thanks to a couple of months of fine-tuning SpamAssassin and bayesian filters, I get about 1 per day out of about 175 that is not tagged as spam, and have yet to get any false positives.
how do you see that they are going out of business ?
doing poorly ? sure...but if that's the case, they've been 'going out of business' for 3 years now.
1 - find out who Eric Eldred is 2 - this law is one of the most term-limiting and pro-public domain laws introduced. 50 years is a lot less than the current term.
his question (the way I understood it) was what language are the majority of parallel applications written in.
some languages lend themselves to being run on these big machines, and FORTRAN is just one of the more popular.
My experience with running applications on these machines (massively parallel) was with the mathematical modelling of dynamic large-deformation phenomena (i.e. car crash simulations)
every application I used was written in FORTRAN, and still is. FORTRAN is alive and very well.
If you don't have any idea of why FLOPs aren't meaningless, then you haven't ever run a program/problem/simulation on these machines able to put the numbers into context for you.
I spent 4 years running dynamic finite element analysis simulations on alot of the kinds of these parallel monsters, and when FLOPs indicate numbers that reflect quite well the length of time it would take for a run to finish, you realize that benchmarks ARE useful, in the right context.
Re-read my post. I said that they don't have or want to have the business plan that SCO has or wants.
You apparently didn't get my point, which was that the OpenGroup is not like SCO, IBM, HP, or other traditional Unix "vendors" in that they don't *produce* a version (certified by them if they did) Unix. Again, they are a sort of consultants, who just so happen to own the trademark on some certain words, and some lawyers to enforce them.
Apple's countersuit in this case is legitimate as well, IMHO. But I doubt that they will win.
either way, it doesn't matter. My point stands that the SCO case (which is one of alleged stolen code) is not at all the same as OpenGroup suing Apple.
you are under the impression that the OpenGroup either has or wants some sort of "business plan" in the same way SCO does. The OpenGroup is not a Unix vendor in any way, shape or form.
Their owning the trademark of "Unix" is legitimate. Just because the case against SCO is very silly in many ways does not make the OpenGroup's claims invalid.
If you think that the Unix(tm) (i.e. known historically to be the proprietary Unix vendors ) world doesn't have "walls separating them" anymore, you're fooling yourself, and Project Monterey is an example of how those walls are very much alive.
Don't confuse or mix the SCO vs. IBM issue with the OpenGroup's valid suits. You make it seem as if the OpenGroup were some big, old, and powerful company. It's not.
those guys are great, and congrats to them.
I have fond memories of walking down to their office on Mission St, and carrying one of their new 2U boxes down to where I worked. When we opened the box, not only did we find a machine that is still running right now (over 2 years) but a couple of cool tshirts.
nope. don't work for them anymore, but yes, I did at one point. so to say I feel strongly would be an understatement. there are/were many things wrong or weird at Salon, but it's ability to survive this far is not one of them. I agree with most of what people say about Salon's content, but will defend Salon's ability and desire to remain alive and well.
the amount of traffic Salon has generated is not trivial at all, and definitely was not just created from trolling places like slashdot.
i didn't say buy shares. i said that fuckedcompany (as well as others) have predicted their death for more than 3 years, and yet they're still there.
80 million over 7 years is nothing when you are a full-fledged online magazine with finance, legal, editorial departments with *real* journalists.
besides, it's independently owned and operated. no big media running that shop. sorta impressive that they're still running, if you ask me.
1 - they never had more than 110 employees
2 - my point is that salon's death has been predicted for over 3 years now, and it refuses to.
3 - i doubt people feel so guity as to pay $30 a year
80 mill loss.
0.03 share price
and yet, it's still there, every day.
sorta defies logic, huh ?
aw that's nothing. they've been delisted, relisted, delisted, and they've been down to 0.03 before. that was over 2 years ago.
something tells me that the stock price has nothing to do with whether it'll survive or not. because it obviously has.
again...people always think that they sold (and still do) because of graphics. in 1997 maybe.
they are not the greatest graphics machines in the world anymore, price-point wise. what they ARE, however is essentially the fastest parallel processing machines on earth. they place in more of the top500.org than any other vendor.
yeah, like how they predicted that Salon.com would die!!! Down with Salon! oh, wait....they're still alive, and gaining more money and subscribers. forget it.
the URL is www.masonhq.com, and yes, it's excellent for a base on which to build a pretty customized CMS that can handle a standard/traditional publishing paradigm, like in a dual print/web organization.
again, the book review above seems to take the right approach...describing content management from a general organizational perspective, and not one where a specific tool dictates how CMS is done.
Slashdot Mirror
you have seriously warped sense of priorities.
thanks to a couple of months of fine-tuning SpamAssassin and bayesian filters, I get about 1 per day out of about 175 that is not tagged as spam, and have yet to get any false positives.
15 and 19 year sentences for first time drug offenders, and you can now go to jail for spamming ?
it wasn't Jefferson, it was Franklin, and he wasn't 'barraged'...no one is, if you don't read the email.
how do you see that they are going out of business ? doing poorly ? sure...but if that's the case, they've been 'going out of business' for 3 years now.
why ? because people will be more interested in getting WiFi to these countries before anything else, for a number of different reasons:
1- you could be the company that "first" brought the "internet" to a country
2- you will have a HUGE customer in the govt budget of that country
3- IT ( or wifi for that matter) is not just for supporting brick-and-mortor businesses. here's a hint: it's a *communications* network....
