No, even if an American says this it is still considered anti-americanism (or an "america-hater" or "self-hating american", etc.). I've grown tired of nationalism and was under the impression that we were supposed to have cast that off some time ago. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I suppose I hate my country by virtue of my ambivalence towards the US in general and my complete lack of "patriotism".
As for Steve: May he always be remembered for his work in wildlife conservation and for bringing such causes to our attention via his unorthodox and entertaining antics.
I recently purchased two StoreEdge units with about 12 TB of storage... each unit has two power supplies and hence requires two power cords. Each cord came packaged in its own box, the size of a thick laptop with the four boxes arriving inside another larger box. Each piece of software, of which they shipped two copies, was also shipped in some weird boxing while arriving inside the box the unit itself came in.
Totally fucking absurd. Why the hell do four powercables need to be shipped in four separate boxes? Why do CDs already in sleeves, need to be boxed twice before being put into yet another box?
Sorry for the rant. That experience really brought out the violently fanatic "environmentalist" in me. It reminded me of an endless matrioshka sans the artistic angle.
So? What did Apple expect? Were they really that naive to believe that everyone would play by the rules when they released their OS for a more readily available architecture? Their mistake, IMHO.
- There is no way to purchase a standalone copy of Mac OS X...
Hm... sounds like Apple _provided_ the incentive for their software to be pirated. Its the same incentive scheme in place for poor people who want things but can't afford them. In the end, stuff gets stolen. It's economics.
- Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware requires running it in a terribly hacked and un-updateable...
If the parent can live with the inherent disadvantages, why can't you?
- Apple has invested billions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours into the development and support of Mac OS X...
Where's your bleeding heart for Microsoft and all the copies of Windows that have been pirated... I've certainly never seen you poke your nose into any "I'm running XP Corporate so I can bypass the update checker..." posts. Besides, Apple should be able to take a tax write-off for lost revenues by periodically granting amnesty to illegal holders of OSX and calling them "donations" to the "disadvantaged" (j/k, but it might actually be possible...).
It really depends on your problem. If you have a code that is incredibly communications-intensive, you're likely to use a very large amount of your interrupts sending and receiving messages (if you're using MPI) rather than doing computations. There are codes out there that are essentially useless over GigE (there is no performance gain realized when increasing your used resources; it does not scale) and the very _minimum_ becomes a high-end interconnect like Myrinet; therefore, your cost of implementation argument does not hold true in a number of cases. In the case of Linpack/HPL, which is used for the Top500 benchmark, http://www.top500.org/about/linpack, the algorithm works in such a manner that the limitations of GigE are not as much a problem. Linpack is simply not representative of all of the different codes out there and in many cases, the results it provides may not provide any indication whatsoever of how well your code will run on a particular computer.
Except that the video isn't "free," it's reproducable. You can't edit the video. You can't remix the video. You can't make cuts of the video. You can't make a video inspired by the video. You can't touch the video creatively in any way at all.
Ugh... That's enough to make me sick. Raving zealotry! j/k
I know that people take their licensing very seriously and their use of the word "free" even more seriously, but for christssake, let it go for once. It was obvious that I mean "Free" as in beer, as in no co$t, as in no commercial interference with which to generate revenue, as in no royaltie$ involved in the distribution of said content, as in the consumer receives the finished product without owing duty or compensation via an expenditure of cash or any other contrived method of revenue extraction. That said, I must be the only person who runs Linux, uses Free (as in speech) software and has opted not to be a part of this little "license war" (actually, I'm not the only one). The fact of the matter is, I HONESTLY DON'T CARE and neither do the swarms of consumers out there (the ones I was referring to as downloading this video and getting it for free (oops, better clarify again for the nit-picky GNU/CC/et al. license bot: Free as in beer, as in no cost, as in... ok, enough)).
The other poster who responded to my comment made it clear to me where I may have gone astray in my assessment and I appreciate that person taking the time to explain it to me. However, this distinction of the word "free" has been rehashed soooooo many times on this site and others that any subsequent rumblings that take place as a result of some poor shmoe's momentary lapse in elucidating which form of "free" he actually meant to convey, will pique little or no further interest in the subject on my part and likely fall on deaf ears for most others.
To claim that I didn't make this distinction clear implies a genuine inability, on the part of the reader, to read between the lines and again, it's not my problem and not my war; and to conclude, based on your inability to infer the intended meaning, that it is somehow my stupidity with regards to the CC license that is at fault, does not lend any credibility to Stallman's original argument and is merely an argument divorced from all logic and reality.
