<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_2232224</id>
	<title>The Story Behind a Failed HPC Startup</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257247500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jbrodkin writes <i>"SiCortex had an idea that it thought would take the supercomputing world by storm &mdash; build the most energy-efficient HPC clusters on the planet. But the recession, and the difficulties of penetrating a market dominated by Intel-based machines, proved to be too much for the company to handle. SiCortex ended up folding earlier this year, and <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2009/110309-sicortex-supercomputing-recession.html&amp;pagename=/news/2009/110309-sicortex-supercomputing-recession.html&amp;pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/110309-sicortex-supercomputing-recession.html&amp;site=datacenter">its story may be a cautionary tale</a> for startups trying to bring innovation to the supercomputing industry."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jbrodkin writes " SiCortex had an idea that it thought would take the supercomputing world by storm    build the most energy-efficient HPC clusters on the planet .
But the recession , and the difficulties of penetrating a market dominated by Intel-based machines , proved to be too much for the company to handle .
SiCortex ended up folding earlier this year , and its story may be a cautionary tale for startups trying to bring innovation to the supercomputing industry .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jbrodkin writes "SiCortex had an idea that it thought would take the supercomputing world by storm — build the most energy-efficient HPC clusters on the planet.
But the recession, and the difficulties of penetrating a market dominated by Intel-based machines, proved to be too much for the company to handle.
SiCortex ended up folding earlier this year, and its story may be a cautionary tale for startups trying to bring innovation to the supercomputing industry.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</id>
	<title>The fanciest-sounding solution  ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is almost always wrong. As one of the principals on a large-ish (not large by world standards, 1000 cores, mainly Nehalem so approximately 100 GFLOPS) cluster, I've been very pleased that we've done things as simply as possible. Sun Grid Engine and ROCKS running on commodity 1Us delivers an economical and effective solution (no, I don't work for Sun).</p><p>Most importantly, the environment does not unduly restrict what kind of compute jobs can be run. If it can be compiled on *nix, we can probably run it. We lose to specialized hardware (GPU-based, Cell-based,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ) in raw throughput but we make up for it in both initial price and ease of deployment. We don't even have a dedicated admin for the cluster -- we had one to set it up and he did such a good job we haven't needed to hire a replacement!</p><p>Ultimately, I feel like it's not worth paying extra in hardware and software-dev costs to save few dollars on cooling and power. Sure, you get credibility of running a "green" cluster (nevermind that you have to pay to feed and house those extra developers, which should legitimately come out of your carbon budget) but you end with with a far less useful product.</p><p>Long Live X86(\_64)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is almost always wrong .
As one of the principals on a large-ish ( not large by world standards , 1000 cores , mainly Nehalem so approximately 100 GFLOPS ) cluster , I 've been very pleased that we 've done things as simply as possible .
Sun Grid Engine and ROCKS running on commodity 1Us delivers an economical and effective solution ( no , I do n't work for Sun ) .Most importantly , the environment does not unduly restrict what kind of compute jobs can be run .
If it can be compiled on * nix , we can probably run it .
We lose to specialized hardware ( GPU-based , Cell-based , ... ) in raw throughput but we make up for it in both initial price and ease of deployment .
We do n't even have a dedicated admin for the cluster -- we had one to set it up and he did such a good job we have n't needed to hire a replacement ! Ultimately , I feel like it 's not worth paying extra in hardware and software-dev costs to save few dollars on cooling and power .
Sure , you get credibility of running a " green " cluster ( nevermind that you have to pay to feed and house those extra developers , which should legitimately come out of your carbon budget ) but you end with with a far less useful product.Long Live X86 ( \ _64 ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is almost always wrong.
As one of the principals on a large-ish (not large by world standards, 1000 cores, mainly Nehalem so approximately 100 GFLOPS) cluster, I've been very pleased that we've done things as simply as possible.
Sun Grid Engine and ROCKS running on commodity 1Us delivers an economical and effective solution (no, I don't work for Sun).Most importantly, the environment does not unduly restrict what kind of compute jobs can be run.
If it can be compiled on *nix, we can probably run it.
We lose to specialized hardware (GPU-based, Cell-based, ... ) in raw throughput but we make up for it in both initial price and ease of deployment.
We don't even have a dedicated admin for the cluster -- we had one to set it up and he did such a good job we haven't needed to hire a replacement!Ultimately, I feel like it's not worth paying extra in hardware and software-dev costs to save few dollars on cooling and power.
Sure, you get credibility of running a "green" cluster (nevermind that you have to pay to feed and house those extra developers, which should legitimately come out of your carbon budget) but you end with with a far less useful product.Long Live X86(\_64)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972978</id>
	<title>Re:Low Power Supercomputer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it could be made to work pretty well, but it's not unprecedented at all.</p><p>IBM have already been building low power supercomputers for years.. the whole Blue Gene series is based around the idea of using lower end, low power processors: it even says in the article that the Blue Gene/P has similar power usage. They use custom-built low power 800MHz PowerPC chips.</p><p>Theoretically at least x86 chips are going to have some additional overhead compared to RISC architectures due to the extra instruction decoding hardware: the economies of scale were enough to overcome this when it comes to compute power, I'm not sure if it is going to be the case for power consumption as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it could be made to work pretty well , but it 's not unprecedented at all.IBM have already been building low power supercomputers for years.. the whole Blue Gene series is based around the idea of using lower end , low power processors : it even says in the article that the Blue Gene/P has similar power usage .
They use custom-built low power 800MHz PowerPC chips.Theoretically at least x86 chips are going to have some additional overhead compared to RISC architectures due to the extra instruction decoding hardware : the economies of scale were enough to overcome this when it comes to compute power , I 'm not sure if it is going to be the case for power consumption as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it could be made to work pretty well, but it's not unprecedented at all.IBM have already been building low power supercomputers for years.. the whole Blue Gene series is based around the idea of using lower end, low power processors: it even says in the article that the Blue Gene/P has similar power usage.
They use custom-built low power 800MHz PowerPC chips.Theoretically at least x86 chips are going to have some additional overhead compared to RISC architectures due to the extra instruction decoding hardware: the economies of scale were enough to overcome this when it comes to compute power, I'm not sure if it is going to be the case for power consumption as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971210</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257253440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate. Where is Sequent now?</p></div><p>Uh, Sequent never used MIPs chips.  In fact, the vast majority of the system that they sold were Intel based.</p><p>Maybe you mean SGI?  Their problems seemed to coincided with their moves to Intel chips (SGI PCs that flopped and then later the wholesale move to ia64).  Not to say that the problems were caused by those moves - maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but it certainly didn't make the problems go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted ; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now , in a couple years it wo n't , because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate .
Where is Sequent now ? Uh , Sequent never used MIPs chips .
In fact , the vast majority of the system that they sold were Intel based.Maybe you mean SGI ?
Their problems seemed to coincided with their moves to Intel chips ( SGI PCs that flopped and then later the wholesale move to ia64 ) .
Not to say that the problems were caused by those moves - maybe they were , maybe they were n't , but it certainly did n't make the problems go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate.
Where is Sequent now?Uh, Sequent never used MIPs chips.
In fact, the vast majority of the system that they sold were Intel based.Maybe you mean SGI?
Their problems seemed to coincided with their moves to Intel chips (SGI PCs that flopped and then later the wholesale move to ia64).
Not to say that the problems were caused by those moves - maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but it certainly didn't make the problems go away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972636</id>
	<title>Re:1 down</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1257262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dislike intensely saying bad about companies I've worked for, but it's not bad to simply say outright that Lightfleet is (for all practical purposes) clinically dead. It is possible that it could be revived, I suppose. Some of the early design work was ingenious and has a lot of merit. At this time, though, Count Dracula has better vital signs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike intensely saying bad about companies I 've worked for , but it 's not bad to simply say outright that Lightfleet is ( for all practical purposes ) clinically dead .
It is possible that it could be revived , I suppose .
Some of the early design work was ingenious and has a lot of merit .
At this time , though , Count Dracula has better vital signs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike intensely saying bad about companies I've worked for, but it's not bad to simply say outright that Lightfleet is (for all practical purposes) clinically dead.
It is possible that it could be revived, I suppose.
Some of the early design work was ingenious and has a lot of merit.
At this time, though, Count Dracula has better vital signs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971136</id>
	<title>End the FED</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is basically a perfect example of how central bank meddling makes us all worse off.  Small firms responding to the market and engaging in actual innovation threaten large, established corporations.  Stock indexes fall.  The "economy" collapses.  The FED goes into damage control mode and starts printing money to hand out to their friends: the large, established corporations.  Small firms and start-ups don't receive any of this free money.  Large firms use this taxpayer money and the inflationary power of the FED to catch up to their smaller competitors by making incremental changes to existing production lines.  The small firms go belly-up.  Oligopoly is maintained.  The newly unemployed die from lack of healthcare or are sent to get shot at in some unnecessary foreign war funded by their taxes and the same banks that put them out of business.  Everything goes smoothly until a new generation or flood of immigrants precipitates resource shortages which incentivize the rise of new, innovative start-ups and begins the "business cycle" all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is basically a perfect example of how central bank meddling makes us all worse off .
Small firms responding to the market and engaging in actual innovation threaten large , established corporations .
Stock indexes fall .
The " economy " collapses .
The FED goes into damage control mode and starts printing money to hand out to their friends : the large , established corporations .
Small firms and start-ups do n't receive any of this free money .
Large firms use this taxpayer money and the inflationary power of the FED to catch up to their smaller competitors by making incremental changes to existing production lines .
The small firms go belly-up .
Oligopoly is maintained .
The newly unemployed die from lack of healthcare or are sent to get shot at in some unnecessary foreign war funded by their taxes and the same banks that put them out of business .
Everything goes smoothly until a new generation or flood of immigrants precipitates resource shortages which incentivize the rise of new , innovative start-ups and begins the " business cycle " all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is basically a perfect example of how central bank meddling makes us all worse off.
Small firms responding to the market and engaging in actual innovation threaten large, established corporations.
Stock indexes fall.
The "economy" collapses.
The FED goes into damage control mode and starts printing money to hand out to their friends: the large, established corporations.
Small firms and start-ups don't receive any of this free money.
Large firms use this taxpayer money and the inflationary power of the FED to catch up to their smaller competitors by making incremental changes to existing production lines.
The small firms go belly-up.
Oligopoly is maintained.
The newly unemployed die from lack of healthcare or are sent to get shot at in some unnecessary foreign war funded by their taxes and the same banks that put them out of business.
Everything goes smoothly until a new generation or flood of immigrants precipitates resource shortages which incentivize the rise of new, innovative start-ups and begins the "business cycle" all over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974640</id>
	<title>Re:The fanciest-sounding solution ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sicortex folk were not originally interested in *green* computing. They only hyped this aspect when they realized they screwed up the memory architecture.</p><p>I don't know how Intel could run screaming into the power wall -- and then threw away a whole generation of bad Nehalem designs, plus the Indian design team -- and yet people claim they are unbeatable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sicortex folk were not originally interested in * green * computing .
They only hyped this aspect when they realized they screwed up the memory architecture.I do n't know how Intel could run screaming into the power wall -- and then threw away a whole generation of bad Nehalem designs , plus the Indian design team -- and yet people claim they are unbeatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sicortex folk were not originally interested in *green* computing.
They only hyped this aspect when they realized they screwed up the memory architecture.I don't know how Intel could run screaming into the power wall -- and then threw away a whole generation of bad Nehalem designs, plus the Indian design team -- and yet people claim they are unbeatable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972670</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>proxy318</author>
	<datestamp>1257262380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'. " - Homer</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You tried your best and you failed miserably .
The lesson is 'never try' .
" - Homer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You tried your best and you failed miserably.
The lesson is 'never try'.
" - Homer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974556</id>
	<title>Three letters...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPU</p><p>but, even with the GPU you have to:</p><p>1) make a serious effort to train programmers<br>2) recognize it will penetrate new markets faster than old markets and<br>3) offer a factor of 10 (or more) improvement</p><p>The Sicortex people really only competed in existing markets. Nvidia is *developing* new markets, like embedded and deskside HPC. Cheap 3D CAT scan anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPUbut , even with the GPU you have to : 1 ) make a serious effort to train programmers2 ) recognize it will penetrate new markets faster than old markets and3 ) offer a factor of 10 ( or more ) improvementThe Sicortex people really only competed in existing markets .
Nvidia is * developing * new markets , like embedded and deskside HPC .
Cheap 3D CAT scan anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPUbut, even with the GPU you have to:1) make a serious effort to train programmers2) recognize it will penetrate new markets faster than old markets and3) offer a factor of 10 (or more) improvementThe Sicortex people really only competed in existing markets.
Nvidia is *developing* new markets, like embedded and deskside HPC.
Cheap 3D CAT scan anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973104</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>f16c</author>
	<datestamp>1257266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a lot of ways x86 processors suck. Newer processors make great PCs and parallel processing can work wonders for some tasks but there are some things that require a whole lot more power on a clock by clock basis. There are lots of problems where parallel efforts are a wast of time. Some problems are sequential and can only be solved one node, tile or element at a time. Those are the problems for HPC rigs. Some architectures scale a lot better than Intel for similar problems and MIPS is one of the first to come to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a lot of ways x86 processors suck .
Newer processors make great PCs and parallel processing can work wonders for some tasks but there are some things that require a whole lot more power on a clock by clock basis .
There are lots of problems where parallel efforts are a wast of time .
Some problems are sequential and can only be solved one node , tile or element at a time .
Those are the problems for HPC rigs .
Some architectures scale a lot better than Intel for similar problems and MIPS is one of the first to come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a lot of ways x86 processors suck.
Newer processors make great PCs and parallel processing can work wonders for some tasks but there are some things that require a whole lot more power on a clock by clock basis.
There are lots of problems where parallel efforts are a wast of time.
Some problems are sequential and can only be solved one node, tile or element at a time.
Those are the problems for HPC rigs.
Some architectures scale a lot better than Intel for similar problems and MIPS is one of the first to come to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970858</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330</id>
	<title>Commodity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
FTFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>"It is possible for a small company to compete in the computer systems business," Reilly wrote. "There are some who will say that nobody can compete against 'commodity manufacturers.' Ignore them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... There are only two true commodities in the computer business: DRAMs and wafer area. Everybody pretty much pays the same price for DRAMs. Wafer area is what you make of it. If you insist on building giant 100W chips, life will be tough. But if you use the silicon wafer area for something new, different and efficient, a market will open up to you."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Many years ago, I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry.  The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity.  That dude at the time was a young one, too.
</p><p>
Lesson?  Don't waste your time and money at b-school - it may damage your brains.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " It is possible for a small company to compete in the computer systems business , " Reilly wrote .
" There are some who will say that nobody can compete against 'commodity manufacturers .
' Ignore them .
... There are only two true commodities in the computer business : DRAMs and wafer area .
Everybody pretty much pays the same price for DRAMs .
Wafer area is what you make of it .
If you insist on building giant 100W chips , life will be tough .
But if you use the silicon wafer area for something new , different and efficient , a market will open up to you .
" Many years ago , I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry .
The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity .
That dude at the time was a young one , too .
Lesson ? Do n't waste your time and money at b-school - it may damage your brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
FTFA:"It is possible for a small company to compete in the computer systems business," Reilly wrote.
