Slashdot Mirror


ASCI White Detonates The First E-Bomb

totallygeek writes "Redefining the term vaporware, research scientists at Lost Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Labs detonated two computer simulations. ASCI White, the world's fastest supercomputer, ran the simulations of nuclear explosions. Scientists can now study nuclear weapon replacement components without violating the nuclear test ban, in effect since 1992. Each simulation used more than 6.6 million CPU hours, which would take home machines 1000 years to complete. The data for each experiment was equivalent to 35 times the information available in the Library of Congress. ASCI White currently operates at 12 teraflops, but by early next year, Los Alamos expects to operate at 30 teraflops. The seven month research project ended last Friday, and now the system is ready for use, after its sucessful testing."

551 comments

  1. Might as well bet this out of the way: by blankmange · · Score: 3, Funny

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these.....

    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
    1. Re:Might as well bet this out of the way: by andyh1978 · · Score: 1
      Imagine a beowulf cluster of these.....
      To simulate MIRVs? :-p
    2. Re:Might as well bet this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a cluster already.

    3. Re:Might as well bet this out of the way: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine turning this beast on your GnuPG key???

  2. Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    set up us the bomb!

    1. Re:Someone... by swordboy · · Score: 2

      Someone... set up us the bomb!

      No...

      Someone set up us a beowulf cluster of these!

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    2. Re:Someone... by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      As much of a joke as that was meant to be, this system already -is- a cluster. Of RS/6000s, no less.

      --Dan

    3. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But imagine... A beowulf cluster of.. CLUSTERS!!!

    4. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother.

    5. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been a year. It's now officially kitschy nostalgia, like Mahir.

    6. Re:Someone... by (outer-limits) · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could simulate the next wars on this too.

      --

      Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

    7. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is want to come to the middle east? I can invitate!

  3. it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home comp. by prizzznecious · · Score: 5, Funny

    But who needs a simulation? If you have an Athlon, just jiggle the fan off and watch the thing in real life!

    --

    visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
  4. Me Too! by waldoj · · Score: 0

    KA-BOOM.

    Take that, "Lost" Alamos!

    -Waldo Jaquith

  5. wired by yellowjacket03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there was an interesting article in Wired a couple of months ago. It said that very few of our scientists working on nuclear projects had first hand experience with actual testing. I guess this can bring the newer guys up to speed.

    1. Re:wired by El_Nofx · · Score: 1

      That article was just facinating. I thought the scariest part was where they talked about the future of nukes. How some in the military want the crew at Los Alamos to start developing new low-yield nukes to bust bunkers and caves. That goes against what the old timers up there always thought about nukes, how they were just so scary and destructive that noone would ever use them.

      Kinda takes the genie out of the bottle. Then everyone else might start to use them for the regional scirmishes.

      I think after WWII he was kinda shoved back in there. Maybe his bottle just kept getting bigger.

      --
      It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
    2. Re:wired by LunaticLeo · · Score: 2
      The kind of nukes they want to use for bunker busters, are low yield "Neutron Bombs". [Forgive my poor memory of the science] I recall, they fuse Hydrogen and Lithium into Beryilium or some such combo. The key point is that they are fusing light atoms. Hence, no Cesium-128 fallout; which any big atom bomb will spew forth unto the world. These bombs are "cleaner" in so much as they have just as much radiation at detonation, but "clean" fallout.

      These are the scary bombs. Crossing the Nuclear line is so much more tempting when you can reinhabit the scorched earth. Hopefully, this also results in some degree of deterance, knowing nuclear retaliation is more tolerable with "clean" nukes.

      --
      -- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
  6. Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Makes you wonder what the government has that its /not/ telling us about... heh

    1. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm going to post anonymously, basically so I don't get in trouble for this, 'cause I'm not really sure how 'available' this information is. However, I know that NSA is looking for the development of a multiprocessor system using an optical switch as a control. I believe its to be somewhere in the vicinity of 512x512 processors. One thing I do remember is that the goal was breaking 64-bit encryption in under 1 second (that was the published goal- I'm sure they have higher level encyrpytion in mind). And yes, I realize no one will believe me if I post anonymously, but hey- I'ld rather be flamed by the Slashdot crowd than killed by the government :)

    2. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, from reading the article the government isn't telling us much of anything. Don't get me wrong I do find the computational aspects of the simulation intersting...but the purpose of the simulation is the physics. That's the whole point...so why isn't there any information about that data?

      Video of the explosion would be neat, but I doubt they record the simulation that way. Are there any scientific visualizations of this data? Even just a high level description of the findings would be interesting!

      Lots of Teraflops, fine...takes up a big room, ok...but what about the physics? What did the simulation reveal about fission processes that we didn't already know?

    3. Re:Whoa... by pjt48108 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Makes you wonder what the government has that its /not/ telling us about... heh

      1. the Roswell Saucer
      2. the Aurora project
      3. Jimmy Hoffa
      4. secret moonbase on the far side of Luna
      5. the 2000 Presidential election results

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    4. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm... Thank god you posted anonymously. I talked with some NSA guys yesterday. They said their NO:1 priority right now is to wipe out anyone who believe they are thinking about building fast computers to break encrypted messages in no time.

      We are all going to die!

  7. So, uh... by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

    What IS the sound of a 12-teraflop machine crashing with the power of 20 megatons? :)

    Oh wait, their massive-parallel (Beowulf cluster, if you will) was probably running AIX, nevermind.

    But it would be nice to see the "fallout" of such a huge bluescreen.

    (-1, Bad pun.)

    --
    SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    1. Re:So, uh... by Bob+McCown · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, I wonder if they have a soundcard in the thing, hooked up to a big-ass speaker system?

  8. feh, way overkill on computer power by kisrael · · Score: 1

    My humble Pentium II based desktop can do a pretty good emulation of the effects of a proximate nuclear explosion...I just yank the plug.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  9. Great Advances by stevenbee · · Score: 5, Funny

    I must say this ASCII stuff has come a long way since the days of the dial-up BBS.

    : )

    --
    Don't read this!
    1. Re:Great Advances by Mr.Intel · · Score: 2

      ASCII Tastes bad dude.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    2. Re:Great Advances by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      EBCDIC has had this ability for quite a while. These guys must have just perfected the EBCDIC -> ASCII conversion table.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    3. Re:Great Advances by mr.newt · · Score: 1

      wkdw zdv zurqj - pdnlqj wklv d wkuhh ohwwhu vkliw edfnzdugv, lw wrrn ph 23 lwhudwlrqv wr iljxuh lw rxw...

      brx nqrz zkdw brxu grlqj, wdnh rii hyhub clj

  10. It's a good start, but... by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I wonder if they could answer a question for me. Will it really only be cockroaches and Keith Richards that would live through a nuclear war?

    1. Re:It's a good start, but... by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      He said "live" through a nuclear war. Cher has been fully animatronic since she showed up to perform on that Navy vessel in the fishnet-thong thing back in the early 90s.

    2. Re:It's a good start, but... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some of the simulation results indicate that, in addition to cockroaches and Keith Richards, the following items will survive thermonuclear war:

      1) an incredible number of AOL CDs. The exact number is to be determined via further testing of ASCI White, once it's reached further performance milestones.

      2) Lawyers and Insurance salespeople. (see also: cockroaches)

      Next up: Damnation Alley scenarios, yeehaw!

    3. Re:It's a good start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he meant "Share" as in "If you share e-music you're sharing e-communism so we have to e-bomb you off the e-planet."

    4. Re:It's a good start, but... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      We'll firstly,

      Cher's makeup would deflect a nuclear blast (I'm imagine someone throwing a grape at the side of a house)

      So we'd assume that all the cockroaches after the explosion mutate upto 55 kilograms.

      Now if you were looking at Cher and a cockroach, how could you tell the difference?

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    5. Re:It's a good start, but... by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 1
      Now if you were looking at Cher and a cockroach, how could you tell the difference?

      Well, that's easy. The cockroach is the pretty one. *bah-dump-ching*

      --
      I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
    6. Re:It's a good start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what ever did survive, at least they/he wouldn't have to put up with a M$ OS monopoly.

    7. Re:It's a good start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think he meant "cockroach" as in, "Isn't that cockroach really Cher?"

  11. Imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all of the PC's connected to the internet sharing spare CPU cycles. I wonder how that would compare to this.

    1. Re:Imagine.. by madenosine · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? The computing power would be at least 50x as great

    2. Re:Imagine.. by KingAdrock · · Score: 1

      The computing power of all of the computers on the internet would probably be greater, but would only be effective if this test can be run with most of the calculations being done in parallel. Otherwise it wouldn't really matter!

  12. Will this change anything....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Will countries still want to test nuclear weapons? Of course. A computer may be able to *stimulate* things, but it is *never* a replacement for the actual event. If anything - this will help in the design and initial testing, but when it all comes down to the wire, there will still be 'real' testing required.

    1. Re:Will this change anything....? by jocknerd · · Score: 0

      There will be real testing only because the defense industry will insist on it.

    2. Re:Will this change anything....? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No there will be real testing because it will be necessary. As the parent post states-- a simulation is useful but cannot replace the real thing.

      A simulation is no better than the model used to build it- and that model is built by people who expect things to work a certain way. If you want to know for sure what something will do - you have to try it out.

      I would think that they must use some interesting logarithms to emulate randomness. But in the end these are once again- simulations that cannot do more than emulate the real thing.

      It sounds like a lot of it is going to be used to simulate how aging weapons will behave. They already have real test data on how they worked when they were new.

      When new weapons are developed they will need to be tested by actual detonation.

      .

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Will this change anything....? by caspper69 · · Score: 1

      No there will be real testing because it will be necessary. As the parent post states-- a simulation is useful but cannot replace the real thing.

      No there won't, and if you had bothered to read the article closely, or you followed world politics at all, you'd know there has been an international ban on testing nuclear weapons since 1992. Why do you think our relations with N. Korea, India & Pakistan were so stressed (pre-9/11)? Because they were testing nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

    4. Re:Will this change anything....? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2

      I'm not commenting about the politics of the situation, I am commenting on the reality of the situation. Esp. as it relates to simulations using computers.

      I think it is unrealistic to believe that the U.S. will never again test nuclear weapons. There may not be a pressing need at this time, or they may have found a way to do so that evades detection.

      Either way- I'm glad. I am not one who is prone to think that disarmament is a good way to go. There is a crack in another thread about Neville Chamberlain that I thought was right on. We live in a dangerous world and we need to maximize our ability to take effective action.

      But frankly that whole thing is already getting beaten to death here.

      I would love to know, in a way that I can understand (I am not a mathematician) how they go about modeling this type of event. How do they deal with unknowns? How do these simulations work?

      That would be fascinating and applicable in many more areas than just nuclear testing.

      .

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:Will this change anything....? by Yunzil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No there won't, and if you had bothered to read the article closely, or you followed world politics at all, you'd know there has been an international ban on testing nuclear weapons since 1992.

      If you bothered to follow *US* politics at all, you'd know that the US Senate voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so it doesn't apply to the US.

    6. Re:Will this change anything....? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      I would think that they must use some interesting logarithms to emulate randomness.

      Yeah, you're right... they would be REEEAAAAL interesting logarithms. Now for algorithms, I suspect they have a white noise generator. IBM probably built one in, since they know that one of the main uses for mainframes is massive Monte Carlo simulations.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    7. Re:Will this change anything....? by caspper69 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you for updating me as to the current situation.

      I'm not too big to admit that I was wrong.

    8. Re:Will this change anything....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. blowing people up virtually just isn't like the real thing.

    9. Re:Will this change anything....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not wrong.

      Someone else is, however.

    10. Re:Will this change anything....? by ek_adam · · Score: 1

      All models are wrong. Some are useful.

    11. Re:Will this change anything....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is exactly why you should leave the testing to the experts instead of just tossing off the idea as useless. :P

  13. RS/6000 by mekkab · · Score: 2

    Whooo hooo! Way to go RS/6000! Just another notch in the blade of the RISC vs. CISC debate. (And no, I'm not trolling for either side!)

    So when I head down to the lab and hunch over the network code for my rs6k machines I can think "these machines are the bomb!"

    It'll make me feel better when I crash them with my device drivers.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:RS/6000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odd thing is that the 30 teraflop computer going in at Los Alamos is made by....Compaq!
      no more cool ACSI color names...

    2. Re:RS/6000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to the 80s when the RISC vs CISC actually meant something. Maybe you can help fund this guy:

      http://slashdot.org/science/02/04/07/0332236.sht ml ?tid=134

      to help you out.

  14. Nice... by nihilist_1137 · · Score: 2

    But does it play pong?

    1. Re:Nice... by madenosine · · Score: 1

      Can it check my e-mail?

    2. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it will play war games like in the movie. Thermonuclear war here we come!

    3. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet if you ran windows on this it would still require 98% of your resources.

    4. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering this machine could brute-force many current password schemes in seconds, the answer to "could it check my email" may be a disheartening "Yes". Kinda makes you wonder what they have this thing doing when it's not crunching physics equations...

    5. Re:Nice... by CaptCosmic · · Score: 1

      Just don't ask it to play Global Thermonuclear War

      --
      -> Capt Cosmic <-
    6. Re:Nice... by miracle69 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can ask it to play that as long as you can use the Tic-Tac-Toe Override sequence.

      It's a WHOPR. We're not talking BK here...

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
  15. Might as well get this over with too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god they weren't using Windows. Just imagine a BSOD halfway through.

    1. Re:Might as well get this over with too by jguthrie · · Score: 1
      You think you're being funny, but you're not.

      It just so happens that many of these sorts of simulations have runtimes that exceed the mean time between failures of the hardware they run on. I have been told that figuring out how to deal with that (and other failures, like kernel panics and whatnot) along with ancillary decisions (like whether or not it would be better to store an intermediate result or re-calculate it) occupy an awful lot of the time of those who write such things.

    2. Re:Might as well get this over with too by (outer-limits) · · Score: 1

      Then they should stop using Unix and use a real fault tolerant operating system.

      --

      Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

  16. SETI@home by Partisan01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what the computing power of SETI@home is. Could such a thing be done with a distributed system across home machines? If a program like this was run on people's computers who had broadband it might be possible to do something similar. The military could even use a system such as this. Since no one has all the program data no secrets would be let out. Everyone is just doing small computations that a larger computer somewhere puts together to make something useful. Hmm......

    --
    ahh, the egg in the basket..
    1. Re:SETI@home by 0xB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you break this sort of problem down that easily? I would think there is too much interdependency between cells - which would mean a lot of communication needed across the network.

      --
      0xB
    2. Re:SETI@home by billstr78 · · Score: 1
      I think something on a smaller scale would be entirely possible. Currently many home machines are busy hacking away at the RC5 keyspace which may be cracked around the time they come up with a larger key. There is also a prime number hunting project that is underway.


      Someone with a higher degree than I may be able to comment on the particulars, but I am pretty sure that network latency would kill the hopes of doing any seriously parrallel computing using a broadly distrubted system.

    3. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The communication requirements are way to large for this do be done in a distributed environment. Things like SETI are much more appropriate for distributed computing because there is no dependency between data being calculated on different nodes.

    4. Re:SETI@home by spullara · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's pretty easy to find out what the computing power of Seti@Home is, just check the totals to find that in the last 24 hours, on average, the computer was running at 96.79 teraflops. Only 8x that of ASCI White.

      --
      "If I can see farther it is because I am surrounded by dwarves." -- Murray Gell-Mann
    5. Re:SETI@home by belphegor · · Score: 1

      According to their site, Seti@Home clocked in at 96.79 TeraFLOPs over the last 24 hours.

    6. Re:SETI@home by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

      Can you break this sort of problem down that easily? I would think there is too much interdependency between cells - which would mean a lot of communication needed across the network.

      Not only that, but unlike SETI@Home, each calculation is dependent on the data generated by the previous set of calculations. S@H is just crunching blocks looking for data, much like D.net.

      The nuclear simulations require an immense amount of data to be continuously generated as you go through each millisecond of the explosion. Or nanosecond? However small you need each time dataframe to be in nuclear physics.

      --
      SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    7. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unlike SETI@home, simulating an explosion is NOT suited for massive parallelism. The equations are partial differential equations in space and time. Very roughly speaking, to compute the speed, density, etc. of the exploding gas ball at a later time requires you to use information of the speed, density, etc. at an earlier time and at ALL spaces. You can distribute the spatial data over, say, 1024 processors, but anything more than that, the communication costs increase and you get speed degrading. In short, the nature of the equations governing the explosion imposes a restriction on the number of parallel processors you can use.

    8. Re:SETI@home by mblase · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I wonder what the computing power of SETI@home is. Could such a thing be done with a distributed system across home machines? Hmm. Should I download a distributed computing client to...
      1. analyze the human genome,
      2. fold cancer-curing proteins,
      3. locate possible sources of alien intelligence, or
      4. help the government explode a virtual nuke?
      (No nastiness intended. My point is that it might be hard to get people to download a client with that particular goal in mind.)
    9. Re:SETI@home by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 2

      So, what would the screen saver look like? a BSOD?

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    10. Re:SETI@home by bm_luethke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there are several issues that would preclude this type of computation being run in a SETI@home context. First broadband is very slow compared to what the interconnects on these clusters run. The small 64 node cluster we run has gig-ether on a non-blocking 64 port foundary switch - still slower than what is on the proprietary IBM sp machines. Even with that fast of an interconnect these types of computations tend to be i/o bound.

      Also data size would be a contributing factor. In many of the gasseous simulations we run it is not uncommon to have multi-gigabyte data sets (in fact we have even had more than one request for multi-terabyte storage - we didn't have that much on the entier cluster). Not only is this hard to transfer/maintain in a timely manner on a broadband connection the home users machine would have trouble with it. Most hard drives out there could withstand it even when full of mp3's but you also have to take into account what data needs in memory at one time. Most new computation clusters have at least a gig of high speed ram in them and it is still not really enough.

