Slashdot Mirror

It can be written as a very simple, recursive program. A link to a nice looking C++ program from a google search.

http://maple.ece.utexas.edu/~ogale/ee312/

http://erwnerve.tripod.com/prog/recursion/

You just need to find the right LaTeX packages. :)

Of course, depending on how complex it is, you could use built-in features.

"I think the way in which people use --or misuse-- words always most revealing. (At a seminar I recently attended, one of the speakers consistently referred to people as "human beings"; he turned out to have been trained as a psychologist.) Bearing that in mind and, furthermore, remembering that the majority of the people in the field regards computers primarily as tools, we should notice that the English speaking world coined the term "Computer Science". We should do so, because it is very exceptional that a tool gives its name to a discipline: we don't call painting "brush art", nor surgery "knife science". From these observations we can only conclude that when the term "Computer Science" was coined, computers were regarded --either in fact, or mainly potently-- as exceptional gadgets. A question to be answered before proceeding is, whether this view of computers as exceptional gadgets is justified or not."

-Dijkstra (EWD 682)

University of Texas at Austin is beginning to teach swarm theory as business theory under the term Complex Adaptive Systems for management classes. I just finished taking a management final ~60 minutes ago too. :)

Managing Complexity (MIS 382N.5) Syllabus
Complex adaptive systems, attractors, and patching [electronic resource] : a complex systems science analysis of organizational change - Business Administration, Management thesis

Apart from the technology not being ready yet, we are faced with the usual trouble of how to get heavy hardware up there. Laser systems, magnets and giant Hoovers are not generally lightweight items. There's also the issue of whether we want to have nuclear stuff in orbit.

I disagree. I'll quote someone else to make my opinion seem more important:

Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer.
--Edsgar Dijkstra

Dude most of the things he talked about are taught in any decent Web Search or Machine Learning course. He is not disclosing any secrets and Page Rank is actually a 5 day homework assignment not a life's work. Google has gone far beyond Page Rank and Page Rank is just the dummy Google likes to wave about so that people are busy trying to beat Page Rank and not their real classifiers. And classifiers are dime a dozen. Tying them up with efficient network and database resources is Google's key contribution. Rest assured the reason Google is doing well is kept pretty secret. (Hint: Its the database and network algos which allow the maintenance of huge databases and indexes in a distributed manner). BTW If you dont believe Page Rank is a HW assignment look at Dr mooney's course page here http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mooney/ir-course/

Speaking of radiant...

http://www.as.utexas.edu/~anna/

I'd like to probe her elements!

"You mean BASIC isn't fun? It was fun for me... but maybe that's why I'm reading Slashdot now."

Indeed!

"It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Now that quote is from 1975, and here we are, trying to create a new and better beginners allpurpose symbolic instruction code.

Like Hegel told...
Oh well, nevermind.

NGIA is the map-making part of what used to be the National Reconnaissance Organisation, the consumers of vast amounts of black-budget money.

There are all sorts of censorships in Google Earth, from the glaring (there are no roads or cities in Israel!) to the moderately glaring (you can count planes at Beirut airport, not so at Ben Gurion) to the subtle; I had a friend out at the RAF base in Basra a few months ago, and was a little alarmed that there was one-metre georeferenced imagery of the camp available - though since the camp's still there and the impacts on it seemed fairly random, it would appear that the local insurgents didn't have GPS-guided mortar rounds. Or possibly GPS was jammed over the camp -- after all, the airmen in the camp know where it is already -- though maintaining the navigation hardware in planes when you can't test it in-base would not be fun.

That made the British news, and maps.google.co.uk now has no GIS information for Iraq at all (in fact, no GIS from the Egyptian border to the Indian border), though it still has sub-metre imagery of central Basra

( http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=30.5 20642,47.844225&spn=0.005093,0.00824&z=17 ) - I don't know whether the bridge is still a pontoon-bridge.

