macro level in many cases as well (for > example to test an application you may have to run some sort of > performance monitor that itself uses resources). > > I think that the concepts are different. The questions concerns what > it's called when you change the environment, the Heisenberg uncertainty > principle says that you MUST change your environment (specifically the > thing being tested). > > Or am I just being too damn pedantic in the morning? ;^) > > Jim Davis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 03 September 2003 06:41 > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > > > > > A term I hear pretty often in QA circles is "violation of testing > > integrity". > > > > As in "when Tom ran the second load test replication kicked in and > > violated testing integrity". > > > > I also hear "screwed the pooch", "went south" and "wrenched the > monkey". > > > > But that may be something only our folks say. ;^) > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andre Mohamed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:25 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > > > > > Perhaps you thinking of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. > > > > > > André > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 02 September 2003 14:45 > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > > > > > "But then it dawned on me that maybe the debug output was causing > the > > > higher > > > times." > > > > > > Does anyone know the name of this effect. Where you change the > > > environment > > > you are measuring? I'm sure is has a name. > > > > > > Ade > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 18 August 2003 16:49 > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: machII(too much) > > > > > > > > > That's what I was saying last week, but not so fast... To get the > fast > > > times, you need to turn off the debug output and then you'll see > those > > > times > > > *drastically* reduced. I was banging my head against the wall last > > week > > > not > > > understanding why a simple contact manager would take 500 - 1000ms > > > (according to cfmx debug output). But then it dawned on me that > maybe > > > the > > > debug output was causing the higher times. Sure enough, that's what > it > > > was. > > > I'm now consistently getting 50 - 100ms rendering times. > > > > > > I would like to see some benchmark times on larger applications > > though. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