      And lastly as far a secrets go, you will not need the entier data set to glean information from the data. Just the algorithms used to process the data may be classified (if they simulate our nuclear weapons well enough you will probably learn something classified about thier construction).

      oh, yea, unless the algorithm in question is ridicuosly parrallel there is a lot more going on than small computations that a larger computer puts together going on. Computations such as SETI@home are a very narrow type of distributed computation and does not occur very frequently.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    11. Re:SETI@home by astroboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      SETI@home can't be used for things like this, as it turns out.

      Running programs in parallel is pretty difficult; you have to figure out how to divide the problem amongst different processors. Some problems (which are said to be `embarrassingly parallel') are easy to do this -- every different processor just searches a different part of key-space for a key to decrypt a code, or a different part of frequency-space looking for a signal. There doesn't have to be any sort of inter-process communication to speak of in these problems.

      A fluids or mechanical (or combined) simulation, however, requires lots of communication between computational elements. Each processor is simulating some region of space, and it constantly needs information about the fluid all around it to know what to do next. (Is a shock wave coming from the left?)

      And even fluids/mechanics simulations are simpler than simulations involving long-range forces like gravity. In that case, every single computational element probably needs at least some information from every other computational element!

      In cases like that, highly-distributed computing a la SETI@home won't work. Whereas for brute-force code-cracking, or searching for signals in reams of indepdendant data, it's perfect.

    12. Re:SETI@home by locust · · Score: 4, Funny
      4. help the government explode a virtual nuke?


      Welcome to Iraq. Please download your copy of sadam@home...


      --locust

    13. Re:SETI@home by igaborf · · Score: 2
      My point is that it might be hard to get people to download a client with that particular goal in mind.

      Not at all!

    14. Re:SETI@home by brokenbeaker · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point that reserach on nuclear weapons might not be a popular choice. However, many others might also be unhappy about conributing to the human genome project, or to proteomics reserach.

    15. RE:SETI@home by antitribue · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please, something this important would not be left to selection, Kazaa would just automatically load it for you.

    16. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird. At first, I couldn't figure out why you put the punchline option third instead of last. Then I realized you were serious about the "possible sources of alien intelligence" option.

      And people think missile defense is a waste of time...

    17. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, the goal here is specifically to help understand what happens to the *nukes we have* as they age, so we can avoid any unforseen accidents.

      Whether people like the fact that the US has a nuclear stockpile or not, I would think they could agree that it's in everyone's best interest to make sure those nukes don't experience any world-destroying accidents.

    18. Re:SETI@home by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 1

      I'd be proud to offer my computing time to aid in the creation and maintaience of the US's nuclear stockpile. It would be an honor for me to aid my country in such a nifty and effortless way. Hell, I'd buy addional machines! ;)

      --

      --Reverend Raven
      Desperate days demand dire deeds.
    19. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're joking you jingo.

    20. Re:SETI@home by syusuf · · Score: 1

      Or just put it as a piece of Spyware in the next version of Morpheous...

    21. Re:SETI@home by shayera · · Score: 1

      well apart from Initiator design, what is left of the really classified stuff ?
      You can buy books, legally, that explains in details good enough for people with a physics level equal to advanced college level, to put 2 and 2 together and make it go 'ahaaa' in your mind.
      And as far as I can figure, the main reason for initiator design to be so darned secret is not that it is especially hard to make, but that it makes it alltogether too easy then for 'naughty people' to make their own gadgets.
      Even hydrocode calculations are makable on a homepc, you just have to read the right kind of books to get glimpses of whhat it is you have to calculate, and couple that with some knowledge of computerscience (todays hint : Von Neumann)

      Oh well, I said too much.. I'll go outside and wave to the black helicopters now.. :)

      --
      Venlig Hilsen / Regards
      John Hinge - shayera / .sPOOn.
      "Buffy I love you... Please God No!" S
    22. Re:SETI@home by c0d1 · · Score: 1

      My intuition says that the amount of data involved here might be more of a problem than the computations that generate it. I believe the figure stated was 35 times the amount of info contained in the Library of Congress. Remember that, in addition to books, a copy of all periodicals published (music and film, too, right?) must be sent to the LoC...

      It takes a mighty whopping I/O system to deal with that amount of data. On the other hand, regardless of your take on the RIAA and Napster, that whole ordeal has shown us that massively distributed data storage systems can be quite capable. However, WAN transfer speeds would probably decimate your performance.

      You must note that one of the hardest problems in bulding a massive cluster is the performance of the interconnect. If you start looking at the price breakdown of some of the commercial cluster racks available these days, I think you'll be surprised at the percentage of the price devoted to its internal network infrastructure (those Myrinet ports are not cheap).

      Anyway, I've got a great idea! Let's see if ETI-style processing can take on the big iron! We'll just build our own Distributed.Net style nuclear simulation and benchmark it against LANL's... ;-}

      How many times do you think you'll be able to say "First Amendment" before the spooks come knocking at your door? Of course, there is also the small problem of obtaining quality input data; maybe, if we asked nicely, they'd let us use some of their input sets...

    23. Re:SETI@home by dark-nl · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously saying there is no chance of finding alien intelligence? I'd say there is a much better chance of finding intelligence out there than down here :-)

    24. Re:SETI@home by QuadGoatBoy · · Score: 1
      Sure, we could get people to download a distributed computing client. All we'd have to do is send out a mass email that says something like

      "I send you this file in order to have your advice"

      And oila! You've just got yourself 400,000 distributed computers working on your project.

      *sigh*

    25. Re:SETI@home by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Mh, a nuke. I'm this can be separetaed into a growing sphere of caos. The sphere growing bigger and bigger but could be cut into sections (like an growing Hard Disk). The problem would be you'll need fast computer (premiun_pcs@Seti? :) and intercomunications between "space" blocks. Also, a fast cluster to "sew" the borders.

      This is obviouly a non-tech answer coming from a non-scientist, yet a motivated opinion :) (worst case scenario for an opinion or advice!)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    26. Re:SETI@home by vicious_sloth · · Score: 1

      ummm no actually its only about 30 teraflops

      --
      Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
    27. Re:SETI@home by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Nope, hes just one of those that they sucessfully brainwashed in the 50's and he somehow escaped..

    28. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fluids or mechanical (or combined) simulation, however, requires lots of communication between computational elements.

      Some mechanical problems lend themselves very well to massive parallelization (modal frequency response, uncoupled modal transient response, even eigenvalue extraction is heading that way). Fluid tends to be a bit more nasty.

    29. Re:SETI@home by spullara · · Score: 1

      It changes depending on what went on in the last 24 hours. The 93 teraflop number was valid when I posted it.

      --
      "If I can see farther it is because I am surrounded by dwarves." -- Murray Gell-Mann
    30. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you. That link gave me the biggest scare I've had in a long while. I had my light off and speakers up too.

    31. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fluids or mechanical (or combined) simulation, however, requires lots of communication between computational elements. Each processor is simulating some region of space, and it constantly needs information about the fluid all around it to know what to do next. (Is a shock wave coming from the left?)

      No signals can travel fastar than light. One could easily set up simulations where the time constraints are so narrow, that particles at very short distances might as well be at the other side of the universe.

    32. Re:SETI@home by 2cool4school · · Score: 1

      Who says the military/Feds/CIA/Aliens haven't already hijacked SET@Home? Do you *know* that the data your computer is going through is from Arecibo? Are you *sure* the calculations are for something as innocent (and probably pointless) as looking for ET? I let it run anyway, it's a cool screensaver ;-)

    33. Re:SETI@home by bodland · · Score: 1

      Excellent. I could see all the wingnuts with a screen saver computing damage estimates and estimated kill ratios.....

      Kill ratio's BTW is the ratio of cost of the weapon to how many people it can kill (or vice versa) I saw this on an advertisement for a torpedo created by Honeywell.

    34. Re:SETI@home by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Afghanistan. You can download Osama@Home for Commodore 64 here.
      I bet JonKatz would fall for it :)

    35. Re:SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      every different processor just searches ... a different part of frequency-space looking for a signal.

      FWIW seti@home works by analysing different data sets, rather than doing different analysis on the same set.

  17. lot's 'o FORTRAN by billstr78 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many LOC it takes to simulate a nuculear explosion. Makes you wander what else you could simulate with 12 trillion calculations per second. Maybe we should try to represent the conflict in the Middle East as a couple of fortran routines and see where we will be after a couple more years of fighting.

    1. Re:lot's 'o FORTRAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, my solution is simpler. You merely DROP the ASCI from a suitable altitude.

  18. Shall we play a game? by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 2, Funny

    This gives me bad flashbacks of "War Games" for some reason. I sure hope ASCI White sucks at tic tac toe.

    Maybe we could talk them into running a Medal of Honor: Allied Assualt? They could bill is as a "stratigic nazi slaying simulation".

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
    1. Re:Shall we play a game? by anti-snot · · Score: 1

      Heh. It would be like playing an old 386 game on a modern pentium. The Nazi's would be swarming over you like leeches in a sausage kettle before you even slogged out of the boat.

    2. Re:Shall we play a game? by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 1

      I was more refering to it running a dedicated multiplayers server, however my fingers were on vaction and I missed the word "server".

      Besides, we could always do what I did when i got my first P11 and wanted to play games from my 386 days. I would open desqview and then open windows and then open the program.

      I miss DOS sometimes. Other times...well, you know...

      --
      (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
  19. so when they said the system was "da bomb" by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they weren't kidding....

    seriously tho, 30teraflops is impressive... we need to put this to work on the cancer research projects as well.. can't let the nuke boys have all the fun..

    1. Re:so when they said the system was "da bomb" by madenosine · · Score: 1

      Just wondering....how would this help with cancer research projects?

    2. Re:so when they said the system was "da bomb" by pizen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just wondering....how would this help with cancer research projects?

      They auction off server time to people who want to have the ultimate round of Counter-Strike and then donate the money to cancer research.

    3. Re:so when they said the system was "da bomb" by Captain+Pooh · · Score: 1

      You can calculate what ever interactions a protein or whatever molecules have on the growth of cancer. Check out They have distributed program sort of like SETI@Home

    4. Re:so when they said the system was "da bomb" by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      30teraflops is impressive... we need to put this to work on the cancer research projects as well


      It is not cancer, but there is much noted on ASCI White being used for Weather prediction, which does save countless lives yearly.

    5. Re:so when they said the system was "da bomb" by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Hell, I can save thousands of lives right now:

      DON'T LIVE NEXT TO RIVERS THAT FLOOD EVERY YEAR, OR COASTLINES THAT GET HIT BY HURRICANES ALL THE TIME!

      Okay, where's my reward for saving thousands of lives? (My point is left as an exercise to the reader.)

      Incidentally, the /. lameness filter is retarded. Just let the mod system do its own thing -- if I don't want to see someone yelling, I'll mod them down. First time I've run into the filter, actually, and yes, it's stupid.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  20. EBomb, wrong Name by SanLouBlues · · Score: 2

    E-Bomb already means an EMP bomb (See anything by Carlo Kopp). Try P-bomb (pseudo) or f-bomb (haha).

    1. Re:EBomb, wrong Name by felipeal · · Score: 2

      I actually thought they were talking about an e-mail bomb...

    2. Re:EBomb, wrong Name by mtnharo · · Score: 1

      why not a . (dot) bomb.... oh wait

    3. Re:EBomb, wrong Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, clearly it should be "iBomb". Does ASCI "White" refer to the color of the computer's case?

  21. Don't forget: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how many fps does it get in Quake?

  22. I love marketing text by sahala · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...and capable of solving in one second what a human being with a calculator would need 10 million years to figure out.

    Obviously within a limited problem scope that the machine would be good at. I just wish they were a bit more explicit about this so that non-techies won't tell me how they're worried that machines will be watching them and manipulating them ala-HAL all of a sudden.

    Then again why would a non-techie even browse to that page anyway? Never mind.

    1. Re:I love marketing text by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      . I just wish they were a bit more explicit about this so that non-techies won't tell me how they're worried that machines will be watching them and manipulating them ala-HAL all of a sudden.

      I'm sorry, sahala, I can't do that. You sound upset, would you like a stress pill?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:I love marketing text by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

      One million humans with one million calculators will eventually produce a nuclear explosion simulation. :)

    3. Re:I love marketing text by dark-nl · · Score: 1

      Even better! One million humans with one million televisions will eventually produce a nuclear explosion :-)

  23. Re:I have one of these by $0+31337 · · Score: 0

    So do I! The only difference is that I use my 12 teraflop machine to calculate important things... Like what Jennifer Love Hewitt and other hot celebrities look like under all that clothing!

  24. sad by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    doesnt it sadden any of you that the sole purpose of this is to find out how to more effectivly kill more innocent civilian lives?

    1. Re:sad by swingkid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, because that's not the only thing it's for. It's also used to simulate the effects of aging on our nuclear arsenal without having to actually detonate any bomb, which is a good thing.

    2. Re:sad by cmstremi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would it be less sad if it also played chess?

    3. Re:sad by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps to aid in the design of smaller, more precise weapons in order to limit civilian casualties if they do have to be used?

    4. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope... Because if the weapons are so effective, then there won't be anyone left to feel guilty about. Anyways, if it enables North America to build better defenses, great.... We don't build our houses completely out of concrete like parts of Europe... Here our houses are just a bit better then the paper and wood of Japan...

    5. Re:sad by 0xB · · Score: 0, Redundant

      They're not innocent, they're potential terrorists and therefore evil

      --
      0xB
    6. Re:sad by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      Actually, not to make nuclear weapons sound nicer than they are, but the major (theoretical) use for nuclear weapons is against another country's nuclear missile arsenal, or against other hardened military or command targets. Blowing up cities to kill civilians serves no real purpose. What enemy that you have to use nuclear weapons against cares about their civilian population?

      Improvements in ICBM targeting technology allow smaller and smaller yields to achieve the same damage to hardened targets. That reduces even more the need for very high-yield weapons, and reduces the fallout and civilian casualties that would be associated with a strike against military targets.

    7. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's great because it helps us find out how to more effectively kill some worthless scum who don't deserve to live.

    8. Re:sad by flatrock · · Score: 2

      There's also the other side of the coin. Nuclear weapons are a reality, and we need to know their effectiveness from a defensive point of view as well. Maybe this can also be used to simulate what the effect would be if a terrorist gained access to a nuclear weapon of some type. No amount of wishing nuclear weapons would cease to exist will make it happen. By knowing as much as we can, maybe it's possible to more effectively defend against and deter their use.

    9. Re:sad by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Doesnt it sadden any of you that the sole purpose of this is to find out how to more effectivly kill more innocent civilian lives?

      But nuclear weapons are only to be feared when they're in the hands of rogue nations. And the US is obviously not a rogue nation, because we respect international law.

      We don't? Oh, then we're not a rogue nation because we respect other nations' sovereignty.

      We don't? Oh, then we're not a rogue nation because we don't train people to destabilize other counties by terrorizing their citizens.

      We do? Well, at least we respect human rights, the democratic process, and justice for all.

      We don't? Oh. Um. Well ... we're not a rogue nation because we love freedom and wave flags and stuff! Yeah, that's it. So don't worry about us having weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it's not like we'd ever really use them.

      Um. Not more than we already have. Well, we probably wouldn't. Unless we decided that we really really needed to.

      (Score: -1, Treasonous)

    10. Re:sad by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > No, because that's not the only thing it's for. It's also used to simulate the effects of aging on our nuclear arsenal without having to actually detonate any bomb, which is a good thing.

      Well-said.

      And even if (and it's a not-bloody-likely-"if") what we learn makes its way into the design of new weapons, it appears that we're moving towards an arsenal featuring "really small nukes to penetrate and take out deep hardened bunkers with negligible surface fallout", as opposed to the more traditional "lob a 20M airburst at a city and let the fallout land where it may".

      (And for those who'll jump up and say "Aha, that's what they're trying to do! Design more weapons! All weapons bad!", I point out that the probability of this is extremely low -- a moment's thought will make it obvious that the type of physics required to model the behavior of an earth-penetrating weapon is pretty much completely unrelated to the physics involved in simulating what goes on at the heart of a nuke.)

      Bottom line: This is just an extremely cool physics simulation, no doubt most of it highly classified, but as this level of computing power becomes cheaper and more prevalent, I can think of ways in which some of the physics being modeled could also be used in the design of nuclear rockets and other next-generation propulsion systems.

    11. Re:sad by 0xB · · Score: 2, Funny

      (Score: -1, Treasonous)

      Seditious. If you're going to get hanged, make sure it's for the correct crime!

      --
      0xB
    12. Re:sad by Kailden · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to "Wargames" ? You must be. I need to add that dvd to my collection. +1 for the subtle reference

      WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?

      HOW ABOUT GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR?

      --
      I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
    13. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this great? We can learn from these simulations what needs to be done to keep nuclear weapons working - and without causing environmentalists any more concerns. Now could someone come up with a way to use these weapons which won't cause any harm? I bet they'll need another few million years to calculate that - a few years to nuke us to a fresh start and the rest to find a better way.

    14. Re:sad by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      Uh, the whole point of using a weapon is to cause harm. If you mean posioning and radiation, there are variants and techniques for using nukes that leave little fallout and background radiation... after the inital blast of course.

    15. Re:sad by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      In any major war (ww3 style here, not desert storm etc). the civilian population very quickly becomes non civilian. All the men are soldiers. boys are potential soldiers, and the women man (bad pun!) the factories. Therefore they are semi-legitimate targets. If not morally, then certainly strategically.

    16. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who uses the term "negligible surface fallout" needs to be deported to a post-war zone with lots of depleted uranium to get an idea of what is called "negligible" in times of war.

    17. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the original comment. Maybe it's the "whole point of using a weapon" which was the reason to use the subject "sad". Apparently many /.ers would enjoy killing if they could do by using an ultra-leet computer. Of course them not being the ones who get killed would be a requirement, too. Damn, talk to people who lived through the Cuba crisis if you can't imagine what living under nuclear threat means.

