""" It is rumored that the building at Fort Meade will contain the worldâ€(TM)s fastest computer, the speed of which will be measured in Exa-FLOPs. A FLOP means FLoating point OPerations per Second and exa means a 1 followed by 19 zeros. """
43 million comments. Let's say a 1KB ballpark average size. Auxiliary data probably negligible compared to that, so let's double it and round up.
100GB.
That is a _puny_ database by "Big Data" standards. Every table apart from the comments themselves could be cached in RAM on a modern server, and the majority of comments would never need to be fetched off disk - a single SSD at that - so almost everything important could be cached.
Of course, you'd never want an architecture like that, as you need large number of concurrent clients, but you asked about the data, and the data isn't big.
> And if you going to insist on using that quote, at least get it right.
I wasn't quoting anybody. Did you see an attribution?
> Since when has copyright infringement been an 'essential liberty'?
Straw man. Pirate Bay were not distributing copyrightable information. They were distributing indexes of facts with no creative content. Only creative things can be copyrighted. It appears that many of the precepts codified right at the very outset have been forgotten or deliberately overlooked.
You have assumed that both your borrowing would be legal and your downloading would be illegal. Neither are universally true. (Look at some of the attempted licences on some copyright materials - they attempt to get you to abandon your fair use rights and even the first sale doctrine.)
It's not that bizarre an expression. I'm sure I've seen something very similar before. It simply explains how it's OK to trade freedom (of expression) for security (of exclusive rights), which we know's a good thing, isn't it?
Don't police webpages containing names and photos of wanted criminals tell you which local hoodlums you should approach if you need a particular crime comitted - some windows smashed, or some fingers broken? Or even if you want to know where to score some weed? There's no point approaching the ones only wanted for vandalism or battery, much better to approach the ones wanted for dealing - thanks cops for making it easier to find the right guy for the job, and for being accessories to it to!
Nope, but it certainly is the right to finance your own medium to pass on the cryptographic hash of a sections of a Hollywood movie that you think someone else has (as he told you he had it, and told you the hashes)..torrent files have never been IP infringement any more than spanners are robberies.
Have you ever seen that movie about the rich guy who drives around in his flash sports car and picks up the skinny hooker, and eventually falls in love with her, and there's all that sappy music, probably Witney Houston, and a happy ending - Pretty Woman? If not, no matter, you can borrow it of my mate Lisa, she's into all that soppy crap. You don't want to see it - that doesn't matter either - as all that matters is that I propagated some facts about the existence of a movie, and where to get it.
Would you support/. removing my post were the MAFIAA to request it to be taken down, because of copyright infringement?
If there are so-called "facts" to back up your nonsense, why have you been so shy in actually presenting them? Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. (Which possibly explains why you can't, we have no proof your mental age has reached that high.)
> Your own example is a superstition
Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary.
> and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded.
Not quite. When comparing computational performance, they compared against Atoms, and when comparing power consumption they compared against Xeons.
That's deliberately misleading, and even I as an ARM fan (who uses no Intel CPUs at home at all), I think this is bogus. (But I don't blame ARM, I blame AT and the server prociders who were spamvertising on AT.)
> Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is utterly pointless. That kind of thinking is empty; it leads nowhere, proves nothing, changes nothing, gains nothing, informs no worthy further thinking.
I once had the misfortune of, after becoming logically and rhetorically sophisticated, having to read Descartes. (And it was true obligation - were it just a university course, I'd not have bothered - but this was to assist my mother with her university degree.) I have rarely seen a better example of illogical question-begging than the half-dozen pages that surround that infamous quote. The father of modern philosophy indeed - bullshit and all. I pointed out to my mother that, and where, he was pulling himself up with his own bootstraps, and she ended up passing the course (and getting her degree). I enjoyed helping with her Freud and Marx courses much more, but they were just as much full of illogical crap. At least neither of those had ever been called "mathematicians", my field, which I now think Descartes sullied.
There's a huge difference. Rational religion does not exist, irrational religion is practically everywhere.
