This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to edit this article but hopefully someone will correct some errors in light of the point I now make. I am just offering some memories here, ones that contradict the article as written. I was at Los Alamos in the early 90's and we had several Connection Machines. The CM-2 morphed into the CM-200, both of which had 64,000 bitwise processors. I think maybe the upgrade (from CM-2 to CM-200) was done by increasing the clock speed. I remember people saying that the upgrade would be done with a screwdriver and nothing else. The CM-2/200 a little set of cubes with flashing lights on the side and the whole gizmo was a few feet on a side. The next big TMC machine we got was called the CM-5 and consisted of 1,024 sparc chips. On the card for each chip were 4 vector units (VUs). Without the VUs the machine had a maximum peak theoretical performance of something like 1GFlop. WIth the VU's, peak theoretical performance on the CM-5 was 128GFlops. The CM-5 was physically much bigger than the CM-200. You could walk inside the CM-5. Oh yeah, I forgot, the CM-5's 1024 processors were floating point processors compared to the CM-2's 32,000 bitwise processors. The 5 had message passing unlike the 2. The 2 was way easier to program and way more elegant. I believe that Danny probably designed the CM-2 mainly by himself and that the CM-5 was probably designed by a committee. It was sort of a monstrosity. I think the CM-5 cost $15M. Anyway, to make a short story long the biggest cm did not have 64,000 processors it had 1,024.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.15.48 ( talk • contribs) 19 March 2006 (note - an anon user, but probably not Danny -- Zippy 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC))
absurd, and unabashedly pov.
Agreed. This definately has no place in an encyclopedia.
The two paragraphs preceeding it can also be construed as pov and are just wretched pieces of writing.
I removed a few of the most POV paragraphs. Article is still not good, though. -- Xyzzyplugh 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem all that bad, but it didn't start as a neutral encyclopedia entry, but a sort of article-based biography, including evaluation and commentary.
I tried to remove some of the colloquialisms, expand on the Clock of the Long Now, and remove some of the commentary. The last section is perhaps the last of the non-encylopedic entries. DavidDouthitt ( Talk) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Be careful not to discard information just because it is has emotional pov. A large part of why people do things is due to emotion. I think the emotional layer in this article captures nicely Hillis' motivation behind why he does things, and therefore who he is. That can be extremely important information in a biographical entry.
Dear Wiki Editors, Danny Hillis was written about in the last critical section of the book "Nudist on the Late Shift" by Po Bronson. Should that be added to the references section? thanks Frank. Fbrazile ( talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/experts/profiles/team_member_profile/282E92445B3DD806F8BE87319AF61F04/Argye_Hillis I believe this is the correct and working link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.98.43 ( talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to edit this article but hopefully someone will correct some errors in light of the point I now make. I am just offering some memories here, ones that contradict the article as written. I was at Los Alamos in the early 90's and we had several Connection Machines. The CM-2 morphed into the CM-200, both of which had 64,000 bitwise processors. I think maybe the upgrade (from CM-2 to CM-200) was done by increasing the clock speed. I remember people saying that the upgrade would be done with a screwdriver and nothing else. The CM-2/200 a little set of cubes with flashing lights on the side and the whole gizmo was a few feet on a side. The next big TMC machine we got was called the CM-5 and consisted of 1,024 sparc chips. On the card for each chip were 4 vector units (VUs). Without the VUs the machine had a maximum peak theoretical performance of something like 1GFlop. WIth the VU's, peak theoretical performance on the CM-5 was 128GFlops. The CM-5 was physically much bigger than the CM-200. You could walk inside the CM-5. Oh yeah, I forgot, the CM-5's 1024 processors were floating point processors compared to the CM-2's 32,000 bitwise processors. The 5 had message passing unlike the 2. The 2 was way easier to program and way more elegant. I believe that Danny probably designed the CM-2 mainly by himself and that the CM-5 was probably designed by a committee. It was sort of a monstrosity. I think the CM-5 cost $15M. Anyway, to make a short story long the biggest cm did not have 64,000 processors it had 1,024.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.15.48 ( talk • contribs) 19 March 2006 (note - an anon user, but probably not Danny -- Zippy 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC))
absurd, and unabashedly pov.
Agreed. This definately has no place in an encyclopedia.
The two paragraphs preceeding it can also be construed as pov and are just wretched pieces of writing.
I removed a few of the most POV paragraphs. Article is still not good, though. -- Xyzzyplugh 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem all that bad, but it didn't start as a neutral encyclopedia entry, but a sort of article-based biography, including evaluation and commentary.
I tried to remove some of the colloquialisms, expand on the Clock of the Long Now, and remove some of the commentary. The last section is perhaps the last of the non-encylopedic entries. DavidDouthitt ( Talk) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Be careful not to discard information just because it is has emotional pov. A large part of why people do things is due to emotion. I think the emotional layer in this article captures nicely Hillis' motivation behind why he does things, and therefore who he is. That can be extremely important information in a biographical entry.
Dear Wiki Editors, Danny Hillis was written about in the last critical section of the book "Nudist on the Late Shift" by Po Bronson. Should that be added to the references section? thanks Frank. Fbrazile ( talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/experts/profiles/team_member_profile/282E92445B3DD806F8BE87319AF61F04/Argye_Hillis I believe this is the correct and working link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.98.43 ( talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)