That was because of taxes and because they were insane enough to think that Americans would be dumb enough to fall for Mitt Romney.
Make no mistake. Obama 2008 was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. He expected raising money from them to be just as easy the second time around, because he had done everything they asked. They wanted more.
I've spent so much time publicly cataloging the long list of lies, grotesque appointments, and errors of omission and commission that I'm not going to repeat them for a quoter of irrelevant statistics such as you are.
The Dow was down 313 points the day after Obama was elected. They had bet on the wrong horse the second time around. Why haven't we seen a temperamental fit of reprisal from Obama? Why should he bother? He won't be running again. People who embarrass him, though, like Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning, and Julian Assange,...now there's something worth getting worked up over.
The REALLY grotesque irony is that Romneybot would have been a disaster for Wall Street. As it is, we never saw meaningful Wall Street reform and we never will, for reasons that have been crisply explained by others.
What baloney. Prosecutors make decisions about whom to go after and for what all the time. The law is the law is just total BS.
I will repeat, so I can be labeled as flamebait again, that the real culprit here is Mr. Unequal Justice himself, the POTUS and his slimy DoJ, of which the Boston prosecutors are just cogs in a smoke manufacturing machine.
You're so f**king smart. I voted FOR President-for-Life Obama. My stocks are doing great. Romneytwit would have been a disaster for Wall Street. I really, truly think the money people lost their minds in the election cycle. Your consummate mastery of popular wisdom and the single entendre is simply stunning.
I can't believe I just replied to someone who thinks that owning a Blackbarry demonstrated a mastery of technology. Maybe it is time to take me away. He got what all the other cool dudes were getting, that's all, which is probably how you do technology, too.
Barack Obama was and is the bought and paid-for stooge of Wall Street, none of whose really bad guys have gotten even a slap on the wrist. One of them became Secretary of the Treasury. To show what a tough guy he is, he bombs the s**t out of people who can't shoot back and makes sure that people who do things like Occupy Wall Street, cooperate with Wikileaks, or do anything that embarrasses him, are treated harshly. As to what you do or do not know about Chicago politics, or its history with Presidential elections, not to mention your ability to evaluate mental health, stick to your day job. As to his mastery of technology, you'd have done better to have cited his election day performance, which actually demonstrates an understanding of how to use technology to do direct marketing. For a president, we have a fantastic call center director with a really mean streak, which most call center directors do have.
1. Don't ever cross or embarrass Barack Obama. 2. Don't use technology, about which he knows nothing except how to pick up the phone and order another drone kill. 3. If you intend to do something illegal, and you failed to give POTUS or his agent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in advance, you are going to be in big trouble. And do look at the treatment of Bradley Manning. Can't blame that on Boston prosecutors. "Don 't get mad. Get even," said one of the also Chicago-mob-connected Kennedys. It's how they do business there. This all has little or nothing to do with a couple of twits in Boston and everything to do with President-for-Life Obama, with perhaps the continuation of millions of dollars in defense contracts for MIT Lincoln Labs thrown in.
And politicians since time immemorial have used any method they could conceive of to do it. I scanned the posts quickly to see if anyone had already stated this very, very, very basic fact about democracy.
Voter turnout among young and minority voters has been a big problem for the Democratic party for a long time. The GOP tried to make it an even bigger problem. The Democrats used technology to solve a real problem in one of the most basic realities of democracy: what voters think doesn't matter unless they actually vote. Romney was astonished that he lost only because he expected the Democratic voter turnout problem (along with dirty tricks) to win it for him. What a shock. Democracy won, and technology helped. Yes. That's news.
Let all of us who are old enough raise a glass to toast the days when people who wrote programs, who rarely referred to themselves as programmers, understood full well that they didn't know what they were doing and were going to make mistakes.
Spoken like a witness from Microsoft arguing for more H1-B visas.
Slashdot is dominated by software types, and if the world is run by bad software, I don't know why you would look for a hard-hitting and insightful discussion of the subject on slashdot.
The old-timers, the ones who weren't born into a world of smug software fantasy, know that good and reliable software is not only hard, it is expensive, and that "See, it works" must be scrutinized very closely and sometimes at great cost.
The whole situation is a perfect storm: the cost of doing it right is high, the moment of truth is often delayed in time, and blame for the mess too hard to pin down to prevent recurrences by prominently displaying a few severed heads near the Tower of London.