    18. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no, Joshua played checkers, not chess. Checkers has no winner -- chess does.

      The only chess reference:

      Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
      Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
      Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

    19. Re:sad by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      i wasnt talking about the sole purpose of the computer. i was talking about the sole purpose of simulating nuclear explosions. the only reason for these is to kill people. period.
      and big thanks to the moderators that modded me as flamebait, etc. sorry for caring about peoples lives.

    20. Re:sad by beer_maker · · Score: 1
      Like the Lab's other supercomputer, BLUE, that beat Kasparov?

      What would be cool is having them play each other ...

      --
      Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    21. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that chess doesn't have a winning strategy?

    22. Re:sad by thelizman · · Score: 1

      What saddens me is that some people take the opportunity of discuss a serious and exciting technological achievement - one that gives us a greater understanding of the physics around nuclear technologies - and then people like you have to post offtopic flamebait spewing the same tired diatribes predicated on inflammatory assumptions.

      The death of analytical thinking marks the birth of populism.

    23. Re:sad by Col.+Panic · · Score: 2
      Innocent civilians? I think the intended purpose is pretty clear ...

      Saddam Hussein has a bunker 75 feet under Bagdad.

      We are seeking a way to use tactical nuclear weapons in the field.

      Tactical nuke plans call for penetration into the ground so they can destroy bunkers.

      Iraq is cutting oil production.

      The Carlyle group uhh ... nevermind.

      Former Pres. George Bush's career began in the oil industry.

      Bush Sr. was President when we went to war with ... Iraq.

      G. Dubya is President now and threatening Iraq ...

      Saddam better duck.

    24. Re:sad by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on. Except for some Russia vs. US and/or Europe conflict, no war involving nuclear weapons is going to be a long, drawn-out strategic contest involving lots of soldiers and factories. It would most likely be some small country striking to preserve itself under what it perceives to be overwhelming odds (Israel's Samson option), and if a large nuclear power is the aggressor, an obliteration of some hardened targets to allow a conventional force to overwhelm a smaller country (e.g., US against Iraq with a nuclear capability).

      I don't see any realistic way that a society would regroup to "man the factories" to change the outcome of the fighting after a nuclear exchange. If a small country got hit, the fight is over--there's nothing to regroup. If a large country got hit, it might shrug it off. Only Russia/US have enough weapons to make a real dent in a large country's productive capacity.

      Any country that depends on manpower reserves to win its wars is not going to hold up very well against a technologically sophisticated opponent. Iraq had a huge army mobilized, and a smaller coalition force was able to mop the floor with it. Civilians and factories did not come into play in any major way. Even if Iraq had been able to throw a few nukes into the US, killing US civilians would only have made the result worse for Iraq.

      The kind of mobilization seen in WWII is not going to happen in future conflicts. Modern forces do not fight with mass-produced, overwhelming quantities of cheap weaponry. They use small quantities of specialized high-tech weaponry, which they have already, and then try very hard not to lose it.

    25. Re:sad by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > [...therefore] Saddam better duck.


      I think you misspelt "Unless he cleans up his act, and pronto, Saddam better realize it doesn't matter whether he ducks or not" :-)

    26. Re:sad by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      It's all relative.

      Look at World War 2 - the fire bombing of various German cities was considered to result in acceptable civilian casualties.

      Now look at the Gulf War and how many civilian casualties there were (probably the best comparative method would be to count successful military objectives eliminated - counting number of bombs dropped will result in wacky numbers, since carpet bombing involved hundreds or thousands of bombs for a single target, vs. 1 or 2 bombs with laser guidance).

      And despite all of this, there were anti-war protestors complaining about every dollar spent in military R&D. It's hard to say that this couldn't turn out to be the same case.

      And, regardless, this ignores that the primary purpose for the nuclear weapon testing usage of this computer isn't to design new weapons, it's to ensure that the current weapons are effective and are not dangerous in storage.

    27. Re:sad by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      *nods* - your WW2 vs Desert Storm analogy is bang-on.

      Every dollar we invested in R&D cut down on the collateral damage in Iraq - and back then, smart bombs were expensive. Despite the fact that our aiming technology had improved somewhat, we still had to use a lot of "dumb bombs".

      Ten years of further R&D expenditures have allowed us to cut down further on collateral damage in Afghanistan, and to do so cheaply - we now have smart-bomb accuracy at dumb-bomb prices.

      I'm consistently amazed at the attitude of those who equate weapons R&D with "how to kill more people faster". News flash from 1960 - we've been able to do that for 40 years. Most, if not all, of our R&D since that time has been into making weapons that kill what they're aimed at, but nothing more.

      Overkill makes for nice screen shots in video games, but it's pointless when you know you're gonna have to rebuild the civilian infrastructure when the shooting stops.

      > And, regardless, this ignores that the primary purpose for the nuclear weapon testing usage of this computer isn't to design new weapons, it's to ensure that the current weapons are effective and are not dangerous in storage.

      A point I didn't emphasize enough. Thanks again.

    28. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not particulary, the primate branch is pathetic, with few exceptions such as the orangutan, I would like to add.

      Humans aren't blind, they can look upon them self, and common, who would blame them if they find it suitable to end the humilation, once and for all? I think it's their right to do so.

    29. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most R&D goes into making war cheaper. There's a nice quote about a camel and a cruise missile which illustrates this fact.

    30. Re:sad by a_p_irwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it is very sad. There seems to be a double standard here, It's ok for USA to do Nuclear tests but not other countries (how ever the are conducted). I mean, Americans can feel all warm and fuzzy about not doing acutal tests, but are they really any better than the Indians, Pakistanis or the French, just becasue they can simulate them? Wasn't the intent of stopping nuclear tests, in part, to slow the development of nuclear weapons.... I think it is a very hyporitical move on the part of the US of A. If America can test nuclear weapons why should not other counties be able to do so too....

      --
      -- Cut and paste is not code re-use!
    31. Re:sad by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 2

      No, the intent of the Nuclear Test Ban treaty was to force nations that could not afford systems such as this to cease nuclear weapons research, guaranteeing the US's continued superiority. So yes, it is hypocritical. But that was the intent.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    32. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, no, don t get mistaken, it s for the sole purpose of killing more fanatics from the evil axis.
      So help US god...
      and big blue.

  25. Am I the only one... by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who saw the headline and thought that they had finally invented giant EMP-bombs, a-la science fiction?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have invented giant EMP-bombs. They are called Nuclear Bombs.

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by imac.usr · · Score: 2
      I thought it might perhaps be an email-bomb. Perhaps simulating the effect of millions of particles of spam impacting upon the internet...

      --
      I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir,

      Such devices already exist. Look up "pumped plasma" and such. Basically, you detonate a high explosive inside a coil of wire, the expanding conductive plasma induces huge currents in said wire, and you drive something with that current. Usually a powerful microwave source.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by photon317 · · Score: 2


      Search the web, EMP bombs are reality already. Aside from more customized methods, the standard off-the-shelf EMP bomb (for a national military to use anyways) is to detonate a standard nuclear warhead miles above a city, its EM shockwave works fine. At least so I remember reading...

      --
      11*43+456^2
    5. Re:Am I the only one... by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Hell, we accidentally used an EMP device on ourselves during the early testing in the 50's. Just detonate a largish nuke in the upper atmosphere and watch things grind down. They used this premise to explain why everything went to hell in the tv show "Dark Angel". Standard procedure in the MAD WWIII scenarios would include several devices to do high atmosphere dets to disrupt C4I assets. I shudder to think about the effects on the US if someone did this. (luckily this requires a fairly high tech base) Not too much stuff out there thats hardened anymore, even in military circles.

    6. Re:Am I the only one... by Loligo · · Score: 2

      >Who saw the headline and thought that they had
      >finally invented giant EMP-bombs, a-la science
      >fiction?

      I was thinking Environmental-bomb, a-la the Russian "Stormbringer" missle from Frank Miller's _The Dark Knight Returns_.

      It was basically a bomb that did minimal collateral damage to structures (ie, industry), but did massive EMP and environmental damage, effectively causing a worldwide nuclear winter from the detonation of ONE warhead.

      -l

    7. Re:Am I the only one... by kerrbear · · Score: 2
      Who saw the headline and thought that they had finally invented giant EMP-bombs, a-la science fiction?

      I remember a Star Trek episode where they didn't explode the real bombs but only simulated ones, and people just had to report to the extermination chambers. Maybe we can do that now.

  26. Where's the Kaboom? by e1en0r · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom.

    1. Re:Where's the Kaboom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [alf] HAAA! [/alf] Get a room with a Venutian view instead!

    2. Re:Where's the Kaboom? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That's only for nuclear explosions that take place in the vaccuum of space! Don't you watch movies?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Where's the Kaboom? by llamalicious · · Score: 2

      They had their subwoofers turned off, sorry.

  27. screw SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw SETI at home, I want to be able to say that I helped simulate a nuclear detonation.

    Yup, pats computer. This puppy did THAT.

  28. Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link just points to some two year old blurb about the creation of ascii white.

  29. What a beast! by Icepick_ · · Score: 1

    Wonder how many kkeys/sec it could do on distributed.net

    1. Re:What a beast! by fw3 · · Score: 1
      Dnet claims to have around 17 Tflops worth of CPU's running, mostly on boxes that are good at integer and (relatively) weak on FP.

      AsciiWhite is running 512 nodes of a cpu that is very much tailored to run FP computation. According to Netlib this box is running 8000 discrete CPU's capable of a net thruput of 12000 Gflops.

      For comparison FP throughput on a 66 mhz Power2 system runs at 130 MFLOPS (260 peak), however it's Dnet throughput is on the order of 350 Kkeys / sec. Compare this to a PIII/1000 which produces the same 130 MFLOPS but runs 4500 Kkeys / sec.

      So yeah 512 nodes of 375 Mhz Power3 cpus are going to produce plenty of Kkeys per second. And it could probably do that in full parallel with the FP work but I wouldn't count on them diverting the cycles to Dnet.

      --
      Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
      bsds are of course just BSD
  30. First 3D simulation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the original subject for this post was a bit misleading. This was the first 3d simulation of a nuclear explosion. There have been many previous simulations of nuclear explosions, only they were limited to 2d plots of data. Nuclear explosion and fallout simulation has been the major purpose of supercomputing at Livermore and Los Alamos for decades.

    1. Re:First 3D simulation... by oni · · Score: 2

      There have been many previous simulations of nuclear explosions, only they were limited to 2d plots of data

      That's right. They were also only simulations of the first few miliseconds of the detonation IIRC.

    2. Re:First 3D simulation... by danny256 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will be leasing their 3D engine to other companies. It could put the quake 3 engine out of business.

  31. VR by bpb213 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    One Asci White nuclear demo, one set of VR glasses, one taliban representative....

    "are you sure about that desicion to hold bin laden from us mister represenative?"

    --

    This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
  32. every web transaction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    At a peak computational performance of 12.28 teraflops, or trillions of calculations per second, it could simultaneously process web transactions for every man, woman, and child on the planet in one minute.

    Come on fellow /.'ers let's get this puppy online and see if we have truly met our match or not....

  33. Re:Instead of simulation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rouge nations? What, do you dress them up like whores?

    I you're gonna be a dumbass, learn to spell. Rogue

  34. A Taste of Armageddon... by cqnn · · Score: 5, Funny


    The title of the Star Trek episode where warring
    planets conducted battles completely thru computer
    simulation. This advance takes us closer to that
    future possibilty.

    But, instead of modeling Nuclear detonations, I
    think the interests of warfare could also be served by setting up an ASCI White as a massive
    international UT server, and let national conflicts be settled by a nice game of capture
    the flag.

    Best two out of three?

    1. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Rebel+Patriot · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It'd never work. While the idea is nice and warm and fuzzy, it's utter bullshit. What you're talking about is already being done. It's called diplomacy. Can you honestly imagine people donig this? Do you think Israel and Palastine would agree to such a game, and if so, what purpose would it serve? It definately wouldn't stop their people from killing each other no matter the outcome.

      What if we were to engage in a war with So-Damn Insane (leader of Iraq)? We would tromp him hands-down, but what are the odds he would agree to whatever the terms after he lost? What would force him to acknowledge defeat, another computer battle? Puh-lease.

      Face it, wars work. Wars are terrible, despicable crimes against humanity, but they work. If Hitler and the Axis Powers had lost the Second World War (and it was conducted via computer), do you honestly think they'd have stopped and not invaded Poland or France? What if they'd won and claimed Poland and France as their own? Do you really think that the citizens of the country wouldn't rebel and create an utter anarchy?

      --
      Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy
    2. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chill out dude.

      I think the guy's post was meant to be warm and fuzzy, if not just silly.

      BTW, UT is still alot of fun, at least more fun then seeing a real nuke coming at you or tanks rolling on your front yard.

    3. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Face it, wars work. Wars are terrible, despicable crimes against humanity, but they work.

      Von Clausewitz said it best... "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means".

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      Politics, not diplomacy, IIRC. Politics is much more general, as it means basically whatever wild goals the political leadership may have come up with.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    5. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think we should all get the email addies of Mr. Hussein and his cohorts, and simply forward to them all the goddamned "add 2 inches to your penis" emails we get every week.

      I mean, even if it doesn't crash their server, at least it might take care of their collective Napolean complex.

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    6. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, a tank in my front yard would be pretty cool. At least i'd have something to talk about in school. Of course, everyone knows that Quake 3 is the true competitive multiplayer game. UT is just a newbie's spam fest.

    7. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by bugg · · Score: 2
      You do realize that the whole moral of that episode was that doing war by computer was a *BAD* thing, right? If you believe that's where we're headed, you should be kicking and screaming.

      The UT server, if implemented a la A Taste of Armageddon (losers sent off to death chamber) would be just as bad.

      --
      -bugg
    8. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Karl_Hungus · · Score: 1

      Face it, wars work. Wars are terrible, despicable crimes against humanity, but they work.

      Von Clausewitz said it best... "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means".



      Wars work? Wars work for the winner when they work at all. You can't justify a "crime against humanity" by pointing to an outcome that benefits any subset of humanity. Crimes against humanity are crimes against everyone, against the species as a whole. That includes you, in case you'd forgotten.

      Getting back to the topic at hand, I'll see your Von Clausewitz and raise you a Latour: "Science is politics by other means."

    9. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Do you think Israel and Palastine would agree to such a game, and if so, what purpose would it serve?

      Israel certainly wouldn't, in the real world they have complete military superiority. In a game they would probably have to face a more equal battle.

    10. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think we should all get the email addies of Mr. Hussein and his cohorts, and simply forward to them all the goddamned "add 2 inches to your penis" emails we get every week.

      Remember to put Bush and Blaire on the list :)

    11. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by JWhitlock · · Score: 1
      But, instead of modeling Nuclear detonations, I think the interests of warfare could also be served by setting up an ASCI White as a massive international UT server, and let national conflicts be settled by a nice game of capture the flag.

      Yeah, except everyone knows the U.S. is a big sniper whore...

    12. Re:A Taste of Armageddon... by jcast · · Score: 1

      Which is why, to make it work, both sides would have to be able to buy characters/weapons/etc. on E-Bay.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  35. So what is there next project??? by NOT-2-QUICK · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I may make a suggestion, I would like to see this beast of a super-computer used to assist the SETI@home project...

    With this thing's horsepower I would expect to have conclusive findings of extra terrestial life within a matter of weeks and be shaking hands with E.T. by the end of summer... :-)

    Also, I must throw in the obligatory comment of "wouldn't you just love a beowulf cluster of these things...".

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
  36. That's nice... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    This is the nice kind of vaporware. After all, if we don't have to detonate them, and can expirment with newer designs without building any, there's no loss.

    And if you don't have to have them around, there's no risk of them wandering off.

  37. The last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you want more information on this you can see slashdot's last story about it.

  38. This article was posted not long ago... by SevenTowers · · Score: 4, Informative

    Consistency please HERE

    --
    Imperium et libertas
    Autocracy and freedom
    1. Re:This article was posted not long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on. Someone moderate this up please. It is a valid source of more quality comments! As well as demonstrating yet again the need for slashdot to do some quality control...

  39. PHP Nuke? by GutBomb · · Score: 1

    wow, if this computer can simulate a nuclear explosion without skipping a beat, then maybe (just maybe) it could run php nuke at a reliable speed.

  40. New kernel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.4.19 Has been released
    So has 2.5.8
    Download them here!

  41. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subj

  42. Anyone else read that wrong? by pangur · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read the headline as "ASCII white detonated the first E-bomb"

    Wait... ASCII, dumb terminals, email bombs, endless buzzers...it's all coming back to me now.

    Isn't this out of date? Next will be "Mainframe successfully runs up to ten users on terminals"

    Oh, wait, nuclear bombs simulations. Ok. Never mind. Sorry.

    1. Re:Anyone else read that wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I, too, read it as "ASCII white" and was imagining it to be a patch for Nethack:

      Something explodes in your backpack! --more--

      ./-\.
      .|@|.
      .\-/.

      Do you want your possessions identified? [y/n](y)

  43. And this benefits mankind how? by jocknerd · · Score: 0

    A computer with this kind of power. Amazing. Imagine the possibilities. Aids research, cancer research. But no, what is it being used for? Nuclear weapons research. What is wrong with humanity?

    1. Re:And this benefits mankind how? by mr_don't · · Score: 2

      Mod this person up! I agree, this type of computer research is sick! Why isn't this processor farm being used for, say, bacterial genomics?

    2. Re:And this benefits mankind how? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Redundant

      "Why isn't this processor farm being used for, say, bacterial genomics?"

      You'd rather have potentially defective nuclear weapons at our disposal than advancing bacteria research?

      I can see it now: "The United States was forced to launch a nuclear assault on Iraq today. Unfortunately, the first bomb that went off was powerful enough to scare birds away. In live television address, Saddam Hussein's speech was surprisingly short. 'Ha ha!', he said as he pointed in the general direction of the United States."

