New TOP500 list of supercomputers

[Mok-Kong Shen]

[ 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]

[ 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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

[ 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.

 

[Mok-Kong Shen]

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:

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

M. K. Shen

 

[Keith Thompson]

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

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.

 

[Mok-Kong Shen]

Am 21.11.2010 17:48, schrieb Keith Thompson:

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]

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

 

[Mok-Kong Shen]

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]

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.

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[Mok-Kong Shen]

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