"There are some who will say that nobody can compete against 'commodity manufacturers.
' Ignore them.
... There are only two true commodities in the computer business: DRAMs and wafer area.
Everybody pretty much pays the same price for DRAMs.
Wafer area is what you make of it.
If you insist on building giant 100W chips, life will be tough.
But if you use the silicon wafer area for something new, different and efficient, a market will open up to you.
"

Many years ago, I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry.
The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity.
That dude at the time was a young one, too.
Lesson?  Don't waste your time and money at b-school - it may damage your brains.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971760</id>
	<title>classic business fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These guys failed in a very typical geeky fashion. they understood the technology but not the business, and at the end of the day your customers need a business case to use your services. it's the tail attempting to wag the dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys failed in a very typical geeky fashion .
they understood the technology but not the business , and at the end of the day your customers need a business case to use your services .
it 's the tail attempting to wag the dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys failed in a very typical geeky fashion.
they understood the technology but not the business, and at the end of the day your customers need a business case to use your services.
it's the tail attempting to wag the dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970810</id>
	<title>Low Power Supercomputer</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1257251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not use something based of the Atom chip but massively parallel.</p><p>You can create something that is unique but you reduce the buying base of your systems....</p><p>I would like to see a super computer based off of Laptop type low power components.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use something based of the Atom chip but massively parallel.You can create something that is unique but you reduce the buying base of your systems....I would like to see a super computer based off of Laptop type low power components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use something based of the Atom chip but massively parallel.You can create something that is unique but you reduce the buying base of your systems....I would like to see a super computer based off of Laptop type low power components.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.30002432</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1257433260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you meant sequent, but they are a doubly bad example, since they were purchased by IBM for a very large sum,  They had some very killer tech, and it was later incorporated into many of the Power Systems designs.  IBM was desperate in those times to stop losing UNIX machines to Sun and HP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you meant sequent , but they are a doubly bad example , since they were purchased by IBM for a very large sum , They had some very killer tech , and it was later incorporated into many of the Power Systems designs .
IBM was desperate in those times to stop losing UNIX machines to Sun and HP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you meant sequent, but they are a doubly bad example, since they were purchased by IBM for a very large sum,  They had some very killer tech, and it was later incorporated into many of the Power Systems designs.
IBM was desperate in those times to stop losing UNIX machines to Sun and HP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971864</id>
	<title>Interesting archictecture</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1257256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Points (made above) about non-x86 processors are doomed aside, the Si-cortex had an interesting interconnect design.   Their kautz graph based interconnect was fairly (at least to me) innovative.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Personally I'm sorry to see them go,  we never had a chance to benchmark our software on their system but I was suspicious it might have behaved very well per $.  Even if the underlying system disappears their interconnect ideas may survive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Points ( made above ) about non-x86 processors are doomed aside , the Si-cortex had an interesting interconnect design .
Their kautz graph based interconnect was fairly ( at least to me ) innovative .
    Personally I 'm sorry to see them go , we never had a chance to benchmark our software on their system but I was suspicious it might have behaved very well per $ .
Even if the underlying system disappears their interconnect ideas may survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Points (made above) about non-x86 processors are doomed aside, the Si-cortex had an interesting interconnect design.
Their kautz graph based interconnect was fairly (at least to me) innovative.
    Personally I'm sorry to see them go,  we never had a chance to benchmark our software on their system but I was suspicious it might have behaved very well per $.
Even if the underlying system disappears their interconnect ideas may survive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973626</id>
	<title>Re:The fanciest-sounding solution ...</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1257270540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By your logic, General Motors should be crushing Ferrari. After all, GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , General Motors should be crushing Ferrari .
After all , GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, General Motors should be crushing Ferrari.
After all, GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971930</id>
	<title>SiCortex, WAY too expensive.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257257160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked at the SiCortex machine (and its price) online about 2 years ago. They were charging ~$30/core, and their cores were simple ~500 mhz MIPS processors. Considering that Tilera and nVidia have actual customers, this could just be company specific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at the SiCortex machine ( and its price ) online about 2 years ago .
They were charging ~ $ 30/core , and their cores were simple ~ 500 mhz MIPS processors .
Considering that Tilera and nVidia have actual customers , this could just be company specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked at the SiCortex machine (and its price) online about 2 years ago.
They were charging ~$30/core, and their cores were simple ~500 mhz MIPS processors.
Considering that Tilera and nVidia have actual customers, this could just be company specific.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975024</id>
	<title>Re:The fanciest-sounding solution ...</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1256980020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just out of curiosity how much of that $50K/month is salary? And how does the rest break down?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity how much of that $ 50K/month is salary ?
And how does the rest break down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity how much of that $50K/month is salary?
And how does the rest break down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973158</id>
	<title>Did you nerds read the article or the links?</title>
	<author>labradore</author>
	<datestamp>1257266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were ahead of schedule to profitability.  They lost funding for the next gen. equipment development because one of their VCs was overextended (read: losing too much money on other risky ventures) and decided to pull out.  The risk with a company like that may be high but once you get enough profitability, you can fund further product development internally.  They had sold about twenty $1.5M machines in about a year's time on the market.  They said they were about 1.5 years to profitability, so I'm guessing that they were expecting to sell another 75 or 100 top-end machines to get to break-even.  At that rate, they were probably spending less than $20M a year on development.  I'm guessing that they burned up $100M to get were they got.  In the overall scheme of things, that's not a big bet.  If they managed to develop 20 to 50- thousand node machines and increase the output per core within 3 years, that is something that would have been able to do more than fill a niche.  They probably would have developed some game-changing technology in the bargain.  Stuff that the Intel and Google might just be interested in.
<p>
To be clear:  this was not a failure due to the economics of competing against Intel/x86.  This was a failure due to not being lucky.  It takes sustained funding to make your way from start-up to profit in most technical businesses.  HPC is more technical and thus more expensive than most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were ahead of schedule to profitability .
They lost funding for the next gen. equipment development because one of their VCs was overextended ( read : losing too much money on other risky ventures ) and decided to pull out .
The risk with a company like that may be high but once you get enough profitability , you can fund further product development internally .
They had sold about twenty $ 1.5M machines in about a year 's time on the market .
They said they were about 1.5 years to profitability , so I 'm guessing that they were expecting to sell another 75 or 100 top-end machines to get to break-even .
At that rate , they were probably spending less than $ 20M a year on development .
I 'm guessing that they burned up $ 100M to get were they got .
In the overall scheme of things , that 's not a big bet .
If they managed to develop 20 to 50- thousand node machines and increase the output per core within 3 years , that is something that would have been able to do more than fill a niche .
They probably would have developed some game-changing technology in the bargain .
Stuff that the Intel and Google might just be interested in .
To be clear : this was not a failure due to the economics of competing against Intel/x86 .
This was a failure due to not being lucky .
It takes sustained funding to make your way from start-up to profit in most technical businesses .
HPC is more technical and thus more expensive than most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were ahead of schedule to profitability.
They lost funding for the next gen. equipment development because one of their VCs was overextended (read: losing too much money on other risky ventures) and decided to pull out.
The risk with a company like that may be high but once you get enough profitability, you can fund further product development internally.
They had sold about twenty $1.5M machines in about a year's time on the market.
They said they were about 1.5 years to profitability, so I'm guessing that they were expecting to sell another 75 or 100 top-end machines to get to break-even.
At that rate, they were probably spending less than $20M a year on development.
I'm guessing that they burned up $100M to get were they got.
In the overall scheme of things, that's not a big bet.
If they managed to develop 20 to 50- thousand node machines and increase the output per core within 3 years, that is something that would have been able to do more than fill a niche.
They probably would have developed some game-changing technology in the bargain.
