Why so little parallelism?
|
From: Eugene Miya on 8 Nov 2006 10:39 >> Another set of people are looking at rethinking architecture and >> languages this weekend. In article <1162948877.319024.167470(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, BDH <bhauth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >What, in Dallas? Dallas? No. >> 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? Oh you mean who. He's TAOCP's author. Also MIX's author. And MMIX. Hmm, he designs, more crafts, algorithms, and he does scavenge. I'm lucky I get to attend a conference he occasionally goes to (and associated picnics and other social events and he's actually read a couple of my papers and I got one of his checks). I made a minor contribution to MMIX. Merely a small statement of fact. The Art Of Computer Programming. >> dynamic data flow > >Seems to me that if your architecture can do dynamic data flow, it can >do other, better things. I don't have an architecture. Better things like what? Which data flow architectures have you used or looked at? Why not static data flow? --
From: Eugene Miya on 8 Nov 2006 10:49 In article <4rcgj4Fqma70U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> 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. Well actually, it has been my experience that most people like to make snarky political remarks. Really. The first time I ever had lunch with people at LLNL I watched physicists make political remarks of the Cold War situation. However, I've never talked politics at intelligence agencies (hosts might make a comment that elected representatives in the US have to be shown every thing). You have to keep a watchful eye on protectors. BTW. Nick helped to host me and show me around Cambridge on my first UK visit. I last saw him twice very briefly at SC'05 in Seattle. DiNucci wanted to see what he looked like. We never quited synced at the Museum of Flight. Nick has been cited by various people for driving knowledgeable people out of various groups for not knowing what he is talking about. That might be their perception, but I could also perceive fatigue on their part. Nick is a typical topic of conversation at the ca-fests we have held. And I typically bring a photo of him at his lab in Cambridge. To my eyes he's a sort of taller version of the Dr. Who Jon Pertwee (he doesn't like that comparison). --
From: Nick Maclaren on 8 Nov 2006 11:53 In article <1163003277.301628.327490(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Andy Freeman" <anamax(a)earthlink.net> writes: |> Nick Maclaren wrote: |> > In article <4550dc5e$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: |> |> > |> Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ? |> > |> > Sorry. I am too far from the Library of Congress, which is the best |> > place to look up that sort of thing. |> |> Why would the US be the best place to research the UK's security and |> intelligence agencies? Do you really not know? Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Eugene Miya on 8 Nov 2006 10:57 >>>> 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. >>> No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of >>> doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep >>> ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did. BDH wrote: >> I for one think it's awesome how even computer architecture theory can >> be about US federal politics. Go to a public library and read an almost worthless book by Feigenbaum and McCorduck titled The Fifth Generation. In article <Q-ednYxIPbYNEczYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd(a)metrocast.net> wrote: >While the discussion here can get fairly eclectic at times, you appear >to be a bit confused about its exact nature in this instance. Politics >wasn't mentioned at all: rather, these are questions about national >behavior, its motivation, and its consequences, both internal and external. > >Of course, there are plenty of people who would like to try to make the >discussion about politics, because that confuses any debate on the >actual merits of the situation with issues of personal political >identity and allegiance. Or, to put it another way, as is all too often >the case politics obfuscates rather than clarifies matters - and many true. >politicians of both major U.S. political parties (and probably elsewhere >in the world as well) like it that way. Seen as economic (valuable). Oh a little diversion now and then is harmless. --
From: Nick Maclaren on 8 Nov 2006 12:20
In article <45520aa1$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: |> |> Nick has been cited by various people for driving knowledgeable people |> out of various groups for not knowing what he is talking about. That |> might be their perception, but I could also perceive fatigue on their part. I have also been cited as causing the demise of mainframes in UK academia. I doubt that I am that influential. |> To my |> eyes he's a sort of taller version of the Dr. Who Jon Pertwee (he |> doesn't like that comparison). I see what you mean, though I don't agree, and don't particularly object to the comparison. Why should I? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |