Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C Programming (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f42-c-programming.html)
-   -   New TOP500 list of supercomputers (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t738118-new-top500-list-of-supercomputers.html)

Mok-Kong Shen 11-15-2010 10:57 PM

New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
[ Re-posted because of cancellation due to Breidbart-Index.
My apology, if you read the same stuff twice. ]


The 36th edition of the TOP500 list of the world's most powerful
supercomputers has just been released. See http://www.top500.org/
It contains a big surprise: The first place on the list has been
taken by a machine, of 2.57 petaflops/s, that is neither located
nor built in America.

I still vividly remember that in the 1980's a scientist from the
former communist block once told me that, although he was officially
not allowed to use the Cray supercomputer of a European computing
centre, he had nevertheless with the secret support of his thesis
advisor managed to complete the voluminous computations for his
dissertation on fluid dynamics. How the time has changed since then!
(I recall also that at that time the DES module, normally present
on the SUN workstations, was absent on the machines delivered to
Germany due to "export regulations".)

M. K. Shen

Ben Pfaff 11-16-2010 05:10 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:

> [ Re-posted because of cancellation due to Breidbart-Index.
> My apology, if you read the same stuff twice. ]


I would think that reposting would merely increase the
Breidbart Index and thereby make your repost likely to be
canceled too.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

Keith Thompson 11-16-2010 06:04 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) writes:
> Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:
>> [ Re-posted because of cancellation due to Breidbart-Index.
>> My apology, if you read the same stuff twice. ]

>
> I would think that reposting would merely increase the
> Breidbart Index and thereby make your repost likely to be
> canceled too.


Apparently the original article was individually posted to multiple
newsgroups. The re-post was cross-posted to avoid cancellation.
Explaining to him via e-mail that the article has nothing to do
with the C programming language has been ineffective.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Mok-Kong Shen 11-21-2010 10:31 AM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Keith Thompson wrote:

> Apparently the original article was individually posted to multiple
> newsgroups. The re-post was cross-posted to avoid cancellation.
> Explaining to him via e-mail that the article has nothing to do
> with the C programming language has been ineffective.


For the record, this was the last correspondence between us:

>> (And if you feel that this conversation is a waste of your time,
>> >> you can stop any time you like.)


> > I think a more efficient way of discussion is to carry our
> > discussion into the group you subscribe. For otherwise we both
> > spend a lot of time but the result is unknown to the others. If you
> > want to do that, then please let me know after you post (please
> > formulate all your points concretely). Otherwise this would be my
> > last writing to you in this context.


> Then we're done. I'm not interested in carrying this discussion
> to Usenet.


M. K. Shen


Keith Thompson 11-21-2010 04:48 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Apparently the original article was individually posted to multiple
>> newsgroups. The re-post was cross-posted to avoid cancellation.
>> Explaining to him via e-mail that the article has nothing to do
>> with the C programming language has been ineffective.

>
> For the record, this was the last correspondence between us:
>
> >> (And if you feel that this conversation is a waste of your time,
> >> >> you can stop any time you like.)

>
> > > I think a more efficient way of discussion is to carry our
> > > discussion into the group you subscribe. For otherwise we both
> > > spend a lot of time but the result is unknown to the others. If you
> > > want to do that, then please let me know after you post (please
> > > formulate all your points concretely). Otherwise this would be my
> > > last writing to you in this context.

>
> > Then we're done. I'm not interested in carrying this discussion
> > to Usenet.


For the record, I was not aware that our private e-mail discussion
would be posted publicly, and I would not have given permission to do
so if asked. I don't believe such permission is legally required,
but it would have been polite to ask (though pointless given my
explicit statement quoted above).