1) I refer to "consumer" and "free" in my statements. This should allude to "Free as in beer". This was done rather profusely and in an obvious manner.
2) Because you apparantly did not see this, you claim I made some error in differentiating the various forms of the word "free" despite the obviousness of my attempt to relate to a consumer base.
3) Therefore, you conclude, I know nothing about the CC license and am generally uninformed about the details of the CC license and as a result, Stallman is right.
Oh, give me a break! 99% of the people out there are completely unfamiliar with content licenses and will only know that 'Pearl Jam released the video for free'. Add to that the fact that, if you were truly interested in the details, determining which Creative Commons license was used to release that video is a trivial task, it becomes obvious that RMS's and your subsequent rantings are completely misplaced. RMS has an interest in content and software licensing that adheres to some philosophical model that he espouses and that is quite fine by me. However, he should not and nor should you expect everyone or anyone, for that matter, to really give a flying fuck as to the extent or degree these various licenses are explicated and differentiated for the masses. Consumers care not for licenses, their by-laws, subsections or philosophical underpinnings. For the consumer, getting the 'gist' is sufficient and in this case, Google provides a link to the basic details of the license which is quite sufficient for the purposes of said consumer.
And I reiterate: So what?/. said the video was released under "Creative Commons". Sure, it's like saying the Operating System I run is "Microsoft" without a distinction between the various brand names and product lines they produce for such a purpose, but so what? Why do we feel that consumers should be knowledgable with respect to these things? I cannot, for the life of me, see any benefit and would probably laugh histerically at the first iPod trend-setter crowd I caught wind of pedantically arguing the merits of various CC flavors and why Pearl Jam or T-Bone chose to use some specific variant. Honestly, there are better things to worry about (even if those things include mindless drama or drawing hype for some new whiz-bang consumer gizmo that everyone just "needs" to have; licensing is truly a boring subject IMHO).
From my experience, Intel's v. 9.x compilers are the best, for scientific apps, when running on the Opteron. Surprisingly, the code they generate for em64t also happens to run quite well on amd64 which can be a little surprising as the CPUs really aren't the same. If you use the Intel compilers and want to use SSE2/SSE3 with your codes, there is a nice utility floating around that 'edits' your compiled binary to remove references to logic where it searches for the CPU string 'GenuineIntel', etc. The compiler, by default, puts in logic that will prevent apps on Opterons from using SSE2 or SSE3. The tools I was referring to can correct this problem per compiled binary OR they can be used to patch the compiler permanently; both methods allow you to take advantage of optimized vector and scalar sse calls on AMD chips.
Portland Group used to be where it was at (so to speak) in terms of compilers on AMDs and to a certain degree they still are, but the Intel compilers can now be had for free and in most cases, produce cleaner and tighter code than PGI. I've heard good things about Pathscale, but I've not had the opportunity to play with those and thus can't render any input on them. As always, YMMV and ALWAYS test for yourself.
Part 1: Taleyarkhan, who used to work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has, since working at Perdue, removed the equipment the co-workers were using to try and replicate the results
, (comma)
Part 2: claimed results for experimental runs were positive for fusion despite the co-workers never seeing the raw data
and (Proper use of a conjunction in a sentence containing a list of verb phrases)
Part 3: opposed the publication of results which contradicted his findings.
Each part of this sentence is not a sentence in and of itself (with the exception of part one, which is completely acceptable), which would constitute a run-on sentence. It is grammatically correct even though it is quite surprising and irregular, being the work of a Slashdot editor. This sentence is logically equivalent to:
Joe, who used to manage Cisco-based networks at Sandia National Labs, has, since completing his dissertation, published papers on network topologies, lectured at various institutions and released software to aid in the management of large-scale networks.
Sure, its clumsy and difficult to read, but still valid.
Heh, much easier said than done. Sure, I consider myself one of the lucky ones, but of all the other people I know, no one is satisfied with their current employment. Then again, there's the job you love and the things you love to do outside your job which, because of your job, don't get done all that often. Even if you love your job, chances are that it's not the only thing you love in life and if possible, it might be worthwhile to drop the job to enjoy your remaining time (if you were given a year or less to live) doing other things. And of course, we're talking about programmers here... I've never met one who said they could contemplate nothing better to do than to write code. Although they love coding, there are other things they'd like to be doing that probably don't involve taking home a paycheck.
