BTW: I just had a look at your website and I'd hazard the guess that there are almost as many typos as words on it. What's your "professional agenda" behind those? ;-)

Since you seem to believe that a simple typo represents a fallacy, I dare say that your conclusion "Ruby is in serious declining" is a fallacy by itself: in your link Ruby's curve appears to be rather stable (2% over the past 5 years). In my world decline means something different.

You're right though that your search terms are more suitable.

Interestingly I do not have an agenda on Ruby and in fact it was a simple typo. As a non-native speaker I find the way how names and compounds are handled in the English language confusing at best. It's much easier in German: all compounds are written in one single word, no spaces, no dashes. You're allowed to add dashes to make life for the reader easier (Atombombenzündmechanismus is not a handy word).

Isn't it ironic that your own post represents a fallacy? Of course I have the arrogance to assume that I know best which motives my original post was based on -- and which not.

See, indeed I am a CS professional. I've specialized in HPC. The way I use Ruby is very different from what the web folks use it for: thanks to Puppet Ruby has become a popular language for managing system configuration, especially for large scale deployments. Hence I do have a significant exposure to Ruby, without ever doing any serious JS coding. And that's what I criticize in TFA: it seems to equate Ruby with "language for web apps". Its argument revolves around "b/c of node.js becoming popular, Ruby is/might be dying". And that's just wrong because even if Rails would just disappear, there would still be tons of valid use cases for Ruby (text mangling, build automation, rapid prototyping, network automation...).

If fact I don't care much about whether Ruby is popular or not. I've used it before Rails was popular, and I wouldn't have any second thoughts about adding another language to my portfolio, should I see any major benefit in it.

What makes you think that this was intentional and not just a typo?

You're close. Both ways. Funny. 32, not 35. ^^

A case of too much plum pudding?

Long answer: a better indicator is how many Google queries for the respective languages are issued. And those suggest that Ruby is standing stronger than ever. Ruby is more than just Rails. And just because there is yet another web apps framework, it doesn't mean that the other ones automatically lose traction.

The advantage of (real) Supercomputers is that they can tackle large scale simulations (instead of large numbers of small scale simulations, which is what "Folding@Home" and co. do). Would the quality of the predictions go up if they used a more accurate (and thus computationally complex) model of the forcefield? AFAIK DE Shaw Research is building their "Anton" line of supercomputers for the simulation of molecular dynamics.

TFA is light on the technical details, so I wonder if they've really been using a supercomputer or rather "a giant heap of ordinary computers". IIRC Google has more of the latter and fewer of the former.

Good point. I guess this will change once Kepler GPUs are widely adopted and CUDA 6.0 is published: With Kepler you can spawn Kernels from within the GPU and unified virtual addressing will make it easier to push complex data structures into the GPU (according to the poster these appears to be some preprocessing happening on the CPU).

In Dortmund this volcano would be so much more power efficient! It should definitely be moved. Plus, winter is coming, so the locals would be able to save a bit on the heating.

Slightly off-topic, but this reminded me of how yesterday 20000 people were evacuated in Dortmund (one of Germany's larger cities). And it didn't even need a full-fledged volcano to prompt this: a mere 4000 pounds, ~70 years old air mine was enough. Stuff like this is (still) daily business in Germany, though. They are still far from having cleared up all duds.

Oh, a joke... Sorry, didn't get it. Some people interpret GFLOPS as Giga Floating Point OPerationS. Which is IMHO sic(k).

I imagine they tried to let the machine figure our how to press the gazillion of buttons to make the dinosaur go by testing thousands of combinations.

...and the cluster consists of 332 nodes. So according to the lab's homepage the whole cluster is able to deliver 110 TFLOPS (Tera Floating-point operations per second). You'd need to buy a couple of GPUs to equal that.

I don't understand what you mean by acceleration unit. Each node delivers that performance instantly. There is no change over time.