      There's a pretty big difference between modelling a nuclear explosion (or an explosion of any kind) and performing Seti like research. For one thing, Seti can divvy up the data to process into really small chunks, making it easy to distribute it across a number of machines.

      This cannot be done with an explosion of any kind. The reason is that you have LOTS of particles interacting with each other. For each interaction, every single particle needs to be re-calculated. This is why you cannot divvy up the data and spread it across a lot of machines. This is why you need to use a computer like this to do the calculation.

      I'm not sure what kind of math is done for genome related stuff, so I cannot really comment on that. I'm willing to bet, though, they could spread it across as many machines as they need. If they need a machine like the one being used in this article, they could probably lease run time off it.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:And this benefits mankind how? by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      I'm curious to know what kind of AIDS research you think could be done with a really fast computer? Most problems aren't suited to just throwing lots of computer power at them.

      Furthermore, when equipment like this is built for military testing, the result almost always benifits other fields shortly afterward. After the DOE is done playing with it, time on the machine will be available for other research. You can rent CPU time on most of the ASCI machines the DOE has built in the past. Without the defense spending on nuclear simulation, this machine probably wouldn't have been funded in the first place.

    4. Re:And this benefits mankind how? by OS24Ever · · Score: 3, Informative
      This cannot be done with an explosion of any kind. The reason is that you have LOTS of particles interacting with each other. For each interaction, every single particle needs to be re-calculated. This is why you cannot divvy up the data and spread it across a lot of machines. This is why you need to use a computer like this to do the calculation.


      I just wanted to clarify something for people thinking 'But isn't ASCII White a bunch of machines?'


      Yes, It is. But they are tightly intercoupled with an IBM SP Switch that has something like 300MB (Yes, Mega BYTE) second non-blocking throughput to handle the internode communication, both at the rack (16 machine) and cluster (In ASCII White's case, it's 128 racks I believe, 128 racks of 16 4-way Power3 SPs, I've been in the same room with it but didn't touch it/work on it/have anything to do with it except go 'whoa' when someone pointed it out to me) I'm probably wrong on the interconnect speed, I think it's much faster now. I'm a bit behind on IBM's SP stuff. Spend to much time watching Myrinet.



      I'd like to take a gander at the parallel coding that was done to get this kind of simulation. This can't be a batch mode program (like distributed.net and seti) like you said. It'd be quite facinating, though I'm sure they'd shoot you after you read it for that Top Secret stuff.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  44. Imagine... by deepstephen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll do the obligatory "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" joke, shall I?

    --

    --
    Karma: Chameleon (you come and go)
    1. Re:Imagine... by blankmange · · Score: 0

      Too late (see above),,,

      --
      ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
  45. and yet by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 3, Informative

    Congress did not ratify the nuclear test ban treaty.

    The only way i can explain this is that some people actually want other countries to develop nuclear capabilities. Which is not that far fetched actually.

    1. Re:and yet by zulux · · Score: 2

      The only way i can explain this is that some people actually want other countries to develop nuclear capabilities.

      I don't fear any counrty that developes it's own nuclear bomb - a cretain amount of civilisation is required in order to achieve such a feat. It's he countries/groups that buy their nukes that scare me.

      The same corelation can be made with guns - it's not the hunter that can make his own rounds that you should fear, it's the street thug that traded his welfare check for a "saturday night special" that will wind up killing somebody.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    2. Re:and yet by FnH · · Score: 1

      Given enough uranium or plutonium I could blow up my backyard all by myself. It only requires one suicide bomber to put all the pieces together (literally) untill the critical mass has been exceeded

    3. Re:and yet by SIGFPE · · Score: 2
      a cretain amount of civilisation

      Iraq has a cretin amount of civilization. Doesn't that worry you?
      --
      -- SIGFPE
    4. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men in black suits and sun glasses are at your door ... now.

    5. Re:and yet by Control+Group · · Score: 2

      Ratifying a treaty that only you're going to follow is really rather foolish.

      It's something like God agreeing with Satan to not interfere with the world: this only works to Satan's benefit, since God will abide by his word; Satan won't.

      Before anyone says anything about my claiming America is God, I'm using the point illustratively, not as an argument for, or statement of, America's moral superiority. The point is that Congress (perhaps rightly, I don't pretend to be an expert on the geopolitical scene) fears that signing such a treaty will tie the U.S.'s hands (because if we broke it, word would get out, and half the country would be up un arms), but not tie the nations perceived as real threats.

      None of this makes the treaty any less or more right; it is simply a possible explanation for Congress' behavior.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    6. Re:and yet by zulux · · Score: 2

      Iraq has a cretin amount of civilization. Doesn't that worry you?


      If I lived in a non-nuclear country, I'd be a bit affraid of a nuclear capable Iraq, as there woulden't be any 'mutually asssured destruction' recprical attack for Iraq to worry about. As long as Saddamm loves his children more than he hates me - then I'm safe.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    7. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only a good analogy if you believe in God and Satan. Plus, God only keeps His word according to the Bible; perhaps the Bible was written by some old fart with a great sence of humor and nothing to do?

    8. Re:and yet by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      As long as Saddamm loves his children more than he hates me

      What makes you think he does? You know Golda Meir's line: "The only way we eliminate war is to
      love our children more than we hate our enemies". Ie. it hasn't happened yet.
      --
      -- SIGFPE
    9. Re:and yet by jafac · · Score: 2

      How in the hell are we supposed to justify taking over the world if we don't let them toss around a few nukes in anger first?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    10. Re:and yet by jafac · · Score: 2

      Oh yes. I feel oh so safe and secure that the ultra civilized and advanced civilizations of India and Pakistan have nukes. I get a nice safe secure feeling deep inside every time I hear about hordes of Hindus raiding Muslim towns and burning houses, or strike-teams of Muslim fighters attacking parliment with grenades and machineguns with the ultimate aim of becoming a martyr and taking as many infidels with them.

      On the other hand, I feel safe that I live in a country with several thousand nukes - run by a man who panders to the same religious extremists who bomb abortion clinics (er - killing people because all life is sacred).

      Yeah, what a beautiful world we live in.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:and yet by zulux · · Score: 2

      Ie. it hasn't happened yet.

      Perhaps the reason MAD works is the Assured part of it. During WWII, yor average German never imagined that their actions would lead to the devistation of their cities - but almost every Russian does know that their lives are forfit if their country picks a fight with a similarly equiped nuclear power. If there is doubt that their destruction is assured, then war will flourish. But remove the doubt and war looses it's apeal.

      Unfortunatly, mankind looses it's collective memory quickly and I'm afraid that in a few years, we'll collectivly forgotten the misery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - an sombody stupid will 'push the shinny button' and not fully realise that they just bought themselves a one-hour-delayed death sentance.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  46. mad games by KingPrad · · Score: 1

    maybe the test was successful only because there was no one to shoot back?

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
  47. Possible Nuclear Test Ban Violations? by Liora · · Score: 1

    Where did they actually detonate the bombs to prove that the data from the test simulations was reliable? How did they test the simulation without real data to back it up?

    --
    Liora
    1. Re:Possible Nuclear Test Ban Violations? by PD · · Score: 2

      Between the US and the old USSR there have been over 2000 detonations of nukes on the planet. I think we've had plenty of time and data from actual explosions to devise a theory, implement a simulation, and check it against the recorded data.

      So, to answer your question, they got their data to test the simulation by blowing up nukes.

    2. Re:Possible Nuclear Test Ban Violations? by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      So, to answer your question, they got their data to test the simulation by blowing up nukes.
      That's also where they got the data for hardening electronics against EMP.
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    3. Re:Possible Nuclear Test Ban Violations? by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

      We have all the data collected since we started testing. What we didn't have we got from Wen Ho Lee's trash.

  48. Mmmm. Overclocker's dream by Saturn49 · · Score: 1

    ASCI White currently operates at 12 teraflops, but by early next year, Los Alamos expects to operate at 30 teraflops.
    I can see all the overclockers salivating already. That is better than the Celeron 300A's running stable at 450Mhz.

  49. Another EBomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is a recreational substance...

  50. Re:Instead of simulation... by Random+Hamster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bonjour,
    J'ai pensé que vous des Américains aviez arrêté s'inquiéter de la menace rouge!

    http://dictionaries.travlang.com/FrenchEnglish/d ic t.cgi?query=rouge&max=50

  51. Choices .... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 1
    Global Thermonuclear War ...

    or Tic-Tac-Toe?

    Would you like to play a game?

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
  52. this is not a good thing by K. · · Score: 2

    It may stop the US from pulling out of another treaty but it only increases the chance that nuclear weapons will be used by and/or against them.

    Nuclear proliferation will not improve your lives in any way. It has a good chance of making you paranoid and miserable, and a very small chance of killing you and everyone you care about.

    --
    -- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
    1. Re:this is not a good thing by MilesBehind · · Score: 1

      Ya, that's a good point... would this be part of nuclear proliferation? I mean, the idea of deterrent is that any attack would be met with equal force. Since the Americans have these simulators, their missiles will be more functional, giving them an advantage. Of course, all this is insignificant, as Bush already wiped his ass with the important parts of nuclear treaties. So I guess if the Russians were still a power of any importance, there'd a be a simulator race starting now, to maintain the mutually assured destruction situation.

    2. Re:this is not a good thing by geekoid · · Score: 2

      MAD seems to have worked so far.
      It doesn't create nuclear bombs, it allows people to
      a:build cleaner bombs. IF someone is going to use the bomb, they will use the bomb, with or without this simulation. Quite frankly, I'd rather they used a clean bomb, perferable air burst.
      b:Help us figure out whats going on with our aging nuclear weapon.

      b:

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:this is not a good thing by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Our missiles are more functional than anyone elses. The main reason that the Soviets had 3-4 times more weapons was that their accuracy was that much worse. Their CAP (Circular Area of Probability) was much higher than ours. So instead of upping the accuracy they upped the missiles per target to increase the chance of destruction. And because our weapons were more accurate we didn't have to develop weapons of the sheer size that the Soviets made.
      Not that any of this impacts on why a person like Saddam is developing, he would be happy to hit the country that he is aiming at, since whackos like him are more likely to use it.

    4. Re:this is not a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAD seems to have worked so far.

      The League of Nations and fear of chemical weapons seemed to have worked for 20 years or so. The UN and MAD are going on 60. Looking around the world I am not encouraged by the odds of another 60 years.

      There hasn't been an asteroid since Siberia (80 years??), Mt St Helens hasn't erupted in almost 20 years, Los Angeles where I live hasn't had a destructive earthquake in 7 years, yet I am not about to believe that there will not be a recurrance of these things in my lifetime.

      How can you think that nuclear weapons are universally a deterrant, when people kill themselves strapped with grenades, C4, and yes flying airplanes, just for the sake of killing people who they see aas the enemy? How can you think that technology available to the US in the 1940's is out of reach forever from the cretans to turn an accidental phrase?

    5. Re:this is not a good thing by mpe · · Score: 2

      How can you think that nuclear weapons are universally a deterrant, when people kill themselves strapped with grenades, C4, and yes flying airplanes, just for the sake of killing people who they see aas the enemy?

      The only thing which stops these people using nukes is that they don't have any yet.

  53. 1992 Nuclear Test Ban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did Congress ratify this? Presidents can't ratify treaties on their own.

    1. Re:1992 Nuclear Test Ban? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know, but maybe 1992 is a good guess?

  54. So what's the unit of measurement? by rakeswell · · Score: 1
    Each simulation used more than 6.6 million CPU hours, which would take home machines 1000 years to complete.

    Could someone explain this conversion? Does it seem arbitrary that 6.6 million CPU years will take 1000 years to cycle on a "home computer"?

    What exactly is a "CPU year" anyway? The term seems like it should be intuitive, but if the conversion noted in the article is accurate, it would seem to be a counter-intuitive measure.

    --
    All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
    1. Re:So what's the unit of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, first they said CPU hours

      A CPU-hour worth of computation is the amount of computation an "average CPU" can do in one hour. However, their computation still seems a little off: 6.6 million years, divided by the number of hours in a year gives:

      echo "6600000/(24*365)" | bc -l
      753.42465753424657534246

      I guess 1000 years must have just been such a pretty number that they felt it worthwhile to fudge their computation by 32%

  55. No its not... by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its primary purpose is to replace nuclear testing that has been banned for ten years -- ten years of having NO idea how the existing warhead supply is aging.

    You may agree or disagree with their intended use, but right or wrong there are two critically important things that we have to know as long as a single warhead still exists.

    1) As the parts age, will it work as designed, when it needs to go off
    2) As the parts age, will it work as designed, when we sure as hell don't want it to.

    In either case, failure carries terrifying outcomes. Think about it -- in one case, the warhead doesn't detonate completely, causing an incredible amount of fallout (Chernobyl-style), which is never the intent of a nuclear warhead. In the other case, people dye (very likely in a similarly polluting manner) when it goes off unexpectedly.

    As long as nuclear warheads exist, this sort of research is absolutely critical, and its not anyones place to put down this research for ethical reasons related to the existance of the bomb. The two are related but totally separate, and you shouldn't cross those beams.

    1. Re:No its not... by sien · · Score: 1, Troll
      Oh god, thinking about how people dye is frightening. Just imagine all those blue, green, red and orange people polluting the environment.

      I hope the ASCI machine is capable of tasteful color selection. It might not be so bad if the people could be color coordinated.

    2. Re:No its not... by rhizome · · Score: 2

      Oh it is. The simulations are designed to leave untouched the people who are the same color as the computer.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    3. Re:No its not... by tgd · · Score: 2

      Quit it, its not my fault /. doesn't let you spell check or edit posts. :)

    4. Re:No its not... by Suicyco · · Score: 2

      Actually I do believe that a nuclear device cannot detonate "accidentally." A deteriorated device would have no chance of actually exploding, though it might leak or perhaps some of the explosive could go off and cause all kinds of nuclear fallout, but it wouldn't be a nuclear blast. These are such precise machines that to effect a true nuclear explosion requires extreme perfection in the mechanism. A child with a screwdriver could demolish a nuclear weapon. You could attach 50lbs of C4 to a nuclear device and destroy it without any nuclear reaction. Though a nuclear blast probably wouldn't be as devastating as a blown up device because of all the radiation. A plutonium nugget scattered into the atmosphere could wipe out a large portion of the east coast, for instance.

    5. Re:No its not... by nzAnon · · Score: 1

      What the FUCK has simulating the explosion got to do with determining the stability of the components of the bomb! What a load of rubbish, what a transparent lie! I hope you don't actually belive that. The sole reason is the US of A developing and preparing nuclear arms.

    6. Re:No its not... by beer_maker · · Score: 1
      And so we learn the real history of Alpha Complex and Our Friend, The Computer ...

      What do you mean, you don't love the Computer? You must be a no-good Commie Subversive Traitor, who probably belongs to a secret society as well ... report to the Food Vats at once!

      --
      Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    7. Re:No its not... by rhizome · · Score: 2

      As long as nuclear warheads exist, this sort of research is absolutely critical, and its not anyones place to put down this research for ethical reasons related to the existance of the bomb. The two are related but totally separate, and you shouldn't cross those beams.

      "Ours is not to question why..."

      You're using circular logic. There's no reason nuclear warheads can't be decommissioned, except for politics. Ethics are necessary to break the cycle.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    8. Re:No its not... by CMiYC · · Score: 2

      "If there is a mistake...well, you should have used the 'Preview' button!"

      Besides, a spell check would not have picked that up anyway.

    9. Re:No its not... by markmoss · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      "People dye" means they change color. Although being near ground zero would be apt to cause various color changes (probably ending in black & crispy), perhaps you meant "die"?

    10. Re:No its not... by kwiatal · · Score: 1

      "Because the last thing you need during a nuclear apocalypse is some sort of accident happening."
      -- paraphrased from A. Whitney Brown

    11. Re:No its not... by joib · · Score: 2

      I'd suggest you chose your words more carefully when you obviously don't know what you're talking about...

      The stability of the components of the warhead are fairly well known. What is not known, and what this ASCI project intends to find out, is how the aging of the components affect the warhead as a whole. I.e. first simulate aging the components (i.e. change the isotope distribution, maybe chemical composition for the explosives for detonating the primary etc.) and then run the warhead detonation simulation and see if it goes boom or not.

    12. Re:No its not... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually I do believe that a nuclear device cannot detonate "accidentally."

      That is not true. Early nuclear weapons designs had severe safety problems by modern standards. It took many years of engineering and testing to solve the problems. A Hiroshima type bomb can be made to go critical by immersing it in water. A Nagasaki type bomb can explode with a measurable nuclear yield if the high-explosive lens assembly is detonated by fire or shockwave.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    13. Re:No its not... by shaunbaker · · Score: 1

      okay settle down and watch your mouth, you are not a child and not expected to act as such...if you are looking as to why simulation is important in finding the stability the idea is to determine when current stocks would loose their effectiveness through the inherent decay in the bomb (not so much as the half life of the material but more the more traditional interconnects), if you have a problem with this you may need to step back and examine the success of MAD throughout the second half of the century. It potentially reduced WWIII to a series of proxy fights much less damaging than a full out war....grow up

    14. Re:No its not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could color coordinate it based on the distance from the nuke. Within 10 miles would be the area that all victims are dyed "red", within 100 miles is "yellow", and more than 100 miles is "green". The rest, I dunno, more than 200 miles, give them a tacky tie dye or something. They shouldn't care about colour, they should feel lucky to be alive.

    15. Re:No its not... by shayera · · Score: 1

      Operative words here being 'Early nuclear weapons designs".
      Modern designs, and as far as the people writing for fas.org explains, are quite safe as regards accidental detonation. However scattering plutonium will ensure very angry neighbours for a while.
      Real modern warheads will happily ignore that slab of C4 you just detonated and just let them selves be made into warm to the touch debris.