There is no religion that is not fundamentally built around superstition. Monotheistic ones, polytheistic ones, pantheistic ones, and even atheistic ones, all share that trait.
If some religions attempt to inject a little bit of rationality so they don't appear totally bonkers, that in no way makes them no longer superstitious - it's only by purging all superstitions that they can become non-superstitious. No religion has done that. No religion has even attempted that - it knows it would evaportate into nothing were it to succeed.
That's different - bitcoin isn't deciding whether its currency is valid - bitcoin was capriociously deciding that one single provably-valid token of its currency was invalid.
And anyway, people use illegal tender for transactions quite often. (See many countries just after joining the Euro, or Russia with its use of USD, or...)
He didn't publish broadly enough. He sat on his results and announced them locally. He should have been in dialogue with his international peers, then he wouldn't have been ignored.
And also he falsified his results - they do not follow the law of big numbers. However, they didn't have the mathematical sophistication at the time to detect "mistakes" like that.
Actually, the ones that campaign to dilute the science curriculum in schools with non-scientific crap like ID *are* blocking science, as they're attempting to starve it.
I think yesterday I called his screed "unconstrained rambling". Little was I to know that it was so unconstrained that it would spill over into another whole story!
What I don't understand (not that I researched it much) is how someone can do the work, get the reward, and then have people take the reward away from him. If they can kill this leaf node, they can kill any leaf node. This surely makes it the most fragile fiat currency ever invented?
Slashdot Mirror
"""
It is rumored that the building at Fort Meade will contain the worldâ€(TM)s fastest computer, the speed of which will be measured in Exa-FLOPs. A FLOP means FLoating point OPerations per Second and exa means a 1 followed by 19 zeros.
"""
no it doesn't.
So why were they better than Xeons on some of the data-processing rate benchmarks?
> Is Slashdot's archive BD?
43 million comments. Let's say a 1KB ballpark average size. Auxiliary data probably negligible compared to that, so let's double it and round up.
100GB.
That is a _puny_ database by "Big Data" standards. Every table apart from the comments themselves could be cached in RAM on a modern server, and the majority of comments would never need to be fetched off disk - a single SSD at that - so almost everything important could be cached.
Of course, you'd never want an architecture like that, as you need large number of concurrent clients, but you asked about the data, and the data isn't big.
> And if you going to insist on using that quote, at least get it right.
I wasn't quoting anybody. Did you see an attribution?
> Since when has copyright infringement been an 'essential liberty'?
Straw man. Pirate Bay were not distributing copyrightable information. They were distributing indexes of facts with no creative content. Only creative things can be copyrighted. It appears that many of the precepts codified right at the very outset have been forgotten or deliberately overlooked.
Alas, you'd probably have to put /. itself on that list too :-(
You have to be selective at all levels.
You have assumed that both your borrowing would be legal and your downloading would be illegal. Neither are universally true. (Look at some of the attempted licences on some copyright materials - they attempt to get you to abandon your fair use rights and even the first sale doctrine.)
>> Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions.
> Roman Catholicism
OK, IHBT, nobody can be that stupid. Fucking zoo.pl is throwing errors - so I'm going to have to keep reading (or at least skipping over) your crap.
Reset of post not even read, not worth the effort.
It's not that bizarre an expression. I'm sure I've seen something very similar before. It simply explains how it's OK to trade freedom (of expression) for security (of exclusive rights), which we know's a good thing, isn't it?
Don't police webpages containing names and photos of wanted criminals tell you which local hoodlums you should approach if you need a particular crime comitted - some windows smashed, or some fingers broken? Or even if you want to know where to score some weed? There's no point approaching the ones only wanted for vandalism or battery, much better to approach the ones wanted for dealing - thanks cops for making it easier to find the right guy for the job, and for being accessories to it to!
Nope, but it certainly is the right to finance your own medium to pass on the cryptographic hash of a sections of a Hollywood movie that you think someone else has (as he told you he had it, and told you the hashes). .torrent files have never been IP infringement any more than spanners are robberies.
/. removing my post were the MAFIAA to request it to be taken down, because of copyright infringement?