Stuff that the Intel and Google might just be interested in.
To be clear:  this was not a failure due to the economics of competing against Intel/x86.
This was a failure due to not being lucky.
It takes sustained funding to make your way from start-up to profit in most technical businesses.
HPC is more technical and thus more expensive than most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972084</id>
	<title>GPU's?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257258360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My next cluster is going to be based around Tesla's.

GPU's are the future. It takes 100,000 x86 cores to get a petaflop,
You can get there with 25,000 if you use cells(5K x86, 20k cells)
You can do the same thing with 10k if you use GPU's (5k x86, 5k Tesla's)

Guess what the cheapest option is?

They might not be the most energy efficient, but haven't we learned the problem with custom chips in HPC market, That's why we went to clusters in the first place</htmltext>
<tokenext>My next cluster is going to be based around Tesla 's .
GPU 's are the future .
It takes 100,000 x86 cores to get a petaflop , You can get there with 25,000 if you use cells ( 5K x86 , 20k cells ) You can do the same thing with 10k if you use GPU 's ( 5k x86 , 5k Tesla 's ) Guess what the cheapest option is ?
They might not be the most energy efficient , but have n't we learned the problem with custom chips in HPC market , That 's why we went to clusters in the first place</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My next cluster is going to be based around Tesla's.
GPU's are the future.
It takes 100,000 x86 cores to get a petaflop,
You can get there with 25,000 if you use cells(5K x86, 20k cells)
You can do the same thing with 10k if you use GPU's (5k x86, 5k Tesla's)

Guess what the cheapest option is?
They might not be the most energy efficient, but haven't we learned the problem with custom chips in HPC market, That's why we went to clusters in the first place</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971416</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing.</i>
</p><p>
In Socialist Europe, airline industry companies merge, get government subsidies, and move to China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing .
In Socialist Europe , airline industry companies merge , get government subsidies , and move to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing.
In Socialist Europe, airline industry companies merge, get government subsidies, and move to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973750</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1257271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined.<br><br>By your logic, General Motors should be crushing Ferrari in the supercar market. After all, GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined.By your logic , General Motors should be crushing Ferrari in the supercar market .
After all , GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined.By your logic, General Motors should be crushing Ferrari in the supercar market.
After all, GM spends much more on their car development than Ferrari does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972196</id>
	<title>The future is low power.</title>
	<author>NCamero</author>
	<datestamp>1257259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FLOPS / Watt is the future. No doubt.  Tesla (NVIDIA)  has the edge on the low end now.  Low power per cycle will win in the long term.  Multi core x64 bit for now. But to the powers that be, 32 / 64<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/128 bits per watt per cycle will rule someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FLOPS / Watt is the future .
No doubt .
Tesla ( NVIDIA ) has the edge on the low end now .
Low power per cycle will win in the long term .
Multi core x64 bit for now .
But to the powers that be , 32 / 64 /128 bits per watt per cycle will rule someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FLOPS / Watt is the future.
No doubt.
Tesla (NVIDIA)  has the edge on the low end now.
Low power per cycle will win in the long term.
Multi core x64 bit for now.
But to the powers that be, 32 / 64 /128 bits per watt per cycle will rule someday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972304</id>
	<title>They didn't use MIPS</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1257259620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate.</p> </div><p>It wasn't even MIPS. From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But SiCortex went against conventional wisdom by building its own processors and this decision limited the company's market to early adopters, Conway says. In building its chips, SiCortex obtained intellectual property from several vendors, including MIPS Technologies, and tweaked the design to meet its own needs.</p> </div><p>An HPC start-up going into the microprocessor design business <i>now?</i> That really is a fool's errand. Mind you, that's sort of how the ARM processor came to be, but that was a loooonnng time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted ; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now , in a couple years it wo n't , because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate .
It was n't even MIPS .
From TFA : But SiCortex went against conventional wisdom by building its own processors and this decision limited the company 's market to early adopters , Conway says .
In building its chips , SiCortex obtained intellectual property from several vendors , including MIPS Technologies , and tweaked the design to meet its own needs .
An HPC start-up going into the microprocessor design business now ?
That really is a fool 's errand .
Mind you , that 's sort of how the ARM processor came to be , but that was a loooonnng time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate.
It wasn't even MIPS.
From TFA:But SiCortex went against conventional wisdom by building its own processors and this decision limited the company's market to early adopters, Conway says.
In building its chips, SiCortex obtained intellectual property from several vendors, including MIPS Technologies, and tweaked the design to meet its own needs.
An HPC start-up going into the microprocessor design business now?
That really is a fool's errand.
Mind you, that's sort of how the ARM processor came to be, but that was a loooonnng time ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975072</id>
	<title>Re:Commodity</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1256980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>it may damage your brains.</i> </p><p>
Apparently to the point where grammar and spelling skills are lost and delusions of having multiple brains set in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it may damage your brains .
Apparently to the point where grammar and spelling skills are lost and delusions of having multiple brains set in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it may damage your brains.
Apparently to the point where grammar and spelling skills are lost and delusions of having multiple brains set in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971918</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257257040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now x86 has only two viable competitors.</p><p>-ARM<br>-Whatever IBM can design. (but IBM's stuff is expensive)</p><p>ARM CPUs tend to be cheap, power efficient, and pack a ton of performance for the price - and the company has enough cash to keep developing for years and years. Other companies fab, so that lets them keep focused on what they're good at. It's a relationship that mirrors GPU makers - ATI/nVidia/TSMC. However, ARM has a very low performance cap compared to x86, so that limits usage scenarios. Good for low power servers, but not so great for scientific computing or anything that hits the CPU hard. ARM hopes to release dual-core Cortex-A9 chips in 2010, so maybe they'll catch on - only time will tell.</p><p>IBM has always been the leader in performance, but the price would knock you flat. 5ghz Power6, anyone? It still beats everything Intel puts out, and it's years old - assuming you can foot the bill and deal with the different architecture. And look at the Cell - upon release, it was something like 30x more efficient than Intel's highest end CPUs when in supercomputers. (because Intel's CPUs of the time failed completely at scaling upwards past a few cores) Also, it was cheaper - but the architecture isn't exactly <i>friendly</i>, and most companies prefer to toss a few dozen extra $2000 servers at a problem rather than deal with training/hiring employees that can work with a new architecture.</p><p>And that's the problem - everyone knows x86, and even if a server costs 5 times as much, it comes out more economical.</p><p>But luckily for ARM, lots of people are getting more familiar with their instruction sets. These days just about every tiny device has an ARM CPU powering it... finding developers will not be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now x86 has only two viable competitors.-ARM-Whatever IBM can design .
( but IBM 's stuff is expensive ) ARM CPUs tend to be cheap , power efficient , and pack a ton of performance for the price - and the company has enough cash to keep developing for years and years .
Other companies fab , so that lets them keep focused on what they 're good at .
It 's a relationship that mirrors GPU makers - ATI/nVidia/TSMC .
However , ARM has a very low performance cap compared to x86 , so that limits usage scenarios .
Good for low power servers , but not so great for scientific computing or anything that hits the CPU hard .
ARM hopes to release dual-core Cortex-A9 chips in 2010 , so maybe they 'll catch on - only time will tell.IBM has always been the leader in performance , but the price would knock you flat .
5ghz Power6 , anyone ?
It still beats everything Intel puts out , and it 's years old - assuming you can foot the bill and deal with the different architecture .
And look at the Cell - upon release , it was something like 30x more efficient than Intel 's highest end CPUs when in supercomputers .
