About as close as you are going to get at the moment. I wish for it too. Something to think about: build you page in Firefox and get it perfect there, only then should you try to go out of your way to make it work ok in IE (much easier than the other way around).
I've been saying for a while now that Google should create a research university(they alreadi do the research, this would simply allow them the government funding opportunities).
We have a couple of practices that we have put into place at my job. These are examples that are specific to the tools we use (subversion, bugzilla) but there is no reason they couldn't be generalized:
1. General release bug 1.a When any new feature or bug is found it is set as a blocker on this bug if it is to be done for the next release, if it isn't going to be done for the next release, it is set to a milestone value of future. 1.b When a release is given a date/version number we create a specific release bug and move the dependancies over to it. 2. subversion directory structure: project\
branches\ - contains branches of the code
tags\ - contains named releases for development, testing releases, and new versions
trunk\ - contains the latest copy of the source code
published\ - contains the binary copy of the last release (to staging or production) 2.a when a production release is going to occur we tag the RC as if it is going to be the release. 2.b to commit any revision in the project you must have an open bug that you say in the commit message. I wrote a pre commit hook that checks bugzilla to see if the bug is open and if it is, it puts the message onto the bug as a comment along with a list of files that have changed. If the bug is not open (new, unconfirmed, assigned, reopened) then the commit fails.
The release must sit on the staging server until all the bugs for the deployment are verified to be fixed.
Stargate hasn't technically touched the christian god. It has discussed the devil and it seemed like it inferred that people made up god to save themselves from Satan.
from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se7en#Lust):
Lust
Once the detectives gain access into Doe's apartment, they discover a darkroom (with photographs that prove that Mills had earlier confronted the killer), and hundreds of meticulously-kept logs of the killer's thoughts. However, there are no fingerprints, anywhere. Amongst the heap that suggests Jonathan Doe is an obsessive maniac, evidence of possible future victims arises. One of them is a photograph of what seems to be a prostitute.
One of the few concrete pieces of evidence is a receipt from a custom leather fetish shop. The detectives visit the shop, and the shopkeeper gives them a polaroid he took of the custom-made item. The audience is spared the sight of the item, though comments from Somerset are telling enough.
The detectives are soon paged to the site of the next victim (the prostitute). LUST is written on the door of a room; inside the room is the body of the prostitute, the police, and a man seemingly in shock, screaming to "get this thing off of me." Back at the station, an interview with the badly shaken man confirms a scenario that the detectives probably pictured as soon as they saw the shopkeeper's polaroid: Doe had forced a man at gunpoint to don the custom-made item (a codpiece with a long blade attached as a pseudo-phallus) and copulate with the bound prostitute.
Mills and Somerset later argue in a bar about the value of what they are doing, and Somerset is not convinced that staying on as a policeman would make any difference.
I think you are thinking of envy and wrath, although I don't see how either are funny.
I actually really like Requiem (well, except for the whole refridgerater part and that juice thing). I thought it was very interesting to follow the lives of the addicts spiraling down.
Seven is pretty disterbing (even though it is one of my favorites). My girlfriend simply cannot watch it. She threw up at the lust scene.
Actually Michael Moore shows up as #6 (when I search google): 1: GWB 2: Jimmy Carter 3: BBC news "miserable failure links to bush" 4: Google's (and Inktomi's) Miserable Failure (searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/329610 1) 5: "Miserable failure" in wikipedia 6: Micheal Moore
I agree, there are problems that don't scale. Most of them will see performance improvements with a lower latency network interconnect. Linpack doesn't have this problem. However, these problems (ones that don't scale with resource increases) will still not scale as you increase resources on a Myrinet network. Said problems eventually have a limit to the amount of speedup they will ever achieve.
I think there should be a variety of problems included in the top500 benchmarks. Anything that can be done to display a little better just how powerful these machines are at solving a particular problem type is a good thing for potential investors. They could use those benchmarks to decide what machines they want to use for their work. For instance I am working on a parallel alpha-beta algorithm. This algorithm would likely not run to its full potential on any parallel vector machine, because it is designed to run on clusters of general purpose nodes. In fact it would probably run best on a machine where 1 node could act as a master, n nodes as sub-masters and n^m nodes as workers (or another level of masters and so on, as long as the final level is workers). The workers could be a large distributed grid like seti, all they do is receive a packet of work, do it and then return the results. The masters need better communication requirements (and a lot more memory).
How would you describe #27, #51, #80, #82, #87, #93, #94,... (256 more)
Myrinet does have an order of magnitude in latency (it is actually around the same speed in terms of bandwidth), but the cost of implementing it still makes GigE attractive.
Real supercomputers do not use any type of networking between nodes, they have a shared memory bus. Don't say that, all it does is show how little you know.
There are 2 common types of interfaces between nodes on a supercomputer: shared memory and message passing.
Shared memory is where all the nodes can access memory over some sort of network. In order for communication to happen all 2 nodes need to do is read and write to the same location in memory. There is little talk about the network protocol used at this level because for the most part it is an emulation of layer 2 of the OSI (as if all you are doing is ordering the hardware around).