I also view this with the hope that this will foster change in China, at some point. However, we must be careful to maintain relations with the Chinese while this slow process begins lest our "freedom-loving" influence be once and for all completely blocked out due to our arrogance and rampant interventionalism.
This implies that I believe we should set up shot in another country and that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing so.
You conveniently ignored this point to parrot your own point again.
I don't know why I'm replying to an AC but, if you even bothered to read my initial post, I discuss why it is important to set up shop in this particular country. If we insist on buying from them, we should also sell to them what we can sell, otherwise, our money goes to them, never to realize a return. If there is no moral dillema raised when purchasing their goods, how can their be any issue in selling our goods to them? We purchase from them on our terms and they purchase from us on their terms. Seems fair to me.
While your argument is quite "neat" (no joke, very perceptive on your part), I would have to retort that my initial premise lies in the old adage "When in Rome...". While it could be construed that I am imposing alien ideologies on American business and hence contradicting my own claim, it is more the case that I am asserting that certain American ideologies, such as the propensity to impose American social and moral standards on others (as we deem them to be more "just"), should be dispensed with while operating in places that are not American out of respect for the host nation, its laws and practices and for the sake of continued business relations under the saction of said host (in this case, the Chinese government). It is the case that certain countries are so completely incompatible in their policies with our form of free-market capitalism that we simply choose to avoid those markets for the risks outweigh the benefits. However, in the case of China, there is enough of a common ground where it would be too desireable and the possible benefits too great (on both sides perhaps) for us to pass up an opportunity due to our vehement adherence to certain moral and ethical foundations that are not universally accepted.
I hold that there are certain times when it should be acceptable that one's subjective ethics, or in this case, American ethics, must be "temporarily adjusted" in such a way as to be more compatible with the subjective ethics of another (in this case, a host allowing our participation in their market) for the mutual benefit of both sides. This does not constitute a possible "slippery-slope" scenario. Being uncompromising may at times yield better results but in the case of a free-market, I feel that concessions must sometimes be made for any real benefit to be realized.
I liken it to sending your children on a sleep-over. Perhaps in my home, I allow my eight-year-old child to watch HBO at four in the morning but in your home, your children are forbidden from such activities as you have some reasoning for why this should be so. If I send my child to your house for a sleep-over with your child, I would not expect you to change your stand on the situation to suit my child, but you would expect my child to accept your rule due to the authority you carry within your own home. My child might not like the fact that he is unable to engage in his usual routine and I might be upset that the rights I gave him are being trampled by your rule, but you can see how in this case, it is right that my child and I simply do as you ask.
Of course, I could always tell my child that he cannot spend the night at your place, creating tension between the parents (by indirectly insulting your policies) and possibly affecting negatively the friendship of the children.
It is the case that certain parents are so completely incompatible in their policies (heavy drug-users in an unsafe environment for example) with our form of "suburbanite child-rearing" that we simply choose to avoid sending our children to those parents' homes for the risks to our children outweigh the benefits of any continued friendship.
It may not be a fair analogy, but it seems the simplest way to illustrate my point.
I can sum this up in four words: It's not Google's choice. This isn't about vegetarians or the meat industry. It's about whether or not a corporation should set up shop in SOMEONE ELSE'S country and impose its moral vision or "corporate ethics" upon standards, laws, and practices that are a staple to the system they are entering. Clearly, the answer to this is very much "to each his own". It is precisely for this reason why U.S.-style capitalism is frowned upon by _some_ people of the Middle East, certain Latin American countries and other powers who CANNOT regulate American companies when they surface within their borders. In fact, I see Google as doing a Good Thing(TM) for American businesses and America in general by demonstrating that they can play by the rules and not by their own feelings or attitudes towards their hosts. In the end, this will only create trust between foreign governments and U.S. multinationals since we will be respecting their wishes. We may not agree with Communism, despotism, censorship, etc. and the shareholders of Google may not agree with it either, but creating more tension between our corporations and our trading partners is simply not a good way to do business and will certainly do nothing to end the censorship in China.
No one is saying "fuck the ethics". As far as I can tell, this is MORE ethical than putting our noses and our ideologies where they don't belong. In the long-term, Bill is right. This will foster freedom of information. Take it slow and be smart. Don't start a shit-storm to have your way right now. Patience will pay off in the end... Now, does that sound cynical to you? I also view this with the hope that this will foster change in China, at some point. However, we must be careful to maintain relations with the Chinese while this slow process begins lest our "freedom-loving" influence be once and for all completely blocked out due to our arrogance and rampant interventionalism.