Basra International Airport, which I was only able to find after doing a Google search and finding a Soviet map of the area

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asi a/basra_1990.jpg

now shows suspiciously devoid of planes and buildings:

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=30.5 494,47.669935&spn=0.040728,0.065918&z=14

My favorite Google Earth oddity is the Mondrianised patch of the Netherlands here

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.248443,4.4 4&spn=0.007239,0.016479&t=k&z=16&om=1

Noordwijk is the home to ESA Mission Control, but that shows up on the map without trouble. I'm by a long way not interested enough to spend a hundred Euros getting myself to Holland, walking down Albert Verweystraat taking photos of the buildings, and seeing which one belies the fact that it's labelled National Marine Conservancy by the platoon of marines outside.

That's the point exactly. The interviewer doesn't want to hear an immediate response of "oh, I'd use a radix sort". They want to hear you talk out your problem-solving process in real time, to see how close to their optimal solution you get in ten minutes' time and what ideas you might have for improving your first-pass solution if you had had more time.

Yeah, that's exactly what they're looking for, I think. When I was phone interviewed by Google, the interviewer asked me the majority finding problem, which I hadn't encountered before. I iterated through a few solutions but never came up with a solution that was better than O(n log n). I still got called back for an on site interview.

Weren't you asked that same question Starkruzr, and you avoided answering many times and lied many times also?

My name is not alex, but here are your lies again, for your reference and those of others here:

"YOU were the one who originally suggested I might be female, I just went along with it." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)

Another lie? Your own words saying you are a girl, and when caught, you changed it again, (lol):

"I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)

No one ever said you were a girl - YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=184 94155

"Hey, dipshit: how do you know I'm MALE? Maybe I SHOULD be acting like a woman because I AM one." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday March 26, @06:16PM (#18494155)

And, when caught in his lie, only then did he admit to it here:

"I am quite male." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)

Give us a break. Learn to tell the truth for once, someone might believe you then. Kind of hard to prove you are telling the truth though, when you are exposed as an outright liar, especially thru your own words, just like your friend and fellow 'arseholetechnican', Jeremy Reimer here:

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

and here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=193#feedbackAnchor

ROTFLMAO!

better the enemy you know, than the unknown that will rise to take his place.

Still afraid of the dark, are we? Tacitus derided this attitude 1900 years ago. Your imagination should lead you to do things, not cower in fear.

Do you think they could have picked a creepier picture of him? I mean, most people have to work hard to look like this.

What I don't like about Zimbra is their "we take over your whole shop" approach. Of course, Exchange is not different but we have an existing installation with a working IMAP mailserver, a working web-based calendar (webCalendar http://www.math.utexas.edu/users/mzou/webCal/ ) and existing users using Mozilla and Squirrelmail.
I looked into Zimbra at first to use their webmail system, but there seems to be no way of migrating one part of the system without converting everything at once.

In fact, with our current system we are just as locked-in as an Exchange/Outlook user is. About the only thing I could upgrade without lots of difficulty is the IMAP server (UW imapd), and even *that* is tricky because of the naming conventions of folders used by different servers.

Well, let's see:

You:

Having read the articles that were easy to get to, and the abstract of the PhD student: this is buzzword bollocks. There is no innovation in what they have done.

Me quoting you:

...this is buzzword bollocks.

Seems a pretty accurate sense of what you said.

Again, you:

Interesting research, as it's always good to see people explore different designs, but it sounds overhyped and I believe that it has zero commercial appeal.

And me quoting you:

I believe that it has zero commercial appeal.

Again, your original sentence concentrated on the perceived commercial value of the project, not the fact that it's a research project. You intended to shift the debate from one of exploring the design space in a relatively unfettered manner to whether the project serves some narrow economic interest. You did the same when comparing TRIPS to existing commercial architectures when running media applications, ignoring the actual future problems that TRIPS is designed to overcome. I simply focused on the argument you actually made.

Are you now unwilling to stand behind that argument? There's nothing wrong with changing your argument but there is something wrong with doing so while trying to obfuscate the change in debate with attacks.

You would guess wrong.

Perhaps you would care to examine the TRIPS publications page where there are several papers on the compiler available.

Yale Patt, is that you?!?