( because Intel 's CPUs of the time failed completely at scaling upwards past a few cores ) Also , it was cheaper - but the architecture is n't exactly friendly , and most companies prefer to toss a few dozen extra $ 2000 servers at a problem rather than deal with training/hiring employees that can work with a new architecture.And that 's the problem - everyone knows x86 , and even if a server costs 5 times as much , it comes out more economical.But luckily for ARM , lots of people are getting more familiar with their instruction sets .
These days just about every tiny device has an ARM CPU powering it... finding developers will not be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now x86 has only two viable competitors.-ARM-Whatever IBM can design.
(but IBM's stuff is expensive)ARM CPUs tend to be cheap, power efficient, and pack a ton of performance for the price - and the company has enough cash to keep developing for years and years.
Other companies fab, so that lets them keep focused on what they're good at.
It's a relationship that mirrors GPU makers - ATI/nVidia/TSMC.
However, ARM has a very low performance cap compared to x86, so that limits usage scenarios.
Good for low power servers, but not so great for scientific computing or anything that hits the CPU hard.
ARM hopes to release dual-core Cortex-A9 chips in 2010, so maybe they'll catch on - only time will tell.IBM has always been the leader in performance, but the price would knock you flat.
5ghz Power6, anyone?
It still beats everything Intel puts out, and it's years old - assuming you can foot the bill and deal with the different architecture.
And look at the Cell - upon release, it was something like 30x more efficient than Intel's highest end CPUs when in supercomputers.
(because Intel's CPUs of the time failed completely at scaling upwards past a few cores) Also, it was cheaper - but the architecture isn't exactly friendly, and most companies prefer to toss a few dozen extra $2000 servers at a problem rather than deal with training/hiring employees that can work with a new architecture.And that's the problem - everyone knows x86, and even if a server costs 5 times as much, it comes out more economical.But luckily for ARM, lots of people are getting more familiar with their instruction sets.
These days just about every tiny device has an ARM CPU powering it... finding developers will not be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29977042</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>maitas</author>
	<datestamp>1256999400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but Nehalem has more than twice the performance per socket than Power6, and it is much cheaper.</p><p><a href="http://tiny.cc/nuabU" title="tiny.cc">http://tiny.cc/nuabU</a> [tiny.cc]</p><p><a href="http://tiny.cc/sQ1fT" title="tiny.cc">http://tiny.cc/sQ1fT</a> [tiny.cc]</p><p>
&nbsp; When building processors, you tend to be around 300mm2 in size, nomather what fab you are in, becouse is the size that gets you the best relationship between yield in 300mm waffer and cost to package. Depending on the fab you get more or less transistor. Is up to each vendor to create as much or as little cores, threads, etc. as he wants.</p><p>
&nbsp; A extreme version of this is Sun T2 processor, with 8 cores, that is faster than Power6 per socket but slower than Nehalem.</p><p><a href="http://tiny.cc/Tm9r2" title="tiny.cc">http://tiny.cc/Tm9r2</a> [tiny.cc]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but Nehalem has more than twice the performance per socket than Power6 , and it is much cheaper.http : //tiny.cc/nuabU [ tiny.cc ] http : //tiny.cc/sQ1fT [ tiny.cc ]   When building processors , you tend to be around 300mm2 in size , nomather what fab you are in , becouse is the size that gets you the best relationship between yield in 300mm waffer and cost to package .
Depending on the fab you get more or less transistor .
Is up to each vendor to create as much or as little cores , threads , etc .
as he wants .
  A extreme version of this is Sun T2 processor , with 8 cores , that is faster than Power6 per socket but slower than Nehalem.http : //tiny.cc/Tm9r2 [ tiny.cc ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but Nehalem has more than twice the performance per socket than Power6, and it is much cheaper.http://tiny.cc/nuabU [tiny.cc]http://tiny.cc/sQ1fT [tiny.cc]
  When building processors, you tend to be around 300mm2 in size, nomather what fab you are in, becouse is the size that gets you the best relationship between yield in 300mm waffer and cost to package.
Depending on the fab you get more or less transistor.
Is up to each vendor to create as much or as little cores, threads, etc.
as he wants.
  A extreme version of this is Sun T2 processor, with 8 cores, that is faster than Power6 per socket but slower than Nehalem.http://tiny.cc/Tm9r2 [tiny.cc]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972734</id>
	<title>Re:The fanciest-sounding solution ...</title>
	<author>Gorobei</author>
	<datestamp>1257262860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly right.  I've got &gt;10K cores and &gt;10M LOC.  "Hardware fault" typically means a datacenter caught fire, or was flooded, or an undersea cable got cut.</p><p>If someone pitches a cheaper solution (e.g. power savings,) I'm happy to listen for 10 minutes.  Then I just want to know how fast I can see results:  a dev costs $50K/month here, so I'll give it a week or two:  if you don't have a test farm ready to go with full compilers, a data security plan, etc,  I'm going to just reject.  If you can get traction with universities, great, come back and pitch again in a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right .
I 've got &gt; 10K cores and &gt; 10M LOC .
" Hardware fault " typically means a datacenter caught fire , or was flooded , or an undersea cable got cut.If someone pitches a cheaper solution ( e.g .
power savings , ) I 'm happy to listen for 10 minutes .
Then I just want to know how fast I can see results : a dev costs $ 50K/month here , so I 'll give it a week or two : if you do n't have a test farm ready to go with full compilers , a data security plan , etc , I 'm going to just reject .
If you can get traction with universities , great , come back and pitch again in a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right.
I've got &gt;10K cores and &gt;10M LOC.
"Hardware fault" typically means a datacenter caught fire, or was flooded, or an undersea cable got cut.If someone pitches a cheaper solution (e.g.
power savings,) I'm happy to listen for 10 minutes.
Then I just want to know how fast I can see results:  a dev costs $50K/month here, so I'll give it a week or two:  if you don't have a test farm ready to go with full compilers, a data security plan, etc,  I'm going to just reject.
If you can get traction with universities, great, come back and pitch again in a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971198</id>
	<title>Wile E Coyote</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1257253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever I hear a story about some new type of "super" computer, I think of an old Road Runner cartoon.  Wile E Coyote, Genius, is mixing chemical explosives in his little shack, which he doesn't know was moved onto the train tracks.</p><p>He says to himself, "Wile E. Coyote SUPER genius.  I like the sound of that."  He then gets hit by the train.</p><p>Some of these companies remind me a LOT of good, old Wile E. Coyote.  The one in this article just found the train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I hear a story about some new type of " super " computer , I think of an old Road Runner cartoon .
Wile E Coyote , Genius , is mixing chemical explosives in his little shack , which he does n't know was moved onto the train tracks.He says to himself , " Wile E. Coyote SUPER genius .
I like the sound of that .
" He then gets hit by the train.Some of these companies remind me a LOT of good , old Wile E. Coyote. The one in this article just found the train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I hear a story about some new type of "super" computer, I think of an old Road Runner cartoon.
Wile E Coyote, Genius, is mixing chemical explosives in his little shack, which he doesn't know was moved onto the train tracks.He says to himself, "Wile E. Coyote SUPER genius.
I like the sound of that.
"  He then gets hit by the train.Some of these companies remind me a LOT of good, old Wile E. Coyote.  The one in this article just found the train.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971202</id>
	<title>Entrenched?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>x86 is certainly entrenched in the desktop, but in supercomputing? In the top 10, it's maybe half x86. There's a strong showing from Power (BlueGene) and of course the #1 spot held by an x86/Cell hybrid (which gest most fo the FLOPS from the SPU, not PPC or x86)</p><p>Hardly entrenched.</p><p>Looking down further, there is mainly x86, but still a strong showing from Power (IBM) but also SPARC, NEC's vector processor (kind of PPC), Itanium and a few randoms.</p><p>So, the to 100 is dominated by AMD, Intel and IBM in roughly equal parts, but there is still room for other vendors.</p><p>Still sad to see an inovative computer go to the wall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>x86 is certainly entrenched in the desktop , but in supercomputing ?