Just because Google is an American company, it is not within reason for it to impose American ideology on another nation. While doing business within a market sponsored and regulated by another government, it is only fair that you play by their rules. Google is NOT a liberation army, they are not defenders of democracy or freedom; nor is it their right to assume such a role in a foreign land. Google is a business, a business with shareholders who demand results, results which include expanding into other markets via legal means. Google is in China to offer a product or service and, in a hybrid free-market/command-economy, you must yield to he who allows you to peddle your goods on his front yard. In the end, it all means that regardless of how we the people, the employees of Google, or some loud-mouthed Senators feel, if you want to play in China, you must obey Chinese law.
The point can also be made that Google did not have to enter the Chinese market, given those stipulations, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export. I fail to see any semblance of a moral dilemma here.
I can attest to the efficiency of these routines. When I benchmarked a 22 processor Opteron cluster w/ Myrinet, the use of Goto BLAS resulted in a near 20% drop in CPU utilization but yielded a ~2 GFlop gain in performance using HPL (performance was roughly 60 GFlops total. Given more time, I could have probably coaxed more out of Linpack). This compared to ATLAS, the self-tuning BLAS and LAPACK routines that I painstakingly recompiled at least a few dozen times. Generally, ATLAS yields very decent results even compared to some of the "drop-in" Lin-Alg. routines found with most high-end compilers like PGI (ACML, PGI-optimized BLAS/LAPACK/SCALAPACK) but so far, nothing I have tried rivals the performance, in the case of HPL, of Goto's implementation. Great work, man!
I think my point was that if a system is well managed, then it does not require frequent reboots. You claimed that shutdown -r is your #1 command. This implies that the command is frequently used meaning frequent reboots. Your statement implies that your systems actually require frequent reboots, therefore your system is poorly managed. The remark was only alluding to that undeniable fact j/k;)
That would be a complete waste of its capabilities. f@h is an embarassingly parallel app that requires very very little in the way of communications. BlueGene was designed to run simulations that require a sound, low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnect for lots of communications. f@h is much better off running on a bunch of PCs like it does now.
I always laugh when i hear people say such things because it alludes to a complete ignorance of the field of scientific computing. Its not a bad thing per se, just rather funny. I don't expect everyone to be a supercomputing expert but the seti@home and folding@home references just have to stop. With both programs, you are dealing with algorithms much better suited to be run on the distributed desktop grid paradigm rather than a tightly-integrated parallel computer that is capable of so much more. There is much more to take into account with regards to parallelism than most think.
What's even funnier is the proclaimed 'insightfulness' of the comment. I would have to disagree and say "humorously uninformed". No offense intended as many people would assume the same thing. Many cluster "n00bs" slap together a beowulf for the sole purpose of running f@h or s@h. It's a nice learning experience, but the programs would be better off running on that pimp Athlon64 box they have under their desks than on a rag-tag group of Pentium 233s sucking down more energy than they do useful work. The same thing really applies. BlueGene can be doing research that actually demands its capabilities rather than running an app that barely scratches the surface of what it has to offer. Just my $0.02.
Looking bad has nothing to do with your karma. It means you look like an idiot. I used the word "bad" to sort of tone down my language so I wouldn't insult anyone. If you're content with being viewed as an idiot, then I also am perfectly content to view you as such.
Feel free to reply with "If you don't like it here, leave", that would indeed be the idiotic comment to top them all.
If you don't like it... change your settings!
I offered the suggestion, and never said you should leave. Grow up now, please.
You are either a troll or a naive troll-feeder... In any case, most/. people understand that there will be unfulfilled idiots that post inane comments about beowulf clusters, hot grits, and various other unwitty remarks and we simply ignore them. We've known for many years now, young grasshopper, that awarding any such stupidity with a response only lends authority to that stupidity and that we are all the dumber for it. Please, relax, have a beer, take a midol, something. It is the way it is and there is nothing that you, I or anyone else is going to do about it. Feel free to adjust your settings so as not to view any comments below 0, 1 or whatever threshold you feel comfortable with. But also, please spare us your feigned intellect as you try to demonstrate your superiority over the beowulf cluster troll. It only makes you look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
No, even if an American says this it is still considered anti-americanism (or an "america-hater" or "self-hating american", etc.). I've grown tired of nationalism and was under the impression that we were supposed to have cast that off some time ago. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I suppose I hate my country by virtue of my ambivalence towards the US in general and my complete lack of "patriotism".