Message passing would best be described in terms of layer 7. Communication occurs between 2 nodes via messages that are sent back and forth (hence the name). The most common message passing scheme is MPI. In MPI, there is a concept of a sender and a reciever. The reciever calls MPI_Recv and the sender calls MPI_Send and a message is sent from send to recv. You could almost think of this as an HTTP communication; the server is listening, the client sends information, the server sends back, except in MPI the reciever must be calling MPI_Recv and waiting for a send from a specific sender and the sender must call MPI_Send to send the information to the reciever (there really [well, sorta] isn't a concept of a timeout). In my experience, this makes MPI (I use MPICH2) difficult to debug, if A calls send to B and B calls send to A at the same time, your program blows up (often with very little useful information).
On the cluster I do my work on, the implementation of MPI sends TCP/IP packets over ethernet (much like 256 of this top500 list). The libraries could be written to do the work over Myrinet or any other network.
For future reference please learn some factual information before you go spouting bull. If you follow this link, and choose interconnect family, you would find that most of the supercomputers in the top500 list are using some standard network interconnect.
Show me how 256 bit AES can be broken in under 12 months.
That is 1.1579208923731619542357098500869e+77 possible keys
Even attempting 10^15 keys per second (very generous considering that would put the machines at several PetaFlops) it would take 5.7896044618658097711785492504344e+61 seconds before you are expected to break the encryption (1.8346651763559481472287087138652e+54 years).
That was supposed to be a joke. You are right, having everyone working on everything does make it much better (again, this requires good communication).
You can layer it out a little (one person in charge of database, one in charge of stylesheets/user-interface, everyone else does everything else).
Communication is key though, we spend more time talking about what we are doing than actually doing it. Also, a very strong change management procedure helps.
Slashdot Mirror
IIS 7 (but then that is more about waiting for the next win server)
a more advanced network deployment system (think msi's to the next level)
That said, I don't expect to move to it ever.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=e59c3964-672d-4511-bb3e-2d5e1db91038&displa ylang=en
About as close as you are going to get at the moment. I wish for it too.
Something to think about: build you page in Firefox and get it perfect there, only then should you try to go out of your way to make it work ok in IE (much easier than the other way around).
What exactly is caltech?
I've been saying for a while now that Google should create a research university(they alreadi do the research, this would simply allow them the government funding opportunities).
Where is the mod points... that was funny
We have a couple of practices that we have put into place at my job. These are examples that are specific to the tools we use (subversion, bugzilla) but there is no reason they couldn't be generalized:
1. General release bug
1.a When any new feature or bug is found it is set as a blocker on this bug if it is to be done for the next release, if it isn't going to be done for the next release, it is set to a milestone value of future.
1.b When a release is given a date/version number we create a specific release bug and move the dependancies over to it.
2. subversion directory structure:
project\
branches\ - contains branches of the code
tags\ - contains named releases for development, testing releases, and new versions
trunk\ - contains the latest copy of the source code
published\ - contains the binary copy of the last release (to staging or production)
2.a when a production release is going to occur we tag the RC as if it is going to be the release.
2.b to commit any revision in the project you must have an open bug that you say in the commit message. I wrote a pre commit hook that checks bugzilla to see if the bug is open and if it is, it puts the message onto the bug as a comment along with a list of files that have changed. If the bug is not open (new, unconfirmed, assigned, reopened) then the commit fails.
The release must sit on the staging server until all the bugs for the deployment are verified to be fixed.
Yes, but the real question is: does each one know how many the creator is going to choose to create before he has made the choice?
Which begs the question: can the creator make a choice?
and just how much is a billion?
10^9 or 10^12
Numbers are the same in every language (as long as they are the same base). Words mean different things.
I always thought Sod's law was: "Murphy is an Optimist!"
The point being that Murphy leaves it to chance whether something goes wrong and Sod is expecting something to go wrong.
Stargate hasn't technically touched the christian god. It has discussed the devil and it seemed like it inferred that people made up god to save themselves from Satan.
In multiple sticks so I'd have to keep them on some kind of techno-bandalier? Sounds like a great deal to me.
I bet it could look nice too. could get em in different styles: Rambo, Duke Nukem Forever, Quake and Klingon.
You can certainly check what user the program is running as. You can guess from there what privilege level it has.
Did you miss the reference or just take it too far?
I have had IE crash using that. It isn't ready for production websites.
from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se7en#Lust):
Lust
Once the detectives gain access into Doe's apartment, they discover a darkroom (with photographs that prove that Mills had earlier confronted the killer), and hundreds of meticulously-kept logs of the killer's thoughts. However, there are no fingerprints, anywhere. Amongst the heap that suggests Jonathan Doe is an obsessive maniac, evidence of possible future victims arises. One of them is a photograph of what seems to be a prostitute.