In the top 10 , it 's maybe half x86 .
There 's a strong showing from Power ( BlueGene ) and of course the # 1 spot held by an x86/Cell hybrid ( which gest most fo the FLOPS from the SPU , not PPC or x86 ) Hardly entrenched.Looking down further , there is mainly x86 , but still a strong showing from Power ( IBM ) but also SPARC , NEC 's vector processor ( kind of PPC ) , Itanium and a few randoms.So , the to 100 is dominated by AMD , Intel and IBM in roughly equal parts , but there is still room for other vendors.Still sad to see an inovative computer go to the wall : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>x86 is certainly entrenched in the desktop, but in supercomputing?
In the top 10, it's maybe half x86.
There's a strong showing from Power (BlueGene) and of course the #1 spot held by an x86/Cell hybrid (which gest most fo the FLOPS from the SPU, not PPC or x86)Hardly entrenched.Looking down further, there is mainly x86, but still a strong showing from Power (IBM) but also SPARC, NEC's vector processor (kind of PPC), Itanium and a few randoms.So, the to 100 is dominated by AMD, Intel and IBM in roughly equal parts, but there is still room for other vendors.Still sad to see an inovative computer go to the wall :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</id>
	<title>Lesson learned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257251400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't try anything new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't try anything new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't try anything new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970986</id>
	<title>THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAVING ENERGY HAS FAILED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAVING ENERGY HAS FAILED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAVING ENERGY HAS FAILED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</id>
	<title>Fool's errand</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In a blog post after SiCortex shut down, Reilly says he believes there is still room for non-x86 machines in the HPC market. </i> He is wrong. Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined. Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate. Where is Sequent now? The only way to build a successful desktop HPC company is to be able to do system design turns as fast as new x86 generations come out and ship soon after the new CPUs become widely available, e.g. a complete new product every 6 months. That requires partnership with either Intel or AMD, not use of a MIPs chip that no one is spending R&amp;D resources on anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a blog post after SiCortex shut down , Reilly says he believes there is still room for non-x86 machines in the HPC market .
He is wrong .
Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined .
Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted ; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now , in a couple years it wo n't , because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate .
Where is Sequent now ?
The only way to build a successful desktop HPC company is to be able to do system design turns as fast as new x86 generations come out and ship soon after the new CPUs become widely available , e.g .
a complete new product every 6 months .
That requires partnership with either Intel or AMD , not use of a MIPs chip that no one is spending R&amp;D resources on anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a blog post after SiCortex shut down, Reilly says he believes there is still room for non-x86 machines in the HPC market.
He is wrong.
Much more money is being spent every year on improving x86 chips than all the competitors combined.
Basing a supercomputer on MIPs was short-sighted; even if it offers a a price/performance or power/performance advantage now, in a couple years it won't, because x86 is being improved at a much faster rate.
Where is Sequent now?
The only way to build a successful desktop HPC company is to be able to do system design turns as fast as new x86 generations come out and ship soon after the new CPUs become widely available, e.g.
a complete new product every 6 months.
That requires partnership with either Intel or AMD, not use of a MIPs chip that no one is spending R&amp;D resources on anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257251940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, industries like these are already really, really dominated by single players and everyone uses them. It's the same with Windows too - it's own marketshare will keeps it having that marketshare. In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing.</p><p>When something becomes like a standard, it's really hard to break in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , industries like these are already really , really dominated by single players and everyone uses them .
It 's the same with Windows too - it 's own marketshare will keeps it having that marketshare .
In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing.When something becomes like a standard , it 's really hard to break in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, industries like these are already really, really dominated by single players and everyone uses them.
It's the same with Windows too - it's own marketshare will keeps it having that marketshare.
In airplane industry all the European companies had to merge so that they could compete with Boeing.When something becomes like a standard, it's really hard to break in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29990700</id>
	<title>Re:classic business fail</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1257008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a business case. There were plenty of customers. But there was no cashflow. That's what killed them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a business case .
There were plenty of customers .
But there was no cashflow .
That 's what killed them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a business case.
There were plenty of customers.
But there was no cashflow.
That's what killed them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971752</id>
	<title>So what you're saying is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The easiest product to use should be the best product. OSX running on PPC chips was great, but not as good as x86? I suppose it's true, but why wasn't it true when all the fanboys were on PPCs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The easiest product to use should be the best product .
OSX running on PPC chips was great , but not as good as x86 ?
I suppose it 's true , but why was n't it true when all the fanboys were on PPCs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easiest product to use should be the best product.
OSX running on PPC chips was great, but not as good as x86?
I suppose it's true, but why wasn't it true when all the fanboys were on PPCs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971004</id>
	<title>The most energy-efficient HPC clusters</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1257252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>in ZA WARUDO!<br>
MUDA DA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>in ZA WARUDO !
MUDA DA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in ZA WARUDO!
MUDA DA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973702</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1257270900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't die because their customers abandoned them for something cheaper. They died because they had a cashflow crisis due to investors pulling out of a planned round of fundraising. They had millions of dollars of sales in the pipeline.</p><p>The lesson isn't "Don't compete with Intel", it's "When you run out of money, you're out of business". Or perhaps, "The financial crisis killed lots of otherwise sound businesses". Luck, as the OP pointed out, played a large part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't die because their customers abandoned them for something cheaper .
They died because they had a cashflow crisis due to investors pulling out of a planned round of fundraising .
They had millions of dollars of sales in the pipeline.The lesson is n't " Do n't compete with Intel " , it 's " When you run out of money , you 're out of business " .
Or perhaps , " The financial crisis killed lots of otherwise sound businesses " .
Luck , as the OP pointed out , played a large part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't die because their customers abandoned them for something cheaper.
They died because they had a cashflow crisis due to investors pulling out of a planned round of fundraising.
They had millions of dollars of sales in the pipeline.The lesson isn't "Don't compete with Intel", it's "When you run out of money, you're out of business".
Or perhaps, "The financial crisis killed lots of otherwise sound businesses".
Luck, as the OP pointed out, played a large part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973392</id>
	<title>x86 vs. non-x86 from a practical point of view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work as a sysadmin at a Boston-based university, and one of my jobs is managing an HPC cluster. We actually had SiCortex come give us a demo of one of their systems a little over a year ago and were rather impressed from a basic technology standpoint. However the biggest drawback we saw, which was a significant one, was that their cluster wasn't x86 based. We run a number of well known commercial apps on our cluster like Matlab, Mathematica, Fluent, Abaqus, and many others. Without those vendors all actively supporting MIPS, SciCortex was simply a non-starter for us when we were researching our next generation cluster. And by actively I mean rolling out MIPS versions of their products on a schedule comparable to their x86 product releases. Having to wait 6 months or more for MIPS versions simply isn't acceptable. If they could get firm commitments from those commercial vendors then we might have pursued SciCortex, but that simply wasn't the case. Even the inability to run a standard commercial linux distro was a huge drawback, since many commercial software vendors specifically require a commercial distro like Red Hat or SUSE if you're trying to get support from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as a sysadmin at a Boston-based university , and one of my jobs is managing an HPC cluster .
We actually had SiCortex come give us a demo of one of their systems a little over a year ago and were rather impressed from a basic technology standpoint .
However the biggest drawback we saw , which was a significant one , was that their cluster was n't x86 based .
We run a number of well known commercial apps on our cluster like Matlab , Mathematica , Fluent , Abaqus , and many others .
Without those vendors all actively supporting MIPS , SciCortex was simply a non-starter for us when we were researching our next generation cluster .
And by actively I mean rolling out MIPS versions of their products on a schedule comparable to their x86 product releases .
Having to wait 6 months or more for MIPS versions simply is n't acceptable .
