Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > New TOP500 list of supercomputers

Reply
Thread Tools

New TOP500 list of supercomputers

 
 
Mok-Kong Shen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2010
[ 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ben Pfaff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
Mok-Kong Shen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Ben Pfaff) writes:
> Mok-Kong Shen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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) (E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mok-Kong Shen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
Mok-Kong Shen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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) (E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mok-Kong Shen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
Am 21.11.2010 17:48, schrieb Keith Thompson:
> Mok-Kong Shen<(E-Mail Removed)> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
On 2010-11-21, Mok-Kong Shen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 / (E-Mail Removed)
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mok-Kong Shen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2010
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sjouke Burry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2010
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2010
On 2010-11-22, Mok-Kong Shen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 / (E-Mail Removed)
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chinese MIPS-based Supercomputers Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 0 02-08-2010 02:31 AM
Storm worm botnet more powerful than top supercomputers Jonathan Walker NZ Computing 1 09-08-2007 02:18 AM
Largest Supercomputers run Windows peterwn NZ Computing 2 09-07-2007 12:58 AM
Why does list.__getitem__ return a list instance for subclasses ofthe list type? dackz Python 0 02-06-2007 04:44 PM
Difference Between List x; and List x(); , if 'List' is a Class? roopa C++ 6 08-27-2004 06:18 PM



Advertisments