But of course, my friend! It was one of those times where I wanted a grep(1) that understood mbox format, so I was about to write one. A bit of searching found an extant tool that did what I wanted.
Sometimes I don't produce the same neural network or mneumonic-map that I did two years ago for the same datum, and then it gets lost.
I had the same problem until I discovered the mboxgrep tool. Now I can always find what I'm looking for. Use mboxgrep to winnow down the possibilities into a tiny temporary mail folder, then use mutt to go in and do the fine-toothed poking.
I have all of my sent and received email since, oh, 1997 or so, and I can pretty easily find anything I'm looking for using this technique.
to get any reasonable super-computing power out of it, you would need a low latency (expensive) interconnect.
Well, that very much depends on what type of computing you're doing. Some scientific computing is more tolerant of high-latency environments and would rather have the bandwidth.
I can't seem to find the quote from any of the articles right now, but VT is planning on using an Infiniband interconnect from Mellanox. While I don't know the relative price points, they are touting the fact that this is a high-speed interconnect that's faster than Myrinet or Quadrics at a fraction of the cost. I can't say for sure, since the Infiniband cluster we're helping to build at Stanford is not yet assembled.
This should be interesting to watch. I'll be very interested to see the $/gigaflop ratio for VT's cluster (though that doesn't have a bearing on the interconnect).
Wait a minute - you're complaining about the cost of a G5, but go on to suggest they buy a Myrinet, a rather expensive interconnect. Something doesn't compute here.
The post I replied to talked about how some people believed in armageddon, 2001 and the beginning of the "new millenium"..in reference to some people claiming to have seen the devil's face in the smoke from 9/11. I didn't start it. I only pointed out the mathematical/historical absurdity of it all.
Ah. I didn't place the same emphasis on the last paragraph as you did. Fair enough.
You're right - anyone making mathematical arguments about dates to claim that something special will happen are crazy. All dates are artefacts of history and the decimal number system, both of which are the creations of man. I place those kind of people in the same set as those who thought that the world would end on August 27, 2003 when the Earth passed Mars. But I don't think that Christian fundamentalists have a corner on that market... As you said:
The same people who claim to see faces on Mars, the Moon, a buritto, also seem to have a high resistance to simple math and logic.
So, how many Elvises did the software spot?
:-)
Though it makes me wonder... That would be a good case for the regression test suite: Put in pictures of dead people (Elvis, Einstein, Kurt Cobain) and see if any positives are generated. (Not that I actually believe this technology has any chance of increasing our security in the next, oh, 15 years.)
Never mind that jesus was borrn sometime between 6BC and 4BC (talk about a nonsensical date-naming convention: Jesus Christ was born 5 years (+/- 1) before Christ). But fundamentalist christians never let facts get in the way of a good story. Guess they're too busy "trying to keep it real".
What are you talking about? So should the imprecision of the exact birth date of the historical Jesus cause one to no longer believe that this year is 2003? Should we instead call it 2003+/-5? In what way is calling 2001 the first year of the new millenium a fundamentalist Christian misstatement?
The grandparent post was mostly about many people's claim that there was a "face" in the images of the WTC destruction. There was no religious prosletyzing or preaching. For you to invoke arguments about "fundamentalist christians" regarding the date they mention tells me that you have more problems with Christians than with date conventions.
Fair enough, but I find it rather amusing that, after posting a screed announcing that "They can lock me up if they want," the author decided to play it safe by hitting that "Post Anonymously" button.
Not to say that there are black holes on Europa, but that all light collectors are not necessarily great reflectors. I'm imagining a surface akin to black felt. If designed properly, a material made of lots of very small surfaces (like felt) will never specularly reflect light in any preferential direction. This would make it very difficult to observe directly.
Actually, there are some on the fringe (but not quite into "the face on Mars" fringe) insists that the Martian sky *is* blue from the ground.
Yeah, I read that recently as well. Too bad I can't quite find the URL either.