As for Steve: May he always be remembered for his work in wildlife conservation and for bringing such causes to our attention via his unorthodox and entertaining antics.
I recently purchased two StoreEdge units with about 12 TB of storage... each unit has two power supplies and hence requires two power cords. Each cord came packaged in its own box, the size of a thick laptop with the four boxes arriving inside another larger box. Each piece of software, of which they shipped two copies, was also shipped in some weird boxing while arriving inside the box the unit itself came in.
Totally fucking absurd. Why the hell do four powercables need to be shipped in four separate boxes? Why do CDs already in sleeves, need to be boxed twice before being put into yet another box?
Sorry for the rant. That experience really brought out the violently fanatic "environmentalist" in me. It reminded me of an endless matrioshka sans the artistic angle.
WTF? Let's pull shit out of our asses, why don't we.
Hm... sounds like Apple _provided_ the incentive for their software to be pirated. Its the same incentive scheme in place for poor people who want things but can't afford them. In the end, stuff gets stolen. It's economics.
If the parent can live with the inherent disadvantages, why can't you?
Where's your bleeding heart for Microsoft and all the copies of Windows that have been pirated... I've certainly never seen you poke your nose into any "I'm running XP Corporate so I can bypass the update checker..." posts. Besides, Apple should be able to take a tax write-off for lost revenues by periodically granting amnesty to illegal holders of OSX and calling them "donations" to the "disadvantaged" (j/k, but it might actually be possible...).
It really depends on your problem. If you have a code that is incredibly communications-intensive, you're likely to use a very large amount of your interrupts sending and receiving messages (if you're using MPI) rather than doing computations. There are codes out there that are essentially useless over GigE (there is no performance gain realized when increasing your used resources; it does not scale) and the very _minimum_ becomes a high-end interconnect like Myrinet; therefore, your cost of implementation argument does not hold true in a number of cases. In the case of Linpack/HPL, which is used for the Top500 benchmark, http://www.top500.org/about/linpack, the algorithm works in such a manner that the limitations of GigE are not as much a problem. Linpack is simply not representative of all of the different codes out there and in many cases, the results it provides may not provide any indication whatsoever of how well your code will run on a particular computer.
Except that the video isn't "free," it's reproducable. You can't edit the video. You can't remix the video. You can't make cuts of the video. You can't make a video inspired by the video. You can't touch the video creatively in any way at all.
... ok, enough)).
Ugh... That's enough to make me sick. Raving zealotry! j/k
I know that people take their licensing very seriously and their use of the word "free" even more seriously, but for christssake, let it go for once. It was obvious that I mean "Free" as in beer, as in no co$t, as in no commercial interference with which to generate revenue, as in no royaltie$ involved in the distribution of said content, as in the consumer receives the finished product without owing duty or compensation via an expenditure of cash or any other contrived method of revenue extraction. That said, I must be the only person who runs Linux, uses Free (as in speech) software and has opted not to be a part of this little "license war" (actually, I'm not the only one). The fact of the matter is, I HONESTLY DON'T CARE and neither do the swarms of consumers out there (the ones I was referring to as downloading this video and getting it for free (oops, better clarify again for the nit-picky GNU/CC/et al. license bot: Free as in beer, as in no cost, as in
The other poster who responded to my comment made it clear to me where I may have gone astray in my assessment and I appreciate that person taking the time to explain it to me. However, this distinction of the word "free" has been rehashed soooooo many times on this site and others that any subsequent rumblings that take place as a result of some poor shmoe's momentary lapse in elucidating which form of "free" he actually meant to convey, will pique little or no further interest in the subject on my part and likely fall on deaf ears for most others.
To claim that I didn't make this distinction clear implies a genuine inability, on the part of the reader, to read between the lines and again, it's not my problem and not my war; and to conclude, based on your inability to infer the intended meaning, that it is somehow my stupidity with regards to the CC license that is at fault, does not lend any credibility to Stallman's original argument and is merely an argument divorced from all logic and reality.
1) I refer to "consumer" and "free" in my statements. This should allude to "Free as in beer". This was done rather profusely and in an obvious manner.
2) Because you apparantly did not see this, you claim I made some error in differentiating the various forms of the word "free" despite the obviousness of my attempt to relate to a consumer base.
3) Therefore, you conclude, I know nothing about the CC license and am generally uninformed about the details of the CC license and as a result, Stallman is right.