      --
      Venlig Hilsen / Regards
      John Hinge - shayera / .sPOOn.
      "Buffy I love you... Please God No!" S
    16. Re:No its not... by nzAnon · · Score: 1

      Yes i was angry and used a BAD WORD to express that anger. But quite frankly, where do you get off trying to take the moral high ground here, i swore, your advocating a policy that made real the possible destruction of our planet and the human race to further America's unsustainable economic growth. I'm not the one that needs to look in the mirror here!

    17. Re:No its not... by nzAnon · · Score: 1

      My mistake, i didn't realise that were just testing the stability of the components. Obviously once they have determined if it goes boom or not, that's where the simulation ends. They not using it for furthers weapons development, that is what your saying?

    18. Re:No its not... by joib · · Score: 2

      I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya.. :) No, seriously, they certainly will want to find out the failure age. I.e. age say 10 years, simulate detonation, then age say 20 years and simulate again etc. until they find the age where the performance is not acceptable anymore. When that age is found, they certainly wanna know how to extend the life of the warhead. I.e. if we change component x at age y, how will that affect the weapon, what will it cost compared to other alternatives. Considering that this simulation apparently took about 6 months I think they have a couple of years of work cut out for themselves.

      Regarding further weapons development, I think the line is quite blurred. Consider that the older the warheads get, the more components they have to replace. Probably they will take the chance to use somewhat improved components as they have a few decades of experience more than when the warheads were originally designed. Also at some point, "refurbishing" the warhead entails more or less dismantling it and remanufacturing it. What's the difference between that and producing a new one? Perhaps the serial number stays the same.. :) So if you wanna be cynical, you can call it "designing new warheads using politically correct terminology". :-)

      Anyway I think that if the US wants a nuclear arsenal, they better keep it in shape too, otherwise it's just an accident, or should I say catastrophe, waiting to happen. I prefer that they do it with computers instead of blowing up some atoll in the Pacific. Of course we would probably all be better off if all nuclear weapons in the entire world were dismantled, but I really don't think it will happen...:-(

    19. Re:No its not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling trolling trolling, keep them trollers trolling, rawhide!!! *snap-crack*

    20. Re:No its not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, and then birds will sing and flowers will bloom and everyone will live happier ever after.

      *suddenly wakes up*

      Hate to say it, but what you're looking at is the Law of the Minimum, except you're looking for that minimum as a deterrent that other people won't come along and make more nukes. If other people think they can make nukes and lob 'em, (cause then they'll be the only ones that have 'em then won't they?) how do we stop the bad nuke makers when they have this awesome weapon of mass destruction? Deterrance by having the "upper hand"(and hoping to doG you never have to use it...) is really the only way to do it as long as there are people out there that we don't (can't?) trust and have the know how to build such beasts. :/

      Ethics really has nothing to do with it as you can never be sure you're "enemy" will be ethical. :P

    21. Re:No its not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. I wish I had mod points, because that is insightful as hell..

    22. Re:No its not... by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      I guess im somewhat amazed, and also hoping its not true, that we are relying upon a simulation to tell if our nukes are good or not. Sure, run a ton of simulations, im sure that some portion of them are going to come back as saying its bad in some respect. What do they do next? Give the computer a map of the storage facilities, and have it *simulate* where the bad ones are?

      In my opinion they are up to more then just that.

      Lets say we have 1000 nukes, that have been in storage for 10 years. You do a bunch of simulations, and they come back positive. You wait 5 years, you do some more test, and now it says that 5 are bad.

      Now, we don't use nukes that often, in fact we have only used 2 bombs in war, as far as i know. If for some reason in the future, we need to use another nuke, would our government really rely upon a bunch of nukes that have been in storage for 15 years, and our best guess is 5 of them are bad. What if the one we pick is a bad one? What if they didn't simluate it, and the whole batch of nukes is bad, and we try to fire them, and we die because they are all duds and they come back and kick our ass. I really think the best way of doing this is dismantle the nukes we have and get it over with. If some country launches a nuke at us, or some other country, we're all fucked anyway so its not going to matter..

      Keep in mind i really have no idea how the testing process goes, but if it is anything like above im scared =).

    23. Re:No its not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason nuclear warheads can't be decommissioned, except for politics

      This is complete and utter bullshit. The genie doesn't fit back in the bottle.

    24. Re:No its not... by gfreeman · · Score: 1
      So store the Hiroshima type bombs in the oven, and put the Nagasaki type bombs in the bath (but use a non-slip rubber mat, we don't want any slipups, do we?).

      Every home should have one - it's in the second amendment.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    25. Re:No its not... by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Although I appreciate one moderator's recognition of my attempt to be funny, IMO sien's post was much funnier...

  56. Woohoo! What great simulations! by Twilight1 · · Score: 1

    In a few more years, we'll be able to simulate multiple, simultaneous explosions... and eventually entire wars will be able to be predicted by computer!

    Just imagine... new treaties could be put into place to forbid "conventional" war altogether. (Yes, I think I just redefined conventional in this sense...) After all, nobody likes the loss of culture, relics, artifacts, and history due to the side pesky side effect of killing each other. We can simulate wars, and all the people caught in the simulations' destruction zones could simply report to government agencies to be put to sleep in a "humane" fashion. No messy rubble, no rebuilding, no loss of anything "important". This is progress, man... progress!

    Oh... and don't mind that starship in orbit. In fact, don't even put them in the simulation. And for god sakes people, don't let them beam anyone down... they'll throw a wrench in the works, I'm just sure of it.

    Twilight1

    1. Re:Woohoo! What great simulations! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      You DO realize that you just explained a Star Trek: The Original Series episode, yes?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Woohoo! What great simulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Original
      Oh... and don't mind that starship in orbit. In fact, don't even put them in the simulation. And for god sakes people, don't let them beam anyone down... they'll throw a wrench in the works, I'm just sure of it.


      Response
      You DO realize that you just explained a Star Trek: The Original Series episode, yes?


      How much more obvious did it have to be?

    3. Re:Woohoo! What great simulations! by CMonk · · Score: 1

      We all know good always triumphs over evil.

    4. Re:Woohoo! What great simulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoosh*

      right over your head.

      of *course* he realises it, f00. that's the whole damn point.

    5. Re:Woohoo! What great simulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bananas are good brain food, I suggest you eat a LOT of them...

  57. Pretty pictures by Verteiron · · Score: 1

    I want to see graphical representations of the simulation. Why? Because a nuclear explosion is one of the coolest-looking things around, and since we don't throw nukes at Pacific Islanders anymore, there's no new footage to stare at.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  58. But what about other countries? by cybercomm · · Score: 1

    I realize that we have such a huge piece of [ beowulf clustered**had to say it**] piece of hardware, which will be upgraded even further in a couple of months, but what about countries like India, China, Pakistan and other countries that cannot afford such an immense piece of hardware? They will still have to do this thing the old fashioned way, and they will be breaking the ban, i realise that this is a step in the right direction, but i believe we should do more to promote this sort of [virtual] testing, and not ignore it (which is something we did when Bush needed Indian and Pakistani support and when he lifted the sanctions, that were imposed on them after their tests a year or so ago)

    --
    Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
    1. Re:But what about other countries? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Yet another stupid Ultra-Liberal idea. Let's all buy Saddam Hussein a computer so that he can develop nuclear weapons to use against me.

      Since these countries have decided that they can afford to have a nuclear bomb development group, then they should spend the required amount of money to build/buy their own computer system. If they can't afford it, then they shouldn't be doing development in the first place. Nuclear bombs are difficult and expensive to maintain properly, and if they don't have the money to do it properly, they shouldn't do it at all. I don't think I'd feel good about my country buying Iraq a computer system of this stature for their nuclear bomb program so that they can develop weapons to use against me.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:But what about other countries? by cybercomm · · Score: 1

      Yeah i realize that, but think of it this way, if they continiue doing these open air tests the you will have to breathe radioactive dust and/or eat radioactive fis weather u like it or not...now i was not talking about giving them multi gigaflop machines, but rather something that will give them the impression that they are doing something, when in reality, it will take them at least 10 years to accomplish something that our ASCII can do in 1 month.... BTW Im a Commie, not a liberal (j/k) =P

      --
      Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
    3. Re:But what about other countries? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Atmospheric testing has been banned since the early '60s. All testing is/was done underground.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  59. Whoa. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2

    Now, how much processor time do they need to help the e-terminators to protect e-John Conner from the e-Robot Holocaust?

    Or prevent e-David Banner from turning into the e-Hulk?

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  60. Distributed Computing by ttyp0 · · Score: 1

    I doubt they are using this massive cluster all the time. They should donate CPU time. I wonder what would happen if they ran distributed.net or seti@home clients on ASCI. Do you think ASCI could actually /. seti@home? hmm...

    1. Re:Distributed Computing by iansmith · · Score: 1

      Heh, ever tried to get access to a limited research tool?

      I bet just the paperwork for getting a shot at running on that thing is a mile high, and they have every second scheduled from now until it's planned to be shut down.

    2. Re:Distributed Computing by Copid · · Score: 1

      The batch scheduling is huge and, don't forget, it's a classified side machine, so ordinary academics, even those who are affiliated with the lab, don't exactly have free access to the system.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  61. In other news... by realgone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Greenpeace immediately responded by running simulations of anti-nuke protests on an old 486 sitting on a card table outside Lawrence Livermore Labs.

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is hilarious. mod up please

    2. Re:In other news... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      So when is someone going to hack the simulation system? I can see it now, nuke scientists start recommending building silly-putty warheads, "The computer told us to!"

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead dude, you hack the Gibson... *rolls eyes*

  62. Detonates an E-Bomb by $beirdo · · Score: 1

    ... and you thought drugs were dangerous before the government figured out how to detonate an E-bomb! Don't keep 'em in your pockets!

  63. 12 teraflops by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Funny

    so what, it still takes 1 min to process a web request simultainiusly for every man, woman and child on earth...its not that great :-)

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  64. progress by trb · · Score: 2

    Nice to see that the masters of war have found a way to develop their implements of destruction without resorting to messy nuke tests that could harm children or other living things. Will they have stickers that say, "No animals were harmed in the development of this warhead?" I hope the folks at peta are happy about this.

  65. WRONG! by Roadmaster · · Score: 2

    Actually, that's not the only purpose. It's also capable of simulating nuclear material degradation, enabling better disposal and/or storage techniques for existing, no longer useful material.
    Also, future, faster computers (such as the petaflops machine being planned by Sandia National Labs, Compaq and Applera) will be used for genetic engineering and other biology-related research. Naysayers will think "bio weapons", then again, I guess you can find evil intent everywhere if you just look hard enough.

  66. Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by sam_handelman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fact that this was the sane option says a lot about the US, and little of it is good.

    There's no point in improving our nuclear arsenal if we're not prepared to use it. This is NOT the message we want to send out to the rest of the world!

    There are sound engineering/technical reasons, which military tech buffs are fond of pointing out, why it would be safe/acceptable to make controlled use of nuclear weapons. The military tech buffs are probably right as far as that goes, which isn't very far. If we're serious about controlling the proliferation of suitcase nukes we have to act multilaterally.

    Improving our nuke arsenal - especially after the foreign press has been filled with ill conceived threats/discussions of the possibility that we might use it - is shameful and stupid. We can intimidate the rest of the world into going along with us in public; we don't even need our military might to do that (although it does help), our economic clout is sufficient to scare the pants off of anyone with anything to lose.

    What we need, not just to defend ourselves, but to enrich ourselves, to enhance our prestige and enrich our increasingly-international culture, is international good will.

    Designing and building thermonuke depthcharges, bunkerbusters and tactical neutron bombs is NOT the way to go about that. If we're not going to build the things, we shouldn't waste the resources designing them.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > There's no point in improving our nuclear arsenal if we're not prepared to use it. This is NOT the message we want to send out to the rest of the world!

      Well, duh. There's no point in even maintaining (let alone improving!) a nuclear arsenal unless you're prepared to use it.

      Look up "Deterrence".

      We have a nuclear arsenal. We've maintained it for 50 years. And we've stated (for the better part of those 50 years), under what conditions we are prepared to use it.

      > Designing and building thermonuke depthcharges, bunkerbusters and tactical neutron bombs is NOT the way to go about that. If we're not going to build the things, we shouldn't waste the resources designing them.

      Eminently true -- I conclude, therefore, that we are going to design them, or at least do as much of the design work as possible, so that if we decide we need to build them, we can do so at a moment's notice.

      That's not being rash, that's being prudent.

      > What we need, not just to defend ourselves, but to enrich ourselves, to enhance our prestige and enrich our increasingly-international culture, is international good will.

      Peace in our time, eh?

      Dude, what's it like, chanelling the spirit of Neville Chamberlain? :-)

    2. Re:Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      > What we need, not just to defend ourselves, but to enrich ourselves, to enhance our prestige and enrich our increasingly-international culture, is international good will.
      You show me a person/country/culture/whatever that you think everybody else on the planet will like, and I'll show you a person/country/culture/whatever that everybody else on the planet will hate.
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by MeepMeep · · Score: 1

      Asking the US to give up it's nuclear weapon capability would be like asking someone to accept a penile reduction procedure.

      It ain't gonna happen.

    4. Re:Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      We can intimidate the rest of the world into going along with us in public; we don't even need our military might to do that (although it does help), our economic clout is sufficient to scare the pants off of anyone with anything to lose.

      The obvious issue is, what about those without anything to lose? Or those who perceive they don't have anything at least?

      Most terrorists fall into that category. So do most religious zealots. The former have stooped to terrorism because they lack any more effective means to do so. The latter believe that they are in The Right and will be rewarded in the afterlife for anything they do to further The Cause.

      Yes, yes... I know... designing new nuclear weapons isn't exactly going to help on this front in the larger sense. But there's the few insane and powerful where it may help. Modern day reference would be (at least from the US's point of view) Saddam Hussein. He's been trying to get nukes for over a decade now, and would be more than willing to use one on Israel or the USA. In this case some improved nukes may be of use.

      If we're not going to build the things, we shouldn't waste the resources designing them.

      I'll disagree to a certain extent. The mere process of designing them may teach us more about the physics of nuclear explosions (questionable, since a simulation will be an implementation of what we believe happens in reality, instead of measuring what actually occurs in reality).

      The other issue is that the nuclear simulations are not purely for designing new weapons. A lot of them are to simulate what the effectiveness of the current nuclear arsenal is. From what I understand, there's a good bit of question if the weapons built in the late 60s and 70s would even be functional today. The half-life on some of the elements is short enough, and the tolerances they were designed within tight enough, that attempting to detonate one may result in a smaller-than-expected explosion, or a complete dud.

    5. Re:Don't mess with us, we're craaaazy by sam_handelman · · Score: 2

      The obvious issue is, what about those without anything to lose?

      We need smaller, more agile nuclear weapons in order to counteract the threat of enemy boxcutters?

      there's a good bit of question if the weapons built in the late 60s and 70s would even be functional today.

      That is true. However, I'm certain that the Bush administration, which, if you'll recall, is not entirely in favor of the test ban treaty anyway wants to build new toys. It is my belief, which I failed to explain in my original post, that this is the real goal of the technology that they're developing.

      i.e. even if you can blow them up and don't strictly need computer models to test them, as anyone who's ever worked on an airplane design will tell you, the computers are a helpful first step. I wouldn't expect even this administration would be dumb enough to field something without first setting a few off underground (though they might try and get us to fork over the cash regardless), so this obviously isn't a substitute for backing out of the test ban treaty, but merely an attempt to move in that direction.

      You could also say that this is intended to abrogate an argument put forward by those who want to pull out of the CTBT, if you were inclined to ascribe good will or good sense to anyone who works with nuclear weapons.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  67. Lost Alamos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lost Alamos?
    Are you trying to be funny? (if so, try again)
    Or are you just being stupid?
    So hard to tell anymore.

  68. Where is the IBM credit? by cmark · · Score: 1

    Their stock is down and they are doing all this great stuff, I read the article and some comments then I take the ASCI White link and boom it is IBM...
    Why no mention? Why not in the IBM category?
    Did it have anything to do with the HP ad that I saw in the comments field? Is this still april 1st?

  69. Rods to the hogshead... by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The data for each experiment was equivalent to 35 times the information available in the Library of Congress.

    The Library of Congress was an interesting comparison back when CD-ROM drives were first becoming popular 10 years ago, and laymen had no clue about the storage capabilities of computers. Now it's just plain stupid.

    Imagine if hard drives were specd in KLOCs - thousands of libraries of congress. :)

    1. Re:Rods to the hogshead... by Danse · · Score: 2

      Ok, how many megabytes of storage would it take to contain the Library of Congress. Then I can just multiply by 35.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Rods to the hogshead... by Jouster · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the LOC also archives video and audio, which, depending on the sample rate if they're stored in analog, could theoretically encompass infinite data.

      Also, they're probably assuming 8-bit bytes for character representation. Why not 6-bit bytes (1950-1960's) or even Unicode 2-byte characters?

      Jouster

  70. Information available in the Library of Congress? by instinctdesign · · Score: 1
    Not to nitpick, but...
    The data for each experiment was equivalent to 35 times the information available in the Library of Congress.
    In terms of what, raw total of the number of bytes? Frankly that's a pretty arbitrary distinction, I didn't know that the entire content of the Library of Congress was so well broken down into its "true" essence.

    I would also have to echo the comments from several other posters, couldn't they use thing for something more beneficial? And, yes, I am well aware of the spin-off effect that often happens in military techinology, but it's still a question I have to ask.
    --
    forma3
  71. Cancer research? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, fallout causes cancer doesn't it?

    1. Re:Cancer research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, fallout causes cancer doesn't it?

      LMPWAO* - Mod points, mod points, my kingdom for some mod points!

      *PW = "Pasty White"

  72. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    91 zillion dollars and 22,000 CPU-years later, they determined that a buncha bombs going off will kill everything. Fan-fucking-tastic to see our tax dollars at work. Now that the machine is free, can you predict if the sun will come up in the east or west tomorrow so I can plan my day?

