Slashdot Mirror

First up lkml.org is a third party site that hosts Linux kernel mailing list archives on a website. Regular Linux kernel mail isn't actually sent from it (I believe that's done by vger) so we're looking up the email reputation for the wrong IP...

Secondly UCEPROTECT is a very aggressive blacklist which states upfront they will block people who they believe are in the vicinity of people who the judge to be sending them spam. It's not the be and end all though and on one server I looked some time ago it's effectiveness was surpassed by other blacklists (here's someone else's old DNS blacklist comparison for 2014). In general I prefer more conservative tools like senderbase when trying to work out an IPs mail reputation.

For what it's worth I've also seen GMail incorrectly mark mails sent to the fio mailing list (which is also managed by vger) as spam and in that case it was purely down to mail being proxied through the list which was a place that didn't match the sender's DMARC records. Most of the time GMail was getting the marking of spam right though (even for mailing list mails)...

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Funny, nobody told the woman who invented coding.

https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWo...

So... that English woman who was Born in 1815 "invented coding"... hmmm...

I posted that documentary link because i am a "sexist" (i believe that boys and girls have biological differences that effect their brains, so become different both intelectually and behaviourally) - and you went back to 1815 to prove me wrong! But i am also a fucking racist Greek so: Here is a couple of milleniums older stuff - i the Greek win, you barbarian lose!

In a more serious tone: some overlap exist - but still, the boys will choose the pistol and the girls the doll. Watch the documentary (all of it), and you may understand why it is ridiculous to deny nature.

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Funny, nobody told the woman who invented coding.

https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWo...

Also, their is something wrong with your value system, culture, education system or some combination there of; if the mention of a bunch of white males as inventors and discovers of computer science offends you.

Historically speaking, it should offend you because it's wrong.

Comments are supposed to tell you what's going on. In fact, Perl has a built-in self-documentation system that makes it a breeze to document and find the documentation you want.

Very true.

You don't maintain perl code by trying to understand it and tweak it. You maintain it by replacing lines or blocks of code with better written code. And if you're not man enough to write better code, wtf are you doing trying to maintain it in the first place?

But this...Yeah, I think you may have been smoking those "roll-your-own" cigarettes again. That's either some pretty potent chemicals you've been ingesting there, or you don't really have any experience maintaining code in a production environment.

First, if you don't understand the code you are working on, how , exactly, are you supposed to know what blocks or lines of code you need to replace? Second, if the software requirements have changed (IME, the most common reason to rewrite working code), then it's not a matter of replacing the other guy's code with "better written code". It's a matter of updating the software to reflect current needs. The old code may have been *perfect* but if it no longer meets the customers' requirements, it needs to be rewritten. Third, "...if you're not man enough to write better code..." -- WTF is that?!?! Did you not know that the person widely credited with being the first programmer was a woman, as was the inventor of the compiler? What chauvinistic B.S.! If it weren't for your low /. ID, I'd guess you were a 13 year-old programmer wannabee full of piss and wind, but obviously you've been hanging out on-line long enough that you should have *some* experience in the real world. I'm just surprised that in that time, you don't have a better grasp on how the IT world really operates <shrug>

Well, yes. But I don't think that "I want multi-page tables" falls under graphic design. And yet its a total PITA to do in basic LaTeX.

Guess you haven't heard of the longtable package. It comes with LaTeX so it's as basic as anything.

I literally get 0 spam in my inbox. The only spam I ever get is from businesses that I have a "relationship" for (ie., created an account on their site, said no thanks to junk, but got it anyway). Easy enough to block them since each site gets their own alias.jan-1-2007@mydomain.com that I can filter later on and never bother to "unsubscribe."

I use sendmail with greylisting as my frontline defense, then dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net, `sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, list.dsbl.org, and lastly bl.spamcop.net. Thunderbird is great at picking up all the stupid "business relationship" junk based on the servers spamassassin's markings (but I don't have spamassassin dropping anything, just marking it up), but mostly just gets in the way of me permanently rejecting their mail (just a few a month ever come in).

