On 2007-12-17, nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu <nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote: > "I'm skeptical until I see something that gives me some hope," said > Gordon Bell, one of the nation's pioneering computer designers, who is > now a fellow at Microsoft Research. > > Mr. Bell said that during the 1980s, he tried to persuade the computer > industry to take on the problem of parallel computing while he was a > program director at the National Science Foundation, but found little > interest. > > [Straight from NSF to Microsoft---how convenient.] Huh? It was many years after NSF that he went to MS.

nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote: > [Yes, that way the chips will barely be able to keep up with the bloat > in Windows 2010.] More silly and dishonest "Linux advocacy" - par for the cola course. > "My machine overnight could process my in-box, analyze which ones were > probably the most important, but it could go a step further," he said. > "It could interpret some of them, it could look at whether I've ever > corresponded with these people, it could determine the semantic > context, it could draft three possible replies. [Right before it > crashes.] Signed, A Windows User By Day

Jerry McBride wrote: > Yeah... what is this rubbish? Is micoslop innovating parallel > programming now? Of course not. Rex Ballard created it years ago.

On 2007-12-17, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote: > ____/ nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu on Monday 17 December 2007 18:32 : \____ > >> In the future, Mr. Mundie said, parallel software will take on tasks >> that make the computer increasingly act as an intelligent personal >> assistant. > > Wow. What a visionary. Shall I dig up some of your visionary statements for comparison?

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote: > > So you have the algorithm for scheduling massively parallel processor > clusters with work from a pool of random processes accessing non > predetermined storage do you? I did but I lost it in the sofa cushions. ;) Seriously, if anyone is on the track of that, my money is on the brainiacs at Argonne National Labs. There is some seriously cool super-computing and parallel processing research going on there. Thad -- Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had all the ingredients on the label.

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote: > >> [Yes, that way the chips will barely be able to keep up with the bloat >> in Windows 2010.] > > More silly and dishonest "Linux advocacy" - par for the cola course. Can you do us a favor, and mark such posts as "[Humor-deprived]"? >> "My machine overnight could process my in-box, analyze which ones were >> probably the most important, but it could go a step further," he said. >> "It could interpret some of them, it could look at whether I've ever >> corresponded with these people, it could determine the semantic >> context, it could draft three possible replies. [Right before it >> crashes.] > > Signed, > A Windows User By Day Can you do us a favor, and mark such posts as "[Idiocy]"? -- Tux rox!

So anyway, it was like, 01:26 CET Dec 18 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah, Hadron was all like, "Dude, > So you have the algorithm for scheduling massively parallel > processor clusters with work from a pool of random processes > accessing non predetermined storage do you? What, you mean you don't? Time to get cracking on that then! -- Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> * 15:55:04 up 23 days, 8 min, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.41, 0.44 Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

* Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > On 2007-12-18, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote: > I've been on usenet at least as far back as Feb 28, 1984: > > <http://groups.google.com/group/net.unix-wizards/msg/bdd2d3b2889d6c5c?dmode=source> > > That's almost 24 years. 1. I'd like to know how the hell that stuff got archived 24 years ago, and survived to this day, when you can't even find a good rebuttal to this: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/msg/99ce4b0555bf35f4 QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this? ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time. (Note the weasel wording. He adds "for all time". Why?) 2. "&& and || do not mean the same thing to sh and csh. In fact they mean exactly the opposite! This can be annoying." You seem to have gotten a little more strict about your meanings as you aged <grin>. 3. {decvax,ucbvax}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!trwrb!wlbr!callan!tim Ahhhh, the old bang-paths. 4. Around that time, I was a grad student, and our access to the UseNet was through distillations retrieved and posted by some sysop at Vandy. -- Tux rox!

On 2007-12-17, nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu <nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote: > "I'm skeptical until I see something that gives me some hope," said > Gordon Bell, one of the nation's pioneering computer designers, who is > now a fellow at Microsoft Research. > > Mr. Bell said that during the 1980s, he tried to persuade the computer > industry to take on the problem of parallel computing while he was a > program director at the National Science Foundation, but found little > interest. > > [Straight from NSF to Microsoft---how convenient.] Huh? It was many years after NSF that he went to MS.