Except the shared bus the Xeons sit on is a seriously limiting factor, no-one in HPC is using Xeons because of it.

UT-Austin's current supercomputer isn't in the top ten right now, but "no-one" is a little harsh for number 12, don't you think?

I'm not saying that memory bandwidth isn't an important bottleneck (and I'd bet that's one reason they're going with AMD for TACC's next cluster), but depending on your application's behavior you can bring in enough work to keep two dual-core Xeons busy on each node, and I'm sure there are applications that won't starve two quad-core Xeons either.

Will I also get modded informative if I post yet another link to http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~trips/?
Thanks! (That server just won't die, now would it?...)

There are detailed informations available, including the isa of their prototype.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~trips/publications.html

Instructions are grouped but WITH data dependencies, that are explicitly encoded in the instruction stream, which means that generating code running well on that thing doesn't sound that difficult. IANA compiler expert but I think a compiler able to generate good code for this out of regular, scalar code sounds quite plausible.

Ironically, an atom bomb in India would weigh less than most other places. If you look at a gravitational map of the world, you will see that the Southern tip of India actually has a lower gravitational pull than most other areas in land. Almost 5% less than the norm.

For space travel, this means that they can actually shoot off rockets for cheaper than other places because they need to use less fuel for a lighter load. I'd be curious to see what this translates to in real world cost savings.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

No, here are the real articles on TRIPS. These and many others can be found here.

I apologize if I butcher some of the details, but I highly recommend that anyone interested peruse the TRIPS website.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~trips/

They have several papers available that motivate the rationale for a architecture.

The designers of this architecture believed that conventional architectures were going to run into some physical limitations that were going to prevent them from scaling further. One of the issues they foresaw was that as feature size continued to shrink and die size continued to increase chips would become susceptible to, and ultimately constrained by wire delay. Meaning the amount of time it took to send a signal from one part of a chip to another would constrain the ultimate performance. To some extent the shift in focus to multi-core CPUS validates some of their beliefs.

To address the wire delay problem the architecture attempts to limit the length of signal paths through the CPU by having instructions send their results directly to their dependent instructions instead of using intermediate architectural registers. TRIPS is similar to VLIW in that many small instructions are grouped into larger instructions (Blocks) by the compiler. However it differs in how the operations within the block are scheduled.

TRIPS does not depend on the compiler to schedule the operations making up a block like a VLIW architecture does. Instead the TRIPS compiler maps the individual operations making up a large TRIPS instruction block to a grid of execution units. Each execution unit in the grid has several reservation stations, effectively forming a 3 dimensional execution substrate.

By having the compiler assign data dependent instructions to execution units that are physically close to one another the communication overhead on the chip can be reduced. The individual operations wait for the operands to arrive at their assigned execution unit, once all of operations dependencies are available then the operation fires and its result is forwarded to any waiting instruction. In this way the operations making up the TRIPS are dynamically scheduled according to the data flow of the block and the amount of communications that have to occur across large distances are limited. Once an entire block is executed its can be retired and its results can be written to a register or memory.

At the block level a TRIPS processor can still function much like a conventional processor. Blocks can be executed out of order, speculatively, or in parallel. They have also defined TRIPS as a polymorphous architecture meaning the configuration and execution dynamics can be changed to best leverage the available parallelism. If code is highly parallelizable it might make sense to allow bigger blocks mapped. However, by performing these type of operations at the level of a block instead of for each individual instruction the overhead is theoretically drastically reduced.

There is some flexibility in how the hardware can be utilized. For some types of software with a high degree of parallelism you may want very large blocks, when there is less data level parallelism available it may be better to schedule multiple blocks onto the substrate simultaneously. I'm not sure how the prototype is implemented but the designers have several papers available where they discuss how a TRIPS style architecture can be adapted to perform well on a wide gamut of software.

Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) instruction set architecture?

I only have a passing familiarity with TRIPS but I think that one of the goals was to get rid of the huge costs for pipeline flushes.

Doug Burger is one of the main PI's on this project (which is around seven years old at this point). I'm sure you can find more information there if you are interested.