I found many of the sendmail configuration lines from http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Sendmail.html if you'd like to give it a try.

4 days worth of spam filtering shows the following were blocked (this is just for my little list of personal domains, mind you):
# grep -c sorbs /var/log/maillog
16048
# grep -c spamhaus /var/log/maillog
13246
# grep -c dsbl.org /var/log/maillog
230
# grep -c spamcop.net /var/log/maillog
897

Combined spam blocked (each file is 7 days worth of spam count, except the top one which is only 4 days):
# grep -cF $'sorbs\nspamhaus\ndsbl.org\nspamcop.net' /var/log/maillog*

/var/log/maillog:30486

/var/log/maillog.1:43508

/var/log/maillog.2:41687

/var/log/maillog.3:36868

/var/log/maillog.4:35687

It's the San Diego Supercomputer Center (http://www.sdsc.edu/), not the San Diego Supercomputing Center.

http://www.eurekalert.org/images/

may contain what you're looking for :)

http://visservices.sdsc.edu/projects/nees/article. php

is better though

free porn

There is a list of all the media (including several movies) on their press release site:
http://visservices.sdsc.edu/projects/nees/article. php

This includes both real and simulated building captures (and several overlayed ones).

Directly from SDSC:
http://www.sdsc.edu/News%20Items/PR041107_shaketab le.html

A coworker of mine is in the department, and showed me this page: http://visservices.sdsc.edu/projects/nees/article. php

It has a video of the shake as well as high def video of the simulations themselves. It's pretty damn cool, you can watch the whole building flex and sway about on top of the the shake table, and the waves propagate through the building. (Each colored dot is a GPS sensor, 10 per floor, over 7 floors).

I turned 18 on October 7th- just a few weeks ago. I'm a senior in high school, and I've worked as a programmer at the San Diego Supercomputer interfacing the Open Croquet 3D operating system to their GIS servers, a database engineer at the University of California, San Diego, a researcher at Calit2, and lastly a network security analyst for Softwink, Inc.

I have no special contacts, no utterly unremarkable skill- I'm not trying to show off. My point is that if you can take the initiative to teach things to yourself so much as to qualify for a job (by the fact that you're asking for one, I can assume that you have), you need to put yourself out there and get one. It's not that hard- people are hiring, and if you're qualified, there's really not that much to stop them from letting you be an employee- or at least an intern.

Sorry for this horribly long-winded post. To summarize: just put yourself out there; don't ask slashdot.

- dshaw

Next Generation has posted a list of the 100 most influential women in the games industry. It's an exhaustive and nonsense-free take on a subject particularly important to the male-dominated world of videogames

Sounds like you meant (but didn't name) Grace Hopper, who (IIRC) was associated with the development of ADA.
http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html

Besides, it's very rare for users to need an odd number of processors (in any of the parallel codes I've seen at least). Most parallel problems are able to work in parallel by decomposing some sort of domain (be it physical, a mathematical matrix, etc.), and this decomposition usually happens in more than one dimension (this generally is done to optimize computation vs. communication). So generally worst case are prime numbers of nodes and the best cases are powers of two.

Or, reaching back even further, Countess Lovelace, who "got" computers even before there were computers (not as germane to programming, per se, perhaps, but still.) The idea that women are somehow genetically ill-suited to computing is a bizarre chauvinism.

It's not a question of the PS3 being overpriced. it's prices inexpesively for what it is.

What it is? It is a game machine. If you want to talk about teraflops, the SDSC has machines that will run circles around any number of PS3's, but none of them are very good at playing games.

Sony doesn't think of the PS3 as a game machine, either. But their customers do, and will judge it as such. That's so important it's worth putting in bold: People will judge the PS3 as a game machine. They will not judge it as a high-performance computer or as a "digital media hub" or as a Blu-Ray player. Even though it is all those things, no one wants it for that. They want to use it for games.