The previous post should have said bytes/flop, but it hardly matters. I've had the conversation with the people who matter, and flops are just a helluva lot cheaper than bytes per second, and no one is the wiser when the Top 500 list comes out.
Yes, and the pervasive use of GPU's will actually make the flops/byte bisection bandwidth problem worse. Actually, almost no one talks about bisection bandwidth any longer because the numbers are already embarrassingly small.
"One of the project heads said that graphics cards could be cut out for the job because of their high I/O and core count, adding that a conventional CPU-based supercomputer doesn't have the necessary I/O bandwidth to do the work." And maybe one of these days even the national labs will realize that billions and billions of CPU's that can barely talk to one another do not a supercomputer make.
If you have the requisite math to understand the cited Wikipedia article, the presentation is clear and concise. If you don't have the requisite math, I have no idea what could be done for you. This all reminds me of a fellow TA in a different department complaining that his undergraduates students at the well-regarded State U wanted math to be like Sesame Street. I doubt very much if the nations that are consistently outperforming the US on math and science exams are pandering to such a desire from students. If you wind up reporting to a high-level bureaucrat or manager who doesn't understand the subject matter he or she is overseeing, you can thank "broad strokes" education, I'm sure.
Whatever happened to Peter Lynch's advice that you should invest in businesses you understand, and where are all the people at Slashdot who supposedly understand the computer business? Everything is going mobile, and that's changing everything. Processor design. Screen size. Advertising strategies. Even bets on the prospects for Intel and ARM. You didn't need a call from a stock analyst to tell you that mobile was potentially a game-changer for Facebook. Okay, so I pay attention to processors, but even I knew that only obstinate blindness would have kept you from seeing that Facebook and its investment bankers wanted to rush the IPO in before the mobile problem was spelled out in foot-high letters. You bought in not knowing that and hoping for a predictable IPO pop? That's exactly what the investment bankers were counting on.
I don't know where in this scrambled thread to reply. Stall is a function of angle of attack, not of airspeed. People talk of a stall speed because, below that speed, the wings cannot generate enough lift to keep the airplane from literally falling out of the sky. When the airplane is falling out of the sky, you will have a very high angle of attack, and the airplane *will* be stalled, but it's because of the effective angle of attack, not because of the airspeed. Even above the misleadingly-labeled stall speed, increasing the angle of attack beyond the critical angle will stall an airfoil. Pulling back on the yoke--pulling the nose up--increases the angle of attack and is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to recover from a stall. Pushing the nose down should eventually get the angle of attack under the critical angle, at which point the airfoil would no longer be stalled. Absent control inputs, an airplane is designed to be stable in pitch, which means that just letting go of the stick should work, at least in theory.
No kidding - Seymour may be rolling in his grave over having his name attached to anything massively parallel. His entire design philosophy was to have just a few uber processors cranked up as fast as possible, although I wonder if by now he'd have changed his mind. Multiple processor servers were expensive when he passed away and the multiple core race we have going on now wasn't even fantasy.
The number of processors isn't the issue. The degree of connectivity is the issue, and IBM, Cray, and Seymour would all get it, even if the current "Cray" and UIUC aren't going to admit it. This version of Blue Waters is just another in a long line of massively parallel jokes. The version of Blue Waters proposed and abandoned by IBM would have been worth talking about.
Flops are nearly free. Connectivity is expensive. That's why flops, irrelevant though they may be, are advertised.
One has the sinking feeling that the window is closing on open source. There are fewer incentives to contribute and enormous incentives to create intellectual property, which is all that interests venture capitalists.
There's this bizarre belief being stated by some of the skeptics on this particular article that somehow knowing the end of a process, but not the beginning, is in some way superior to knowing the beginning, but not the end.
The belief is far from bizarre. It is rooted in this poorly-understood phenomenon called entropy. Being able to posit an orderly beginning that is consistent with the observable and relatively chaotic present is far more meaningful than extrapolating into an unobservable future using equations with iffy and actually unknown stability properties.
Slashdot Mirror
That was because of taxes and because they were insane enough to think that Americans would be dumb enough to fall for Mitt Romney.
Make no mistake. Obama 2008 was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. He expected raising money from them to be just as easy the second time around, because he had done everything they asked. They wanted more.
I've spent so much time publicly cataloging the long list of lies, grotesque appointments, and errors of omission and commission that I'm not going to repeat them for a quoter of irrelevant statistics such as you are.
