Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:23:09 04/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2000 at 05:34:47, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On April 11, 2000 at 04:40:43, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On April 11, 2000 at 03:22:38, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2000 at 18:45:12, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On April 10, 2000 at 09:02:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 02:46:49, Nobuhiro Yoshimura wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I would like to start studying about parallel searching algorithm. >>>>>>To start off, Can anybady give me some reference to papers >>>>>>to read? >>>>> >>>>>visit any public ftp that handles linux. Look for the 'pthread' or 'posix >>>>>thread' package and grab that. You will find a couple of good intro papers >>>>>inside, one called "getting started with posix threads". Otherwise visit your >>>>>local university library and you will find lots of books on parallel >>>>>programming. >>>> >>>>What does this have to do with parallel search algorithms? (He asked about them >>>>specifically.) >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>Instead of picking on Bob for possibly not reading everything as carefully as >>>possible (which you seem to do _quite frequently_), why don't _you_ try to >>>answer the questions posted instead? >>> >>>A post like the one I'm responding to here is just wasted space. >> >>Since both you and Bob decided to rip on my post, here's the explanation: >> >>I didn't post about parallel search algorithms because I don't _know_ about >>parallel search algorithms. Yes, I've read a few papers about them, but that was >>a long time ago and those papers are currently more than a thousand miles away >>from me; I'm in no position to post references to them. >> >>So as much as I'd like to answer Nobuhiro's question, I can't. I was actually >>looking forward to Bob's reply, only Bob didn't read the question correctly. >> >>-Tom > >I wasn't referring entirely or specifically to this thread. I was noting that >you've done the same thing frequently, in all kinds of threads. Whether you >have useful input or not. To put it bluntly, it gets kind of annoying to read a >bunch of posts like "What does that have to do with question-'X'?" or "XYZ >didn't read the question carefully.", especially when you don't attempt to >answer the question yourself. > >I'd just like to see a little more helpfulness, and a little less pickiness. > >Regards, >Jeremiah I've noticed something about CCC and I don't like it. If someone asks a simple (or general) question and Bob answers it, the thread is basically over. I guess everybody thinks, "Bob's got it under control," and they don't even bother to see if they agree with Bob's answer, or even if Bob answered the right question. This thread is a great example, because it would have died if I didn't say anything. I think questions would get answered much better on this forum if Bob refrained from having the first shot at them. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.