Well, the woman that said that became the head of the San Diego Supercomputer Center. So maybe there's something to it. =)

http://director.sdsc.edu/

My graduate advisor was Dr. Scott Baden, also in parallel computation, and for a year or two Dr. Baden and Berman shared a lab before expanding into two separate labs. I took all the graduate classes she offered. She's a real smart woman, and I think she was on to something.

Maybe not invent the theory of relativity every week, but at least trying to look at a new problem or a new solution to something once a month to keep your academic spirit of inquiry alive sounds like a good idea to me.

• Steve McIntyre's Site - basically geared toward discounting the statistical existence and/or importance of the 'hockey stick' temperature graph. Specifically, this is a discussion of the statistical errors involved in using multiple proxies (like tree rings, ice cores, etc) to model correlations.
• Climate Audit site - this is key to address your point; this site has a lot of scientists/researchers who dissent from populist view of anthropomorphic climate change, at least based on the current models. There is some important, and sometimes subtle, stuff here.
• A New Temperature Reconstruction - one of the stories linked to in the above site; worth a look.
• The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change - simply emphasizes that rapid climate change HAS occured historically and that human causes are not required; note that the swings in temperatures, etc, are MUCH larger than the 1-5 C shifts many take as catastrophic.
• Some have asserted that the AGW phenomenon is an example of Pathological Science. Note specifically the criteria:
  • The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
  • The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
  • There are claims of great accuracy.
  • Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
  • Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
  • The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

As another poster pointed out, AltiVec is great (although it's only single-precision, dammit), and there are some nice AltiVec libraries for BLAS and for stuff people in bioinformatics like to play with.

Another advantage is that the G5 is very similar to the processors used in DataStar, the biggest machine at the San Diego Supercomputing Center. This can be handy for doing small-scale testing and optimization before going to the big time.

Still another advantage is OS X--a really nice GUI with Unix goodness under the hood. Finally, there's the convenient 1U xserve enclosure, which is good for DIY small-scale clusters.

>> There aren't many women pioneers in CS (I cant even name any, which is pretty sad)

> Ada Lovelace, for one, although societal attitudes to women's education did prevent, as you say, there from being a large number in the early pioneers of computers.


  Don't forget Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Hopper!

http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html

I'm inclined to agree. IAAcomputational biologist doing bioinformatics-y algorithm things, and I am skeptical of automated grammar discovery. Automatic motif discovery with HMMs is one thing --- that works well, and I suspect that's basically what their bioinformatics results are yielding here (since SCFGs are a superset of HMMs). CFG-related algorithms are great for RNA analysis (I've written a few of them). I haven't read the article in detail, but CFGs aren't overwhelmingly well suited to proteins (which lack the nested-clause structure typical of RNA, for example (and programming languages too, as it happens)). One question I might ask is "how well does this perform when applied to a particular task?" --- the authors mention (in the context of proteins) automated functional classification; I'd be curious to see if this is basically reproducing the results of HMM-like approaches.

And it happens plenty on "traditional" supercomputers. That's why you stick a fast interconnect on them, like myrinet or infiniband and don't use just ethernet

It happens on traditionaly supercomputers, but it's crappy and slow. I point you to this paper. Why double the code and memory to get much worse performance? Because 'throw 1000 pentiums in a room' is already there to solve the easily parallel problems. That they are already there is the only reason to use them for solving a dynamic problem.

Do you find it at all interesting that EliteTorrents.org now just points at http://oy.sdsc.edu/ ? That is not a government server, perhaps these hackers had a major dns server hack and pretended to be people they aren't to reporters. Something wierd is going on here and noone that runs or owns the server has been contacted yet by authorities so I can only assume that in addition to all the other evidence, this is just very clever hackers.
Regards,
Steve

Their DNS entry is just pointing to here: http://oy.sdsc.edu/ so I have no clue whats going on. Is it possible that these hackers spoofed all the news and media coverage by claiming to be people they aren't and then either social engineered the ICE webmaster to update the entry or hacked the ICE page too? The media has been known to just accept and report what its told, they may not have verified the identities of the guys who they quoted.
Regards,
Steve

Got to say, UCSD is getting a very strong group in networking. Savage and Voelker and Snoeren, plus the folks at SDSC, plus CalIT2 (Larry Smarr's latest deal). Watch that space...

