Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:50:43 04/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2000 at 14:23:09, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 You _really_ don't want to know what I think about a post like this... (hint for WWF fans, it has to do with "polish it up, turn it sideways...") I think posts would be answered far better if you didn't respond at all, since 90% of your posts are not answers to the question, but rather curt put-downs to the responders... Don't you have something better to do?
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.