If they could get firm commitments from those commercial vendors then we might have pursued SciCortex , but that simply was n't the case .
Even the inability to run a standard commercial linux distro was a huge drawback , since many commercial software vendors specifically require a commercial distro like Red Hat or SUSE if you 're trying to get support from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as a sysadmin at a Boston-based university, and one of my jobs is managing an HPC cluster.
We actually had SiCortex come give us a demo of one of their systems a little over a year ago and were rather impressed from a basic technology standpoint.
However the biggest drawback we saw, which was a significant one, was that their cluster wasn't x86 based.
We run a number of well known commercial apps on our cluster like Matlab, Mathematica, Fluent, Abaqus, and many others.
Without those vendors all actively supporting MIPS, SciCortex was simply a non-starter for us when we were researching our next generation cluster.
And by actively I mean rolling out MIPS versions of their products on a schedule comparable to their x86 product releases.
Having to wait 6 months or more for MIPS versions simply isn't acceptable.
If they could get firm commitments from those commercial vendors then we might have pursued SciCortex, but that simply wasn't the case.
Even the inability to run a standard commercial linux distro was a huge drawback, since many commercial software vendors specifically require a commercial distro like Red Hat or SUSE if you're trying to get support from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973538</id>
	<title>Well thank goodness</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1257270060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Sun pissed away one billion dollars on MySQL instead of buying out SiCortex. Smart move, Sun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Sun pissed away one billion dollars on MySQL instead of buying out SiCortex .
Smart move , Sun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Sun pissed away one billion dollars on MySQL instead of buying out SiCortex.
Smart move, Sun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972274</id>
	<title>There's No Hope . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody is going to crack the market--and it won't be one of the people who sit at home and cry in their beer about how Intel rules the world and that nobody has any hope of success!!</p><p>Thank goodness for the entrepreneurs who spit on lassitude and take their shot!  Those wozniaks are the people who end up delivering really cool stuff for the rest of humanity, and leave the conventional wisdom people in the dust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody is going to crack the market--and it wo n't be one of the people who sit at home and cry in their beer about how Intel rules the world and that nobody has any hope of success !
! Thank goodness for the entrepreneurs who spit on lassitude and take their shot !
Those wozniaks are the people who end up delivering really cool stuff for the rest of humanity , and leave the conventional wisdom people in the dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody is going to crack the market--and it won't be one of the people who sit at home and cry in their beer about how Intel rules the world and that nobody has any hope of success!
!Thank goodness for the entrepreneurs who spit on lassitude and take their shot!
Those wozniaks are the people who end up delivering really cool stuff for the rest of humanity, and leave the conventional wisdom people in the dust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974992</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1256979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course there are all those GPU's offering orders of magnitude more GFlops than any x86 <i>and</i> being improved at a much faster rate than x86.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there are all those GPU 's offering orders of magnitude more GFlops than any x86 and being improved at a much faster rate than x86 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there are all those GPU's offering orders of magnitude more GFlops than any x86 and being improved at a much faster rate than x86.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972698</id>
	<title>....but</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1257262560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can i have their inventory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>can i have their inventory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can i have their inventory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975982</id>
	<title>SiCortex's failure</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1256989440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having actually used a SiCortex machine, I can tell you that the problem wasn't the VC, or the compilers, or even really the hardware.</p><p>The problem was the market.</p><p>There are two types of x86-based small clusters (the market that SiCortex was aiming for): clusters with Gigabit Ethernet and clusters with expensive interconnects (Mirinet, InfiniBand, or 10G Ethernet).</p><p>Gigabit Ethernet clusters do a good job with problems that are embarrassingly parallel (or at least have minimal communication demands). $150k gets you 300 Nehalem cores and a lot of memory. SiCortex fails here because their competition (the SC1458) is much more expensive and much slower. The fact that the SC1458 uses less power (around 5kW instead of 10kW) is impressive, but unless you're very power or cooling constrained, it's simply more cost effective to deal with the extra power and cooling cost.</p><p>SiCortex hardware was more cost effective against clusters with expensive interconnects. The problem is, the people who buy clusters with expensive interconnects do so because their problem is interconnect heavy. Unfortunately, despite all of the cool CS behind SiCortex's interconnect, the fact is that it just didn't do that well against InfiniBand. That's partly because the SiCortex system has more nodes, which means that more messages have to use the interconnect. It's partly because for very small clusters, it's possible to use a single IB switch that connects every node to every other node. And it's partly because SiCortex didn't have the kind of mature hardware/software stack that someone like Mellanox has.</p><p>So, there you have it. For the problems that ran well on SiCortex hardware, you could get the same performance at dramatically lower cost using Gigabit Ethernet. For the problems that require an expensive interconnect, the SiCortex approach of "more, smaller nodes" results in dramatically more overhead compared with the "fewer, faster nodes" strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having actually used a SiCortex machine , I can tell you that the problem was n't the VC , or the compilers , or even really the hardware.The problem was the market.There are two types of x86-based small clusters ( the market that SiCortex was aiming for ) : clusters with Gigabit Ethernet and clusters with expensive interconnects ( Mirinet , InfiniBand , or 10G Ethernet ) .Gigabit Ethernet clusters do a good job with problems that are embarrassingly parallel ( or at least have minimal communication demands ) .
$ 150k gets you 300 Nehalem cores and a lot of memory .
SiCortex fails here because their competition ( the SC1458 ) is much more expensive and much slower .
The fact that the SC1458 uses less power ( around 5kW instead of 10kW ) is impressive , but unless you 're very power or cooling constrained , it 's simply more cost effective to deal with the extra power and cooling cost.SiCortex hardware was more cost effective against clusters with expensive interconnects .
The problem is , the people who buy clusters with expensive interconnects do so because their problem is interconnect heavy .
Unfortunately , despite all of the cool CS behind SiCortex 's interconnect , the fact is that it just did n't do that well against InfiniBand .
That 's partly because the SiCortex system has more nodes , which means that more messages have to use the interconnect .
It 's partly because for very small clusters , it 's possible to use a single IB switch that connects every node to every other node .
And it 's partly because SiCortex did n't have the kind of mature hardware/software stack that someone like Mellanox has.So , there you have it .
For the problems that ran well on SiCortex hardware , you could get the same performance at dramatically lower cost using Gigabit Ethernet .
For the problems that require an expensive interconnect , the SiCortex approach of " more , smaller nodes " results in dramatically more overhead compared with the " fewer , faster nodes " strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having actually used a SiCortex machine, I can tell you that the problem wasn't the VC, or the compilers, or even really the hardware.The problem was the market.There are two types of x86-based small clusters (the market that SiCortex was aiming for): clusters with Gigabit Ethernet and clusters with expensive interconnects (Mirinet, InfiniBand, or 10G Ethernet).Gigabit Ethernet clusters do a good job with problems that are embarrassingly parallel (or at least have minimal communication demands).
$150k gets you 300 Nehalem cores and a lot of memory.
SiCortex fails here because their competition (the SC1458) is much more expensive and much slower.
The fact that the SC1458 uses less power (around 5kW instead of 10kW) is impressive, but unless you're very power or cooling constrained, it's simply more cost effective to deal with the extra power and cooling cost.SiCortex hardware was more cost effective against clusters with expensive interconnects.
The problem is, the people who buy clusters with expensive interconnects do so because their problem is interconnect heavy.
Unfortunately, despite all of the cool CS behind SiCortex's interconnect, the fact is that it just didn't do that well against InfiniBand.
That's partly because the SiCortex system has more nodes, which means that more messages have to use the interconnect.
It's partly because for very small clusters, it's possible to use a single IB switch that connects every node to every other node.
And it's partly because SiCortex didn't have the kind of mature hardware/software stack that someone like Mellanox has.So, there you have it.