Each of the two processor cores can execute up to 16 out-of-order operations
vs
Current high-performance processors are typically designed to sustain a maximum execution rate of four operations per cycle.

They are comparing oranges against apples (!), as you can not compare 16 OoO executed instructions per cycle versus 4 *resulting in-order* instructions per cycle (where for achieving these 4 instructions/cycle may be you had to execute 10, 20 or more OoO instructions (!)). Please, where is the rigor? Fair play anyone?

You can read more about it here...

Actually, from what I can tell it's more like a VLIW with it's program chopped up into horizontal and vertical microcode "chunks" for more efficient register forwarding, than a vector processor...

I figure that it chops up the code into 128-instruction chunks (or smaller if there are branch dependancies that can't be done with predicates) and schedules it horizontally (the classic wide VLIW microcode which feeds independent instruction pipelines), and vertically (the sequence that can distribute over time and use register forwarding paths). The pipelines seem to be loosely coupled through reservation stations and the forwarding done with low bandwidth wormhole routes so it isn't a rigid as a classic VLIW machine.

I doubt it does that much better with normal scalar code (which has lots of branches), but it probably is much better than a vector processor would be with irregular code.

Right, let me begin by saying that after reading ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/dburger/papers/IEEECOM PUTER04_trips.pdf it actually became a bit more clear about what they were talking about.

It might sound very novel if you are only accustomed to normal processors. Look at MOVE http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=103228 8&lastnode_id=0 to see what transport-triggered architectures are about. They are more power efficient, etc etc.

Secondly, they talk about how execution graphs are mapped onto their processing grid. I don't think any scheduler has a problem with scheduling an execution graph (or whatever name you give it) to an architecture. Generally, it can be scheduled in-time (there is a critical path somewhere) or it is scheduled with a certain degree (generally > .9 efficient) of optimality. I don't see the gain there in efficiency.

Now here comes the shameless self-plug. If you want to gain efficiency in scheduling a node of an execution graph you have to know which node is more critical than the other. The critical nodes (the ones on the critical path) need to be scheduled to the fast/optimized processing units and the others can be scheduled to slow/efficient processing units (and they can get some communication delays without penalty). Look http://ce.et.tudelft.nl/publicationfiles/786_11_dh ofstee_v1.0_18july2003_eindverslag.pdf here for my thesis.

Here is the web page for TRIPS, straight from UT austin:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~trips/

Enjoy.

The link has NO information.

The PDF here: has more information about EDGE.

The basic idea is that CISC/RISC architectures rely on storing intermediate data in registers (or in main memory on old skool CISC). EDGE bypasses registers: the output of one instruction is fed directly to the input of the next. No need to do register allocation while compiling. I'm still reading the PDF, this sounds like a really neat idea, though.

The only question is, will this be so much better than existing ISA's to eventually replace them? -- even if only for specific applications like high-performance computing.

The vector processors never went away. They just became your graphics card: 128 floating point units at your command

BTW, here is a real article on TRIPS.

Here From the horses mouth. Plus we don't have to keep that damn digg thing. Come on, guys. A little less fluff please.

I would have expanded the section on community being more important to include something about the importance of computer lore.

You should learn about and know the stories which have been handed down from those who have gone before, because stories are a cornerstone of any community. If you've never heard of the programmer named "Mel" you should look him up. There's a whole pile of this.

Do you know what a scratch monkey is? Knuth and his obsession with fonts? How much is a binary dollar and how could you earn one? Would you have cashed that check? The first computer bug was famous, but what else do you know about the discover of that bug? Do you TOP POST (don't do it, it shows a lack of respect for convention and tradition.) How about the Tao of Programming? Do you know when the summer that never ended began? Can you become famous with grep like Kibo did? When is the first time you ever heard of David Rhodes or a green card lawyer? The University of
Texas has Dr. Dijkstra's papers online. Have you read them?http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ Do you know where the original Kremvax was located?

Have you ever purposely thought about how you could create some community folklore of your own?

If you don't give a crap about the folklore and history of the community you're thinking of becoming a part of, then that is one sign that maybe it's not for you.