--Seen

All three of these women (and others on the referenced list) contributed something fundamental in mathematics. In the case of Hopper and Lovelace, those contributions were absolutely fundamental to the way all of our computers work. Yes, those computers that we spend all this time working and playing on, the computers that take orders, show us the news, allow us to discuss things, save lives, make the 21st-Century economy possible.

If you're a man, tell me how much better you'd have been than Ada Lovelace at translating a treatise on the Analytical Engine in the 1830's and adding annotations that run to ten times the length of the original document. While she was at it, she raised and discussed the idea of (and what's now one of the standard objections to) Artificial Intelligence, the universality of computers, the fact that the study of algorithms and procedural mathematics, deserved to be recognized as a new and distinct field, the possibility of computer-generated music, and a couple of algorithms that are recognized as amongst the first "computer programs." Yeah, that girl didn't know math at all.

If you're a man, tell me how much faster you could have invented FLO-MATIC or COBOL than Grace Hopper did, or how much money you made explaining computers to white-haired businessmen with a "nanosecond" of fiber optic cable in one hand and a "microsecond" of cable coiled in the other. Hopper didn't understand math at all, that's why they named a giant Navy boat bristling with computers and weapons in her honor.

And I'm not even a mathematician or an academic. I'm sure Slashdot readers could fill in their favorites that I don't even know about.

The fact is that there are and have always been talented men in this field, but these women took interest and initiative, and did something wonderful, before a man did it.

Is there a geek among us, male or female, who hasn't enjoyed explaining math to a non-geek, male or female, and then seeing the light of understanding dawn in that other person? This takes patience and time as all teaching does, and one of the hardest hurdles is convincing your "student" (perhaps a friend, using a pen and some bar napkins) that they really are capable of grasping this thing.

What a rush, and from my standpoint that economist would have made better use of his time perhaps speaking from his own mathematical expertise than declaiming who can and can't understand mathematics.

Math is for everybody and anybody who's interested. People that make generalizations about who can and can't understand math or anything else really piss me off. Feynman had a phrase (I think it's from the Preface to the Lectures on Physics), here adapted from its original meaning, "Respect for our subject did not permit this."

A little respect please, for the math and the women who can excel in it just like men.

She was a lady ahead of her times. Aside from her finding the first true computer bug (which was a Gypsy Moth according to my memory ;-) and handing out nanoseconds, she promoted multi-processing. Looks like we are just beginning to understand her wisdom.

was a woman

ada lovelace

I always wished I could have had another woman to look up and admire for their technical achievements.

You mean to say you've never heard of Grace Hopper? Hell I'm male and she's one of my favorite inspirations:

Grace Hopper

Enjoy,

Probably, though back in the early days, the first programmers were women. Ada Lovelace has been described as Founder of Scientific Computing Grace Hopper also comes to mind. Futhermore, back in the days of cracking Enigma codes, it was teams of women who programmed the bombes. Somewhere along the line, computer programming was co-opted into professional studies as 'engineering' and 'science' and unfortunately, women were actively discouraged from entering those professions. Only now is this changing ...

...Ada Lovelace.
Now,the honor of the first programmer seems to be da Vincci's.

From your post: They got the Nobel Prize for their discovery. She wasn't included in the prize, even though she was critical in the discovery of the molecule's structure.

From the article A debate about the amount of credit due to Franklin continues. What is clear is that she did have a meaningful role in learning the structure of DNA and that she was a scientist of the first rank.

The article you cite says that there is debate about the amount of credit that Franklin is due. It say that her role is clearly "meaningful" but in your post you say that she was "critical in the discovery of the molecule's sturcture."

Either the citation isn't the best, or it may have been "stretched" in the post? Either way, a reader of the linked article would have difficulty with the strong language in the post.

Well this is DNA, so there's no optical microscope involved.

