well, the provider IS paying for each ip address that they have. giving you extra means they either have less available for new customers, or have to request additional ips be allocated to them (and this costs a decent chunk of change). it's not unreasonable to charge you extra for additional ip addresses.
it is questionable to prohibit proxies or ipmasqing, but that is not at all the same thing.
i would look at more like this (using the cable analogy):
it's akin to them paying for basic cable (the technology fee, which gives them network priviledges), and then tapping their neighbor's line to get the premium channels (network access in their room).
They've been doing it for years and on a platform that stays as constant as a console, they can tweek to give a massive speed boost. The best example is this. One the same hardware, current N64 games whoop what was available at its introduction. What PCs can do that?
"The PC's of next fall."
you're essentially making his point here. "the pc's of next fall" are new hardware, which is by definition not the same hardware used today. of course quake is going to run better on upcomming pc's than on my 486, but there's no upcomming (commercial) game that'll run better than quake on my 486.
If XYBR really wanted to show off their stuff, they should make a Snow Crash movie.
you know, snow crash is a pretty good book. i picked up a copy while waiting for a flight at logan a few months ago. i was expecting checkout counter drivel, and was pleasantly surprised.
Lets take your 9-piece metal plate example. Now, picture there being 1 4 particles per piece. Every particle is therefore a border particle, and may need to communicate on every cycle with at least 1 neighbor (100%). Now, lets make them 9 particle plates. The central particles will never communicate with the outside, but the outside ones still may. Thats about 91% of the particles needing to communicate. Now, lets try 10,000 particle (100x100) plates. Now we have 396 particles on each edge, and 9,604 particles on the inside - about 4%. Now, of course, increasing the number of particles slows down the problem - but it also makes the simulation more accurate. And, what many people here don't seem to grasp, is that increasing the number of particles, as in this case, makes the beowulf system more efficient, compared to a single supercomputer.
it seems to me, that what you're proposing is essentially taking the piece of sheet metal and breaking it down into 90,000 regions instead of 9. if you don't increase the number of nodes, i don't see what you're accomplishing by doing that (i'm assuming that the equations' accuracy is independent of the computation method -- read: 1 particle and 500 particles will yield the same result, one just might take more time). if you do increase the number of nodes, then you're increasing the number of messages that need to be passed between them, not reducing it. in your example above, where you increase the message traffic (making latency that much more of an issue), how can you argue that a beowulf system is more efficient? cost-wise, it obviously depends on the problem. computationally, i don't think a beowulf system would ever be more efficient (node for node).
of course, if i'm missing something obvious, please point it out.
well, you named a big one: simulating nuclear tests. these and weather simulations really do need supercomputers. they involve millions (billions?) of particles interacting with each other. this requires the massive memory and interprocessor bandwidth that only supercomputers have. sorry, but no beowulf cluster can even come close.
it's been awhile since i read the book, too, but i seem to recall comming tto the conclusion that the brotherhood never really existed, and that it was used to identify troublemakers. o'brien wasn't a member because the organization didn't really exist, and if it did, he certainly didn't share in its purported ideals. i need to read it again.
letters are much more personal, especially hand-written ones. i get flooded with near a hundred email messages a day, mostly from mailing lists, but many from friends or project partners or whomever. so when i get a nice hand-written letter--with either illegible chicken-scratch (like my handwriting) or nice big, smooth, loopy, pretty cursive (which only girls seem to have a natural talent for)--it really makes my day. i like to think others feel that way too. and to that end, i try to write a nice, thoughtful letter everyonce and awhile to friends that i don't see that often. sure, e-mail would work just fine, and be quite a bit quicker, but it just isn't as personal.
in short, i agree completely. regular postal mail is definately more special. and that is why e-mail will never completely replace it.
you're right, this is a stupid idea, and i hote the whole thing dies in commitee.
Reminds me of Gingrich. Built a Coast Guard for his community. Dumb thing about it is they are landlocked; where's the coast? Oh I forgot. They have a coast called a lakeshore for that man-made lake they needed for their useless Coast Guard.
i'm not really sure what you're referring to here, but there are quite a few inland locations that have coast guard units to protect/monitor/whatever lakes and rivers. the name "coast guard" doesn't explicitly limit them to patroling the coast. i don't care if you think such a thing to be pointless, but i felt the need to point out that it's not such a rare thing to find coast guard units inland.
