curtis schweitzer (dot) net

Introduction

One of the advantages of blogging is that it acts as a sort of “outboard memory” for me to dump my thoughts and opinions for later use. This advantage is useful in prepping for a big test like the A+ Certification, as it helps me process the information as well as store it for future reference. As such, I’ve decided to blog my way through the studying process, both as a way to help out myself and anyone else trying to do this. (It also doesn’t hurt that this will boost my traffic from Google by a hefty amount).

To begin: I’m doing this self-study, using this book. If you’re one of the many people that will no doubt find this page through a Google search on A+ Certification, I do recommend it. Its approved by CompTIA, the non-profit organization that manages the A+ test and certification process, and to the best of their knowledge covers the tests in full. For reference, I’m looking at taking the Essentials exam as well as the IT exam (which goes by the ultra-confusing numbering scheme 220-602). Here’s an Amazon box for the book:

I’ll be updating these posts with a sort of “Table of Contents” to make navigation easier. I like looking up the relevant Wikipedia articles as I go through the book, so I’ll see if I can’t include those as well. (Wikipedia often has clearer explanations than the book, as good as it seems to be). I’ll also be reporting my test results when I take the 8 practice exams on the included CD.

With that, let’s jump into the first real “meat” of the book: CPU’s.

Chapter 3: Microprocessors

Note: I’m skipping the first 2 chapters of the Myers text, “Introduction” and “The Visible PC”, as they are basic overviews that I think anyone with a significant familiarity with PC’s should find extremely easy. I was able to score a 100% on the chapter exam without reading this chapter, so I don’t think its worth more than this simple note.

The Myers text uses a consistent chapter structure that always opens with a general overview of the skills included, along with a Historical/Conceptual section that gives a simple, but usually adequate overview of the state of whatever technology is being discussed. The Microprocessor chapter begins with a basic overview of how CPU’s work, which I will summarize here. (Bear with me if this seems simple: we want to build to complexity, and that means starting with the bare bones).

The basic components of a CPU are as follows: the actual heart of the processor, which does the heavy computational lifting, the External Data Bus, which allows the CPU to talk to the rest of the machine, and the Registers, which act as “workspaces” that the CPU uses while doing computations. The Myers text is helpful in this regard, and its analogies of a “man in a box” are simple enough for almost anyone to understand. Important things to remember here are machine language, which is the raw code that the CPU uses to do work, and understanding binary, which I assume is something most technology-related people won’t have a problem with.

The section on the Clock is elucidating, and it helps clarify CPU speeds in relation to the actual process going on inside the CPU. There’s an interesting discussion on the system crystal, the component that regulates clock speed using quartz. The system bus speed is the overall term for the generalized speed at which all components run (note that the CPU amps this speed up using a multiplier setting).

Myers then goes on to explain the relationship between CPU and Memory. The Memory Controller is discussed (we’ll eventually learn that the memory controller chip is integrated into the Northbridge, but its not something covered until later). It allows the CPU to address memory through the address bus, which is a high-bandwidth bus that tells the MCC to grab things out of Memory.

Threads are the next topic: Myer’s analogy of ‘man in the box’ becomes an analogy of ‘men in the box’, which work on a kind of assembly line to fetch, decode, execute, and write data. Since integer operations require a separate kind of calculation, Myers explains how multiple pipelines were developed to do floating-point and integer calculations at the same time.

CPU cache is next on the list of items: we’re introduced to L1 and L2 caches (L3 is only mentioned briefly, however, with the advent of Intel’s Nahalem line, it might be prudent to refresh on that). Basically, these are exactly what the sound like: caches on the CPU that allow it to hold data rather than having to go all the way to memory, which can cause wait states that are incredibly inefficient. (The more I learn about computers and technology, from web development all the way down to the hardware, the more I find that the answer to almost every performance issue is “cache, cache, cache”).

CPU voltages are discussed briefly, just as a “be aware of this” sort of section. Modern computers take care of CPU voltage automatically, so apparently this isn’t something we have to worry about. What. A. Surprise.