Have you ever seen that movie about the rich guy who drives around in his flash sports car and picks up the skinny hooker, and eventually falls in love with her, and there's all that sappy music, probably Witney Houston, and a happy ending - Pretty Woman? If not, no matter, you can borrow it of my mate Lisa, she's into all that soppy crap. You don't want to see it - that doesn't matter either - as all that matters is that I propagated some facts about the existence of a movie, and where to get it.
Would you support
If there are so-called "facts" to back up your nonsense, why have you been so shy in actually presenting them? Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. (Which possibly explains why you can't, we have no proof your mental age has reached that high.)
> Your own example is a superstition
Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary.
> and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded.
Not quite. When comparing computational performance, they compared against Atoms, and when comparing power consumption they compared against Xeons.
That's deliberately misleading, and even I as an ARM fan (who uses no Intel CPUs at home at all), I think this is bogus. (But I don't blame ARM, I blame AT and the server prociders who were spamvertising on AT.)
>> Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer.
>I assume that you've read and understood those books, or else you wouldn't be so foolish as to invoke them in support of your argument.
Didn't you hear - her dowser won James Randi's prize!
You didn't hear that?
Oh, that's because it didn't happen.
> Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is utterly pointless. That kind of thinking is empty; it leads nowhere, proves nothing, changes nothing, gains nothing, informs no worthy further thinking.
I once had the misfortune of, after becoming logically and rhetorically sophisticated, having to read Descartes. (And it was true obligation - were it just a university course, I'd not have bothered - but this was to assist my mother with her university degree.) I have rarely seen a better example of illogical question-begging than the half-dozen pages that surround that infamous quote. The father of modern philosophy indeed - bullshit and all. I pointed out to my mother that, and where, he was pulling himself up with his own bootstraps, and she ended up passing the course (and getting her degree). I enjoyed helping with her Freud and Marx courses much more, but they were just as much full of illogical crap. At least neither of those had ever been called "mathematicians", my field, which I now think Descartes sullied.
There's a huge difference. Rational religion does not exist, irrational religion is practically everywhere.
There is no religion that is not fundamentally built around superstition. Monotheistic ones, polytheistic ones, pantheistic ones, and even atheistic ones, all share that trait.
If some religions attempt to inject a little bit of rationality so they don't appear totally bonkers, that in no way makes them no longer superstitious - it's only by purging all superstitions that they can become non-superstitious. No religion has done that. No religion has even attempted that - it knows it would evaportate into nothing were it to succeed.
That's different - bitcoin isn't deciding whether its currency is valid - bitcoin was capriociously deciding that one single provably-valid token of its currency was invalid.
And anyway, people use illegal tender for transactions quite often. (See many countries just after joining the Euro, or Russia with its use of USD, or...)
> We're a bad design.
I propose that we're *just* good enough.
Mostly because we're networked into massively-redundant clusters. Loss of one node is worked around very quickly.
He didn't publish broadly enough. He sat on his results and announced them locally. He should have been in dialogue with his international peers, then he wouldn't have been ignored.
And also he falsified his results - they do not follow the law of big numbers. However, they didn't have the mathematical sophistication at the time to detect "mistakes" like that.
Actually, the ones that campaign to dilute the science curriculum in schools with non-scientific crap like ID *are* blocking science, as they're attempting to starve it.
Hear, hear.
Thank you for having the patience to disect that screed.
I think yesterday I called his screed "unconstrained rambling". Little was I to know that it was so unconstrained that it would spill over into another whole story!
?
Most developers I know will spend an hour writing a script to automate a boring repetitive manual editing job that would only take 20 minutes.
What I don't understand (not that I researched it much) is how someone can do the work, get the reward, and then have people take the reward away from him. If they can kill this leaf node, they can kill any leaf node. This surely makes it the most fragile fiat currency ever invented?
> most major exchanges have already reverted to 0.7
Yet 0.7 is the version with the database bug.
These bitcoins certainly aren't a replacement for gold - they're far too irony.
Now reread what I wrote. This time for comprehension.
Hint: The answer "they're both straight" is not available to you.