  73. Moore's Law.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8192 processors...at the current (last I heard) rate of doubling power once per year, Moore's Law gets us to a processor 8192 times as fast in 14 years. Their RAM requirement is a bit less than that, and storage will get there a *lot* sooner if IBM's Millipede works out.

    Which means, within the next couple decades or so, your average desktop machine will be able to simulate a nuclear explosion. Of course, the software might be kinda hard to get hold of.

  74. *drool* by SurfTheWorld · · Score: 0

    Can't wait til I can buy it on ebay and use it to run my Ultima Online character.

    --
    Do it for da shorties
  75. That's great, did I survive? by dbuttric · · Score: 1

    If I email them my SS#, can they tell me if I lived through it?

  76. Seti@home does not compare by joshv · · Score: 2

    Quite a few people have quoted the Teraflops/sec of Seti@home for comparision, perhaps suggesting that there is a better way of attacking these sorts of problems. I think if this sort of problem were amenable to a "widely distributed" computing attack we'd already all be running a covert client as part of our new windows XP installation (at least us windows users).

    Simulating nuclear explosions however is the sort of problem that requires the generation of massive amounts of data and intensive communications between computing nodes. Not something that's going to work well over a dialup connection...

    -josh

  77. successful test. by raindog151 · · Score: 1

    20$ says that somewhere in there, they forgot to carry the one.

    --
    your jesus is another mans xebu. chew on that hypocrites.
    1. Re:successful test. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      No, they just mixed english and metric...


      DO YOU WANT TO BLOW UP MARS? yes
      CALCULATING...
      DARN IT, I MISSED


      Author's note: that last line is in the Plucky Duck mode

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  78. Ahhhhhh.... by 2names · · Score: 0

    I have one of these in my basement. Makes one hell of a Quake server.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  79. Who needs nuclear weapons? by Theom · · Score: 0

    The real question is: can it simulae sex?

    --

    mp3: l33t term for empty.
  80. Shall we play a game? by CrazyDwarf · · Score: 1

    From the picture, it looks like WOPR!!! I want to play Global Thermonuclear War!!

    --
    It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
  81. The first target for the e-bomb... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    Spammers. Let's use the awesome power ASCI White to send opt-out messages on behalf of every IP address on the Internet to all of the spammers in nanae. Now that's the e-bomb in action.

  82. Hmmmm by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    Don't people watch the movies??? HAL has already simulated all that stuff... ;)

  83. It all depends on the screen saver by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the nuke project had a screen saver of cool mushroom clouds, blast waves and other eye candy people would be all over it.

    They could give a shit if it meant speeding up the extermination of homo sapiens.

  84. Email bombing by whovian · · Score: 1

    Hi, I am writing you this to ask your advice. See you later. Thanks.

    [detonates northern New Mexico]

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  85. proliferation concerns by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This kind of software if it would escape the lab (and the past has proven more than enough that anything that can escape will escape, remember those missing harddrives) combined with the pc's that you can buy at fry's in a few years time will allow any rogue nation to design their own without wisening anybody else because they no longer have to test their stuff in order to reach a high level of confidence that it will work in practice. Now at least we KNOW that Pakistan and India have the bomb (they probably wanted us to know, but there are some that do not want you to know until they hit you).

    1. Re:proliferation concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now at least we KNOW that Pakistan and India have the bomb (they probably wanted us to know, but there are some that do not want you to know until they hit you).

      Talk about being self-centered, they didn't want the US to know so much as each other (and to a lesser extent, the whole world). This contrasts with South Africa decades ago, which tested a weapon once in secret. As things came out eventually, we had a hunch but not proof and perhaps through back channel pressure, perhaps through fear of revolution they abandoned the program.

  86. OT: International Law vs. Sovereignty? (was Re: sa by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And the US is obviously not a rogue nation, because we respect international law.

    We don't? Oh, then we're not a rogue nation because we respect other nations' sovereignty.

    Has anyone ever noticed that national sovereignty and international law are mutually exclusive? This poster appears to be supporting both. When the rubber meets the road, where do most Slashdotters stand on this issue? I think they stand firmly on the side of international law. And that seriously scares me.

    Discuss.

  87. How about by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

    E-nuclear bombs...

    How about a beowulf cluster of these?

    I can't believe I just posted that.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  88. The spirit of the law by lobsterGun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now don't take me wrong. I appreciate how much of a technical marvel this is, but ....

    The test ban was enacted so that nations would STOP designing better planet-busters. Now we have shown that it is possible for people to design nukes in thier basement (assuming their basement has a 12 teraflop computer).

    Should we feel any more secure knowing that India and Pakistan can now quietly design better atomic arsenals to annihilate each other with?

    1. Re:The spirit of the law by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The test ban was enacted so that nations would STOP designing better planet-busters. Now we have shown that it is possible for people to design nukes in thier basement (assuming their basement has a 12 teraflop computer).

      Should we feel any more secure knowing that India and Pakistan can now quietly design better atomic arsenals to annihilate each other with?


      Unfortunately, there is no way to stop people from being able to perform computing simulations like this without also severely limiting most of their other technology - which would be grossly unethical. This is the same kind of problem as the old "limit the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons" thread that was going around a few years back; to make it impossible for anyone to figure out how to make nuclear weapons, you have to basically condemn them to an early-20th-century knowledge of science forever.

      It's more practical (and more convenient from an ethical standpoint too) just to look for signs of nuclear weapon production. It takes quite a bit of industry to refine the required materials; this can be detected if the watchers are vigilant. You can also detect the required nuclear plants from orbit with the right kind of sensors and a bit of patience (and it would surprise me greatly if the US didn't already have a host of satellites quietly looking for gamma ray glow on the ground).

      Limiting the ability to *design* nuclear weapons also doesn't really limit a nation's ability to *get* nuclear weapons, so I'd argue that the purpose of the test ban treaty is more to prevent escalation between the existing nuclear powers than to prevent new people from gaining nuclear capability.

    2. Re:The spirit of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but India and Pakistan should sleep better.

      It's called Nuclear Deterrant.

      We have absolutely no right to withhold any nation's right to develop nuclear (or any) weapons.

      If the Indians and Pakistanis are smart enough to figure out how to do it (they are), who are we to say that they can't have nuclear weapons?

    3. Re:The spirit of the law by Detritus · · Score: 2

      The choice is not between testing and no testing. The choice is between real tests and simulated tests. The reason that the USA agreed to halt underground testing was that it was confident that it could maintain the safety and reliability of existing nuclear weapons by using computer simulations to model the effects of component aging and replacement.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:The spirit of the law by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      So what was the point of the test ban? Save money? It seems the treaty had nothing to do with stepping back from weapons building.

      Something stinks in Denmark.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:The spirit of the law by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Interesting
      > Limiting the ability to *design* nuclear weapons also doesn't really limit a nation's ability to *get* nuclear weapons,

      I agree with 90% of what you said, so I'll nitpick on the 10%.

      Given enough fissionables, any nation can make something that goes BOOM.

      For any given BOOM, the quantity that constitutes "enough" is directly proportional to the skill of that nation's weapons designers.

      If you're a rogue nation, busily accumulating fissionables for your bombmakers, being stuck with a bad design is gonna delay your bombmaking effort for a few years, and once you have "enough" for a bomb, you won't be able to build as many of 'em.

      Inasmuch as we can observe signs of weapons production, the smaller "enough" is for them, the harder that job is, and the less likely it is that we'll be able to do anything about it before it's Too Late.

      Although it's not enough to stop proliferation, I believe that limiting the ability of rogue nations to improve their weapons design is a significant and ongoing part of nonproliferation.

    6. Re:The spirit of the law by G-funk · · Score: 2

      The test ban was enacted so that nations would STOP designing better planet-busters.

      No, it was to do two things:

      a) stop people detonating actual devices, because they trash the environment big time.

      b) keep nuclear power in the hands of those that already had it for as long as possible. If you've got an ascii white then you can build nukes. And you can't simulate a nuke without detonating a few real ones first.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    7. Re:The spirit of the law by E-Rock · · Score: 2
      We build fusion bombs. Very complex, with timing and nonsense that boggles the mind.

      A 'rouge nation' would be building dirty fission bombs. So this simulator does exactly dick for them.

    8. Re:The spirit of the law by Gyver_lb · · Score: 1

      To make simulations on computers researchers need some preliminary results from actual nuclear explosions. This is the main reason why there were French tests 6-7 years ago, the hardware and software was already designed to do the simulations but there was a lack of data...

      For Pakistan and India, I don't think they can simulate nuclear explosions for the time being. They are at the beginning of their nuclear tests. US and France have waited around 4 decades before switching to simulations.
      They probably may get the needed data from Russians however...

      Anyone knows the state of nuclear explosions simulation in the world ? Russia and China for example ?

  89. this is a distrubing event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is basically an effort to cirumvent the
    nuclear non-poliferation treaty. which comes
    at the worst time as bush has declared his
    willingness to use tatical nukes ... china
    is embracing on a space race with dual designs
    on icbms this is not something to celebrate. the
    united states still has the genocide of the
    100,000+ citizens of hiroshima and nagaski
    (compare that to the 3,000 attributed to osama)
    and has shown an alarming lack of restraint when
    it comes to using force from colombia, phillipines to parts of georgia ... i fear
    for the citizens of the world esp. non western peoples who have traditionally borne the brunt of
    the united states genocidal behavior. don't get me wrong i acknowledge that nuclear weapons are a reality in this day and age but there seems to be little or no effort by the united states to create
    as world where such devices are not part of the fabric of the world's military. it think our childred will look on this day with great sadness.
    i also think that the united states is capible of
    such things but we (people of the u.s.) have realize that there is a non-nuclear possibility.

    1. Re:this is a distrubing event by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 1

      STFU

  90. EBCIDIC White Detonates The First E-Bomb by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 2

    In a 2nd strike, EBCIDIC Detontates its First E-Bomb as a show of strength.

    Then in a further show of strength, UNICODE detonates its first E-bomb.

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  91. Err...how strong is 4096 bit encryption you said ? by apankrat · · Score: 1

    :ASCI White currently operates at 12 teraflops, but by early next year, Los Alamos expects to operate at 30 teraflops

    Ohhhhhh, if one could only put all these flops for the good use in cryptography-related activity ...

    hmm .. what did i just say ?

    oh, wait .. that was not me ..

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  92. But how fast... by shades66 · · Score: 1

    is it once Windows installed? I am guessing it may just be as fast as a 2GHz Pentium with 256Mb running linux?

    Mark

    --
    ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
  93. and in 25 years time.. by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 3, Funny

    The wristwatch you wear will contain many many times more computing power than this :D

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    1. Re:and in 25 years time.. by mother_superius · · Score: 1

      Just think of the convenience!

      You could simulate an atom bomb while waiting for a bus!

    2. Re:and in 25 years time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but if you try to play Global thermonuclear war on it, you'll only get a game of X & O's or a "nice game of chess" :D

    3. Re:and in 25 years time.. by Evan927 · · Score: 1

      http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong That scared the living shit out of me.

      --
      Do the obvious to e-mail me.
    4. Re:and in 25 years time.. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ on a stick!!!!!!!

      I'm looking and looking to the point where my nose is only an inch from the monitor, then I see it!

      Almost fell outta my chair.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  94. In other news... by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    Peer to peer software company Kazaa anounced that they would enter a new e-arms-race with the U.S. government. To do this, they will utilize the unused CPU power in their client's computers. In response, the Dutch government issued a statement saying, "Hey man, this is good shit! Want a hit?"

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  95. They Lost Alamos? by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

    Well, I hope they find Alamos... First it was equipment, now its the whole facility!!

    Lost Alamos... I kill me!

    --
    Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
  96. Re:OT: International Law vs. Sovereignty? (was Re: by Bearpaw · · Score: 3, Informative
    Has anyone ever noticed that national sovereignty and international law are mutually exclusive?

    Only if you take them both as absolutes, and believe that countries can't sign onto any international law treaties without giving up all of their sovereignty.

    Does agreeing to abide by state and federal law mean that individuals give up all their individual rights and freedoms? No, of course not.

    Same thing.

  97. "Real" world uses by Dot+Com+Drew · · Score: 1

    I have yet to see how this will enhance my life on a daily basis, i.e. better porn

    I guess they could simulate how my roommates huge stack of porn would be affected by a nuclear blast.

    Porn.

    ok I will stop.

    --
    This .sig is .false
  98. We're ready for Vendikar now! by afabbro · · Score: 1

    ...and I'm ready to report to my disintegration chamber.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  99. HOLY @#$%#$ by TheCyko1 · · Score: 1

    someone get me a tractor! i'm taking that baby to a LAN!!!!

    --
    This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
  100. A Misuse of Compute! by mr_don't · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I was working in a Bacterial Genomics lab, I used to crave faster, more powerful computers to crunch through genomic data. This type of computing power is a dream for bioinformaticists who want to, for example, create targeted cures for bacterial disease based on specific genetic idioms.

    What is unfortunate is that we have an expensive, tax-payer funded processor farm that is dedicated to the useless pursuit of studying weapons of mass destruction. A great text about the myths of US nuclear policy can be found in Michio Kaku's (with Dan Axelrod) To Win a Nuclear War. It's in the style of a book like "The Hacker Crackdown", well researched, and really interesting.

    If you are interested in stopping Nuclear Weapons Research in the US, another great site is that of Nobel Peace Prize Winning group Intl. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). I think it's telling to compare IPPNW's site to the Defense Department's Moronic Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team web site!


    1. Re:A Misuse of Compute! by k2enemy · · Score: 1
      What is unfortunate is that we have an expensive, tax-payer funded processor farm that is dedicated to the useless pursuit of studying weapons of mass destruction.

      ascii white has important political implications too. but as far as supercomputers for warm and fuzzy uses, ibm is currently working on an even more powerful computer for folding proteins.

    2. Re:A Misuse of Compute! by jafac · · Score: 2

      Ah, so you're saying that the taxpayers should fund this kind of supercomputing power so that pfizer can own my DNA? No thanks.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  101. Power But... by LordYUK · · Score: 1

    does it have a built in watermark detector for downloading only legit digital media?

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  102. Recursion by Yoda2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    IBM today announced that the company has built the world's fastest supercomputer--capable of 12 trillion calculations per second--more than three times faster than the most powerful computer in existence today.

    If they've already built the thing, how can it be 3x faster than "the most powerful computer in existence today"?

    1. Re:Recursion by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      It's, um, infinitely fast. Thank you for your request; now please move to Interrogation Chamber C-76 for Knowledge Overrabundance Self-Termination.

      The computer is your friend.

    2. Re:Recursion by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      It's transcended into a Power, and is therefore no longer a mere "computer".

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Recursion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not infinity. It is 0

      (!)

  103. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  104. gee i wonder ..... by dcviper · · Score: 1

    ....What kind of FPS i'll get running Return to Castle Wolfenstein......

    --
    Ummm, err, say what, now?
  105. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not if you have one of those new-fangled CPU thermal diode sensing motherboards.

  106. You don't need to know how atoms respond. by Mastagunna · · Score: 1

    The theory behind a nuclear bomb is very simple, any first year student in a real course(read not arts/social science) at university could make one. This is a study on the inner workings of the explosion, which has nothing to do with making one. I knew how to build one after my grade 8 prodject on Oppenhimer. The reason people cannot just make them is the ban on the sale of the parts neaded to make a bomb.

    1. Re:You don't need to know how atoms respond. by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      ...plus, the engineering details, including how to make one small enough and robust enough that it can be hurled through the stratosphere in an ICBM and still detonate properly. That's why it's not only the materials, but the plans themselves, that are of interest to less-nuclear countries.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:You don't need to know how atoms respond. by mpe · · Score: 2

      plus, the engineering details, including how to make one small enough and robust enough that it can be hurled through the stratosphere in an ICBM and still detonate properly.

      Probably the reason that the only two bombs used in anger were tossed out of planes on paracutes.
      There are other ways of delivering weapons.

  107. imagine... by ryanflynn · · Score: 1

    imagine a BeoWulf cluster of those! :P

  108. Wading through the crap... by dedicke · · Score: 0

    I would have loved to heard some interesting comments on this simulation, as I feel the world may be fast approaching another nuclear incident sometime in this decade...

    However out of 12 comments ( i am browsing at 3+ to try to get some good intelligent convo) 7 are "FUNNY". Great. I am all for a good laugh, but mostly on Slashdot lately it is merely people looking for any excuse to post a punchline and earn some karma. It is pretty lame if you ask me...

    I am not against being "FUNNY" - the contrary. But it has been taken to an extreme lately on Slashdot and the experience is suffering for it. STOP GIVING PEOPLE 4-5 points for lame comments that are obviously karma whoring. PLEASE!

    --
    raretshirts.com - cool vintage t-shirts
  109. HD space by ebmedia · · Score: 1

    "ASCI White will possess more than 160 trillion bytes of IBM disk storage capacity, holding 16,000 times more data than the average desktop PC."

    Give me broadband, and a P2P client, I'll eat that up right quick.

  110. Could you imagine by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

    A Beowulf cluster of these.... Wait it is a cluster... AHHH a beowulf cluster of a beowulf cluster.

    You can mod me down now

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  111. civilization? by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't fear any counrty that developes it's own nuclear bomb - a cretain amount of civilisation is required in order to achieve such a feat.

    Specifically, you need Nuclear Power and Rocketry, plus you need to build the Manhattan Project. Except the damn Mongols keep put SDI Defense everywhere.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:civilization? by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      The trick is to nuke units right beside their cities instead, see. SDI doesn't stop that.

    2. Re:civilization? by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      >> I don't fear any counrty that developes it's own nuclear bomb - a cretain amount of civilisation is required in order to achieve such a feat.

      >Specifically, you need Nuclear Power and Rocketry, plus you need to build the Manhattan Project. Except the damn Mongols keep put SDI Defense everywhere.



      George Dubya's a mongol???????????

    3. Re:civilization? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      >>> I don't fear any counrty that developes it's own nuclear bomb - a cretain amount of civilisation is required in order to achieve such a feat.

