> -----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 clich�s. ;^) 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. > > > > Andr� > > > > -----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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
