It might be a bit worse than that. IANAL (or even a U.S. citizen), but they're in the U.S. so this https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... may be applicable. "(5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;" If their problematic patched ended up in an actual production computer, this section of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act might cause them trouble...

Actually, I have several pools and none of them have drives of 4 Tb or larger. They're all 1 and 2 Tb for "production" (does home use count as "production"?), and sometimes smaller for older systems and test. Also, larger is pretty much a non-starter for 2.5" drives (though I do have 3.5" as well).

ZFS is very reliable even on older drives, and a mirror or RAID-Z pool made up of a bunch of second-hand, dirt-cheap SAS drives (next to no second-hand market) on older generations HCA (idem) is a) [relatively] fast b) cheap c) reliable compared to almost anything else, and has become my go-to solution for my non-primary pools. And with auto-snapshoting and send/recv, it's quite easy to backup your most critical datasets on another pool, local or remote.

I /was/ in the market for an upgrade to larger 2.5" (sata) drives for my primary desktop pool; given that SMR seems to have contaminated this category, I'm out. I'll wait until SSD become cheap enough. This story has killed any interest I had left in buying /new/ spinning rust. Too much trouble, too little benefits.

The MythBusters did that one 7 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Left_Hand_Turn

Why would I need a terminal *emulator* ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (XTerm still emulates the vector graphics of the 4014...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I still remember the time when "multiple terminals" meant "grab another nearby vt100 while the first one's busy". Then there was screen(1), and we saw that it was good :-)

How "modified" was the Shield to run Ubuntu? Can I buy a Shield and get Ubuntu on it today? Or is this benchmarking an exercise in futility?

And the SS10 didn't have the ZX framebuffer of the SS20 - 24 bits accelerated graphics. 2nd one available as an option. That was an awesome machine, still one of the greatest computer design ever.

I started using UNIX with SunOS 4.1.4 on SPARCstation 1+. Still have my SS2 somewhere in the attic. Still have my Ultra 1 Creator. Can't throw them away.

I like the speed of my W3680 - but it's just not the same.

Guess I'm old :-(

Cue this old joke...
- How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
- None, we'll fix it in software.

Doing stuff in software to make hardware easier has been tried before (and before this kid was born, perhaps why he thinks this is new). It failed. Transputer, i960, i432, Itanium, MTA, Cell, a slew of others I don't remember...

As for the grid, nice, but not exactly new. Tilera, Adapteva, KalRay, ...

It's obvious. Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym of Nicolas Bourbaki.

Explain to them how to fix the problem once and for all:

1) block outgoing port 25 to everything but their own mail servers;
2a) add an optional feature in each customer account to reopen outgoing port 25;
2b) add an optional feature in each customer account to pick the reverse DNS entry;
3) tell every other ISP/mail servers operators what they have just done,
so they get un-blacklisted since they won't be sending much spam any more.

This should block most of the outgoing spam without any side-effects,
since power users will still be able to operate their own mail servers,
complete with reverse FQDN. Non-power users won't notice a thing.

Also, they will save money on bandwidth to the outside world.

That's what my (strictly residential) ISP has been doing for almost a decade.
Works perfectly well for everyone involved.

<quote><p> <a href="http://www.adapteva.com/epiphanyiv/">http://www.adapteva.com/epipha...</a>
64 cores, mesh network that extends off the chip, in production.</p><p>Try harder MIT :-p</p></quote>

They already tried harder : http://www.tilera.com/. And as another post mentioned, Intel Knights Corner is cache coherent on 61 cores (62 architectured).

The summary doesn't get the point of the article: what's novel is not the presence of cache coherency, it's just the new way of implementing snoop-based cache coherency over their network. Cache coherency for a large number of cores can be very expensive time-wise, so any idea to improve it is more than wecome.

Why is everybody thinking this is big news?
ftp://download.nvidia.com/CUDAOpen64/
The previous compiler, based upon Open64, has been available in source form since CUDA 1.0. They (partially) switched to LLVM in 4.1, and they also release the source code. They didn't have to, because unlike Open64 LLVM is not GPL, so it's nice of them, but it's not exactly earth-shattering news...

And because a picture straight from the horse's mouth is worth a thousand words, here's what NVidia has to say about it:

http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch36.html

Go to 36.5, figure 36-11 & 36-13.

And the situation is infinitely worse for other medias. Not only aren't people trying to preserve them, in many case they have been actively destroyed, in particular television broadcasts.

Two examples of the casualties:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_DuMont_Television_Network_broadcasts lists what survived from a decade of broadcasting on the DuMont network. Everything else was destroyed for various reasons.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Avengers_episodes labels most of the first season of the famous TV show as "missing", because the tapes were re-used in the 60s or 70s to save money.

The relevant wikipedia category is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_television_programs. It's hard to believe so much television history has been lost forever.

They didn't "originate". If it's a burgundy, then it hast to come from the region of Burgundy. It's that simple. Also, for the record: if you buy a Chablis, you also buy a Burgundy. Chablis is a sub-region of Burgundy.

Some of us haven't ruined their taste buds with bad beers and ketchup sauce, so we do care. Where the wine was produced makes a lot of difference to the taste. If you can't tell the difference, please go back to drinking Budweiser.

There is no such thing as "superior", either way. There is such as thing as "different". Then it's a matter of taste. Australia, California, Chile, Algeria all make very good wines. They just aren't Burgundy, or Champagne. Would you expect a "Scotch Whisky" to come from Polland? Obviously no. It doesn't preclude Japanese to make great Single Malt Whiskies. They just don't make Scotch Whiskies. Think of it as a trademark, shared by all the producers from one geographic region. You can't buy a Macintosh from Hewlett-Packard, can you? So why should you be able to buy a Burgundy from someone that isn't located in the region of Burgundy, and therefore doesn't share in the trademark?