Why so little parallelism?
|
From: Eugene Miya on 7 Nov 2006 13:19 In article <eipla6$rt4$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In article <4raspqFq3ffrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> writes: >|> Has anybody claimed that? Even today, there is a place for more than The One >|> Architecture, and a place for lots of different systems. But for quite some Like? (I should have asked) >|> time there hasn't been a place for the original Cray approach. > >Or rather, the place has shrunk so much that it is no longer large enough >to contain a viable original Cray approach. The place still exists, even >if it is solely in the minds of Organisations That We Know Nothing About. My impression is that in some ways, they have somewhat more money than the average client. They appear progressive in some ways and conservative in others. A lot is in the public domain. They fund lots of research in industry and universities. Some of this I just saw in an article in US NWP while waiting in my dentist's office just now. I just heard of Wikis on one of my CIA visits and there is a big side bar on their use internally now. >|> Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national >|> security"!? > >With the emphasis on the quotes in "national security". Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ? --
From: Del Cecchi on 7 Nov 2006 17:44 Eugene Miya wrote: > In article <eipla6$rt4$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, > Nick Maclaren <nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >>In article <4raspqFq3ffrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> writes: >>|> Has anybody claimed that? Even today, there is a place for more than The One >>|> Architecture, and a place for lots of different systems. But for quite some > > Like? (I should have asked) > >>|> time there hasn't been a place for the original Cray approach. >> >>Or rather, the place has shrunk so much that it is no longer large enough >>to contain a viable original Cray approach. The place still exists, even >>if it is solely in the minds of Organisations That We Know Nothing About. > > > My impression is that in some ways, they have somewhat more money than > the average client. They appear progressive in some ways and > conservative in others. > > A lot is in the public domain. They fund lots of research in industry > and universities. Some of this I just saw in an article in US NWP while > waiting in my dentist's office just now. I just heard of Wikis on one of > my CIA visits and there is a big side bar on their use internally now. > > >>|> Twaddle. Too much of a conspiracy theory. And do I read "serious" = "national >>|> security"!? >> >>With the emphasis on the quotes in "national security". > > > Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ? > I think Nick might be one of the folks who like to make snarky little remarks about the folks who are trying to protect us from other folks who would like to kill as many of us as possible. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, strategies or opinions.?
From: Bill Todd on 7 Nov 2006 19:36 Del Cecchi wrote: .... > I think Nick might be one of the folks who like to make snarky little > remarks about the folks who are trying to protect us from other folks > who would like to kill as many of us as possible. I suspect it's more likely that he's inclined to make snarky little remarks about the people who concentrate on lining their own pockets and entrenching their power while doing their best to convince us that they're protecting us from other folks who are just plain nasty rather than expressing entirely legitimate grievances in the few remaining ways they have available that haven't already proved completely fruitless. But that's just a guess... - bill
From: BDH on 7 Nov 2006 20:21 > Another set of people are looking at rethinking architecture and > languages this weekend. What, in Dallas? > I am not certain who's leading that session, > but I know Knuth is being tapped. Now I know that MIX and MMIX aren't popular. > And he's not an architect either. MMIX is incremental improvement. What is Knuth, then? An algorithm designer? A scavenger? > On the wider architectural scale, I'm more curious about how dynamic > data flow might have worked. Dally's 380 talk had a tiny bit of that. Seems to me that if your architecture can do dynamic data flow, it can do other, better things.
From: Del Cecchi on 7 Nov 2006 22:26
"Bill Todd" <billtodd(a)metrocast.net> wrote in message news:f_-dnW0eXbLiu8zYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)metrocastcablevision.com... > Del Cecchi wrote: > > ... > >> I think Nick might be one of the folks who like to make snarky little >> remarks about the folks who are trying to protect us from other folks >> who would like to kill as many of us as possible. > > I suspect it's more likely that he's inclined to make snarky little > remarks about the people who concentrate on lining their own pockets > and entrenching their power while doing their best to convince us that > they're protecting us from other folks who are just plain nasty rather > than expressing entirely legitimate grievances in the few remaining > ways they have available that haven't already proved completely > fruitless. > > But that's just a guess... > > - bill So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand. del |