One of the few concrete pieces of evidence is a receipt from a custom leather fetish shop. The detectives visit the shop, and the shopkeeper gives them a polaroid he took of the custom-made item. The audience is spared the sight of the item, though comments from Somerset are telling enough.
The detectives are soon paged to the site of the next victim (the prostitute). LUST is written on the door of a room; inside the room is the body of the prostitute, the police, and a man seemingly in shock, screaming to "get this thing off of me." Back at the station, an interview with the badly shaken man confirms a scenario that the detectives probably pictured as soon as they saw the shopkeeper's polaroid: Doe had forced a man at gunpoint to don the custom-made item (a codpiece with a long blade attached as a pseudo-phallus) and copulate with the bound prostitute.
Mills and Somerset later argue in a bar about the value of what they are doing, and Somerset is not convinced that staying on as a policeman would make any difference.
I think you are thinking of envy and wrath, although I don't see how either are funny.
I actually really like Requiem (well, except for the whole refridgerater part and that juice thing). I thought it was very interesting to follow the lives of the addicts spiraling down.
Seven is pretty disterbing (even though it is one of my favorites). My girlfriend simply cannot watch it. She threw up at the lust scene.
Actually Michael Moore shows up as #6 (when I search google):0 1)
1: GWB
2: Jimmy Carter
3: BBC news "miserable failure links to bush"
4: Google's (and Inktomi's) Miserable Failure (searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/32961
5: "Miserable failure" in wikipedia
6: Micheal Moore
I agree, there are problems that don't scale. Most of them will see performance improvements with a lower latency network interconnect. Linpack doesn't have this problem. However, these problems (ones that don't scale with resource increases) will still not scale as you increase resources on a Myrinet network. Said problems eventually have a limit to the amount of speedup they will ever achieve.
I think there should be a variety of problems included in the top500 benchmarks. Anything that can be done to display a little better just how powerful these machines are at solving a particular problem type is a good thing for potential investors. They could use those benchmarks to decide what machines they want to use for their work. For instance I am working on a parallel alpha-beta algorithm. This algorithm would likely not run to its full potential on any parallel vector machine, because it is designed to run on clusters of general purpose nodes. In fact it would probably run best on a machine where 1 node could act as a master, n nodes as sub-masters and n^m nodes as workers (or another level of masters and so on, as long as the final level is workers). The workers could be a large distributed grid like seti, all they do is receive a packet of work, do it and then return the results. The masters need better communication requirements (and a lot more memory).
How would you describe #27, #51, #80, #82, #87, #93, #94, ... (256 more)
Myrinet does have an order of magnitude in latency (it is actually around the same speed in terms of bandwidth), but the cost of implementing it still makes GigE attractive.
Real supercomputers do not use any type of networking between nodes, they have a shared memory bus.
Don't say that, all it does is show how little you know.
There are 2 common types of interfaces between nodes on a supercomputer: shared memory and message passing.
Shared memory is where all the nodes can access memory over some sort of network. In order for communication to happen all 2 nodes need to do is read and write to the same location in memory. There is little talk about the network protocol used at this level because for the most part it is an emulation of layer 2 of the OSI (as if all you are doing is ordering the hardware around).
Message passing would best be described in terms of layer 7. Communication occurs between 2 nodes via messages that are sent back and forth (hence the name). The most common message passing scheme is MPI. In MPI, there is a concept of a sender and a reciever. The reciever calls MPI_Recv and the sender calls MPI_Send and a message is sent from send to recv. You could almost think of this as an HTTP communication; the server is listening, the client sends information, the server sends back, except in MPI the reciever must be calling MPI_Recv and waiting for a send from a specific sender and the sender must call MPI_Send to send the information to the reciever (there really [well, sorta] isn't a concept of a timeout). In my experience, this makes MPI (I use MPICH2) difficult to debug, if A calls send to B and B calls send to A at the same time, your program blows up (often with very little useful information).
On the cluster I do my work on, the implementation of MPI sends TCP/IP packets over ethernet (much like 256 of this top500 list). The libraries could be written to do the work over Myrinet or any other network.
For future reference please learn some factual information before you go spouting bull. If you follow this link, and choose interconnect family, you would find that most of the supercomputers in the top500 list are using some standard network interconnect.
But if you have it and it isn't encrypted, it is pretty easy to read.
Show me how 256 bit AES can be broken in under 12 months.
That is 1.1579208923731619542357098500869e+77 possible keys
Even attempting 10^15 keys per second (very generous considering that would put the machines at several PetaFlops) it would take 5.7896044618658097711785492504344e+61 seconds before you are expected to break the encryption (1.8346651763559481472287087138652e+54 years).
That was supposed to be a joke. You are right, having everyone working on everything does make it much better (again, this requires good communication).
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail
you asked.
You can layer it out a little (one person in charge of database, one in charge of stylesheets/user-interface, everyone else does everything else).
Communication is key though, we spend more time talking about what we are doing than actually doing it. Also, a very strong change management procedure helps.
English isn't Latin derived period (it is Germanic).