We could post an "anonymous" message (by which I mean one that does not contain our real name or information) that decries something that the corporation is doing. This could be based completely on fact, yet the corp would be allowed to sue you and find out who you are.
if what you post is factual, then it's not libel or slander. the case would be dismissed, if the corporation were arrogant enough to try to sue you at all. and if it's not factual, then you should be held accountable for your statement, particularly if it caused harm to another party.but it is very ignorant to think that you can/should be allowed to make statements in public with total anonymity. it just can't/won't happen. if someone wants to know who you are, they can find out. and if you're worried about being found out, keep your mouth shut. the right to speak your mind and do what you please stops where it infringes on the others' rights to do the same (cliche, i know, but it's true), and it comes with the responsibility of accountability for what you say and do. that's how society works. period.
i'm not claiming that i know for a fact that SRI invented the mouse or that Xerox didn't. i'm just telling you the line i've been given. i don't really care enough one way or the other.
first, life's not fair. yes, it's trite, but it's also true.
remember, either directly or indirectly, those people worth billions of dollars have helped others actually have jobs so that they can put food on their tables. without those rich men (or others in their place), industrialization would have taken much longer to reach the point we're at today. it's those profit-loving business men that have driven innovation (of technology in general, i don't care to start another "winblows sucks" or "linux rulez" thread). without the rich guys at the top, most of us wouldn't be doing what we're doing now, and wouldn't be making near as much money as we do. knock the big guy's down, and they'll end up falling on us.
actually, from what i understand, the mouse was invented at SRI. in fact, i have a mousepad with a picture of it (it's a large wooden block with a single red button in the top right corner--so either it's for southpaws or the picture is backwards--and what i think is a sun serial connector at the end of it's cable) and a caption stating: "SRI International, Inventor of the Mouse".
interesting. i saw this on the news this morning and the top 5 were: 1: gates $90 billion 2: buffet $36 billion 3: allen $30 billion sultan of brunei $30 billion 5: king fahd(sp?) $28 billion
first, i admit that this is very much off topic, and could even be construed as flamebait, and fully expect that it be moderated down.
now, i think that the posts made by DAVEO are a very good example of why/. needs to have killfiles. his first post (above) does indeed have a point, but the all-caps style is incredibly annoying. i can't even read his posts without getting a headache. all-caps is just plain difficult to read. however, what's worse than his potentially legitimate all-caps posts, are the multitude of all-caps posts defending the fact that all of his posts are all-caps. it's giving me a headache just thinking about it. anyway, the above should be fairly obvious to everyone, but i'm using it as an example. we shouldn't have to try to read (or even be presented with) such posts if we don't want to.
hence,/. killfiles. i don't really think moderation can solve this problem because it's not really fair to moderate down a legitmate post simply because the poster likes his caps-lock key. however, many (most?) users probably don't want to deal with such posts at all. i think we should be able to killfile posters who may in fact make legitimate posts, but for whatever reason, we don't want to ever see another of their posts again. for simplicity, one could even be limited to 5 or 10 people in the killfile to conserve diskspace or whatever (and if you want to killfile many more people than that, then you're probably doing so for the wrong reason anyway).
i don't expect too many people to read this, and that's fine. this issue may have even been tossed around before, i don't remember. so, whatever.
The researchers hope that the study will encourage the donation of brain specimens from other gifted individuals.
it'd be somewhat ironic if einstein's brain just turned out to be a fluke. what would they do if feynman or hawking turned out to have 'average' brains?
ok, so a cluster has a separate copy of the os for each node, whereas the conventional supercomputer has a single os controlling all it's nodes. that being the case, is it possible to take a supercomputer (perhaps the above mentioned t3e) and run it as a cluster, with a separate instance of the os for each node. i'm guessing that you wouldn't really want to do this, but is it possible. an anti-beowulf setup, if you will.
I honestly don't know for certain, but aren't the big cray machines and other microprocessor supercomputers effectively clusters of SMP nodes? Could the disparity here be fairly weak SMP performance of Intel's SMP scheme?
Not to be a panic monger or reactionary, but I find this comment disturbing. I do think it'd be a wonderful achievment if we could somehow grow organs for transplants. However, I think it would be very difficult to grow/clone organs without the rest of the body, since all parts are in someway dependant upon the others. So while the above comment may have been made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I do think we may be heading toward organ harvesting of 'brainless bodies' (there's money in organs, so i'm sure someone will step away from their ethics long enough to make a few million bucks). This would be all well and good except that there are people born today that are essentially organs in a 'brainless body', and they are very much human; they are people. And herein lies the problem: Is it acceptable to clone/grow people with brains for organ harvesting? I think not, but why not? An important question. And it is not so big a leap from human bodies with brains to those without, or vice versa. So at what point does a body of organs become a person? It's too difficult to draw the line, and if it isn't draw somewhere, we are left with some very fightening prospects.
