I'm finding it hard to believe that IE6 is stilling around at all... The only situation where I would use that junk is if I had a software lock-down at work....

and even then I'd re-consider working there for being too archaic.

Congratulations Firefox: It was just a matter of time before quality gets reflected in market shares!

It is clear that he is hurt by the backstabbing politics and lack of ethics (as he perceives it) that have corrupted mathematics. He seems more like an artist entirely dedicated to his craft; the Greta Garbo comparison somewhere above fits well.

We have done the actual benchmarks, and the original post matches our experience.
PHP gives processing times of around 1 second (for a search function) and C++ code via a CGI gaves times of 0.1 sec. A ten times improvement.

Graphs and numbers are here,
http://www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html

Further when we switched to FastCGI we saw another 5 fold improvement, after optimising the code for FastCGI.

So I would believe a 50 folder improvement should be possible by going from PHP to FastCGI (and rewriting code to suit a FastCGI)

600,000 arrests for possession does not equal 600,000 people arrested.

I'm not seeing any of all those Slashdotters who swore up and down that Google would never in a million years allow an ad blocker in their browser admitting they were wrong? What gives?

Freenet's traffic is designed specifically to be difficult to fingerprint. It is all UDP traffic and there are no specific headers to identify it. The UDP part is for firewall-friendliness.

Perhaps in the long run it will need to disguise itself as some other form of traffic like VoIP or VPN but the basic problem is you are always going to have large amounts of constant traffic between yourself and several other IP addresses. Hey, you could be on the phone 24/7 to 10 other people, right?

I'd call it "sale contract"

IIRC they claim 2.5-3x times more performance using a Tesla than using the CPUs in their workstation. Ignoring load time.

Their CPU numbers almost certainly take SIMD into account.

I'm doing cryptography research, and some of my colleagues have been considering building a similar "desktop supercomputer". The speedup there looks more reasonable: a single high-end GPU should be worth maybe 5-10 quad-core CPUs; it costs double and uses double the power, but it's easier to put a dozen of them in a single PC. The numbers aren't as good as for big matrices of floats, but that's because we're doing integer operations and GPUs aren't optimized for those. (But then again, crypto problems tend to set the standard for embarrassingly parallel problems.)

Anyway, the new "box-fulla-GPUs" supercomputers sure beat the heck out of the previous generation of cheap scientific compute cluster: a hundred PS3s running linux.