The Dow was down 313 points the day after Obama was elected. They had bet on the wrong horse the second time around. Why haven't we seen a temperamental fit of reprisal from Obama? Why should he bother? He won't be running again. People who embarrass him, though, like Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning, and Julian Assange,...now there's something worth getting worked up over.
The REALLY grotesque irony is that Romneybot would have been a disaster for Wall Street. As it is, we never saw meaningful Wall Street reform and we never will, for reasons that have been crisply explained by others.
Well, at least someone gets it.
What baloney. Prosecutors make decisions about whom to go after and for what all the time. The law is the law is just total BS.
I will repeat, so I can be labeled as flamebait again, that the real culprit here is Mr. Unequal Justice himself, the POTUS and his slimy DoJ, of which the Boston prosecutors are just cogs in a smoke manufacturing machine.
You're so f**king smart. I voted FOR President-for-Life Obama. My stocks are doing great. Romneytwit would have been a disaster for Wall Street. I really, truly think the money people lost their minds in the election cycle. Your consummate mastery of popular wisdom and the single entendre is simply stunning.
I can't believe I just replied to someone who thinks that owning a Blackbarry demonstrated a mastery of technology. Maybe it is time to take me away. He got what all the other cool dudes were getting, that's all, which is probably how you do technology, too.
Barack Obama was and is the bought and paid-for stooge of Wall Street, none of whose really bad guys have gotten even a slap on the wrist. One of them became Secretary of the Treasury. To show what a tough guy he is, he bombs the s**t out of people who can't shoot back and makes sure that people who do things like Occupy Wall Street, cooperate with Wikileaks, or do anything that embarrasses him, are treated harshly. As to what you do or do not know about Chicago politics, or its history with Presidential elections, not to mention your ability to evaluate mental health, stick to your day job. As to his mastery of technology, you'd have done better to have cited his election day performance, which actually demonstrates an understanding of how to use technology to do direct marketing. For a president, we have a fantastic call center director with a really mean streak, which most call center directors do have.
1. Don't ever cross or embarrass Barack Obama. 2. Don't use technology, about which he knows nothing except how to pick up the phone and order another drone kill. 3. If you intend to do something illegal, and you failed to give POTUS or his agent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in advance, you are going to be in big trouble. And do look at the treatment of Bradley Manning. Can't blame that on Boston prosecutors. "Don 't get mad. Get even," said one of the also Chicago-mob-connected Kennedys. It's how they do business there. This all has little or nothing to do with a couple of twits in Boston and everything to do with President-for-Life Obama, with perhaps the continuation of millions of dollars in defense contracts for MIT Lincoln Labs thrown in.
May he never again have a good night's sleep, and my his name live forever in infamy.
Robert B. Myers
MIT, SB '72 Course VIII
And politicians since time immemorial have used any method they could conceive of to do it. I scanned the posts quickly to see if anyone had already stated this very, very, very basic fact about democracy.
Voter turnout among young and minority voters has been a big problem for the Democratic party for a long time. The GOP tried to make it an even bigger problem. The Democrats used technology to solve a real problem in one of the most basic realities of democracy: what voters think doesn't matter unless they actually vote. Romney was astonished that he lost only because he expected the Democratic voter turnout problem (along with dirty tricks) to win it for him. What a shock. Democracy won, and technology helped. Yes. That's news.
Ok, so I noticed that one system is apparently using a solid state disk and the other a conventional disk.
Given that the limiting bottleneck of a notebook with a decent processor is almost always the disk subystem, I stopped reading. Did I miss something?
Let all of us who are old enough raise a glass to toast the days when people who wrote programs, who rarely referred to themselves as programmers, understood full well that they didn't know what they were doing and were going to make mistakes.
Or you could refer to https://www.facebook.com/PigStateNews. I wonder if cops read *that*?
They are already the most effective street thugs and panty sniffers in society. They don't need the help of social media.
Spoken like a witness from Microsoft arguing for more H1-B visas. Slashdot is dominated by software types, and if the world is run by bad software, I don't know why you would look for a hard-hitting and insightful discussion of the subject on slashdot.
The old-timers, the ones who weren't born into a world of smug software fantasy, know that good and reliable software is not only hard, it is expensive, and that "See, it works" must be scrutinized very closely and sometimes at great cost.