The meat of the chapter thus begins: different kinds of processors. The list of processors isn’t huge, but it does begin with some ancient ones. The first on the list is the 60-200Mhz Pentium, which only has a single L1 cache (of 16Kb no less!). Sadly, at this point, its pure memorization, as the chapter review does ask questions about cache sizes, speeds, Packages (PGA or LGA), and sockets. I’m still in the process of committing these to memory, but at least I should have a good overview of processor evolution once I’m done.

There’s more auxiliary information on CPU’s through the chapter– MMX is discussed, as is the Intel Itanium line– but for the most part, the only thing left is a chunk on installation. It is recommended (and thus important) to memorize the size of caches and CPU speeds. Again, this is not a conceptual chapter: its pure memorization.

The “Beyond A+” section explains overclocking, something I’ve never really cared about. I’ve never wanted to melt through a motherboard or CPU case (except perhaps with some Thermite), so I basically skimmed this section. Something to note is that the provided CD does contain some handy utilities for things like this, adding value to an already cheap package.

Chapter Review (first reading) Score: 70% (I need to memorize my CPU facts more thoroughly)

Note: Question 9 is tricky, and I don’t think its very honest. We’re asked about primary and secondary objectives. The answer to the question is (spoiler!) D (meets no objectives), even though the “proposed solution” does in fact meet the primary objectives (faster processors). Since the optional objectives included keeping the same motherboards, I assumed this meant that such a thing was indeed optional. Since the proposed solution could be met simply by upgrading the motherboards, I think that choice A (meets only the primary objective) is also correct.

Tags: a+, myers, Reviews, tech.

Imagine my surprise when I visited this very site on Sunday afternoon only to find that the Twitter plugin I recently switched to had decided to spawn a plethora of this week’s “Twitter Updates” post, and was poised to continue doing so until I stopped its maniacal attempt at internet domination in its tracks. Anyone affected, either via the RSS feed (which, I’ve decided, needs to have some way of updating itself to reflect changes) or just by visiting: apologies. Its technology, and thus it occasionally reacts in ways that no one expected. I’m fairly certain I’ve rectified the problem (a confusing mismatch of check-boxes and other settings), but to be honest, I won’t be able to tell until it tries to push out another weekly digest (this coming Sunday). Beware! It may try its dastardly scheme again.

Verdict on the weekend: balanced. I had the chance to engage in some extended Murder Simulation with the friends on Saturday. (Anyone who doesn’t understand that euphemism for “video games” should google “Jack Thompson”, then join the larger crusade to have him not only disbarred [check!], but relegated to a cultural wilderness from whence he can no longer exploit the pain and grief of others on behalf of his own personal glory and political goals). Since I’ve been back in the Springs post-Grad-school-dropout, its been difficult to find time to play with them, so a day or so of fun is always appreciated.

I’ve mentioned before the fact that, in quitting grad school, I knew I had to supplant it with something. Enter the A+ examination, which, after listening to the advice of multiple friends, family members, and others, I’ve decided is a good starting point for applying for entry-level IT positions. After much research on the internets and elsewhere, I’ve come to the conclusion that I could most likely pass it today if I really wanted to– heck, I think I’m going to try a practice exam later today just to see. Since the test costs a hefty sum, though, I am indeed studying, with a guide that comes highly-recommended, both by CompTIA, the non-profit that manages the certification and testing, but some others I’ve talked to. It is below:

Its hefty: clocking in at around 1,500 pages, it certainly isn’t for the faint of heart. Since it arrived last Thursday, I’ve managed to power through about 300 pages, which puts me on track to finish the whole thing in just over a week, depending on how fast or slow I go. I mostly need review on hardware, since I haven’t spent a whole lot of time on it, and since I’ve been using laptops for the better part of the last 6 years. I’m only a chapter away from software, which is where my real geek-knowledge kicks into high gear, so I’m looking forward to an increased pace. After that, its a day or so of intensive review, and then I’ll schedule a test. I’m hoping to have taken it by the end of the year. Well, to be more specific, I’m hoping to have passed it by the end of the year. I’d like to pass both the “Essentials” one and the “IT” one, as its the most broad and general track. (Plus, the other two exams look annoyingly difficult). Once I’ve done that, its back to the endless job hunt, this time with an extra line on the resume to make myself look good.

