Fortran 9x is likeable, even if it's still somewhat limited. I'd like to see Fortran 2003 become fully supported by major compilers in the near future -- but what I can't wait for is the co-array features of Fortran 2008, so that I can ditch MPI once and for all!
Fortran 77 is the reason why people laugh at Fortran.
It could well be. I've a Belkin wired+wireless router between my two computers and the cable modem, and it tends to die when I transfer large file between the wired computer and the wireless one. This indicates poor stability, so I guess it could be the same sort of thing with BT.
It's in the preferences for Transmission. Edit > Preferences > Network
Not in my version... The Preferences window lets me set download/upload speed limits, but not limits on the number of connections. The "Network" section of the window lets me select the port and that's it.
My direct download from Canonical (releases.ubuntu.com) went at full speed for the full 11 minutes it took to download. Plus it didn't break my ssh connections, which bittorrent always does.
Myelin was discovered in 1854, and I don't think it's been measured in humans for too long. Any study in this direction will be pure statistical noise, and even if there were tons of data it would be biased by the improvement in measuring techniques.
This is similar to the claims that have been made in the past decade that men are becoming less fertile. I don't know where I read this, but it turns out that these claims are based on comparisons between pears and apples: old data refer to total sperm count, while with current technologies you also detect defective sperm and subtract...
Despite the big CITATION NEEDED on what I said, one has to be careful with historical data because chances are they are wildly inaccurate.
And this crap about it being a resource hog is BS. If you're running all the bells and whistles, I got news for you folks, of course it's going to be a comparative pig - geeze. Turn off Aero if you got a low end machine or buy the machine with Home instead of Ultimate - god!
While I disagree with the general Vista bashing, it is not difficult to confirm that Vista is a lot slower than XP. I've got both installed in VirtualBox. XP boots in 10-15 seconds, Vista in 1-1.5 minutes. That's the time to get to the desktop; responsiveness comes 5 seconds later for XP and 1 minute later for Vista. Audio stutters on Vista but not on XP. Same with video. Etc.
I like most of the changes in Vista. From big things like UAC to small ones like the naming of C:\Users. But one can't deny it's a damn heavy OS.
...that shows you how truly wonderful the world is now compared to the world of 2008
Wait... when is now, then?
For its 20th anniversary, Google brought back its index of 2008 for people to play with. Only this time there was the unexpected side effect that people could not only see the pages, but also post back from 2018.
Little did Google know that this breach of space-time would signify the collapse of the Universe by 2020.
PS, I'm posting this from an alternate Universe. I hope this doesn't mess th
We're now taking guesses as to when the 2.6 kernel will be released. Enter your guess along with a handle below, and we'll announce the winners when we can...
Hey, I could win! Oh wait..
Re:Nigerian Scam results
on
Google, Circa 2001
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I wonder how much power this sucker is gonna drain from the local power grid
Judging by the current machines, the most power-efficient one using some 19.1 Watts per core, and assuming further advances in efficiency (say down to 10 W per core by 2011), about 2 GigaWatts.
In the case of QMC the parallelization is done with respect to the population of walkers. In the most common implementation of diffusion Monte Carlo, this population is allowed to vary, so the population on different nodes at any given time may be different, preventing 100% efficiency.
Then, the main problem in diffusion Monte Carlo is the need to set a global "reference energy" after every move of the walkers, which enforces synchronization across nodes and requires frequent communication. What to do about this reference energy is something that is being actively researched --having independent "reference energies" introduces a so-called "population-control bias", but it may be possible to correct for this (or not).
Another issue is that one may not want to increase the walker population as the number of nodes increases, since it may not give any advantage (excess precision), but instead to share the computational load of calculating things for each walker across several nodes.
This is enough to keep the QMC community entertained until this machine goes online, and probably for a while afterwards too..
Yes, I know this is probably a very naive question, but has anyone here actually had the privilege of working on one of these things? I mean, what do they actually use this for?
The one application I know this computer is going to run is quantum Monte Carlo, which is an electronic-structure method. QMC is intrinsically parallel due to its stochastic nature, but the degree of parallelism involved here requires further breakdown of the algorithm. There are quite a few research groups putting effort into this.
Other applications, if I am not mistaken, are also meant to be highly parallelizable, possibly nearing the boundary of embarrasingly parallel tasks. This is probably to make sure that the resource is used to its full extent.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's remember for a moment where most installations of windows will be.
In Africa?
Me. Plus modules, derived types, pointers, allocatable arrays, recursive subroutines, array sections...
Fortran 9x is likeable, even if it's still somewhat limited. I'd like to see Fortran 2003 become fully supported by major compilers in the near future -- but what I can't wait for is the co-array features of Fortran 2008, so that I can ditch MPI once and for all!
Fortran 77 is the reason why people laugh at Fortran.
It could well be. I've a Belkin wired+wireless router between my two computers and the cable modem, and it tends to die when I transfer large file between the wired computer and the wireless one. This indicates poor stability, so I guess it could be the same sort of thing with BT.
Well up until today I haven't had a decent compiler for 95
Other than gfortran: g95, NAG's, PathScale's, Intel's, Absoft's, Sun's, Lahey's, Portland Group's, Compaq's...