Here's some friendly advice, which I give not for your sake but
for the sake of the signal-to-noise ratio of these newsgroups:

Drop this.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Mok-Kong Shen 11-21-2010 05:05 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Am 21.11.2010 17:48, schrieb Keith Thompson:
> Mok-Kong Shen<mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Apparently the original article was individually posted to multiple
>>> newsgroups. The re-post was cross-posted to avoid cancellation.
>>> Explaining to him via e-mail that the article has nothing to do
>>> with the C programming language has been ineffective.

>>
>> For the record, this was the last correspondence between us:
>>
>> >> (And if you feel that this conversation is a waste of your time,
>> >> >> you can stop any time you like.)

>>
>> > > I think a more efficient way of discussion is to carry our
>> > > discussion into the group you subscribe. For otherwise we both
>> > > spend a lot of time but the result is unknown to the others. If you
>> > > want to do that, then please let me know after you post (please
>> > > formulate all your points concretely). Otherwise this would be my
>> > > last writing to you in this context.

>>
>> > Then we're done. I'm not interested in carrying this discussion
>> > to Usenet.

>
> For the record, I was not aware that our private e-mail discussion
> would be posted publicly, and I would not have given permission to do
> so if asked. I don't believe such permission is legally required,
> but it would have been polite to ask (though pointless given my
> explicit statement quoted above).
>
> Here's some friendly advice, which I give not for your sake but
> for the sake of the signal-to-noise ratio of these newsgroups:
>
> Drop this.


It was necessary to publish that private email, because I didn't know
that you, parallel to the private email, posted here the sentence
"EXplaining to him ......" In the other case there wouldn't be
that need.

M. K. Shen


Seebs 11-21-2010 11:24 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
On 2010-11-21, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> It was necessary to publish that private email,


Prior to this conversation, I thought there was some doubt as to
whether you were some sort of asshole spammer. Thank you for clarifying
this.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

Mok-Kong Shen 11-22-2010 11:31 AM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Seebs wrote:
>Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> It was necessary to publish that private email,

>
> Prior to this conversation, I thought there was some doubt as to
> whether you were some sort of asshole spammer. Thank you for clarifying
> this.


If there is discussions about what is spams, we could discuss. Just
put up a claim without support is non-scientific. And look at the
spams that are evident from the title lines. Nobody seems to care such.
Isn't there some "double moral" involved here?

M. K. Shen

Sjouke Burry 11-22-2010 05:30 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
>> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>> It was necessary to publish that private email,

>> Prior to this conversation, I thought there was some doubt as to
>> whether you were some sort of asshole spammer. Thank you for clarifying
>> this.

>
> If there is discussions about what is spams, we could discuss. Just
> put up a claim without support is non-scientific. And look at the
> spams that are evident from the title lines. Nobody seems to care such.
> Isn't there some "double moral" involved here?
>
> M. K. Shen

There are a few types of ****.
The worst is the untraceable commercial ****,
complaining is useless, nobody listening.
The other ones are from people present on the net,
reading the responses.
Sometimes you can cure those.
Then there are the trolls, and they enjoy any type
of response, so responding is useless.
So no double standards, but people trying to judge
in which category a message falls.

Seebs 11-22-2010 07:24 PM

Re: New TOP500 list of supercomputers
 
On 2010-11-22, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> If there is discussions about what is spams, we could discuss.


There's nothing to discuss. Your posts were cancelled because they were
*definitionally* spam.

> Just
> put up a claim without support is non-scientific.


Who cares? This isn't science, it's Usenet.

> And look at the
> spams that are evident from the title lines. Nobody seems to care such.


Except, of course, that millions of them are cancelled, and most of us use
news servers which filter them preemptively, so I see well less than 1% of
them. And people continue to aggressively pursue getting those people
disconnected, banned, and so on.

> Isn't there some "double moral" involved here?


No.

Those posts are spam. Anti-cancel bots regularly go through cancelling them,
and providers other than Google, as a result, show very few of those messages.

Your posts were spam. Anti-cancel bots cancelled them.

Very consistent, very fair. And since you are apparently some sort of net
kook, *plonk*.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.