"Plagiarism is not good, but in this 'ocean of information' it is difficult to know what that really is. When studying, an answer from wikipedia is as good as one from another paper available on the Internet." - by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday April 04, @01:44AM (#18599879)

Wikipedia is not good either. Wikipedia cites people like Jeremy Reimer from arstechnica, for example. Jeremy Reimer he does not even have a degree or certification in the area of computer science, nor does he possess years of professional hands on experience in computer science. Here are others opinions of that:

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

The problem is that Reimer clearly plagiarized Englebart's work on GUI history, instead of researching and writing it, himself. He had to be 'cursory' because he lacks understanding of this science itself.

The funniest part is that he has 'written' (plagiarized) a history of the GUI, yet has never written a gui program himself. I found that rather droll and amusing, and evidence that he is clearly a charlatan. To the latter accusation, one can only look here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

To see it is indeed, fact, about Jeremy "no degree in computer science, no certications, not even an A+, and no professional hands on experience in the trenches doing programming or network engineering" Reimer.

To quote apk:

"Care to show us your Phd in psychology or psychiatry?"

Since you make assessments of others' sanity online? You know, the degrees in those fields that you do not possess?? apk uses that quite a bit and it works. After all, where is that phd in those fields you have??? Oh yes, you don't have them.

Generally, those tossing spell check nitpicking or sanity dispersions at others' characters, first, tend to be the people with problems, giving away the keys to their minds. YOU are not intelligent enough to realize this, I would suggest you do, for your own good.

All since you think I am he (I took from his style on this one, and we do write alike. We are not the only ones though, sorry to disappoint you and if you doubt this? Again, where's that Phd in English this time? Oh, that's right, another degree you don't have, along with a shred of credibility here on these forums - you will run yourself out of here, and your own words will do the job below)

I use his overall style, because it works on people like you, like it did on your fellow arstechnicans Jay Little and Jeremy Reimer at windowsitpro mag forums. I do a style just like apk's quoting and url backing he uses.

It is a very good debate style, because it caught all of your arstechnica pals in lies like you have been caught here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

(Jay Little, and Jeremy Reimer (arstechnicans all, home of the liar and loser blowhard online, lol and now you here at slashdot, and there is no arguing with the results or facts is there, starloser?) the ones who had their sites removed from their hosting providers and also got caught email harassing others as well no less))?

See, at this point, above all else, nobody can trust or believe in your starkruzr. You've been caught lying with your own words. I actually feel bad for you, and mainly because you are not very intelligent and a lousy debater. Are you a girl, or boy? You are not sure yourself:

"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)

I never said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=184 94155

Very bad showing starkruzr. You have to live and post here, I do not. Your credibility has gone out the window, and you tossed it there, nobody else.

"(i.e., what does my IP address have to do with my hometown or my gender?)" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday April 01, @11:36PM (#18570311)

The IP Address is: 76.208.2.84. The host name is:
adsl-76-208-2-84.dsl.sbndin.sbcglobal.net

That IS your ip address, because every moment you are online, you are being watched. Get used to it, you brought it on yourself. Or, are you just lying yet again?

Either way, you can't win, and you know it. You are a liar, just like Jeremy Reimer, your fellow arstechnican and hero, lol!

More typical arstechnica forums members online lies, now from this nut StarKruzr (from Jeremy Reimer's disciple, lol, he gets caught in lies like Jeremy Reimer: The ULTIMATE liar, pretending to be some computer expert, yet has no degrees in computer science, nor even A+ or MSCE certs, or years if not decades of professional experience in this field in the trenches), that starts up crap with everyone?

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

a quote about Reimer's credibility (only 1 of many nowadays online) that was taken from here

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933 [utexas.edu]

You state

So he got banned, big deal. Our forums haven't been the same without him in fact, ask around there. He was greatly liked in fact. When he got the boot, the whole place went up in arms in fact, and I was one of the people who wanted him back. He could be, because he just beat the ban a few times to show them he could. It was very funny.

