Adding a new meaning to the term "security theater"...

Are you serious? One of their agents saw that they had the intention!

Atheism is a belief *about* religion, but that doesn't make it a religion.

I also have beliefs about planets, but those beliefs aren't planets...

There was an update 2007!

http://www.largo.com/egov/documents/122089377228.htm

CC.

Are they providing a sensible version of GNOME? I very want to shuck Ubuntu, and this would let me have my Steam games *and* a usable desktop system.

(I know there are GNOME alternatives, but I'm hoping for the easy way out.)

Let's see, you ask me what kind of Ferrari I drive, I say 'none', and you say that's a kind of Ferrari.

And you express that idiotic view with a glaring logical fallacy: If religion is a collection of beliefs, it does not follow that every collection of beliefs is a religion.

Hope you were just out for a troll...

No, that has to wait until we all get to Hell.

Except for those who think that means they *should* run rampant.

Yeah, I found his observation really offensive when I was a church-going schoolboy. But now I don't think many religious people even know what he meant: it's not about religion-as-a-drug, but rather about religion as a way to keep the masses under control. Apparently *lots* of famous leaders throughout history said the same thing, in their own words.

I vividly recall GWB at a memorial for some people he sent off to die in Iraq stating confidently that they were in a better place now. As if he (or anyone else) would actually know.

Apparently the neocons behind "intelligent design" were following the script from Plato's Republic: religious beliefs are good for the masses, though the Guardian class knows better. And they humbly consented to bear the burdens of being the Guardians and dealing with reality so the masses won't have to.

I disagree. Anyone who actually reasons about their religion will shuck it in a heartbeat. There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's, so the only rational choice is to set your standard for evidence low and believe all of them, or set it high and reject all of them. And since they are mutually contradictory, reason requires you to throw one of those options out.

Religion is a culturally transmitted phenomenon, almost like language. It's no accident that if you know when and where a randomly selected person lives or lived you can predict both their language and religion with fairly high accuracy. Reason indicates that religion all about tradition, not about some objective reality.

That's kind of how I feel about it. I don't believe in anything supernatural, period. But I don't need to join a club, go to meetings, fanboy some heros, and all that jazz. It starts to be a cult, even if not a religious cult.

Of course, rational argument isn't going to lever anyone out of religious beliefs, so maybe this kind of jazz is what is needed to break religion's stranglehold on public policy.

I suppose I'm just not the club-joining type.

Now only 48 more articles on this topic.

Is that actually in our Constitution?

Or just put the receiver on the desk, and waste a bit of *their* time.

is letting one corporation get a choke-hold on the world's food supply.

... are the biggest problems from where I'm sitting here in the convention center in Denver.

In short, there will need to be a serious collaborative effort between vendors and the scientists (most of whom are not computer scientists) in taking advantage of new technologies. GPUs, Intel MIC, etc. are all great only if you can write code that can exploit these accelerators. When you consider that the vast majority of parallel science codes are MPI only, this is a real problem. It is very much a nontrivial (if even possible) problem to tweak these legacy codes effectively.

Cray holds workshops where scientists can learn about these new topologies and some of the programming tricks to use them. But that is only a tiny step towards effectively utilizing them. I'm not picking on Cray; they're doing what they can do. But I would posit that before the next supercomputer is designed, that it is done with input from the scientists who will be using it. There are a scarce few people with both the deep physics background and the computer science background to do the heavy lifting.

In my opinion we may need to start from the ground up with many codes. But it is a Herculean effort. Why would I want to discard my two million lines of MPI-only F95 code that only ten years ago was serial F77? The current code works "well enough" to get science done.

The power problem - that is outside of my domain. I wish the hardware manufacturers all the luck in the world. It is a very real problem. There will be a limit to the amount of power any future supercomputer is allowed to consume.

Finally, compilers will not save us. They can only do so much. They can't write better code or redesign it. Code translators hold promise, but those are very complex.