      >>Specifically, you need Nuclear Power and Rocketry, plus you need to build the Manhattan Project. Except the damn Mongols keep put SDI Defense everywhere.

      >George Dubya's a mongol???????????


      Texas, Mongolia, same difference. :)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:civilization? by Shardis · · Score: 1

      Actually, to build a single stage nuclear device in the range of a citybuster, it's not that tough. Getting the "material" to fuel it is really the only stumbling block.
      College kids have been spooking profs by doing it (sans "material" hopefully) every so often.

      The multistage stuff... ah ... now that's another basket of strudel.

    5. Re:civilization? by Shardis · · Score: 1

      I hate replying to myself, but mebbe that should've been "blockbuster". Hell if I know, the physics isn't that tough, and neither is the construction (comparitively). I do remember a nationally publicized bit years and years ago in which a highschool kid basically created a small "breeder" reactor. Nothing that would create a nuclear event I wouldn't think, but enough to scatter a descent amount of rads over a couple of blocks. Not healthy.

      Disclaimer:IANAP

    6. Re:civilization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Dubya's a mongol???????????

      No, no. He's a mongoloid. See the 3rd sense of the adj. or the 2nd sense of the n.

    7. Re:civilization? by Iberian · · Score: 0

      Your ability to recall every prerequisite to every advance in the original Civilization is a testament to the game and its adictive nature. BTW I always hated the Mongols.

  112. Self-fulfilling tests? by mccalli · · Score: 2
    How can this be a good test? It can only simulate according to program, and programming will be done according to current theory.

    In other words, it will simply run through a set of possible behaviours that science currently expects of it. Not it's actual behaviour.

    Doing this in the real world might throw up new information that hadn't prevoiusly been predicted. Doing it on a computer seems like an exercise in scientific back-slapping to me.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Self-fulfilling tests? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Well, most of the other things that we more or less take for granted are still theories; the theory of gravity, for example.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Self-fulfilling tests? by Jouster · · Score: 1

      Actually, what they do is input test parameters from before previous weapons explosions, run the simulation, and compare the results to the actual data. A system is considered to have "passed" when it is fed a set of data to which its programmers did not have access and spits out the correct results.

      Jouster

    3. Re:Self-fulfilling tests? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      The simulation is reasonably accurate because they are staying with areas that are already well described by current theories, confirmed by all the real nukes we've detonated. They are not trying out new reactions. Probably they are not even trying out new bomb designs. Mostly, they are just looking at how 20 or 30 years of aging (allowing a small part of the fissionable U235 or Plutonium to decay) will affect the nuclear reaction, to determine the point at which existing bombs will _have_ to be recycled.

      The only real option for actual explosions now is to set off undersized bombs deep underground. That gives valuable data too, but it's hardly better at predicting actual weapons performance than the simulations. (Of course, Saddam may yet "volunteer" a part of Iraq for a live aboveground test...)

    4. Re:Self-fulfilling tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, it will simply run through a set of possible behaviours that science currently expects of it. Not it's actual behaviour. I make my living running computer simulations (of the mechanical type), as long as you stay within the physical assumptions you can reasonably predict success or failure.

  113. Other News by stinkydog · · Score: 2

    Laurence Livermore Labs just signed a contract with Brilliant Digital for the extra 18 TeraFlops.

    A BD spokesman says "Why have the power of a 1000 desktops when you can have Millions (evil cackle)"

    Kazaa users around the globe were saddened to learn that they do not have enough 'left over' CPU cycles to acually decode and listen to their MP3s.

    "All your cycles are belonging to us!"

    SD

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  114. Wow! by Wiz · · Score: 0

    Must resist! Oh, I can't!

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! ;-)

  115. I don't think so... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    When one team(country) lost, they would immediately attack(physically) the other.

    The point of war is to kill people till the other side decides it is in their best interest to capitulate.

    Sadly, wars will always be a fact of human existence until people stop either evolve, or kill themselves off.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:I don't think so... by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      This would be the ultimate end for people bitching about reality. "Lets see you do that rocket assisted jump in real life..... " And would sure take the wind out of those annoying snipers in these type of games, if they had to face a real sniper.

    2. Re:I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, wars will always be a fact of human existence until people stop either evolve, or kill themselves off.

      OK time for a little devil's advocate here. War, or more generally violence, has driven most of the technological advances in human history. War has been a part of our evolution (see any H. Sapiens Neandratalis or H. Erectus running around? no, it's all H. Sapiens Sapiens. Why? Genocide, it is a part of our evoloution, not just socially but biologically).

      This will continue until we kill each other off, the killer asteroid or comet does, or the Sun turns into a red giant near the end of its cycle. We may well evolve and speciate in that time but war will not end as a result. As the result of war and technology, we may actually manage to escape this planet before it is too late. This is a long term imperative to species survival.

  116. How do they know they're right? by nochops · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a smartass ar troll, and I'm certainly no maths professor, but I'd really like to know how they're so sure that they're right.

    I mean, with all of this wonderful math, we can't even predict the weather reliably. We can't predict hurricaines or tornadoes, much less lightning or earthquakes.

    And on that note, are there any massively parallel or distributed computing projects currently running to simulate the weather or the other natural phenomena mentioned above?

    --
    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    1. Re:How do they know they're right? by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      By replicating an exact simulation of pervious denotation of course.

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:How do they know they're right? by thelizman · · Score: 1

      They *don't*. Simulations are best guesses. Typically, a series of simulations are followed by small scale tests, and that is how you establish the performance of a system. Unfortunately, the wacko's and peacenicks of the world seem to think that if anyone detonates a nuke, the whole world will go to town in all out war. Afterall, did'nt we all go to war after France's last nuclear test in the Pacific in 1995?

    3. Re:How do they know they're right? by Jouster · · Score: 1

      Yes. In fact, I love in Norman, Oklahoma, and we have several Crays hard at work on weather prediction and modeling. The National Severe Storms Laboratory houses several, as does Sarkey's Energy Center. Specifically, Sarkey's has a very nice Cray J-90 that I get to play with. ;)

      Jouster

  117. Think RollerBall... by bpb213 · · Score: 1

    Roller ball had giant corporations that owned massive amounts of land, much like nations (civilization was supposed to have evolved to these massive companies controlling everything..)

    Instead of settling disputes via war- the corporations relied on "the game" (ala rollerball). How ever, instead of being peaceful, it quickly got more and more violent - and more and more people died, just on a smaller scale then a full war.

    So no, playing UT againt someone to solve a dispute might work on a personal scale, but not a national one.

    --

    This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
    1. Re:Think RollerBall... by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the original Rollerball or the new one? I haven't seen the new one, but in the original, the sport of Rollerball was conciously designed to make people believe that they are merely cogs in a machine, that nothing they do can have an impact.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:Think RollerBall... by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      Is the new one out yet ? I've been looking to find it everywhere, without any success.

    3. Re:Think RollerBall... by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      It's come and gone, my friend. Presumably, it was absolute crap.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  118. um. by diablochicken · · Score: 1

    is this a truly great achievement?

    or a terrible misuse of technology?

    quick! someone tell me what to think!

    (where's jon katz when you need him?)

    1. Re:um. by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is WAY off-topic, but...I found goats last week and spent a day reading through it. Wonderful stuff. Thanks.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  119. but does it run Linux? by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 1

    seriously though, what about running some kind of AI on this thing? Alice the chatbot at 12 teraflops....? I'd reroute my support calls to the thing, but I don't think it would put up with some of the callers.

  120. all these resources wasted... by MoNsTeR · · Score: 2

    ...developing and testing devices whose sole purpose is to /further/ destroy useful resources. This entire endeavor is an economic drain on the world, not only for its diversion of useful means, but for the ends to which they are (mis-)applied.

    Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard are turning over in their graves...

    1. Re:all these resources wasted... by jcast · · Score: 1

      Wasting resources looking for ways to waste resources?!?!

      Oh, wait, that's called politics...

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  121. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine a cluster of those

  122. 1000 years of solitude by zecg · · Score: 1
    Each simulation used more than 6.6 million CPU hours, which would take home machines 1000 years to complete.
    Even with the "non-snail-RISC" processors and Cinematastic LCD mother-of-pearl screens? My sceptic yet stylish mind will just have to wait for the next Macworld to find out about that.
    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  123. uh-oh... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2

    Does this thing have ibm travelstar gxp75 drives?

    I think my hard disk in my supercomputer crashed
    have you run the drive fitness test?
    Yes, it passed, but i'm fairly sure the smoking drive is bad
    we need you to run the drive fitness test, are you in front of the computer?
    I'm directly in front of it
    Pull out the hard drive please
    I'll brb, it's a few miles over
    You said you were in front of it
    I am in front of it
    Does this supercomputer of yours have a serial number?
    This is ASCI WHITE damn it.
    I can't look up your warranty without a serial number
    1. The serial number is 1.
    I can't find that in our database, do you have a proof of purchase?

    ACKKKKKKKKKKKKK

  124. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    If you have an Athlon, just jiggle the fan off and watch the thing in real life!

    I guess that makes my motherboard a MIRV...

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  125. Moderation of funny? But I'm serious! by swb · · Score: 2

    People are really like that. If you had a referendum on capital punishment and the choices were:

    1) Yes, televised nationwide

    2) Yes, not televised

    2) No capital punishment

    I can pretty much guarantee you that (1) would get the most votes. People are kind sick and twisted.

  126. Detonation vs. nuclear reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not use such immense computing power to make better/cheaper/safer/more efficient nuclear reactors to fulfill the needs of billions around the globe? Thats something the third world can also use who lack such facilities.

    1. Re:Detonation vs. nuclear reactor by Jouster · · Score: 1

      Priority 1: World Peace.
      Priority 2: Reducing or eliminating the need for physical testing of nuclear warheads, an important part (for the time being, at least) of maintaing the U.S.'s nuclear deterrent to war. ASCI White does this.
      Priority 3: Provide for world happiness--this includes your proposal.

      See my point? If people have energy, but are DEAD, they don't tend to enjoy the fact that they have the energy.

      Jouster

  127. Website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice that they can do so many computations but you'd think they could avoid having their website slashdot'd.

    Maybe the combined force of all the /. users in more powerfull than a nuke. Or at least the efforts of all the trolls.

  128. Yeah yeah go ahead and gawp by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

    It'll be in your PDA in ten years time ;)

  129. Look again... by paranoid.android · · Score: 2

    Let's have a look at this list, shall we?

    Do you see India or Pakistan anywhere on the top 20? No? How about any other 'rogue nation?'

    Never mind that they'd need a bunch of highly classified test data to run simulations with.

    I think we can safely say neither India nor Pakistan will be simulating any nukes, for the time being.

    1. Re:Look again... by afidel · · Score: 2

      And yet both nations HAVE nukes and have tested nukes. Makes the government export ban look kind of silly, no?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Look again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet both nations HAVE nukes and have tested nukes. Makes the government export ban look kind of silly, no?

      How so? Seriously? Did we have this kind of computational capability when we started building nukes? Of course not, a lot of what we did involved designing to high margins, and a lot of what we did involved craftsmanship. It is also a lot easier to replicate a technical feat than to pioneer it. The goal of ASCI White is not nonproliferation, it is to run simulations for our own research which comply with the CTB treaty, which we did not author or ratify.

      By the way, are we supposed to be impressed by the efforts of India or Pakastan at this point? India's efforts were more or less successful in a limited way, Pakastan's efforts had as many failures as successes. The flip side is if Pakastan lets loose in Kashmir the radiation left behind is going to be very nasty.

    3. Re:Look again... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I was talking about high power computers =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  130. why all the negative flack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they don't use all these simulations for "bad" purposes. Where do you think those maps come from that tell you where fallout from enemy nukes would drift?

    From computer simulations. now do you think they're a bad idea?

  131. If Intel Made ASCI White by Jouster · · Score: 1

    "Oh, by the way, there's this little F00F bug in those chips, but the average user won't run into it for years and years."

    Jouster

  132. Computers bring peace by ttyp0 · · Score: 1

    Great, we should now fight all wars this way. Let the computers battle it out amongst themselves.

    1. Re:Computers bring peace by thelizman · · Score: 1

      Would'nt happen to be a fan of classic Star Trek would ya? Anyway, the idea sucked because at some point, when no other solution exists that is amicable to both parties, war is the only answer. Hopefully, one day our species will evolve to the point where a QIIIDM Tournament will decide these issues, but until then give me my M-16, 1,000 rounds of ammo,and point me towards the battle.

  133. So when will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long untill I can download the source to gnu/E-bomb.

  134. OOOOoohhh, how about a beowolf cluster of... by Sand_Man · · Score: 1

    ..OUCH, Ouch, stop bitch slapping me!

  135. deja vu by surfcow · · Score: 1
    "... research scientists at Lost Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Labs detonated two computer simulations."

    Wasn't there an old Star Trek about this?

    Do some of us have to report to out local disintegration chambers now?

    =brian

  136. E-Bomb? by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

    From the title, I thought this was some new DoS attack. I guess I was at least slightly disappointed : Magius_AR

  137. Moore's Law by Aknaton · · Score: 1

    >which would take home machines 1000
    >years to complete

    Did they take Moore's Law into account when coming up with this estimate? I'm willing to be that we will have some pretty powerful desktop computers in 200 years.

  138. Wow - cool technology! by Sanity · · Score: 2
    US government conducts mass murder simulations on really cool Linux hardware!
    From the we-have-no-moral-context department

    Does anyone else find this kind of "gee whiz" attitude towards weapons designed to kill the largest number of civilians possible somewhat distasteful? I know I do, particularly now that the US government is actively looking at ways to use nuclear-weapons on the battlefield, rather than as an absolute last resort.

    1. Re:Wow - cool technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello, why do you think we're able to play with computers all day long? Is it because the poor people give them to us? Or is it because we nuke people who refuse to give them to us?

      I mean, we're building bombs for some reason...

    2. Re:Wow - cool technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weapons designed to kill the largest number of civilians possible

      Nuclear weapons aren't about killing the largest number of civilians possible. That is a solved problem, and there is no purpose in continuing to research the topic (weapons yields stopped going up at around 20MT and have dropped since in new programs). Nuclear weapons research is currently about 1) making sure the things will work when called upon, and 2) killing (non-civilian) people hidden under tens of feet of reinforced concrete or hundreds of feet of rock

  139. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by kzeddy · · Score: 1

    The article takes about the simulation of nuclear bomb. I think the Athlon is more suitable to simulating a nuclear meltdown.

  140. Re:OT: International Law vs. Sovereignty? (was Re: by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
    Only if you take them both as absolutes, and believe that countries can't sign onto any international law treaties without giving up all of their sovereignty.

    Does agreeing to abide by state and federal law mean that individuals give up all their individual rights and freedoms? No, of course not.

    I never said it did. But it isn't quite that simple anyway: which local customs, morals, and rights are you willing to give up so that someone from the other side of the world can have what they think is right? Likewise, what are they going to give up and what are you going to gain?

    Furthermore, what set of laws make sense in: Manhattan and Topeka and Mogadishu and London and Moscow and Tokyo and Jakarta and Mecca and in every other town? I submit to you that the set is empty. Even our own national legislature has gone to far in normalizing law. The Constitution originally gave local governments a lot more freedom to do what was right in their own jurisdiction than what is granted now. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been especially abused to exert illegal power on a national level, for example.

  141. SETI@home not for FEA by markmoss · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but there is very broad class of simulations where distributed computing across the internet is not going to help, called Finite Element Analysis. I don't know the specifics of nuclear explosion simulations, but the basic setup is similar to simulations of electromagnetic fields, mechanical stress and strain, heat transfer, the weather, etc. You divide the volume of interest up into lots of little cells (the "finite elements"). For a cell, you determine how conditions in a cell are influenced by influenced by neighboring cells, as well as the pre-existing condition of the cell. You code those equations into a program, and it cycles through all the cells to calculate the next state (one time tick later), then repeats until done.

    For instance, in a heat transfer simulation, the temperature of a cell changes from the initial temperature towards the average temperature of neighboring cells at a rate determined by the thermal conductivity of the material: T1(x,y,z) = (1-k)*T0(x,y,z) + k*(T0(x-1,y,z)+T0(x+1,y,z)+T0(x,y-1,z)+T0(x,y+1,z) +T0(x,y,z-1)+T0(x,y,z+1))/6. You need special forms of this equation for cells at the edges. You write _for_ loops to cycle through all the cells and an outside _for_ loop to step through the time ticks -- or you might use a pre-written simulation program where you just have to plug in the cell geometry and the equations. Nuclear simulations must be considerably more complicated: it would require several variables tracking temperature, local concentrations of reacted and unreacted materials, radiation density, etc., and equations tracking how materials, flow in and out of the cells, among other things.

    But the point is, even at the most complicated, the calculations for one cell at one time tick are only going to take a few microseconds on a decent CPU. If you parallelize it by assigning one CPU to a cell, the CPU will do the calculations, then it will have to exchange data with all the other CPU's. The communications requirements can be met only by providing lots of direct dedicated CPU-CPU, or CPU-memory-CPU links. That is, it takes custom hardware. Try to do it through any kind of shared bus, and the comm bandwidth will severely limit the number of CPU's that can be actually used. Don't even think of trying to use the internet with latencies of seconds, and bandwidths of 56KHz to a few MHz.

    This is bad news, not for DOE who have the money to build that custom hardware (and would have to keep their bomb secrets in-house anyhow), but for all the engineers and scientists who would love to have thousands of computers crunching their data for free, but their equations aren't suitable for it. For SETI@home, I think each computer gets a module consisting of one piece of recorded data and a batch of tests to be run against it; the modules do not have to communicate in between setup and completion, so little bandwidth is needed. It's great when it works, but we only know how to divide up big computing jobs completely like that for a few special cases.

    1. Re:SETI@home not for FEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thermonuclear explosions are not exactly FEA either... you are lumping many types of analysis under the FEA umbrella here, including Boundary Element Analysis (BEA) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).