(imo, you haven't lived until you've been banned from a forums. Ask Jeremy Reimer's friend Jay Little, you know, your 2 heros apk soundly beat into the ground, lol. Jay Little AND apk were both banned from arstechnica in fact, but forums board bans are simple to beat. Proves that Jay is not a great asskisser is all. Same with apk).

"Do you know how many forums I've been banned from? Precisely ZERO." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @06:03PM (#18579895)

Then, you are nothing but a yes-man and asskisser.

(And, like most artechnicans, I am sure you post as others thru a proxy server when you do get banned. Fact is, many arstechnicans do & have been caught at it. Ask the people at ntcompatible.com and majorgeeks.com about that. They caught a pile of arstechnicans doing just that. Getting banned, and coming back in using yahoo.com mail accounts and different email names + proxy servers).

I bet you totally feel stupid now, don't you?

Every point I brought up in apk's defense was effective in shooting you down, everytime.

Still doesn't make up for you lying, rotflmao, saying you are a girl, and you are not here:

The IP Address is: 76.208.2.84. The host name is:
adsl-76-208-2-84.dsl.sbndin.sbcglobal.net

"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)

I never said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=184 94155

You are a guy, or look like one, sorry to tell you, lol... NOT A WOMAN, even though you said you were, lol! You surely act like one, rotflmao.

More typical arstechnica forums members online lies, now from this nut StarLOSER!

(Starloser's Jeremy Reimer's disciple, lol! I say that, since Reimer is his hero).

Starloser gets caught in lies like Jeremy Reimer who is The ULTIMATE liar: Jeremy Reimer, some fool pretending to be some computer expert, yet has no degrees in computer science, nor even A+ or MSCE certs, or years if not decades of professional experience in this field in the trenches.

Jeremy Reimer who was caught impersonating apk on his forums & admitted to it on his forums and in the url below next:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

(There, Reimer also got caught for email harassment and had his site kicked from his hosting provider as well - some idol/hero you have there, Starloser!)

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

a quote about Reimer's credibility (only 1 of many nowadays online) that was taken from here

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

StarKruzr is not a woman though (but sure is a liar, another Jeremy Reimer/Jay Little (arstechnica morons who operate the same way and get caught everytime) style liar, lol!

You might be interested in a lecture given by Dijkstra in 1972 entitled "The Humble Programmer"

In it, he argues that the best programmers are those who are able to accept their personal limitations.

[Html Version] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03 xx/EWD340.html

[PDF Version] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd03xx/EWD340. PDF

Personally I think he makes many excellent points we can all learn from.

You might be interested in a lecture given by Dijkstra in 1972 entitled "The Humble Programmer"

In it, he argues that the best programmers are those who are able to accept their personal limitations.

[Html Version] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03 xx/EWD340.html

[PDF Version] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd03xx/EWD340. PDF

Personally I think he makes many excellent points we can all learn from.

You mean the one Jeremy Reimer plagiarized from SouthPark as to its melody and words?

(Yes, proof again of arstechnica's lack of originality or creativity, as well as their immaturity, as well as skills in just about anything, like starloser here who put down myspace and apk's software but when asked to show what he had done better, starloser had nothing but outright evasions, lol!).

I'd add foolhardiness as well about Reimer's writing libellous songs about others and placing them online, as well as Reimer looking like a 2 yr. old. Mainly, because that type of thing is libel and grounds for lawsuits.

It seems that Jeremy Reimer could care less, and mainly because he has nothing to lose (since he is out to come off as some 'paid author', big deal, in his private arstechnica playpen, lol, and that is about it - he is trying to pull of a deceit that is now costing him, and your precious arstechnica as time passes, lol!)

E.G.- Arstechnica's credibility is in question, mainly because of Jeremy Reimer in fact, being regarded as a charlatan author or authority in this field lately.

Proofs of that are below from a couple of sources in fact. See here, as only 1 example of many online nowadays about him being less than credible or capable of being noted as an authority in this field:

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

that is a quote about Reimer's credibility (only 1 of many nowadays online) that was taken from here http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

You starloser claim to be a grad student in this field and yet seem to believe Reimer is a credible source of information? Guess again. You cannot be believed anyhow, especially after you stated you are a girl, and are not, proof of that is from your own words below in fact.