We’ll see: I’m never sure what is going to happen, but I’m confident it will work out. One thing is absolutely for sure: I’m certainly better off than I was up at UNC, so I’m thankful for that.

In any case, I’m off to read/study/learn, so as always: see you ’round the internets!

Tags: Personal, personal-blather.

• The first snow fell in Divide today! #
• Note to Prop 8 protestors: since no one person passed it, you’re only protesting Democracy. #
• OlympusNet IRC will be down today, 11/10/08 while I move the server to Colorado Springs. It should be up later this evening. #
• Charon lives! #
• Waiting for things to filter through the tubes. #
• We have… *grunt*… ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….. TACOS! #
• Watching Eli Stone and wondering if it is possible for them to sneak in another ode to “hope”. Subtle, guys. Subtle. #
• The day is drawing to its close. #
• Obama to escape campaign audit: http://bit.ly/7WCd. Broken promises have consequences. #
• To sleep I go. Things are so much simpler now. #
• If they bailout the auto companies, I’m moving to Japan. #
• Contemplating creating an online community for young conservatives. A lot of work, sure, but I can’t think of a better time. #
• Looking into hosting plans, and mapping functionality #
• I wish I could ste my Twitter status as the picture of snow outside my window. #
• Snow. Melt. #
• Wilson FTW! #
• Saturday, just waiting. #
• Birthday dinner, then… well, I dunno. I really don’t. #
• When did the Discovery channel turn into the vaguely-science-related reality show channel? I want the smart one back. #
• Just watched Bear Grylls eat an eyeball on Man vs. Wild.It had more protein than a steak. Even in Siberia, not worth it. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Tags: Personal, tweets.

Tags: conservatism, mind-maps, organization, Politics, Rebuilding.

To steal an acronym from Lileks (I still so much already, I don’t think he’ll miss it): ASIOT, I have been thinking about starting an online community for young conservatives. Why now? Several reasons:

1. As I’ve said here many times, we’re in a unique position to begin rebuilding. Conservatives are looking for the next big things, be they the next leaders of the party (not us), the next technological advantages (us), or the next important grassroots efforst (definitely us). This is an opporunity, and its one that won’t be around for ever.
2. I’ve been part of the College Republicans before, and I think I might be able to work that to my advantage. I know people, I guess, and that might make it easier to promote/manage this thing, or at the very least to get it off the ground.
3. I know how. I’m not the world’s best web designer (everything around these parts is built on templates written by others, often with little or no changes), but I feel like I could set it up with a week or two of modification of the Mimbo WP theme, a Laconica instance, and a Facebook group. It would look good and work. Getting people to join– that’s the problem.
4. I don’t know (other than College Republicans) of any communities focusing on young conservatives. Barack Obama won partly by actually leveraging young voters. Being a part of the larger conservative coalition would give the GOP at least some voice to this demographic.
5. I want to do something. Blogging is only part of it. After all, I average about 50 uniques a day, and only half of those are loyal readers. I’d like to do more. Blogging won’t stop (I don’t imagine I’ll ever stop writing here), but it will become part of something, rather than all of it.