Pretty weak, man... pretty weak.
Oh, give me a break! 99% of the people out there are completely unfamiliar with content licenses and will only know that 'Pearl Jam released the video for free'. Add to that the fact that, if you were truly interested in the details, determining which Creative Commons license was used to release that video is a trivial task, it becomes obvious that RMS's and your subsequent rantings are completely misplaced. RMS has an interest in content and software licensing that adheres to some philosophical model that he espouses and that is quite fine by me. However, he should not and nor should you expect everyone or anyone, for that matter, to really give a flying fuck as to the extent or degree these various licenses are explicated and differentiated for the masses. Consumers care not for licenses, their by-laws, subsections or philosophical underpinnings. For the consumer, getting the 'gist' is sufficient and in this case, Google provides a link to the basic details of the license which is quite sufficient for the purposes of said consumer.
/. said the video was released under "Creative Commons". Sure, it's like saying the Operating System I run is "Microsoft" without a distinction between the various brand names and product lines they produce for such a purpose, but so what? Why do we feel that consumers should be knowledgable with respect to these things? I cannot, for the life of me, see any benefit and would probably laugh histerically at the first iPod trend-setter crowd I caught wind of pedantically arguing the merits of various CC flavors and why Pearl Jam or T-Bone chose to use some specific variant. Honestly, there are better things to worry about (even if those things include mindless drama or drawing hype for some new whiz-bang consumer gizmo that everyone just "needs" to have; licensing is truly a boring subject IMHO).
And I reiterate: So what?
From my experience, Intel's v. 9.x compilers are the best, for scientific apps, when running on the Opteron. Surprisingly, the code they generate for em64t also happens to run quite well on amd64 which can be a little surprising as the CPUs really aren't the same. If you use the Intel compilers and want to use SSE2/SSE3 with your codes, there is a nice utility floating around that 'edits' your compiled binary to remove references to logic where it searches for the CPU string 'GenuineIntel', etc. The compiler, by default, puts in logic that will prevent apps on Opterons from using SSE2 or SSE3. The tools I was referring to can correct this problem per compiled binary OR they can be used to patch the compiler permanently; both methods allow you to take advantage of optimized vector and scalar sse calls on AMD chips.
Portland Group used to be where it was at (so to speak) in terms of compilers on AMDs and to a certain degree they still are, but the Intel compilers can now be had for free and in most cases, produce cleaner and tighter code than PGI. I've heard good things about Pathscale, but I've not had the opportunity to play with those and thus can't render any input on them. As always, YMMV and ALWAYS test for yourself.
$ sudo passwd root
Should ask to reset the root password. You can then use 'su' to evoke a shell as the root user.
It's not.
Part 1: Taleyarkhan, who used to work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has, since working at Perdue, removed the equipment the co-workers were using to try and replicate the results
, (comma)
Part 2: claimed results for experimental runs were positive for fusion despite the co-workers never seeing the raw data
and (Proper use of a conjunction in a sentence containing a list of verb phrases)
Part 3: opposed the publication of results which contradicted his findings.
Each part of this sentence is not a sentence in and of itself (with the exception of part one, which is completely acceptable), which would constitute a run-on sentence. It is grammatically correct even though it is quite surprising and irregular, being the work of a Slashdot editor. This sentence is logically equivalent to:
Joe, who used to manage Cisco-based networks at Sandia National Labs, has, since completing his dissertation, published papers on network topologies, lectured at various institutions and released software to aid in the management of large-scale networks.
Sure, its clumsy and difficult to read, but still valid.
Heh, much easier said than done. Sure, I consider myself one of the lucky ones, but of all the other people I know, no one is satisfied with their current employment. Then again, there's the job you love and the things you love to do outside your job which, because of your job, don't get done all that often. Even if you love your job, chances are that it's not the only thing you love in life and if possible, it might be worthwhile to drop the job to enjoy your remaining time (if you were given a year or less to live) doing other things. And of course, we're talking about programmers here... I've never met one who said they could contemplate nothing better to do than to write code. Although they love coding, there are other things they'd like to be doing that probably don't involve taking home a paycheck.
I also view this with the hope that this will foster change in China, at some point. However, we must be careful to maintain relations with the Chinese while this slow process begins lest our "freedom-loving" influence be once and for all completely blocked out due to our arrogance and rampant interventionalism.
This implies that I believe we should set up shot in another country and that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing so.
You conveniently ignored this point to parrot your own point again.
