My IP address is 152.33.62.5
I looked up twitter and found this:
Record expires on 21-Jan-2018
Record created on 24-May-2009
Database last updated on 27-May-2009
I assume this means it only started in May of this year which I find surprising- I thought it was much older than that.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/twitter.com
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Day 16- messages in networks
The word I recieved was "quassias" which are small shrubs.
I was trying to send the word "bauhinia" which is a subtropical shrub in the pea family.
It takes a LONG time to send the message using this method since there were many collisions and it takes a long time to actually code and decode the message and read off all the bits of information. I found it a lot easier to recieve messages using this method. Once I had sent mine, I just had to sit there and wait for somebody to say my name then write what they said. When sending, I was strategically trying to figure out when to send out and listening for collisions and then trying to quickly figure out which was my next byte to send and to read it loudly and clearly but also quickly.
I think the main "bottleneck" was that nobody really waited a random amount of time. everybody would try to speak right after somebody finished or right after there was a collision. I think if everybody had to pick a random number of seconds to wait after they decided to send a message, then it would have gone more quickly. For example if I had to say okay, after this person, I want to send a message but I must wait 3 seconds. Then, of the three or four people who had chosen to send a message at that time, it is highly unlikely that they would all have to go at the same time. Also, what would make it faster would be if people actually stopped when somebody was talking so there wouldn't be such a long pause. Everybody tried to sort of claim the airwaves by shouting their name as quickly as possible but then they'd have to wait and make sure nobody else had done the same. If people just decided to say their name and then their number, there wouldn't be that waiting time. Also, if everybody was actually always ready to send/ recieve. It seemed a lot of times people had to wait a long time to say a number or they took too long to write it down and therefore missed the last few bits of information.
I was trying to send the word "bauhinia" which is a subtropical shrub in the pea family.
It takes a LONG time to send the message using this method since there were many collisions and it takes a long time to actually code and decode the message and read off all the bits of information. I found it a lot easier to recieve messages using this method. Once I had sent mine, I just had to sit there and wait for somebody to say my name then write what they said. When sending, I was strategically trying to figure out when to send out and listening for collisions and then trying to quickly figure out which was my next byte to send and to read it loudly and clearly but also quickly.
I think the main "bottleneck" was that nobody really waited a random amount of time. everybody would try to speak right after somebody finished or right after there was a collision. I think if everybody had to pick a random number of seconds to wait after they decided to send a message, then it would have gone more quickly. For example if I had to say okay, after this person, I want to send a message but I must wait 3 seconds. Then, of the three or four people who had chosen to send a message at that time, it is highly unlikely that they would all have to go at the same time. Also, what would make it faster would be if people actually stopped when somebody was talking so there wouldn't be such a long pause. Everybody tried to sort of claim the airwaves by shouting their name as quickly as possible but then they'd have to wait and make sure nobody else had done the same. If people just decided to say their name and then their number, there wouldn't be that waiting time. Also, if everybody was actually always ready to send/ recieve. It seemed a lot of times people had to wait a long time to say a number or they took too long to write it down and therefore missed the last few bits of information.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Day 15- Bus Typology
I think the best way to solve the communication issue in a bus typology could work similarly to how I think e-mail works with sort of mini servers. For example, your message could get sent to whatever server is at the end of your bus and then ask the question is Aunt Mary's computer on the same bus and then if not, which is hers. E-mail (I think) does this where I send an e-mail to gmail and it passes it on to yahoo mail which delivers it to auntmary@yahoo.com. Or, it could use something like the IP address of a computer so that when I say to send it to Aunt Mary, my computer puts the IP address of Aunt Mary's computer coded into there somewhere. So then, it follows around the bus (linearly?) until it gets to Aunt Mary's computer or back to mine with an error.
To solve the issue of communication, the bus could have several wires to handle different types of information. So, for the 30 computers in this room, each funciton of the computers is broken down and uses a different wire. Or, it could work like a CPU- instead of "multitasking" it just shifts really quickly between all the different tasks. The first would mean the bus would need to be physically large, containing many wires, but it would probably be faster than the second since it would only depend on say 30 instant messaging conversations per wire rather than 30 conversations, emails, radios, and online purchases all at once.
To solve the issue of communication, the bus could have several wires to handle different types of information. So, for the 30 computers in this room, each funciton of the computers is broken down and uses a different wire. Or, it could work like a CPU- instead of "multitasking" it just shifts really quickly between all the different tasks. The first would mean the bus would need to be physically large, containing many wires, but it would probably be faster than the second since it would only depend on say 30 instant messaging conversations per wire rather than 30 conversations, emails, radios, and online purchases all at once.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