But I coulda sworn that we did see some blue skies from Pathfinder a couple years back.
Anyway, Rayleigh scattering says that we should see blue skies on Mars when there is no suspended red dust to color it otherwise. This shouldn't be a question of "fringe" armchair astronomers.
Agreed. The disagreement sections of the letter are not the words most worrisome. But things like:
Peel off that dark helmet and deal with us like a reasonable human being, or continue down a path that could be bad trouble for us but will be utter ruin -- quite possibly including jail time on fraud, intellectual-property theft, barratry, and stock-manipulation charges -- for you and the rest of SCO's top management.
No, I think he's right on the general tone of the letter. Follow me on this one...
Here's the "vaguely sinister threat":
if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next.
That's definitely vague. One can also argue that it's "sinister" as well (though I don't know know whether ESR is left-handed).
You imply... that he is "pretending" to speak for everyone.
Well, he did say:
I'm very much afraid it's all been me, acting to serve my people the best way I know how.
Sounds like ESR believes that the rest of the open source community are "his people". He uses the term "us" or "we" to characterize the actions that the open source community is doing or is pondering doing. He even talks about open source proponents and advocates as "chieftains and philosopher-princes."
One can argue that ESR is justified in making these claims. I'm not here to argue to the contrary. But these statements support Rogerborg's complaint.
Uh...I can see all of them, and I'm not a "subscriber". When I click on "Top Schools", I get 123 different rank groups. I only get statistics for Harvard and Princeton. Accessing the rest of the statistics requires that I buy something.
For those who don't care to link, here's the ranking:
1. Harvard University
Princeton University (NJ) 3. Yale University (CT) 4. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 5. California Institute of Technology
Duke University (NC)
Stanford University (CA)
University of Pennsylvania 9. Dartmouth College (NH)
Washington University in St. Louis 11. Columbia University (NY)
Northwestern University (IL) 13. University of Chicago 14. Cornell University (NY)
Johns Hopkins University (MD) 16. Rice University (TX) 17. Brown University (RI) 18. Emory University (GA) 19. University of Notre Dame (IN)
Vanderbilt University (TN) 21. University of California - Berkeley *
University of Virginia * 23. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
Georgetown University (DC) 25. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor * 26. Univ. of California - Los Angeles * 27. Tufts University (MA) 28. Wake Forest University (NC) 29. U. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill * 30. Univ. of Southern California 31. College of William and Mary (VA)* 32. Brandeis University (MA)
Univ. of California - San Diego *
Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison * 35. New York University
University of Rochester (NY) 37. Case Western Reserve Univ. (OH)
Georgia Institute of Technology *
Lehigh University (PA) 40. Boston College
U. of Illinois - Urbana - Champaign *
Yeshiva University (NY) 43. University of California - Davis * 44. Tulane University (LA) 45. University of California - Irvine *
Univ. of California - Santa Barbara *
University of Washington * 48. Pennsylvania State U. - University Park *
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (NY)
University of Florida * 51. George Washington University (DC)
Pepperdine University (CA) 53. Univ. of Maryland - College Park *
University of Texas - Austin * 55. Syracuse University (NY)
Worcester Polytechnic Inst. (MA) 57. University of Iowa * 58. Purdue Univ. - West Lafayette (IN)*
University of Georgia * 60. Ohio State University - Columbus *
Rutgers - New Brunswick (NJ)*
University of Miami (FL)
Univ. of Minnesota - Twin Cities * 64. Boston University
Miami University - Oxford (OH)*
University of Connecticut * 67. Brigham Young Univ. - Provo (UT)
Indiana University - Bloomington *
Texas A&M Univ. - College Station *
Univ. of California - Santa Cruz *
University of Delaware *
University of Pittsburgh * 73. Clark University (MA)
Michigan State University *
Southern Methodist University (TX)
Univ. of Missouri - Columbia *
Virginia Tech * 78. Baylor University (TX)
Clemson University (SC)*
St. Louis University
SUNY - Binghamton *
SUNY Coll. Environ. Sci. and Forestry *
University of Colorado - Boulder * 84. Fordham University (NY)
North Carolina State U. - Raleigh *
Univ. of California - Riverside * 87. Illinois Institute of Technology
Iowa State University *
Stevens Institute of Technology (NJ)
University of Denver 91. Marquette University (WI)
Univ. of Massachusetts - Amherst *
University of Tulsa (OK)
Univers
One of my favorite comments was from a random article from Google News. It pointed out that "palmOne" does not rhyme with "bologna". I'm gonna get the chuckles from now on every time I see a product stamped with "palmOne".