1 - find out who Eric Eldred is
2 - this law is one of the most term-limiting and pro-public domain laws introduced. 50 years is a lot less than the current term.
you're not understanding it then. Basically, this law would be used to require some action on the part of the copyright holder to renew it.
this law is not in favor of extending the copyright term past 75 years...if anything, it is in favor of reducing it.
1. standard RMS history lesson/rant about terminology
2. admission that he can't really comment on the SCO case, because he doesn't know the details
3. make broad claim about hypothetical cases *like* SCO, and what *he* thinks should happen
his question (the way I understood it) was what language are the majority of parallel applications written in. some languages lend themselves to being run on these big machines, and FORTRAN is just one of the more popular.
My experience with running applications on these machines (massively parallel) was with the mathematical modelling of dynamic large-deformation phenomena (i.e. car crash simulations) every application I used was written in FORTRAN, and still is. FORTRAN is alive and very well.
If you don't have any idea of why FLOPs aren't meaningless, then you haven't ever run a program/problem/simulation on these machines able to put the numbers into context for you.
I spent 4 years running dynamic finite element analysis simulations on alot of the kinds of these parallel monsters, and when FLOPs indicate numbers that reflect quite well the length of time it would take for a run to finish, you realize that benchmarks ARE useful, in the right context.
Yes, and ?
Re-read my post. I said that they don't have or want to have the business plan that SCO has or wants.
You apparently didn't get my point, which was that the OpenGroup is not like SCO, IBM, HP, or other traditional Unix "vendors" in that they don't *produce* a version (certified by them if they did) Unix. Again, they are a sort of consultants, who just so happen to own the trademark on some certain words, and some lawyers to enforce them.
Apple's countersuit in this case is legitimate as well, IMHO. But I doubt that they will win.
either way, it doesn't matter. My point stands that the SCO case (which is one of alleged stolen code) is not at all the same as OpenGroup suing Apple.
you are under the impression that the OpenGroup either has or wants some sort of "business plan" in the same way SCO does. The OpenGroup is not a Unix vendor in any way, shape or form.
Their owning the trademark of "Unix" is legitimate. Just because the case against SCO is very silly in many ways does not make the OpenGroup's claims invalid.
If you think that the Unix(tm) (i.e. known historically to be the proprietary Unix vendors ) world doesn't have "walls separating them" anymore, you're fooling yourself, and Project Monterey is an example of how those walls are very much alive.
Don't confuse or mix the SCO vs. IBM issue with the OpenGroup's valid suits. You make it seem as if the OpenGroup were some big, old, and powerful
company. It's not.
those guys are great, and congrats to them. I have fond memories of walking down to their office on Mission St, and carrying one of their new 2U boxes down to where I worked. When we opened the box, not only did we find a machine that is still running right now (over 2 years) but a couple of cool tshirts.
nope. don't work for them anymore, but yes, I did at one point. so to say I feel strongly would be an understatement. there are/were many things wrong or weird at Salon, but it's ability to survive this far is not one of them. I agree with most of what people say about Salon's content, but will defend Salon's ability and desire to remain alive and well. the amount of traffic Salon has generated is not trivial at all, and definitely was not just created from trolling places like slashdot.
are you suggesting that just "anyone" could write for salon ? and do it for free ?
y /index_np.htmll
articles like this ?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/23/fole
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/cov_16newsb.htm
people don't write articles like that for free. people who write articles like that are called "reporters".
i didn't say buy shares. i said that fuckedcompany (as well as others) have predicted their death for more than 3 years, and yet they're still there. 80 million over 7 years is nothing when you are a full-fledged online magazine with finance, legal, editorial departments with *real* journalists. besides, it's independently owned and operated. no big media running that shop. sorta impressive that they're still running, if you ask me.
1 - they never had more than 110 employees 2 - my point is that salon's death has been predicted for over 3 years now, and it refuses to. 3 - i doubt people feel so guity as to pay $30 a year 80 mill loss. 0.03 share price and yet, it's still there, every day. sorta defies logic, huh ?
aw that's nothing. they've been delisted, relisted, delisted, and they've been down to 0.03 before. that was over 2 years ago. something tells me that the stock price has nothing to do with whether it'll survive or not. because it obviously has.
again...people always think that they sold (and still do) because of graphics. in 1997 maybe. they are not the greatest graphics machines in the world anymore, price-point wise. what they ARE, however is essentially the fastest parallel processing machines on earth. they place in more of the top500.org than any other vendor.
you obviously have no idea or experience with SGI machines. SGI was doing quite fine until they bought Cray.
they are not bought for their graphics anymore.
they are bought because they continue to be some of the fastest supercomputers on the planet.
yeah, like how they predicted that Salon.com would die!!! Down with Salon! oh, wait....they're still alive, and gaining more money and subscribers. forget it.
uh, yeah. that's what it stands for. it's not "GNU public license"
the URL is www.masonhq.com, and yes, it's excellent for a base on which to build a pretty customized CMS that can handle a standard/traditional publishing paradigm, like in a dual print/web organization. again, the book review above seems to take the right approach...describing content management from a general organizational perspective, and not one where a specific tool dictates how CMS is done.