Jeremy Reimer outright admitted to even impersonating apk on his OSY forums as well, here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

As well as that url showing proof of Jeremy Reimer your hero being kicked from his hosting provider, and his isp/bsp nailing him on email harassing apk and others.

Starloser - You cannot win no matter what you do, what lies you tell, and other immmature stupidities.

Simply because your hero Jeremy Reimer's already beaten you to it, lol, but it makes sense:

Your no degree or certifications hero in Jeremy Reimer (in comp. sci. on both counts) and no professional experience hands-on in the trenches doing network engineering or software engineering hero is already in doubt online as to his ability to be any sort of authority in this field has nothing to lose anymore at this point, being questioned, now along with your own here:

Are you a girl or guy??

"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)

I never said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=184 94155

You are a guy, or look like one, sorry to tell you, lol... NOT A WOMAN, even though you said you were, lol! You surely act like one, rotflmao.

More typical arstechnica forums members online lies, now from this nut StarKruzr (from Jeremy Reimer's disciple, lol, he gets caught in lies like Jeremy Reimer: The ULTIMATE liar, pretending to be some computer expert, yet has no degrees in computer science, nor even A+ or MSCE certs, or years if not decades of professional experience in this field in the trenches), that starts up crap with everyone!

APK has been in these books and magazines, have you?

WINDOWS NT-Magazine (forerunner

Comparing automobiles in a drag race is often done to see who built the superior machine. The same is done on computers via benchmark test results. What is it about this you do not undertand?

"Why is it required for me to own a car in order to know that your car is a piece of garbage?" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday April 01, @10:09PM (#18570019)

This is not about cars, moron. That was a simple analogy. On cars, iirc, apk has a really nice one (150mph top end capable Tiburon GT V6 as of last year's end). Do you even own an automobile? I am curious now, not that it matters.

The point here is, that if you are going to say somebody's wares are not any good as you did below:

"I never said my software was better than yours. I said yours was objectively bad." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday April 01, @10:09PM (#18570019)

What software is it that you have done we can compare to apk's here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhatev ermakesgooglehappy.html

We would all like to see what you have done better since you cut other's work done. You are clearly unable to show anything. Typical arstechnica talk a lot, and have nothing better to show by way of comparison.

I also found a list of apk's appearances in trade magazines in this field (partial list only) for wares he has done or articles he has written that appeared in publication, and professional reviews as well of his work (professional and shareware/freeware):

WINDOWS NT-Magazine (forerunner of today's .NET magazine) 1997 (iirc, Oct. issue pg. 83) issue review by Mr. John Enck, a technical editor of theirs for SuperCache & SuperDisk by EEC Systems (now SuperSpeed.com - first part was writing up an article featured on their corp. website alongside Mr. Enck no less, about the technical effective uses of Ramdisks, & the latter was on PAID CONTRACT to improve the mathematics & algorithm for tuning their SuperCache product w/ a programmatic addon they shipped w/ their product, & now is incorporated into the main program itself - they ARE A CERTIFIED Microsoft Partner no less.

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (apk's work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, apk's work is featured there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, apk's work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, apk's work is there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, apk's work is again, there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" apk's work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), apk's work is there, first one featured, yet again

To name and show only some.

So again: What publications in this field have you been featured in? How about your hero Jeremy Reimer??

(And, I would like to see for what in his case, since he has no degree in the field of computer science, not even an A+ certification (let alone an MCSE), or years of professional hands-on experience in the trenches as a software engineer or network engineer).

If he has been, I will write them warning them, just as this person stated about him:

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

a quote about Reimer's credibility (only 1 of many nowadays online) that was taken from here

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

Thus, he brought about his own end, attacking apk, because apk is the one who discovered Reimer is nothing but a poseur, here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

The price charl

Doesn't it make you wonder how I can know your IP address and everytime you post here? You ought to. Still, you brought it on yourself, ala "You can RUN, but you can't HIDE!". At this point, I will never let you run and hide. Ever.