Okay, so great reasons right? Why am I writing about it here? Well, there’s a lot of things that make me wonder if I should just stay out of the fray for awhile. Per the above, some numbered bullets:

1. Every online community I’ve ever been a part of or tried to start has failed. I’ve been party to numerous group blogs that fell apart, large numbers of “movements” that never went anywhere, and every Facebook group I’ve ever created has topped out at 5 or 6 members. If I’m going to spend countless hours getting this up and running, I want to to work. For real.
2. I’m unemployed, at least for the forseeable future. That gives me one of the two things I need to start this: time. It doesn’t give me the other: some money. I have a lease to pay off, hosting costs here, and a life to live. This leaves me with a very small budget. Very small. I don’t think it will be expensive to get this community going, but at some point, whether through ad revenue or donation, we’re going to need to have a real budget.
3. Promotion: I’m terrible at it. Promoting myself and my ideas makes me feel like a cat that’s being pet in the wrong direction. I don’t do this well at all. And it will fail miserably without it. No matter how much effort I put into it, no matter how good it looks or well it works, if it doesn’t get promoted, it will never get noticed.
4. Over-saturation: there are a hell of a lot of online communities, for every concievable topic. I’m not looking to start a million-person movement here, but the number of pageviews it takes to keep something like this self-sustaining is pretty high. And I’m wondering whether or not the huge array of online communities means that we’ll never be able to reach that kind of a goal.
5. Will this really help? Off the top of my head, I can think of a great deal of practical results we can get out of this: organizing local rallies, using social networking and online communication as a means of rallying young conservatives everyhwere. But I’m hoping that we can do more than that, and so we’ll need ideas from that community. Again: audience. It has to come from audience. If we don’t have that, we don’t have anything. And I don’t understand how to do it.

So this is my bleg: anyone want to help? I’m simply not going to do this unless I can find people that are dedicated to it. I’m not talking a little bit dedicated either: I’m talking about people who are willing to spend weekends helping me code it, who are willing to take responsibility for being annoyingly excited about it and thus promote it everywhere. People who will be willing to spam Glenn Reynolds to get us an Instalanche. People who believe in it enough to donate $5 or $10. People who will help us set up PayPal and anything else.

If you want to help, I’m on Facebook as Curtis Schweitzer, I’m on gmail at curtis.schweitzer, and Twitter as cschweitzer. I’m putting out feelers here, and if I don’t get anything back, I’ll shelve this until I figure out what I want to do. I’ve got a vision, but that doesn’t mean anything without action.

So: good idea? If so, want to join?

Tags: bleg, New Media, new-hope, Politics.

Contact that Shall Remain Nameless 11:58:19 AM
I heard Obama is still trying to decide whether to take the oath of office with his hand on a Qu’ran, or on a copy of The Communist Manifesto

curtis 11:58:50 AM
Haha

CWSRN 11:58:58 AM
Third option: an abortion-surviving baby just as it gasps its last, pathetic little breath.
The timing on that one is tricky, though.

curtis 12:00:15 PM
Also, we wouldn’t want to get the ObamaMessiah’s hands all bloody and placenta-y

CWSRN 12:00:51 PM
Worst of all, his healing hands might grant the child new life.
And damned if America needs to be punished with a baby like that.

fin.

Tags: Politics.

Hugh Hewitt links to a piece by David Brooks in today’s New York Times discussing the fractious state of the conservative movement. Its a mostly accurate description, as far as I can tell, and beyond merely describing the current state of conservatism, it brings to light several important realities that conservatives are going to have to face. From the article:

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the most prominent voices in the Traditionalist camp, but there is also the alliance of Old Guard institutions. For example, a group of Traditionalists met in Virginia last weekend to plot strategy, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. According to reports, the attendees were pleased that the election wiped out some of the party’s remaining moderates.

No one movement (or piece of a movement) is without its flaws, but the above paragraph should give you pause: after all, beyond merely supporting the conservative movement, what do groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Federalist Society, and the Family Research council really have in common? One cannot unite a movement simple because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and although there will naturally by disagreements in any coalition of political entities, there should be at least some overlap. I don’t think the Family Research Council cares very much about tax policy, and I’m sure they’d support a massive tax increase if the resultant funds were funneled to groups like Focus on the Family. Likewise, I think the Federalist Society probably advocates for exactly the kind of amoral government that “social conservatives” despise.

