It's no big secret that many of the most powerful supercomputers are not shown off to the press. For example, in regards to the comment about cryptography, the NSA reportedly has enormous supercomputers that are never shown to the press. And of the ones that are, few are connected to the outside world. I believe right now the fastest is the Seaborg computer at the Berkeley Lab.
Yahoo Stores used to be (http://www.paulgraham.com/), but I believe it was rewritten in C or C++ and Perl after Yahoo bought Viaweb (the company which had originally developed the app in Common LISP).
But if you think about it, if it's based on a POWER4 or POWER5 architecture, which don't currently have very high clocks, to have this new processor beat out the Pentium 4 (which was designed so that it would scale to multiple gigahertz) is even more impressive.
Or it could be 1. download Knoppix (1.5 hr - ? depending on connection) 2. burn Knoppix to CD (10 minutes) 3. boot up in Linux, with most things working (1 minute)
There was an article like this about the warez group in the summer 2004 issue of 2600. The difference being it was less sensationalized and more specific, going into more detail about FXP and IRC chans.
I'm a high school student, and I've observed something interesting: there seem to be people who are interested in computers themselves, but not programming per se. For example, when I ask people why they are thinking about taking Comp Sci, they usually reply "I want to know more about computers." So, perhaps you might get the largest attendance if you started off on the basics of computers (i.e. what a CPU is), and then moved up from there, eventually getting to say BASIC or Java programming for the people who want to learn more.
I'm pretty sure that at the Lawrence Berkeley Labs in Berkeley CA, which happens to be controlled by the government, they have used the cyclotron to create very small amounts of anti matter. I went there several years ago, and I remember being fascinated by the fact that this stuff could release so much energy, yet had to be completely isolated.
Yeah, it makes sense outsourcing writing the code to various companies. I suppose as the business of writing software matures, it's only natural for it for it to take on familiar manufacturing paradigms. (If your analogy of auto-companies is true.)
Reminds me of the book Snow Crash. In the story, the only software production was done in factories, with each person working on only a little chunk of code.
But you fail to realize that one of the major points of the [H]ard|OCP article was how nice it ran on "obsolete" hardware. While I agree that the upgrade cycle is slightly disgusting, it is not necessarily applying to people who just went out and bought new graphics cards two months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no big secret that many of the most powerful supercomputers are not shown off to the press. For example, in regards to the comment about cryptography, the NSA reportedly has enormous supercomputers that are never shown to the press. And of the ones that are, few are connected to the outside world. I believe right now the fastest is the Seaborg computer at the Berkeley Lab.
Yahoo Stores used to be (http://www.paulgraham.com/), but I believe it was rewritten in C or C++ and Perl after Yahoo bought Viaweb (the company which had originally developed the app in Common LISP).
But if you think about it, if it's based on a POWER4 or POWER5 architecture, which don't currently have very high clocks, to have this new processor beat out the Pentium 4 (which was designed so that it would scale to multiple gigahertz) is even more impressive.
Or it could be
1. download Knoppix (1.5 hr - ? depending on connection)
2. burn Knoppix to CD (10 minutes)
3. boot up in Linux, with most things working (1 minute)
There was an article like this about the warez group in the summer 2004 issue of 2600. The difference being it was less sensationalized and more specific, going into more detail about FXP and IRC chans.
I'm a high school student, and I've observed something interesting: there seem to be people who are interested in computers themselves, but not programming per se. For example, when I ask people why they are thinking about taking Comp Sci, they usually reply "I want to know more about computers." So, perhaps you might get the largest attendance if you started off on the basics of computers (i.e. what a CPU is), and then moved up from there, eventually getting to say BASIC or Java programming for the people who want to learn more.
I'm pretty sure that at the Lawrence Berkeley Labs in Berkeley CA, which happens to be controlled by the government, they have used the cyclotron to create very small amounts of anti matter. I went there several years ago, and I remember being fascinated by the fact that this stuff could release so much energy, yet had to be completely isolated.
Like gold is Au on the periodic table.
Yeah, it makes sense outsourcing writing the code to various companies. I suppose as the business of writing software matures, it's only natural for it for it to take on familiar manufacturing paradigms. (If your analogy of auto-companies is true.)
Reminds me of the book Snow Crash. In the story, the only software production was done in factories, with each person working on only a little chunk of code.
But you fail to realize that one of the major points of the [H]ard|OCP article was how nice it ran on "obsolete" hardware. While I agree that the upgrade cycle is slightly disgusting, it is not necessarily applying to people who just went out and bought new graphics cards two months ago.
Just imagine the lawsuits from companies who've patented parts of the human genome...