By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), October 17, 2012 5:24 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Robert Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 17, 2012 2:38 pm wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 5:12 am wrote:
> > Robert
> Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 17, 2012 4:34 am
> >
> wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 1:17 am
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Exactly.
> This is why
> > > > low
> > bandwidth, high latency memory and
> >
> > communications is not the problem, but
> >
> > > > the
> *solution*. Together with
> > > caches and changed software
> >
> assumptions, of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> Not to
> > >
> > mention changed physics.
> >
> > There are
> physical problems which do not require
> > it.
> >
> No matter how hard I
> try, I cannot manage a response that doesn't drip with sarcasm. I'm sorry.
> I've been over this ground too many times, and being patient with smugness has
> worn me out. If there is anything you think you don't already know, you have my
> email address.
Sarcasm or ridicule is fine. If you really do know far more than anyone else in the field, my puny statements would not stand up to a second's thought. But if the response was just full of the usual handwaving and mischaracterization of my position in order to make your argument
" Since you seem to think that caches and changed software assumptions can address all problems of importance,"
Then you rightly should not bother.
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 5:12 am wrote:
> > Robert
> Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 17, 2012 4:34 am
> >
> wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 1:17 am
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Exactly.
> This is why
> > > > low
> > bandwidth, high latency memory and
> >
> > communications is not the problem, but
> >
> > > > the
> *solution*. Together with
> > > caches and changed software
> >
> assumptions, of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> Not to
> > >
> > mention changed physics.
> >
> > There are
> physical problems which do not require
> > it.
> >
> No matter how hard I
> try, I cannot manage a response that doesn't drip with sarcasm. I'm sorry.
> I've been over this ground too many times, and being patient with smugness has
> worn me out. If there is anything you think you don't already know, you have my
> email address.
Sarcasm or ridicule is fine. If you really do know far more than anyone else in the field, my puny statements would not stand up to a second's thought. But if the response was just full of the usual handwaving and mischaracterization of my position in order to make your argument
" Since you seem to think that caches and changed software assumptions can address all problems of importance,"
Then you rightly should not bother.