Rosalind Franklin used X-rays to clarify DNA's structure. Her research was then shown to Crick and Watson without her knowledge, and the two men were then able to decypher the structure of DNA.

They got the Nobel Prize for their discovery. She wasn't included in the prize, even though she was critical in the discovery of the molecule's structure.

One thing that may be a serious hindrance to Microsoft edging into the supercomputing market is that people who do serious supercomputing are fairly reactionary. Note that I'm referring to people who burn the vast majority of the CPU time at the US's national supercomputing centers - astrophysicists, plasma physicists, molecular dynamicists, people who run QCD (quantum chromodynamics) simulation - and also those who work at government labs doing simulations of nuclear bombs and such. Take a look at the various supercomputing center websites - NCSA, SDSC and PSC - and look up the amount of computer times various groups use. Those doing the most computing, and getting the most science done, are doing truly old-school supercomputing

One of the main reasons for this that that these people (I'm one of them) write and use simulation codes that have a VERY long lifetime - in astrophysics there are codes that are 20-30 years old and still in wide use. This is because these codes first and foremost have to solve whatever equations you're interested in CORRECTLY, and second off, solve them FAST. People base their academic reputations on the results of these codes, and are very interested in making sure that they get the right answer. In some fields (astrophysics being the one I know the most about) people can spend 10 years developing and adding science to a code.

Now, this is a reasonable thing on a unix machine. From the user's point of view, one supercomputer really isn't all that different than another. You just need to figure out where the various libraries and compilers are, but once you do that, you type 'make' and are up and running. So if Microsoft wants to break into the traditional supercomputing market, in order to entice hard-core computational scientists into trying their products they'll have to make it so that codes written for unix systems can be ported over essentially transparently - have the same libraries, the same types of compilers, etc. etc. Frankly, that doesn't seem like a likely thing to me. But then again, I'm one of the crusty old school big-iron computational physicists, so my opinion might not be all that forward looking. All I really care about is what platforms let me get my job done the easiest, and that seems to be the various unix and unix-like systems out there right now.

According to this, it was Grace Hopper.

WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about, you young whelp?!!!!

Or about 80 minutes with the right hardware or several months with $10,000 in equipment.

This year's Supercomputing 2003 Bandwidth Challenge netted some cool results in this area including 23+gbps inside the US, 7.56gbps between the US and Japan, and 8.96gbps throughput to a remote network filesystem using GPFS. There are even some pretty graphs. My former co-workers at SDSC were involved in a lot of this work.

Although the site is "conserving bandwidth", and didn't have as much info as I would like available right this second,

There is a secondary site at http://mars0.sdsc.edu/ which has a lot more info.

Check it out. It even has a Wiki about Maestro and MER.

Many Maestro and MER related questions are also being answered in #maestro on irc.freenode.net.

Cheers,
Justin Wick
Science Activity Planner / Maestro Support Staff
Mars Exploration Rovers

Although the site is "conserving bandwidth", and didn't have as much info as I would like available right this second,

There is a secondary site at http://mars0.sdsc.edu/ which has a lot more info.

Check it out. It even has a Wiki about Maestro and MER.

Many Maestro and MER related questions are also being answered in #maestro on irc.freenode.net.

Cheers,
Justin Wick
Science Activity Planner / Maestro Support Staff
Mars Exploration Rovers

To get some perspective on this, there aren't a lot of crypt() collisions. Tom Perrine and Devin Kowatch of The San Diego Supercomputer Center found only one crypt() collision that they categorized as "real": $C4U1N3R collided with SEEKETH. There were also 24 that were a result of characters in some passwords having the high bit set -- crypt() strips off the high bits.

Their Teracrack project (pdf; html) used a different approach: leverage their huge amount of high-speed network connections and storage space.

Royce

To get some perspective on this, there aren't a lot of crypt() collisions. Tom Perrine and Devin Kowatch of The San Diego Supercomputer Center found only one crypt() collision that they categorized as "real": $C4U1N3R collided with SEEKETH. There were also 24 that were a result of characters in some passwords having the high bit set -- crypt() strips off the high bits.