The whole situation is a perfect storm: the cost of doing it right is high, the moment of truth is often delayed in time, and blame for the mess too hard to pin down to prevent recurrences by prominently displaying a few severed heads near the Tower of London.
The previous post should have said bytes/flop, but it hardly matters. I've had the conversation with the people who matter, and flops are just a helluva lot cheaper than bytes per second, and no one is the wiser when the Top 500 list comes out.
Yes, and the pervasive use of GPU's will actually make the flops/byte bisection bandwidth problem worse. Actually, almost no one talks about bisection bandwidth any longer because the numbers are already embarrassingly small.
"One of the project heads said that graphics cards could be cut out for the job because of their high I/O and core count, adding that a conventional CPU-based supercomputer doesn't have the necessary I/O bandwidth to do the work." And maybe one of these days even the national labs will realize that billions and billions of CPU's that can barely talk to one another do not a supercomputer make.
Perhaps we could put our collective wisdom to the task of finding ways to weed out people like the author of the article earlier.
If you have the requisite math to understand the cited Wikipedia article, the presentation is clear and concise. If you don't have the requisite math, I have no idea what could be done for you. This all reminds me of a fellow TA in a different department complaining that his undergraduates students at the well-regarded State U wanted math to be like Sesame Street. I doubt very much if the nations that are consistently outperforming the US on math and science exams are pandering to such a desire from students. If you wind up reporting to a high-level bureaucrat or manager who doesn't understand the subject matter he or she is overseeing, you can thank "broad strokes" education, I'm sure.
Whatever happened to Peter Lynch's advice that you should invest in businesses you understand, and where are all the people at Slashdot who supposedly understand the computer business? Everything is going mobile, and that's changing everything. Processor design. Screen size. Advertising strategies. Even bets on the prospects for Intel and ARM. You didn't need a call from a stock analyst to tell you that mobile was potentially a game-changer for Facebook. Okay, so I pay attention to processors, but even I knew that only obstinate blindness would have kept you from seeing that Facebook and its investment bankers wanted to rush the IPO in before the mobile problem was spelled out in foot-high letters. You bought in not knowing that and hoping for a predictable IPO pop? That's exactly what the investment bankers were counting on.
I don't know where in this scrambled thread to reply. Stall is a function of angle of attack, not of airspeed. People talk of a stall speed because, below that speed, the wings cannot generate enough lift to keep the airplane from literally falling out of the sky. When the airplane is falling out of the sky, you will have a very high angle of attack, and the airplane *will* be stalled, but it's because of the effective angle of attack, not because of the airspeed. Even above the misleadingly-labeled stall speed, increasing the angle of attack beyond the critical angle will stall an airfoil. Pulling back on the yoke--pulling the nose up--increases the angle of attack and is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to recover from a stall. Pushing the nose down should eventually get the angle of attack under the critical angle, at which point the airfoil would no longer be stalled. Absent control inputs, an airplane is designed to be stable in pitch, which means that just letting go of the stick should work, at least in theory.
This news is going on two decades old. No wonder Slashdot is losing market share.
No kidding - Seymour may be rolling in his grave over having his name attached to anything massively parallel. His entire design philosophy was to have just a few uber processors cranked up as fast as possible, although I wonder if by now he'd have changed his mind. Multiple processor servers were expensive when he passed away and the multiple core race we have going on now wasn't even fantasy.
The number of processors isn't the issue. The degree of connectivity is the issue, and IBM, Cray, and Seymour would all get it, even if the current "Cray" and UIUC aren't going to admit it. This version of Blue Waters is just another in a long line of massively parallel jokes. The version of Blue Waters proposed and abandoned by IBM would have been worth talking about.
Flops are nearly free. Connectivity is expensive. That's why flops, irrelevant though they may be, are advertised.
One has the sinking feeling that the window is closing on open source. There are fewer incentives to contribute and enormous incentives to create intellectual property, which is all that interests venture capitalists.
There's this bizarre belief being stated by some of the skeptics on this particular article that somehow knowing the end of a process, but not the beginning, is in some way superior to knowing the beginning, but not the end.
The belief is far from bizarre. It is rooted in this poorly-understood phenomenon called entropy. Being able to posit an orderly beginning that is consistent with the observable and relatively chaotic present is far more meaningful than extrapolating into an unobservable future using equations with iffy and actually unknown stability properties.