These are fundamental disagreements, not vague and unimportant policy ones. One of the problems with the conservative coalition is that it is built from groups that have wildly different viewpoints, and thus is constantly in danger of splitting. One has to ask if traditionalism is really the way forward if it means grabbing at power and, as we saw after the massive 2004 GOP victory, squandering it in heated infighting. The Left is already trying to split us: why are we then effectively trying to split ourselves? How is the “traditionalist” camp any less inbred and divided than the coalition as a whole?

Part of Obama’s strategy for winning the 2008 election rested on exploiting these differences: on dividing conservatives as a means of undercutting McCain. Obama ran as a moderate conservative: how many hundreds of times did he mention his “tax cut”? How many times did he try to edge out social conservatives by leveraging his Christian faith and subsequent policy positions (the most stunning of which, I might add, is opposition to gay marriage)? How many times did Obama campaign not as a Democrat, but as a Republican?

Obama’s message was thus: I am a moderate: in fact, I’m more moderate than the “maverick” John McCain. I am a better conservative than he is liberal, and I am a better conservative than he is too. Look at my tax cut, look at my opposition to gay marriage, look at my emphasis on diplomacy, look at how I’ve opposed the most unpopular President in history. In effect, Obama was promising that, would each separate faction of the conservative movement give him their piece of the pie, he wouldn’t betray their trust like George W. Bush.

And for the most part, it worked.

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

What does global warming have to do with slashing government anyway? The last I checked, even the most unhinged partisan on either side of that debate was appealing to some kind of scientific evidence for or against the idea that mankind is causing climate change. It either is or isn’t true, and while I understand the reality that prompts moderate conservatives to “take global warming seriously”, it strikes me that making this a divisive issue (especially when there are other, far more serious differences that need to be sorted out) will ultimately ensure that conservatives are consigned to irrelevancy for most of the conceivable future. I realize that Brooks isn’t advocating for this kind of destruction and division: indeed, I’m pointing out that his insightful analysis is proof positive that there is a fundamental problem in the way the conservative coalition is constructed, and it isn’t because anyone is “too liberal” or “too conservative”: rather, its because we don’t try to understand and compromise on our differences. We destroy ourselves.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

Part of the problem of basing your movement on the opposition to change is that, when it does come (through tangible means like demographic shifts), there is a great deal of internal struggle that has to be sorted out before any real work can get done. Hispanics, as George W. Bush and Karl Rove brilliantly found out are indeed a key demographic: ignoring them (or worse, driving them away by allowing nuts like Tom Tancredo to be taken seriously) is yet another way to ensure that the Conservative movement is kept hopelessly marginalized. Again: the enemy right now is not the other side: its ourselves, and until we can figure out a means of truly uniting our movement, the Democrats will continue to win elections.

Brooks concludes his analysis by stating that he believes Traditionalists will win the war for the soul of conservatism, and predicts that this will mean further political exile. It is, I think, a real possibility: the question, however, is what the “moderates” are going to do in the face of this grim future. I consider myself a moderate, and I say we fight to prevent that grim future for coming to pass. Sending traditionalists into the same kind of political wilderness isn’t the answer either, I might add, but simply laying down and taking it (as the Bush Administration seems to have been doing for the past 4 years) will only result in the kind of political defeat we’ve just recently endured. This time, however, I doubt it will be temporary. We need unity: true unity, not the shallow stuff we’ve been relying on.

Hewitt’s comments on the Brooks article are perhaps the most insightful, and as such, I’ll close with them. They are wise words in a time when conservatism can ill-afford foolish ones:

…That renewal will not be a elites-led effort, but a party-led effort that will draw on the energy and ideas of the folks Brooks names and the state organizations.  The key is the levelling effect of the new technologies and the model built by Team Obama and the activist groups on the left.  The worst thing would be for anyone to attempt to drive anyone “out” of the conservative movement, or to engage in denunciations of this or that particular camp except for the always necessary effort to guard against extremists eager to nest inside of a larger coalition.

Tags: conservatism, obama, Politics, Reconstruction.