Their Teracrack project (pdf; html) used a different approach: leverage their huge amount of high-speed network connections and storage space.

Royce

One of the libraries' uses was a project by a research guy there who aimed to store every possible combination of 8-character ASCII strings. I forget exactly how much storage space it took up, but it was quite a bit more than what you'd expect just from doing the numbers (they might have been storing metadata or something as well, I don't remember). Anyway, I do remember asking what they intended to do with the data: They wanted to use these to compute password hashes so they could crack passwords in near real-time. It looks like they finally got around to do it.

I haven't yet read their paper so I don't know if they used this data or not, but I'd believe them if they say they've computed all the crypt()-able hashes. Hopefully they'll put up a search interface so you can break your own password. They've got the computing horsepower to spare...

-B

Aluminium is an element, it was discovered, not "invented", and not by an American.

Aluminium history
"In 1809 [Sir Humphrey] Davy [English] fused iron in contact with alumina in an electric arc to produce an iron Aluminium alloy; for a split instant, before it joined the iron, Aluminium existed in its free metallic state for perhaps the first time since the world was formed"

Sir Humphrey Davy
"In 1825, Hans Christian Oersted [Danish] first successfully isolated aluminum in a pure form."

American chemists industrialised the process.

As a tech working on DOS and WfW3.11 machines on a Netware network in the Navy, I knew nothing of OSS in the early 90's. For intranet email, we were running a 100 user license for Lotus cc:Mail that didn't even have an internet mail connector, which they quoted us several thousand dollars for. A wiser-man-than-me told me to look into Pegasus and Mercury by David Harris. I downloaded it for free, downloaded the free manuals, read them, installed it, and it worked perfectly! What a shock! It was better than cc:Mail in every way, and it was free! David Harris joined ADM Grace Hopper on my hero list. Pegasus may not fit the OSS definition exactly, but it introduced me to the concept in a project that saved my command thousands of dollars while working better and having more usefull features than the commercial competitor. I think it interesting that this was learned in a very commercial DOS/Win/Netware shop with no Linux in sight.

This post was randomly generated by man on too much coffee and too little sleep beating on a keyboard.

Thank you for backing up the parent point, "snow pony". Three women mentioned for 2002, none of whom I've heard of, only one of which has a technical position (the other two are "manager" and "CEO").

You really do need to look further into the history of those "managers and CEOs" instead of taking a cheap shot obviously based the limited amount of information you could gleam from a single web page.

Julie Estrin (CEO of Packet Design) holds a B.S. Degree in Math and Computer Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Electric Engineering from Stanford University.

Dr Caroline Kovac holds a Ph.D in Chemistry; and was the head of IBM Research efforts in computational biology.

Like most people of recognition; they have moved up the corporate ladder into executive positions through thier experience and drive.

There is very little publicity of most female technical leaders except when grandstanding takes place (and most people have learned to see through that dribble anyways). You mentioned Lovelace and Hopper. Both notable women of computing; but considering the time period they come from - I think trying to label them as an alternative to feminism when the feminist movement had not even undergone it's major revival until Hopper was well into her 50s (and Lovelace was deceased for over a centuary) to be a touch out of context don't you think?

I do love how you labelled me as a feminist when merely trying to give you an informed opinion. Gynophobic are we? I am the last person I would consider to be a feminist. However I also know I am a highly technically minded individual; the company I work for recognises this year after year and relies on my skills to solve technical problems.

I do my job and do it well. I don't go running around and demand recognition for my work. You might just find there are many quiet achievers such as myself in the world. Considering you took the time to actually list a few noteworthy technically minded women from history; is it that hard to conclude that there are women like them still around?

Something like the AppLeS Parameter Sweep Template software might suit your needs. I've never used it myself, but it looks like it might be close to what you're looking for.

See here for other projects from the GRAIL lab at SDSC and UCSD.

Something like the AppLeS Parameter Sweep Template software might suit your needs. I've never used it myself, but it looks like it might be close to what you're looking for.

See here for other projects from the GRAIL lab at SDSC and UCSD.