On Nov 23, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> Here are my impressions from the exhibits, in no particular order.
>
> Interesting technology
>
> Carbon Nanotube Computer
>
> In the Emerging Technologies area, there was a Stanford graduate student with
> a MIPs compatible microprocesso
Here are my impressions from the exhibits, in no particular order.
Interesting technology
Carbon Nanotube Computer
In the Emerging Technologies area, there was a Stanford graduate student with a
MIPs compatible microprocessor made out of carbon nanotube transistors. He
said this was feasible
On 11/23/2013 01:40 PM, Joe Landman wrote:
> I didn't get a chance to see many booths ... I did get free the last
> hour of Thursday to wander, and made sure I got to see a few people and
> companies.
Had a bit of the same experience, but in the reverse. Was cooped up in
tech talks the entire ti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> 14) Quality of talks/BOFs: I've heard from many sources that the talks
> and BOFs were great. I miss having time to attend them, but will push
> for this next year. The admin BOFs seem to be strongly in demand.
>
There were definitely a few
On 11/23/2013 03:01 PM, Jonathan Dursi wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:40PM, Joe Landman
> wrote:
>
>> That is, we as a community have much to offer the growing big data
>> community.
>
> I think this is completely true, and somewhat urgent. The two
> communities have a lot to teach each other.
>
On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:40PM, Joe Landman wrote:
> That is, we as a community have much to offer the growing big data
> community.
I think this is completely true, and somewhat urgent. The two communities have
a lot to teach each other.
The big data community remains incredibly naive about a
[Disclosure: we do have a business relationship with Basement
Supercomputing. ]
I have to say, that one of the most popular aspects of the show for us,
was the Limulus system that Doug Eadline had set up in our booth. This
is a terrific system.
I really like the concept of a personal superco
On 11/23/2013 02:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> On 11/24/13 01:40 AM, Joe Landman wrote:
>> Compilers were there, no doubt. Intel, PGI, ... all there. Was
>> PathScale there? Others?
> Yes, but I was doing 1:1 customer meetings and presentations. I'll make
> sure to ping you next time.. If you'r
On 11/24/13 01:40 AM, Joe Landman wrote:
> Compilers were there, no doubt. Intel, PGI, ... all there. Was
> PathScale there? Others?
Yes, but I was doing 1:1 customer meetings and presentations. I'll make
sure to ping you next time.. If you're going to ISC or just want to have
a call some time
I didn't get a chance to see many booths ... I did get free the last
hour of Thursday to wander, and made sure I got to see a few people and
companies.
What I observed (and please feel free to challenge/contradict/offer
alternative interpretations/your own views) will definitely be colored
by
On 11/23/2013 01:19 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Dear lord ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
[the person hits bottom, starts digging, all the while supporting my
points, making new ones, amplifying everything I pointed out]
Its pretty clear that we have a content free poster determined to drag
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:49:15AM -0500, Peter St. John wrote:
> Re: " I don't give a shit about Joseph ..." ; did I mention
> "unmannerliness"?
You expect me to react civilly to someone who libels me,
unrepentantly? Really?
To add insult to injury, I've been publicly
accused of threatening Joe
On 11/23/2013 05:01 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
> There is a legal mechanism to deal with this which protects both the
> copyright holder and the host. Please can we talk about supercomputers
> again because this "issue" is_EXTREMELY_ boring.
Great points Andrew, and I'll /strongly/ +1 this with a f
I, for one, prefer a short summary as to why the relevance to the list and
a link.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Joe Landman <
land...@scalableinformatics.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:49 AM, "Peter St. John"
> wrote:
>
> Re: " I don't give a shit about Joseph ..." ; did I ment
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:49 AM, "Peter St. John"
> wrote:
>
> Re: " I don't give a shit about Joseph ..." ; did I mention "unmannerliness"?
> Peter
Someone had an overinflated view of the impact of his threats which he detailed
here. I began to ignore him then and there, though his posting
Re: " I don't give a shit about Joseph ..." ; did I mention
"unmannerliness"?
Peter
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 03:42:35PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
> > Folks:
> >
> >We are seeing a return to the posting of multiple full articles
>
> Failur
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 03:42:35PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
> Folks:
>
>We are seeing a return to the posting of multiple full articles
Failure to address the culprit (me, presumably) by name.
Use of majestatis pluralis. Why so pissy?
> again. We've asked several times that this not occur
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4472d242-ff83-430a-8df4-6be5d63422ca
There is a legal mechanism to deal with this which protects both the
copyright holder and the host. Please can we talk about supercomputers
again because this "issue" is _EXTREMELY_ boring.
One of the lurking issue
18 matches
Mail list logo