Slashdot Mirror
well, the provider IS paying for each ip address that they have. giving you extra means they either have less available for new customers, or have to request additional ips be allocated to them (and this costs a decent chunk of change). it's not unreasonable to charge you extra for additional ip addresses.
it is questionable to prohibit proxies or ipmasqing, but that is not at all the same thing.
how would there be no physical evidence? the base station would be plugged into the port.
i would look at more like this (using the cable analogy):
it's akin to them paying for basic cable (the technology fee, which gives them network priviledges), and then tapping their neighbor's line to get the premium channels (network access in their room).
They've been doing it for years and on a platform that stays as constant as a console, they can tweek to give a massive speed boost. The best example is this. One the same hardware, current N64 games whoop what was available at its introduction. What PCs can do that?
"The PC's of next fall."
you're essentially making his point here. "the pc's of next fall" are new hardware, which is by definition not the same hardware used today. of course quake is going to run better on upcomming pc's than on my 486, but there's no upcomming (commercial) game that'll run better than quake on my 486.
If XYBR really wanted to show off their stuff, they should make a Snow Crash movie.
you know, snow crash is a pretty good book. i picked up a copy while waiting for a flight at logan a few months ago. i was expecting checkout counter drivel, and was pleasantly surprised.
Lets take your 9-piece metal plate example. Now, picture there being 1 4 particles per piece. Every particle is therefore a border particle, and may need to communicate on every cycle with at least 1 neighbor (100%). Now, lets make them 9 particle plates. The central particles will never communicate with the outside, but the outside ones still may. Thats about 91% of the particles needing to communicate. Now, lets try 10,000 particle (100x100) plates. Now we have 396 particles on each edge, and 9,604 particles on the inside - about 4%. Now, of course, increasing the number of particles slows down the problem - but it also makes the simulation more accurate. And, what many people here don't seem to grasp, is that increasing the number of particles, as in this case, makes the beowulf system more efficient, compared to a single supercomputer.
it seems to me, that what you're proposing is essentially taking the piece of sheet metal and breaking it down into 90,000 regions instead of 9. if you don't increase the number of nodes, i don't see what you're accomplishing by doing that (i'm assuming that the equations' accuracy is independent of the computation method -- read: 1 particle and 500 particles will yield the same result, one just might take more time). if you do increase the number of nodes, then you're increasing the number of messages that need to be passed between them, not reducing it. in your example above, where you increase the message traffic (making latency that much more of an issue), how can you argue that a beowulf system is more efficient? cost-wise, it obviously depends on the problem. computationally, i don't think a beowulf system would ever be more efficient (node for node).
of course, if i'm missing something obvious, please point it out.
well, you named a big one: simulating nuclear tests. these and weather simulations really do need supercomputers. they involve millions (billions?) of particles interacting with each other. this requires the massive memory and interprocessor bandwidth that only supercomputers have. sorry, but no beowulf cluster can even come close.
well, i agree with your general argument, so it's obvious that we interpreted the reference to 1984 differently
Case in point: Big Brother from 1984
i don't think a work of fiction (no matter how insightful it may be) can legitimately be used as evidence of something non-fictional.
it's been awhile since i read the book, too, but i seem to recall comming tto the conclusion that the brotherhood never really existed, and that it was used to identify troublemakers. o'brien wasn't a member because the organization didn't really exist, and if it did, he certainly didn't share in its purported ideals. i need to read it again.
letters are much more personal, especially hand-written ones. i get flooded with near a hundred email messages a day, mostly from mailing lists, but many from friends or project partners or whomever. so when i get a nice hand-written letter--with either illegible chicken-scratch (like my handwriting) or nice big, smooth, loopy, pretty cursive (which only girls seem to have a natural talent for)--it really makes my day. i like to think others feel that way too. and to that end, i try to write a nice, thoughtful letter everyonce and awhile to friends that i don't see that often. sure, e-mail would work just fine, and be quite a bit quicker, but it just isn't as personal.
in short, i agree completely. regular postal mail is definately more special. and that is why e-mail will never completely replace it.
you're right, this is a stupid idea, and i hote the whole thing dies in commitee.
Reminds me of Gingrich. Built a Coast Guard for his community. Dumb thing about it is they are landlocked; where's the coast? Oh I forgot. They have a coast called a lakeshore for that man-made lake they needed for their useless Coast Guard.
i'm not really sure what you're referring to here, but there are quite a few inland locations that have coast guard units to protect/monitor/whatever lakes and rivers. the name "coast guard" doesn't explicitly limit them to patroling the coast. i don't care if you think such a thing to be pointless, but i felt the need to point out that it's not such a rare thing to find coast guard units inland.
We could post an "anonymous" message (by which I mean one that does not contain our real name or information) that decries something that the corporation is doing. This could be based completely on fact, yet the corp would be allowed to sue you and find out who you are.
if what you post is factual, then it's not libel or slander. the case would be dismissed, if the corporation were arrogant enough to try to sue you at all. and if it's not factual, then you should be held accountable for your statement, particularly if it caused harm to another party.but it is very ignorant to think that you can/should be allowed to make statements in public with total anonymity. it just can't/won't happen. if someone wants to know who you are, they can find out. and if you're worried about being found out, keep your mouth shut. the right to speak your mind and do what you please stops where it infringes on the others' rights to do the same (cliche, i know, but it's true), and it comes with the responsibility of accountability for what you say and do. that's how society works. period.
i'm not claiming that i know for a fact that SRI invented the mouse or that Xerox didn't. i'm just telling you the line i've been given. i don't really care enough one way or the other.
first, life's not fair. yes, it's trite, but it's also true.
remember, either directly or indirectly, those people worth billions of dollars have helped others actually have jobs so that they can put food on their tables. without those rich men (or others in their place), industrialization would have taken much longer to reach the point we're at today. it's those profit-loving business men that have driven innovation (of technology in general, i don't care to start another "winblows sucks" or "linux rulez" thread). without the rich guys at the top, most of us wouldn't be doing what we're doing now, and wouldn't be making near as much money as we do. knock the big guy's down, and they'll end up falling on us.
actually, from what i understand, the mouse was invented at SRI. in fact, i have a mousepad with a picture of it (it's a large wooden block with a single red button in the top right corner--so either it's for southpaws or the picture is backwards--and what i think is a sun serial connector at the end of it's cable) and a caption stating: "SRI International, Inventor of the Mouse".
interesting. i saw this on the news this morning and the top 5 were:
1: gates $90 billion
2: buffet $36 billion
3: allen $30 billion
sultan of brunei $30 billion
5: king fahd(sp?) $28 billion
ballmer wasn't mentioned.
they sure didn't. that was SRI.
well, that being the case, thank you.
that was certainly unexpected. yet, by the tone, i can't help but think that i'm being mocked. no matter. my point still stands.
first, i admit that this is very much off topic, and could even be construed as flamebait, and fully expect that it be moderated down.
/. needs to have killfiles. his first post (above) does indeed have a point, but the all-caps style is incredibly annoying. i can't even read his posts without getting a headache. all-caps is just plain difficult to read. however, what's worse than his potentially legitimate all-caps posts, are the multitude of all-caps posts defending the fact that all of his posts are all-caps. it's giving me a headache just thinking about it. anyway, the above should be fairly obvious to everyone, but i'm using it as an example. we shouldn't have to try to read (or even be presented with) such posts if we don't want to.
/. killfiles. i don't really think moderation can solve this problem because it's not really fair to moderate down a legitmate post simply because the poster likes his caps-lock key. however, many (most?) users probably don't want to deal with such posts at all. i think we should be able to killfile posters who may in fact make legitimate posts, but for whatever reason, we don't want to ever see another of their posts again. for simplicity, one could even be limited to 5 or 10 people in the killfile to conserve diskspace or whatever (and if you want to killfile many more people than that, then you're probably doing so for the wrong reason anyway).
now, i think that the posts made by DAVEO are a very good example of why
hence,
i don't expect too many people to read this, and that's fine. this issue may have even been tossed around before, i don't remember. so, whatever.
The researchers hope that the study will encourage the donation of brain specimens from other gifted individuals.
it'd be somewhat ironic if einstein's brain just turned out to be a fluke. what would they do if feynman or hawking turned out to have 'average' brains?
ok, so a cluster has a separate copy of the os for each node, whereas the conventional supercomputer has a single os controlling all it's nodes. that being the case, is it possible to take a supercomputer (perhaps the above mentioned t3e) and run it as a cluster, with a separate instance of the os for each node. i'm guessing that you wouldn't really want to do this, but is it possible. an anti-beowulf setup, if you will.
I honestly don't know for certain, but aren't the big cray machines and other microprocessor supercomputers effectively clusters of SMP nodes? Could the disparity here be fairly weak SMP performance of Intel's SMP scheme?
Not to be a panic monger or reactionary, but I find this comment disturbing. I do think it'd be a wonderful achievment if we could somehow grow organs for transplants. However, I think it would be very difficult to grow/clone organs without the rest of the body, since all parts are in someway dependant upon the others. So while the above comment may have been made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I do think we may be heading toward organ harvesting of 'brainless bodies' (there's money in organs, so i'm sure someone will step away from their ethics long enough to make a few million bucks). This would be all well and good except that there are people born today that are essentially organs in a 'brainless body', and they are very much human; they are people. And herein lies the problem: Is it acceptable to clone/grow people with brains for organ harvesting? I think not, but why not? An important question. And it is not so big a leap from human bodies with brains to those without, or vice versa. So at what point does a body of organs become a person? It's too difficult to draw the line, and if it isn't draw somewhere, we are left with some very fightening prospects.