The system of balls bouncing around in a drum is fundamentally a chaotic system. The progression of a chaotic system is so closely tied to the initial state of the system that the final result in all cases cannot be determined unless you know the initial state with infinite precision.
There are a number of features of the "balls bouncing in drum" that cannot be known to infinite precision:
The position of the balls and thje cage: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The velocity/momentum of the balls and the cage: Same principle
The wear patterns of the balls and the cage
The flow, density, temperature of the air that the balls fall through.
I'm sure you can come up with more.
The basic problem is that it's a chaotic system. While there is some degree of predictibility, it's only for a very short amount of time. After that, chaos makes it completely unpredictible.
Slashdot Mirror
What state? Please share.
But of course, my friend! It was one of those times where I wanted a grep(1) that understood mbox format, so I was about to write one. A bit of searching found an extant tool that did what I wanted.
Sometimes I don't produce the same neural network or mneumonic-map that I did two years ago for the same datum, and then it gets lost.
I had the same problem until I discovered the mboxgrep tool. Now I can always find what I'm looking for. Use mboxgrep to winnow down the possibilities into a tiny temporary mail folder, then use mutt to go in and do the fine-toothed poking.
I have all of my sent and received email since, oh, 1997 or so, and I can pretty easily find anything I'm looking for using this technique.
An engine that looks like the one in my design would, at some point, have to have been copied from my paper design.
Incorrect. Construction of a physical device from blueprints is not considered a copy. It does not fall under copyright law.
to get any reasonable super-computing power out of it, you would need a low latency (expensive) interconnect.
Well, that very much depends on what type of computing you're doing. Some scientific computing is more tolerant of high-latency environments and would rather have the bandwidth.
I can't seem to find the quote from any of the articles right now, but VT is planning on using an Infiniband interconnect from Mellanox. While I don't know the relative price points, they are touting the fact that this is a high-speed interconnect that's faster than Myrinet or Quadrics at a fraction of the cost. I can't say for sure, since the Infiniband cluster we're helping to build at Stanford is not yet assembled.
This should be interesting to watch. I'll be very interested to see the $/gigaflop ratio for VT's cluster (though that doesn't have a bearing on the interconnect).
Wait a minute - you're complaining about the cost of a G5, but go on to suggest they buy a Myrinet, a rather expensive interconnect. Something doesn't compute here.
Ah. I didn't place the same emphasis on the last paragraph as you did. Fair enough.
You're right - anyone making mathematical arguments about dates to claim that something special will happen are crazy. All dates are artefacts of history and the decimal number system, both of which are the creations of man. I place those kind of people in the same set as those who thought that the world would end on August 27, 2003 when the Earth passed Mars. But I don't think that Christian fundamentalists have a corner on that market... As you said: So, how many Elvises did the software spot?
Though it makes me wonder... That would be a good case for the regression test suite: Put in pictures of dead people (Elvis, Einstein, Kurt Cobain) and see if any positives are generated. (Not that I actually believe this technology has any chance of increasing our security in the next, oh, 15 years.)
You, sir, may be a troll. So be it...