I don't know why I'm replying to an AC but, if you even bothered to read my initial post, I discuss why it is important to set up shop in this particular country. If we insist on buying from them, we should also sell to them what we can sell, otherwise, our money goes to them, never to realize a return. If there is no moral dillema raised when purchasing their goods, how can their be any issue in selling our goods to them? We purchase from them on our terms and they purchase from us on their terms. Seems fair to me.
While your argument is quite "neat" (no joke, very perceptive on your part), I would have to retort that my initial premise lies in the old adage "When in Rome...". While it could be construed that I am imposing alien ideologies on American business and hence contradicting my own claim, it is more the case that I am asserting that certain American ideologies, such as the propensity to impose American social and moral standards on others (as we deem them to be more "just"), should be dispensed with while operating in places that are not American out of respect for the host nation, its laws and practices and for the sake of continued business relations under the saction of said host (in this case, the Chinese government). It is the case that certain countries are so completely incompatible in their policies with our form of free-market capitalism that we simply choose to avoid those markets for the risks outweigh the benefits. However, in the case of China, there is enough of a common ground where it would be too desireable and the possible benefits too great (on both sides perhaps) for us to pass up an opportunity due to our vehement adherence to certain moral and ethical foundations that are not universally accepted.
I hold that there are certain times when it should be acceptable that one's subjective ethics, or in this case, American ethics, must be "temporarily adjusted" in such a way as to be more compatible with the subjective ethics of another (in this case, a host allowing our participation in their market) for the mutual benefit of both sides. This does not constitute a possible "slippery-slope" scenario. Being uncompromising may at times yield better results but in the case of a free-market, I feel that concessions must sometimes be made for any real benefit to be realized.
I liken it to sending your children on a sleep-over. Perhaps in my home, I allow my eight-year-old child to watch HBO at four in the morning but in your home, your children are forbidden from such activities as you have some reasoning for why this should be so. If I send my child to your house for a sleep-over with your child, I would not expect you to change your stand on the situation to suit my child, but you would expect my child to accept your rule due to the authority you carry within your own home. My child might not like the fact that he is unable to engage in his usual routine and I might be upset that the rights I gave him are being trampled by your rule, but you can see how in this case, it is right that my child and I simply do as you ask.
Of course, I could always tell my child that he cannot spend the night at your place, creating tension between the parents (by indirectly insulting your policies) and possibly affecting negatively the friendship of the children.
It is the case that certain parents are so completely incompatible in their policies (heavy drug-users in an unsafe environment for example) with our form of "suburbanite child-rearing" that we simply choose to avoid sending our children to those parents' homes for the risks to our children outweigh the benefits of any continued friendship.
It may not be a fair analogy, but it seems the simplest way to illustrate my point.
I can sum this up in four words: It's not Google's choice. This isn't about vegetarians or the meat industry. It's about whether or not a corporation should set up shop in SOMEONE ELSE'S country and impose its moral vision or "corporate ethics" upon standards, laws, and practices that are a staple to the system they are entering. Clearly, the answer to this is very much "to each his own". It is precisely for this reason why U.S.-style capitalism is frowned upon by _some_ people of the Middle East, certain Latin American countries and other powers who CANNOT regulate American companies when they surface within their borders. In fact, I see Google as doing a Good Thing(TM) for American businesses and America in general by demonstrating that they can play by the rules and not by their own feelings or attitudes towards their hosts. In the end, this will only create trust between foreign governments and U.S. multinationals since we will be respecting their wishes. We may not agree with Communism, despotism, censorship, etc. and the shareholders of Google may not agree with it either, but creating more tension between our corporations and our trading partners is simply not a good way to do business and will certainly do nothing to end the censorship in China.
No one is saying "fuck the ethics". As far as I can tell, this is MORE ethical than putting our noses and our ideologies where they don't belong. In the long-term, Bill is right. This will foster freedom of information. Take it slow and be smart. Don't start a shit-storm to have your way right now. Patience will pay off in the end... Now, does that sound cynical to you? I also view this with the hope that this will foster change in China, at some point. However, we must be careful to maintain relations with the Chinese while this slow process begins lest our "freedom-loving" influence be once and for all completely blocked out due to our arrogance and rampant interventionalism.
