Hi Nat,
> one of my colleagues found (on Linux) that the exp() function provided
> by g77 was 20-fold slower than the equivalent in the Intel math library.
I do not know whether this has recently been changed, but the license for
icc-produced executables used to be rather restrictive. If I reme
> I do not know whether this has recently been changed, but the license for
> icc-produced executables used to be rather restrictive. If I remember
> correctly, you were not allowed to distribute the binaries, full stop.
Nicholas, this restriction applies (and has always applied) only to
Intel's '
Hi
I suspect that this is more to do with the amount of memory required,
size of arrays etc; refinement will (in general) be more demanding in
terms of these than an integration program like Mosflm. The last time
I compared the Mosflm performance (which was a few years ago),
running the s
Hi Ian,
Nicholas, this restriction applies (and has always applied) only to
Intel's 'evaluation' licence
That's right. With a cost of $9,997.00 for a 3-years/2-seats academic
license,
I couldn't have been talking for anything else ... :-)))
All the best,
Nicholas
--
Nicholas M
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:59:22PM +0300, Nikolaos Glykos wrote:
> >Nicholas, this restriction applies (and has always applied) only to
> >Intel's 'evaluation' licence
>
> That's right. With a cost of $9,997.00 for a 3-years/2-seats academic
> license, I couldn't have been talking for anything el
> That's right. With a cost of $9,997.00 for a 3-years/2-seats academic
> license,
> I couldn't have been talking for anything else ... :-)))
Hi Nicholas
That sounds like way more than it should be, in fact it sounds like
you've been quoted the cost of the commercial licence and then some!
>From
Hi Ian,
That sounds like way more than it should be, in fact it sounds like
you've been quoted the cost of the commercial licence and then some!
From Intel's website the academic licence for icc (Linux/2 seats) is
$570 incl 1 year's support. Renewal of support for subsequent years
will be less
On 4/2/2012 6:03 AM, herman.schreu...@sanofi.com wrote:
If James Holton had been involved, the fabrication would not have been
discovered.
Herman
Uhh. Thanks. I think?
Apologies for remaining uncharacteristically quiet. I have been keeping
up with the discussion, but not sure how much diff
Dear CCPx administrators:
I just notice that on
/www.ccp14.ac.uk/ccp/web-mirrors/llnlrupp/cvs/Rupp/rupp.html
a deprecated web page from the early 2000s (!) that causes confusion exists
on a mirror of the LLNL site dead since 2005.
I cannot find a responsible contact for CCP14 since Lachlan's u
Since I was the person who started "a public outcry to "do something"", I shell
explain myself to my critics. Similarly to all of you, I do not care much about
those few instances of structure fabrication. I might put too much emphases on
them to initiate the discussion, but they are, indeed, on
Hi Bernhard
CCP14 is (to all intents and purposes) defunct. It lost funding a
couple of years after Lachlan left in the early 2000s.
I'll supply William's e-mail off-board (or at least the last recent
address I have)
On 8 Apr 2012, at 20:48, Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote:
De
>You never know when a forgotten slip of the mouse when using AutoDep ten
years ago will come back to haunt you.
On the paper James refers to and found the data, added mystery was that the
postdoc who may have slipped disappeared w/o much of trace and the PI died.
Dan was the only survivor. Still
12 matches
Mail list logo