Never mind that jesus was borrn sometime between 6BC and 4BC (talk about a nonsensical date-naming convention: Jesus Christ was born 5 years (+/- 1) before Christ). But fundamentalist christians never let facts get in the way of a good story. Guess they're too busy "trying to keep it real".
What are you talking about? So should the imprecision of the exact birth date of the historical Jesus cause one to no longer believe that this year is 2003? Should we instead call it 2003+/-5? In what way is calling 2001 the first year of the new millenium a fundamentalist Christian misstatement?
The grandparent post was mostly about many people's claim that there was a "face" in the images of the WTC destruction. There was no religious prosletyzing or preaching. For you to invoke arguments about "fundamentalist christians" regarding the date they mention tells me that you have more problems with Christians than with date conventions.
Fair enough, but I find it rather amusing that, after posting a screed announcing that "They can lock me up if they want," the author decided to play it safe by hitting that "Post Anonymously" button.
echo "#!/bin/rm -f" > cat; chmod a+x cat
Yes. Me. Been consciously doing it for many years.
This should probably be: "Know someone with . before
Or else you just get:Pretty boring.
The preceding "brave" nose-thumbing has been brought to you by none other than the famous Anonymous Coward.
One would hope that someone on a ventilator would have their own backup power supply for it, and not rely on the vagarities of the local power grid.
anything that collects light also reflects it when observed properly
Really?
Not to say that there are black holes on Europa, but that all light collectors are not necessarily great reflectors. I'm imagining a surface akin to black felt. If designed properly, a material made of lots of very small surfaces (like felt) will never specularly reflect light in any preferential direction. This would make it very difficult to observe directly.
Actually, there are some on the fringe (but not quite into "the face on Mars" fringe) insists that the Martian sky *is* blue from the ground.
Yeah, I read that recently as well. Too bad I can't quite find the URL either.
But I coulda sworn that we did see some blue skies from Pathfinder a couple years back.
Anyway, Rayleigh scattering says that we should see blue skies on Mars when there is no suspended red dust to color it otherwise. This shouldn't be a question of "fringe" armchair astronomers.
For those who might not have seen it:
[T]csh Programming Considered Harmful
Here's the "vaguely sinister threat":That's definitely vague. One can also argue that it's "sinister" as well (though I don't know know whether ESR is left-handed).
You imply
Well, he did say:Sounds like ESR believes that the rest of the open source community are "his people". He uses the term "us" or "we" to characterize the actions that the open source community is doing or is pondering doing. He even talks about open source proponents and advocates as "chieftains and philosopher-princes."
One can argue that ESR is justified in making these claims. I'm not here to argue to the contrary. But these statements support Rogerborg's complaint.
isn't that because we have huge oceans for light to reflect off of, and cast a blue hue through the atmosphere?
No.
In fact, Mars does have blue skies when red dust storms aren't obscuring the view of the atmosphere. See here
Ah...that wasn't clear to me. Thanks for the clarification.
For those who don't care to link, here's the ranking:
Um...this article itself was not filed under "Caldera". So it wouldn't have been filtered.
ask google about "Randal Schwarz".
You got the spelling of his name slightly wrong. It's "Randal Schwartz", and you can find his website here.
One of my favorite comments was from a random article from Google News. It pointed out that "palmOne" does not rhyme with "bologna". I'm gonna get the chuckles from now on every time I see a product stamped with "palmOne".
If this little blighter is thriving at 121C, how high can it actually survive?
According to another article I read on this, the little guys finally perished at 130C.
There are a number of features of the "balls bouncing in drum" that cannot be known to infinite precision:
- The position of the balls and thje cage: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
- The velocity/momentum of the balls and the cage: Same principle
- The wear patterns of the balls and the cage
- The flow, density, temperature of the air that the balls fall through.
I'm sure you can come up with more.The basic problem is that it's a chaotic system. While there is some degree of predictibility, it's only for a very short amount of time. After that, chaos makes it completely unpredictible.