Just because Google is an American company, it is not within reason for it to impose American ideology on another nation. While doing business within a market sponsored and regulated by another government, it is only fair that you play by their rules. Google is NOT a liberation army, they are not defenders of democracy or freedom; nor is it their right to assume such a role in a foreign land. Google is a business, a business with shareholders who demand results, results which include expanding into other markets via legal means. Google is in China to offer a product or service and, in a hybrid free-market/command-economy, you must yield to he who allows you to peddle your goods on his front yard. In the end, it all means that regardless of how we the people, the employees of Google, or some loud-mouthed Senators feel, if you want to play in China, you must obey Chinese law.
The point can also be made that Google did not have to enter the Chinese market, given those stipulations, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export. I fail to see any semblance of a moral dilemma here.
Ever think of turning it down? Maybe just a tad? ;-D
I can attest to the efficiency of these routines. When I benchmarked a 22 processor Opteron cluster w/ Myrinet, the use of Goto BLAS resulted in a near 20% drop in CPU utilization but yielded a ~2 GFlop gain in performance using HPL (performance was roughly 60 GFlops total. Given more time, I could have probably coaxed more out of Linpack). This compared to ATLAS, the self-tuning BLAS and LAPACK routines that I painstakingly recompiled at least a few dozen times. Generally, ATLAS yields very decent results even compared to some of the "drop-in" Lin-Alg. routines found with most high-end compilers like PGI (ACML, PGI-optimized BLAS/LAPACK/SCALAPACK) but so far, nothing I have tried rivals the performance, in the case of HPL, of Goto's implementation. Great work, man!
moral obligation? Yes, as if that has been the motivating factor in many a corporate decision.
As for frequent reboots, if your server is 16 hours flight from you, even twice a year is too much if you have to go there ;)
Indeed.
I think my point was that if a system is well managed, then it does not require frequent reboots. You claimed that shutdown -r is your #1 command. This implies that the command is frequently used meaning frequent reboots. Your statement implies that your systems actually require frequent reboots, therefore your system is poorly managed. The remark was only alluding to that undeniable fact j/k ;)
Dude, if shutdown -r is your #1, then you have no business running a server, remote or not.
That would be a complete waste of its capabilities. f@h is an embarassingly parallel app that requires very very little in the way of communications. BlueGene was designed to run simulations that require a sound, low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnect for lots of communications. f@h is much better off running on a bunch of PCs like it does now.
I always laugh when i hear people say such things because it alludes to a complete ignorance of the field of scientific computing. Its not a bad thing per se, just rather funny. I don't expect everyone to be a supercomputing expert but the seti@home and folding@home references just have to stop. With both programs, you are dealing with algorithms much better suited to be run on the distributed desktop grid paradigm rather than a tightly-integrated parallel computer that is capable of so much more. There is much more to take into account with regards to parallelism than most think.
What's even funnier is the proclaimed 'insightfulness' of the comment. I would have to disagree and say "humorously uninformed". No offense intended as many people would assume the same thing. Many cluster "n00bs" slap together a beowulf for the sole purpose of running f@h or s@h. It's a nice learning experience, but the programs would be better off running on that pimp Athlon64 box they have under their desks than on a rag-tag group of Pentium 233s sucking down more energy than they do useful work. The same thing really applies. BlueGene can be doing research that actually demands its capabilities rather than running an app that barely scratches the surface of what it has to offer. Just my $0.02.
Yeah, and do they have their own shows and equal air time to the conservative pundits that the GP mentioned? Yeah, no bias there...
You think I give a shit if I "look bad"?
Looking bad has nothing to do with your karma. It means you look like an idiot. I used the word "bad" to sort of tone down my language so I wouldn't insult anyone. If you're content with being viewed as an idiot, then I also am perfectly content to view you as such.
Feel free to reply with "If you don't like it here, leave", that would indeed be the idiotic comment to top them all.
If you don't like it... change your settings!
I offered the suggestion, and never said you should leave. Grow up now, please.
You are either a troll or a naive troll-feeder... In any case, most /. people understand that there will be unfulfilled idiots that post inane comments about beowulf clusters, hot grits, and various other unwitty remarks and we simply ignore them. We've known for many years now, young grasshopper, that awarding any such stupidity with a response only lends authority to that stupidity and that we are all the dumber for it. Please, relax, have a beer, take a midol, something. It is the way it is and there is nothing that you, I or anyone else is going to do about it. Feel free to adjust your settings so as not to view any comments below 0, 1 or whatever threshold you feel comfortable with. But also, please spare us your feigned intellect as you try to demonstrate your superiority over the beowulf cluster troll. It only makes you look bad.