For things other than PCs, there's IBM's, Cray's, Hitachi's, Fujitsu's...
You have no excuse! But please tell me it's not that you actually like Fortran 77... :)
Are you implying that you're using Fortran 77?
That's just... gross!
It's in the preferences for Transmission. Edit > Preferences > Network
Not in my version... The Preferences window lets me set download/upload speed limits, but not limits on the number of connections. The "Network" section of the window lets me select the port and that's it.
If it's like 35Kb/s, that's why.
Nope, it's 64KiB/s; I like to set upload speeds to half my upstream bandwidth.
If your router can't keep up, limit the number of connections, transmission can probably do that.
I don't see such option in Transmission. It's not known for being rich-featured though, so maybe I should try a different client.
I limit it to 32 KiB/s in Transmission, but it seems to hog it anyway.. It looks more like a number of connections issue.
My direct download from Canonical (releases.ubuntu.com) went at full speed for the full 11 minutes it took to download. Plus it didn't break my ssh connections, which bittorrent always does.
Myelin was discovered in 1854, and I don't think it's been measured in humans for too long. Any study in this direction will be pure statistical noise, and even if there were tons of data it would be biased by the improvement in measuring techniques.
This is similar to the claims that have been made in the past decade that men are becoming less fertile. I don't know where I read this, but it turns out that these claims are based on comparisons between pears and apples: old data refer to total sperm count, while with current technologies you also detect defective sperm and subtract...
Despite the big CITATION NEEDED on what I said, one has to be careful with historical data because chances are they are wildly inaccurate.
unless, perhaps, you can get Office to run under WINE
Which you can. There are options other than OpenOffice.org for Office replacements, in any case.
Let me introduce you to PowerTOP. Come back after you try it.
And we just hope that someone else notices if the changes are bad?
Pretty much. It wouldn't be the first time such an attempt is made and is detected, looked into and talked about within the day.
And this crap about it being a resource hog is BS. If you're running all the bells and whistles, I got news for you folks, of course it's going to be a comparative pig - geeze. Turn off Aero if you got a low end machine or buy the machine with Home instead of Ultimate - god!
While I disagree with the general Vista bashing, it is not difficult to confirm that Vista is a lot slower than XP. I've got both installed in VirtualBox. XP boots in 10-15 seconds, Vista in 1-1.5 minutes. That's the time to get to the desktop; responsiveness comes 5 seconds later for XP and 1 minute later for Vista. Audio stutters on Vista but not on XP. Same with video. Etc.
I like most of the changes in Vista. From big things like UAC to small ones like the naming of C:\Users. But one can't deny it's a damn heavy OS.
Wait... when is now, then?
For its 20th anniversary, Google brought back its index of 2008 for people to play with. Only this time there was the unexpected side effect that people could not only see the pages, but also post back from 2018.
Little did Google know that this breach of space-time would signify the collapse of the Universe by 2020.
PS, I'm posting this from an alternate Universe. I hope this doesn't mess th
Search for linux kernel 2.6:
We're now taking guesses as to when the 2.6 kernel will be released. Enter your guess along with a handle below, and we'll announce the winners when we can ...
Hey, I could win! Oh wait..
And spam still meant just meat!
It takes quite a bit of disorientation to post a reply to the wrong story.
if it doesnt run linux, it doesnt exist.
Dude. You just made my car disappear.
a massive Linux-based storage system supplying many terrabytes of disk storage
Clearly the effect of being buried 100m underground.
Wine 1.1.4 specifically includes "Several fixes for Google Chrome support". https support is still missing, though.
Are you sure you want to uninstall Google Chrome? (Was it something we said?)
Oh, NOW I get it.
I wonder how much power this sucker is gonna drain from the local power grid
Judging by the current machines, the most power-efficient one using some 19.1 Watts per core, and assuming further advances in efficiency (say down to 10 W per core by 2011), about 2 GigaWatts.
In the case of QMC the parallelization is done with respect to the population of walkers. In the most common implementation of diffusion Monte Carlo, this population is allowed to vary, so the population on different nodes at any given time may be different, preventing 100% efficiency.
Then, the main problem in diffusion Monte Carlo is the need to set a global "reference energy" after every move of the walkers, which enforces synchronization across nodes and requires frequent communication. What to do about this reference energy is something that is being actively researched --having independent "reference energies" introduces a so-called "population-control bias", but it may be possible to correct for this (or not).
Another issue is that one may not want to increase the walker population as the number of nodes increases, since it may not give any advantage (excess precision), but instead to share the computational load of calculating things for each walker across several nodes.
This is enough to keep the QMC community entertained until this machine goes online, and probably for a while afterwards too..
Yes, I know this is probably a very naive question, but has anyone here actually had the privilege of working on one of these things? I mean, what do they actually use this for?
The one application I know this computer is going to run is quantum Monte Carlo, which is an electronic-structure method. QMC is intrinsically parallel due to its stochastic nature, but the degree of parallelism involved here requires further breakdown of the algorithm. There are quite a few research groups putting effort into this.
Other applications, if I am not mistaken, are also meant to be highly parallelizable, possibly nearing the boundary of embarrasingly parallel tasks. This is probably to make sure that the resource is used to its full extent.