For the problems that ran well on SiCortex hardware, you could get the same performance at dramatically lower cost using Gigabit Ethernet.
For the problems that require an expensive interconnect, the SiCortex approach of "more, smaller nodes" results in dramatically more overhead compared with the "fewer, faster nodes" strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975712</id>
	<title>Re:They didn't use MIPS</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1256986560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is they hoped to be bought off by someone. Hey it happened to Nexgen, P.A. Semi, IDT Centaur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is they hoped to be bought off by someone .
Hey it happened to Nexgen , P.A .
Semi , IDT Centaur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is they hoped to be bought off by someone.
Hey it happened to Nexgen, P.A.
Semi, IDT Centaur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970688</id>
	<title>1 down</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.lightfleet.com/" title="lightfleet.com">Lightfleet</a> [lightfleet.com] soon to follow. How is the company that was using Transmeta chips doing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lightfleet [ lightfleet.com ] soon to follow .
How is the company that was using Transmeta chips doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lightfleet [lightfleet.com] soon to follow.
How is the company that was using Transmeta chips doing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971190</id>
	<title>Dang</title>
	<author>maoinhibitor</author>
	<datestamp>1257253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard about this company in Mass High Tech, started checking them out as a potential employer, and then heard they went out of business. It's unfortunate, they had an interesting product.

This also means I won't be applying for jobs at startups until the economy is much stronger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard about this company in Mass High Tech , started checking them out as a potential employer , and then heard they went out of business .
It 's unfortunate , they had an interesting product .
This also means I wo n't be applying for jobs at startups until the economy is much stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard about this company in Mass High Tech, started checking them out as a potential employer, and then heard they went out of business.
It's unfortunate, they had an interesting product.
This also means I won't be applying for jobs at startups until the economy is much stronger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974124</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257273540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is Sequent? Hell, where is Symbolics and the other LISP chip makers? (The warfare over this hardware was one of the founding events of the Free Software Foundation.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is Sequent ?
Hell , where is Symbolics and the other LISP chip makers ?
( The warfare over this hardware was one of the founding events of the Free Software Foundation .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is Sequent?
Hell, where is Symbolics and the other LISP chip makers?
(The warfare over this hardware was one of the founding events of the Free Software Foundation.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972566</id>
	<title>Re:Commodity</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1257261720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many years ago, I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry. The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity. That dude at the time was a young one, too.</p></div><p>You're right that DRAM is a commodity.  Clearly the reason why you got the C is because the prof was thinking of traditional commodities, and you didn't support your premise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago , I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry .
The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity .
That dude at the time was a young one , too.You 're right that DRAM is a commodity .
Clearly the reason why you got the C is because the prof was thinking of traditional commodities , and you did n't support your premise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago, I wrote a paper for my business class that using DRAM industry as a commodity industry.
The ignint professor gave me a C for that cuz he insisted DRAM is not a commodity.
That dude at the time was a young one, too.You're right that DRAM is a commodity.
Clearly the reason why you got the C is because the prof was thinking of traditional commodities, and you didn't support your premise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971466</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lesson learned: there is no market for proprietary CPUs on MPP supercomputers. It's gone. If Cray and SGI couldn't do it, how are a couple guys from DEC and Novell going to pull it off?<br>It's always sad when someone's dream fails, but come'on guys. You're pursuing a 15-years-ago market, just like DEC and Novell did when they died (okay, Novell exists, but it is irrelevant).</p><p>Supercomputers are commodity processors increasingly in commodity boxes running commodity open-source software. A supercomputer running <i>slower</i> processors is not going to cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lesson learned : there is no market for proprietary CPUs on MPP supercomputers .
It 's gone .
If Cray and SGI could n't do it , how are a couple guys from DEC and Novell going to pull it off ? It 's always sad when someone 's dream fails , but come'on guys .
You 're pursuing a 15-years-ago market , just like DEC and Novell did when they died ( okay , Novell exists , but it is irrelevant ) .Supercomputers are commodity processors increasingly in commodity boxes running commodity open-source software .
A supercomputer running slower processors is not going to cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lesson learned: there is no market for proprietary CPUs on MPP supercomputers.
It's gone.
If Cray and SGI couldn't do it, how are a couple guys from DEC and Novell going to pull it off?It's always sad when someone's dream fails, but come'on guys.
You're pursuing a 15-years-ago market, just like DEC and Novell did when they died (okay, Novell exists, but it is irrelevant).Supercomputers are commodity processors increasingly in commodity boxes running commodity open-source software.
A supercomputer running slower processors is not going to cut it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970838</id>
	<title>Too Early</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1257251940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If energy efficiency was their main pitch, perhaps starting it when they did was just bad luck or being too far ahead of the curve.<br>Wait a couple 5-10-20 years or so. As people use less energy and the companies raise their rates to compensate, perhaps these types of solutions will become more appetizing.</p><p>OTOH I don't have any numbers data to back it all up, though, such as cost of a new HPC system from a different vendor versus Intel and all the energy, support, and training that go with each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If energy efficiency was their main pitch , perhaps starting it when they did was just bad luck or being too far ahead of the curve.Wait a couple 5-10-20 years or so .
As people use less energy and the companies raise their rates to compensate , perhaps these types of solutions will become more appetizing.OTOH I do n't have any numbers data to back it all up , though , such as cost of a new HPC system from a different vendor versus Intel and all the energy , support , and training that go with each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If energy efficiency was their main pitch, perhaps starting it when they did was just bad luck or being too far ahead of the curve.Wait a couple 5-10-20 years or so.
As people use less energy and the companies raise their rates to compensate, perhaps these types of solutions will become more appetizing.OTOH I don't have any numbers data to back it all up, though, such as cost of a new HPC system from a different vendor versus Intel and all the energy, support, and training that go with each.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971960</id>
	<title>Re:The fanciest-sounding solution ...</title>
	<author>jmknsd</author>
	<datestamp>1257257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you using to benchmark your cluster? I benchmarked a pair of  nehalem Xeons(the 2,0Ghz ones, i.e. the cheapest quad cores) at 90GFLOPS with linpack. Individually ~57Gflops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you using to benchmark your cluster ?
I benchmarked a pair of nehalem Xeons ( the 2,0Ghz ones , i.e .
the cheapest quad cores ) at 90GFLOPS with linpack .
Individually ~ 57Gflops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you using to benchmark your cluster?
I benchmarked a pair of  nehalem Xeons(the 2,0Ghz ones, i.e.
the cheapest quad cores) at 90GFLOPS with linpack.
Individually ~57Gflops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974468</id>
	<title>Re:Lesson learned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one can stop the x86 train! not even Intel!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one can stop the x86 train !
not even Intel !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one can stop the x86 train!
not even Intel!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971068</id>
	<title>People always blame their failure on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...market conditions, didn't have the right people, time just wasn't right... But people don't buy what you sell. They buy <i>why</i> you sell it.</p><p>These guys failed at that, and got unlucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...market conditions , did n't have the right people , time just was n't right... But people do n't buy what you sell .
They buy why you sell it.These guys failed at that , and got unlucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...market conditions, didn't have the right people, time just wasn't right... But people don't buy what you sell.
They buy why you sell it.These guys failed at that, and got unlucky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971268</id>
	<title>Re:Fool's errand</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1257253740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He is wrong.</i></p><p>Have you looked at the top100 recently? x86 is certainly not the only game in town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is wrong.Have you looked at the top100 recently ?
x86 is certainly not the only game in town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is wrong.Have you looked at the top100 recently?
x86 is certainly not the only game in town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29990700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29977042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.30002432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_2232224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29973104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29975712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.30002432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29974992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29977042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29970688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29972636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_2232224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29971760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_2232224.29990700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
