New TOP500 list of supercomputers

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 15, 2010.

  1. [ 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
     
    Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mok-Kong Shen

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    Mok-Kong Shen <> 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
     
    Ben Pfaff, Nov 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (Ben Pfaff) writes:
    > Mok-Kong Shen <> 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) <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"
     
    Keith Thompson, Nov 16, 2010
    #3
  4. 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
     
    Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 21, 2010
    #4
  5. Mok-Kong Shen <> 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) <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"
     
    Keith Thompson, Nov 21, 2010
    #5
  6. Am 21.11.2010 17:48, schrieb Keith Thompson:
    > Mok-Kong Shen<> 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
     
    Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 21, 2010
    #6
  7. Mok-Kong Shen

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-11-21, 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.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    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.
     
    Seebs, Nov 21, 2010
    #7
  8. 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
     
    Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 22, 2010
    #8
  9. Mok-Kong Shen

    Sjouke Burry Guest

    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 shit.
    The worst is the untraceable commercial shit,
    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.
     
    Sjouke Burry, Nov 22, 2010
    #9
  10. Mok-Kong Shen

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-11-22, Mok-Kong Shen <> 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 /
    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.
     
    Seebs, Nov 22, 2010
    #10
  11. Seebs wrote:

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


    Then why the cross-posting did come through, to which you reacted now??

    M. K. Shen
     
    Mok-Kong Shen, Nov 23, 2010
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Greg Brunet
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    430
    Greg Brunet
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. fool
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    525
    Barry Schwarz
    Jul 3, 2006
  3. www
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    3,045
    Adam Maass
    Oct 23, 2007
  4. Knute Johnson

    Revisit: List list = new ArrayList();

    Knute Johnson, Nov 8, 2007, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,850
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    485
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Mar 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page