"2) I hate to break it to you, but OSY is alive and well." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Sunday April 01, @11:36PM (#18570311)

OSY wasn't so alive and well, when it got removed from its hosting provider, lol. Jeremy Reimer just moved it because he HAD to, just like his buddy Jay Little had to. The funny part is those 2 morons tried to do that to apk, and it instead happened to them. Oh, that must have gotten to them good, lol.

OSY is a b.s forums by a b.s. human being, end of story on that account.

I.E. Jeremy Reimer is a ridiculous fool trying to play computer scientist!

Reimer is now the subject of a great deal of questioning as to his validity as a credible author as regards this field as well because of his trying to confront apk and failing miserably, see the windowsitpro url below for validation of that.

(Jeremy Reimer is by no means a credible author in this field, anymore than you are, and in fact less (assuming you do have your degree in this field, but nobody can believe you about anything anymore including myself because of your lying and being caught in it below))

Jeremy Reimer is less qualified than most students in this field are in fact. Jeremy Reimer lacks a degree in computer science, & doesn't even have an A+ certification, let alone an MCSE, and he certainly does NOT have years (or any) professional experience in this field in the trenches in the network engineering or programming areas.

In fact, YOU should see this url, because people are starting to question that loser's abilities, here http://ambernight.org/archives/2006/06/21/250

and here, a quote:

"As for Reimers credibility, I would never cite his article in a paper"

cited here

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/933

Thus, he brought about his own end, attacking apk, because apk is the one who discovered Reimer is nothing but a poseur, here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

(and other outright hilarious things he turned up on Jeremy Reimer as well there, such as Jeremy Reimer the charlatan being charged w/ email harassment and getting his OSY website ousted from its original location at his former ISP/BSP's website hosting for it, lol!)

And you, starloser? You are of the SAME dishonest ilk, another piece of filth from arstechnica. Why say that?? Well, see here (and this will be in all of your posts here from now on, promise):

"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)

I never said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=184 94155

And, we KNOW you are not a female as you stated. You are nothing but a liar, and a lazy liar, who puts down and harasses others, but has done nothing of note yourself in this field, lol. Another arstechnica liar, the home of the scum of the internet.

I am not sure what exactly is going on with MONARCH, but the idea of polymorphism is not necessarily restricted to reconfigurable computing (like on FPGAs). I think that TRIPS (UT Austin) was the first proposed polymorphic architecture. I am not sure if they have actually built a prototype. The idea is that you build a chip with a bunch (100s or 1000s) of small cores/tiles. Then the tiles can be grouped into larger "virtual cores" depending on the type of parallelism in your workload. A good description is here in "Exploiting ILP, TLP, and DLP Using Polymorphism in the TRIPS Architecture." There is a link here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~trips/publications.html.

There are a few other examples, also just research architectures (RAW at MIT, WaveScalar at UW). Someone with some architecture expertise might be able to correct some of my claims or explain whether MONARCH does something similar.

Category theorist John Baez has a summary of this work from a mathematician's perspective. Unfortunately, you need at least an undergraduate math degree to make full sense of it, but it gives more flavor of what's really going on than a news story, and he at least defines mathematically what E8 and KLV polynomials are.

He begins by noting, "You may hear some hype about this soon, because it's a really big calculation, and the American Institute of Mathematics has coaxed a lot of science reporters to write about it -- in part by comparing it to the human genome project. Computing the Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan polynomials for E 8 is certainly nowhere nearly as important as the human genome project, nor as hard! But the final result involves more data, in a sense."

"And because the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes, the debris is likely to stay in space a long time because it will not be slowed down by friction with the atmosphere, which causes it to lose energy and burn up more quickly. Debris created during the Chinese test is thought to have reached lower altitudes - about 4000 km - but is expected to stay in space for hundreds of thousands of years."

The line is unsourced, but IME, New Scientist is good enough with the facts to be usable.

Eek... New Scientist isn't exactly a reliable source of information. It's possible the estimate may be accurate, but it would be good to have a different source: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/09/a_plea _to_save_new_scientist.html