      That said, transient solutions in the time domain on large dense matrices do not lend themselves very well to parallelization. Problems that can be converted to the frequency domain and decoupled lend themselves very well to parallelization. This requires linearity at a minimum. Derived outputs (y(t)) from a known solution vector (x(t))are also parallelizable.

  142. Microsoft beat them to this years ago by Arcturax · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I've considered Windows an E-bomb for years. You as much as sneeze and it will bomb out on you as often as not.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    1. Re:Microsoft beat them to this years ago by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I've considered Windows an E-bomb for years. You as much as sneeze and it will bomb out on you as often as not.

      I absolutely loathe windows, but I gotta say that my 2K box has been up for half a month now. Which to my knowledge is quite amazing, for windows.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  143. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by bleuchat · · Score: 1

    Your motherboard is a Multiple, Independant Rentry Vehicle?

  144. ASCI White Detonates The First E-Bomb by Nailer · · Score: 2

    The first? Outlook and Outlook Express have been detonating them for years.

  145. This takes wargames to another level..... by sh0rtie · · Score: 2



    I wonder if mathew broderick was involved ?

  146. Um, look at the date. Story from 2000 by sanermind · · Score: 1

    This is old news. Note the date on the release, it's from 2000!

    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
  147. has anyone benched marked Quake 3 on it yet? by nubbie · · Score: 1

    just wondering what the FPS would be

    --
    'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
  148. Repost by totallygeek · · Score: 2
    nbsp;

    This article was posted not long ago


    This study was completed April 5, 2002. The previous articles have nothing about the results, just the information going into the study.

    1. Re:Repost by SevenTowers · · Score: 2

      huh, actually, no. take a look at the article from march 8th and you'll see that the study is completed and the results compiled. They even fed it tot another computer for visual interpretation. The simulation lasted 7 months, and finished in march. It did not start in march and finish just now, check your facts.

      --
      Imperium et libertas
      Autocracy and freedom
  149. ASCII building 451 Construction Scrapbook by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2

    ASCII building 451 Construction Scrapbook

    Dammit, I want one of those, droool.

  150. Sorry this is so offtopic. by adamy · · Score: 1

    50+3+1-1+2-1=49? Methinks the cap coder screwed the pooch. How about we apply batch net karma at 1am GMT daily?

    No, the problem is that Karma is updated with each Entry. It would be bettwer if a Karma Score were calculated for an article, and then a person's Karma was a summation of of all the articles Karma Scores.

    So it should be 50 + article

    article = 3+1-1+2-1 = 4

    Karma stays at 50

    --
    Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
    1. Re:Sorry this is so offtopic. by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when do you apply it? Moderations may be ongoing. Yes, the bulk of moderation happens in the first 6 hours, but what if someone comes along three days later and mods you... you've already (at some arbitrary time) applied your "article score" to your Karma. How does this fit?

      --
      SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    2. Re:Sorry this is so offtopic. by adamy · · Score: 1

      Considering that A sig gets calculated for each person when the article is rendered, figureing out Karma dynamically can't be that hard/big of a DB hit.

      --
      Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
  151. So.. by RainbowSix · · Score: 2

    Future wars will be fought as simulations too, right?

    We can only wish.

    --
    --------
    It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
    1. Re:So.. by Xannor · · Score: 1

      If so then Sid Myer has a jump on the industry!

      --
      I sig therefore I am...
  152. It's all really about how this stuff is used by The+Wicked+Armadillo · · Score: 1

    Look, I have seen many comments here about how bad or 'evil' the simulations being run on this machine are. The simple fact remains, nuclear weapons exist, and our country possesses a large number of nuclear weapons. Regardless of my personal opinions this remains a fact, and as such does not involve concepts such as 'bad' or 'evil'.
    Now, to take a step back from this and to look at other related software. Many years ago I worked with engineering company which among other things designed manufacturing processes for artificial fibers. The chemicals needed to do this are sometimes very toxic, and must be handled very carefully. When working for this company I saw for the first time simulation software for real world events. Basically there were several packages which given: a chemical, container, storage characteristics, weather, and a site location could from a selection of catastrophic events calculate the results of a chemical leak (explosion, toxic cloud release, etc.), would tell you what the effects of the nearest city would be. This definitely has what would be considered to bad or evil applications. However used properly in the hands of the engineers it would tell them that a given problem would have the following results. This data would allow them to modify their storage systems to prevent such things from happening (the modifications may not prevent a chemical release, but it would prevent the chemical from effecting the populations near a plant). And as such this software was not only a good thing, but from any stand point incredibly beneficial.

    Now back to the ASCII system.

    Given that I do not understand very much about these nuclear weapons I have to leave it in the hands of those who do have the proper education to deal with these things. And since we already possess these weapons I want people who know how these weapons work looking after them. Since I really do not want these weapons detonated for any reason, I am very happy to see software developed which can (or at least I hope), accurately simulate the use and life cycle of these weapons. It may be difficult to see past the immediate and obvious uses of such software, however I believe that there are beneficial uses of such simulations. As a result I am very happy to hear about this stuff and encourage its use.

    1. Re:It's all really about how this stuff is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does not involve concepts such as 'bad' or 'evil'.

      I'm having serious problem not using word such as 'bad' when I know that this research might lead to a nuclear weapon detonating over me and my family.
      And I'm sure you would have a serious problem to detonite over me, if you hadn't been told that I was 'evil', in opposite to 'good'.

      wake up dude.

  153. What about cyberterrorism? by vees · · Score: 2

    God forbid the Cyber-Terrorists should get their hands on this! Good thing we have the far-reaching grasp of the Patriot Act and the new Cyberterrorism Act ready to defend us.

    I think . . .

  154. Kernel? by Columbo · · Score: 1

    Okay, teraflops mean nothing to me. My puny brain can't handle it. Just tell me how fast it can compile the latest kernel!

    Heh.

  155. Re:Breaking News About The Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shorten this up, i.e. be concise, and you might have something.

    Otherwise it's just more EyeWitless News.

  156. Just Keith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cockroaches would only last for a short while because I'm sure Keith would get hungry and have to eat something.

  157. hmmmm... by GutterBunny · · Score: 2

    ...this gives a whole new dimension to DOS attacks

    --
    managers...why god invented purgatory
  158. Benchmarks and reality by KnightStalker · · Score: 2

    Simple. They just hired Mindcraft to do the benchmarking. :-)

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  159. Re:Moderation of funny? But I'm serious! by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

    I would vote for 2, hey hang on a moment I meant 3 but there wasn't a 3. Say, you did the Florida ballot didn't you :-)

    As for people being sick and twisted, we are, but executions are not a sign of this. If we have executions they should be public executions, media circus and all. Not hidden out of sight so everybody can tell themselves they live in a civillised country.

  160. what is there to shut up about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't osama teach the u.s. a lesson
    that blowing things up hurts people?
    I am sure he is willing to teach another
    lesson; maybe next time it will be
    with the u.s's favorite toy nuclear
    weapons.

  161. the point of ASCI by garstka · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why there are so many people sickened as disgusted by resources be allocated for the ASCI project.

    http://www.llnl.gov/asci/overview/

    br>
    Personally, I don't have a problem with spending money on making sure that a warhead doesn't detontate when it's not supposed to. Do I care that they might find ways to make the warhead more efficient in the mean time? No. Military projects have always driven technological progress...I'd be willing to bet that the majority of you squawkers will happily reap the benefits of parallel computation discoveries made by project like this without thinking twice about it.

  162. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

    I thought the first and biggest E-Bomb was the Apple Newton.

  163. Parliment Funkadelic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine the Funk-Bomb that this could drop.

  164. mod me up for saying beowulf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beowulfbeowulfbeowulfbeowulfbeowulfbeowulfbeowulfb eowulfaaaabeowul./ fasfgfgbeowulfsafgyh./ tbytbeowulfswsddfsgbeowulfrffyuyghjyhhgjhjj./ beowulffrgdghgd

  165. 30 Teraflops... by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    And it'll still take X an hour to load *grin*

  166. virtual war by PiGuy · · Score: 0

    Instead of having real wars, we could have VIRTUAL WARS!!!
    Just like that show - VR Troopers - they had wars in the virtual world, kinda like Power Rangers only it really wasn't real, unlike Power Rangers, which just wasn't real.
    Just build a virtual reality device into an outhouse, put it outside the camps of known terrorists, lock them in, turn it on, and BLAMO! They'll think they're in the real world --- freshly armed with hordes of nuclear weapons! No killing, no getting killed, just one smelly outhouse after a few years...

  167. Home Nuclear Testing by GrEp · · Score: 2

    Well, if More's law holds up:

    Nucular Detonation =1000 years of CPU (from article)

    Assume CPU speed doubles every two years.(More's Law)

    Log(1000)/ Log(2) =9.96578 (Base 2 Log of 1000)

    9.96578 * 2=19.9316 (Every two years)

    Therefore in 20 years you should be able to do nuclear detonations on your Playstation. Better start putting export restrctions on those Playstations again...

    --

    bash-2.04$
    bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    1. Re:Home Nuclear Testing by Troller+Durden · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's "Moore's Law", and it does not state that CPU speed doubles every two years. Moore's Law states that transistor density doubles roughly every 18 months.

    2. Re:Home Nuclear Testing by GrEp · · Score: 2

      This is a distributed computation, so speed dosen't matter as long as the chip has enough transistors to run all the threads concurently.

      --

      bash-2.04$
      bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
  168. I looked this up... by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1 Library of Congress == 10 terabytes of text!.

    That's a little hard to believe - I figure 10TB would be on the order of 20 billion printed pages of text.

    1. Re:I looked this up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not so hard to believe, is it?

      The library of congress obtained their 100 millionth item back in 1992, according to their website.

  169. The W87 Warhead in current is already optimal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The W87 Warhead in current is already optimal! The LEP is proof of that.

    Surety and command and control systems are more important in 2002 than physics simulation of actual detonations. Really, read on...

    Apart from adding LAX-112 (Los Alamos stable explosive) instead of 1980s PBX-9502 and LX-17 from Livermore. (LX-l7 Is most popular in this suitcase-containable bomb), few things other than antispoof sensor and newer anti-tamper hardware need to be added.

    The real problem is installing newer technologies when retrofitting to make it harder for hackers and engineers to set one off without its failsafes.

    Failsafes (surety) to prevent unauthorized detotation are the most complex part of bomb engineering... not silly simulations of micro-bombs on ASCII white clusters.

    These failsafe technologies have many buzzwords but are commonly called Permissive Action Links (PALs), and surety.

    Many 12 digit Category F combinations currently exist but have self shutdown if too many errant codes sent to a w87 warhead.

    The weapons are very good at destroying themselves electonically and physically without spilling plutonium as well.

    Other than PALs, the amazing W87 also uses the Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety system (ENDS) developed by Sandia National Laboratories.

    ENDS has lots of tamper resistence and failsafe redundancy and isolation of circuits.

    A valid AMAC can be created to arm a W87 if opening the case is too challenging to a team of highly motivated engineers.

    Even with codes though setting off a W87 warehead requires that each sensor is defeated.

    This would include gyros, magnetometers, accelerometers, vibration sensors, and pressure transducers. Trajectory is estimated too! To prevent obvious tampering many of these were made microminiature by Sandia in EFI. (Enhanced Fidelity
    Instrumentation) to replace existing larger psuedo-JTAs (Joint Test Assemblies). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) current "good stuff" derives from FTU-12 (flight test unit 12) from Sandias Telemetry group (8416) and Sandias Weapons Project Group, Ed Talbot (lead), Cheryl Lari, and John Liebenberg (all in 2266).

    More modern anti tamper stuff includes on-board millimeterwave radar no doubt (but classified).

    Such radar would be part of the Environmental Sensing Devices (ESDs) (which determine the correct environmental conditions detonation)

    The W87 weapon needs to sense spinning along its axis and pressure drop and many special measurements to detonate... even if the codes are cracked or force-probed. Sandia's MDL center 1300 (Microelectronics Development Laboratory) is tasked the challenge of defeating hardware probing and electro induced hacking of surity.

    The W87 lacks coherent Lightning Arrestor Connectors (LACs), but does not need them intramodule because of its design. Multiple attempts using high energy to set of a warhead would probably just zap the circuits of the RBP (Reentry Body Programmers) or the WP (Warhead Programmers)

    So at this point the W87 ( mankinds greatest technological weapon achievement) is a safe very high yield, ultra compact, tamper proof nuke.

    The NSA in 1998 made it more "secure" by merely making components of its arming overly "obscure". Security through obscurity is asinine no doubt, but nevertheless the methods outlined in DIST (Defense Integrated Support Tools database) are now "top secret" even though an open crypto safe protocol would have been sufficient. The GAO, op cit., 13 August 1997, p. 8 was the last public analysis of the DIST containing the arming parts along the command chain to a W87.

    You cant simulate anti-hacking anti-ICE anti-emulator anti-virtualmachine anti-clockvariance and anti-forcelatching with a damned ASCII white propaganda simulation of a mini-detonation. You need IQ and paper and pen.

    1. Re:The W87 Warhead in current is already optimal! by Inthewire · · Score: 1
      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  170. The arms race has changed... by nallen · · Score: 1

    The current thinking about nuclear arms development is not to build more powerful weapons for the sake of thems selves, but to stay so far ahead of nations thinking about obtaining nuclear weapons that they will be hopelessly behind. Nuclear programs are VERY expensive, if a country has no hope of even being competitive, it will be much harder for them to justify the expense.
    In shoter terms, keep the lead so large that no one will want to play.
    i don't totally agree with this thinking, but from a certain perspective, it makes sense.

  171. Where to live by totallygeek · · Score: 2

    Living near water makes a lot of sense for easy living. And, being away from it does not save you from weather: hail, tornados, earthquakes, mudslides, etc. Since 2/3 of the Earth's surface is H20, we need to figure that a decent percent of people will be affected by it.

  172. Link to actual bomb simulation story by second+class+skygod · · Score: 1

    http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/2002-03-07-ASCI_Miles tone_Release.pdf

    1. Re:Link to actual bomb simulation story by second+class+skygod · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Try this

  173. osama where are you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't osama teach the u.s. a lesson
    that blowing things up hurts people?
    i am sure he will happily give another
    lesson ... maybe this time with the
    u.s.'s favorite toys.

  174. 35 times the library of congress ? by lonedfx · · Score: 1

    Now that would definitly give a new meaning to the word "mailbomb".

    lone, dfx

  175. try 3306086 for the best techie underrated post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30741&cid=3306 086 (fix space in link) is what you need to read buddy. Too bad it had to be posted anonymously so noone will read 3306086.

    Hoe that cheers you up. Raw facts with not one joke. It shoudl negate all your dissapointement

  176. You are correct "surety" and anti-tamper are vital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surety and command and control systems are more important in 2002 than physics simulation of actual detonations. Really, read on...

    Apart from adding LAX-112 (Los Alamos stable explosive) instead of 1980s PBX-9502 and LX-17 from Livermore. (LX-l7 Is most popular in this suitcase-containable bomb), few things other than antispoof sensor and newer anti-tamper hardware need to be added.

    The real problem is installing newer technologies when retrofitting to make it harder for hackers and engineers to set one off without its failsafes.

    Failsafes (surety) to prevent unauthorized detotation are the most complex part of bomb engineering... not silly simulations of micro-bombs on ASCII white clusters.

    These failsafe technologies have many buzzwords but are commonly called Permissive Action Links (PALs), and surety.

    Many 12 digit Category F combinations currently exist but have self shutdown if too many errant codes sent to a w87 warhead.

    The weapons are very good at destroying themselves electonically and physically without spilling plutonium as well.

    Other than PALs, the amazing W87 also uses the Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety system (ENDS) developed by Sandia National Laboratories.

    ENDS has lots of tamper resistence and failsafe redundancy and isolation of circuits.

    A valid AMAC can be created to arm a W87 if opening the case is too challenging to a team of highly motivated engineers.

    Even with codes though setting off a W87 warehead requires that each sensor is defeated.

    This would include gyros, magnetometers, accelerometers, vibration sensors, and pressure transducers. Trajectory is estimated too! To prevent obvious tampering many of these were made microminiature by Sandia in EFI. (Enhanced Fidelity Instrumentation) to replace existing larger psuedo-JTAs (Joint Test Assemblies). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) current "good stuff" derives from FTU-12 (flight test unit 12) from Sandias Telemetry group (8416) and Sandias Weapons Project Group, Ed Talbot (lead), Cheryl Lari, and John Liebenberg (all in 2266).

    More modern anti tamper stuff includes on-board millimeterwave radar no doubt (but classified).

    Such radar would be part of the Environmental Sensing Devices (ESDs) (which determine the correct environmental conditions detonation)

    The W87 weapon needs to sense spinning along its axis and pressure drop and many special measurements to detonate... even if the codes are cracked or force-probed. Sandia's MDL center 1300 (Microelectronics Development Laboratory) is tasked the challenge of defeating hardware probing and electro induced hacking of surity.

    The W87 lacks coherent Lightning Arrestor Connectors (LACs), but does not need them intramodule because of its design. Multiple attempts using high energy to set of a warhead would probably just zap the circuits of the RBP (Reentry Body Programmers) or the WP (Warhead Programmers)

    So at this point the W87 ( mankinds greatest technological weapon achievement) is a safe very high yield, ultra compact, tamper proof nuke.

    The NSA in 1998 made it more "secure" by merely making components of its arming overly "obscure". Security through obscurity is asinine no doubt, but nevertheless the methods outlined in DIST (Defense Integrated Support Tools database) are now "top secret" even though an open crypto safe protocol would have been sufficient. The GAO, op cit., 13 August 1997, p. 8 was the last public analysis of the DIST containing the arming parts along the command chain to a W87.

    You cant simulate anti-hacking anti-ICE anti-emulator anti-virtualmachine anti-clockvariance and anti-forcelatching with a damned ASCII white propaganda simulation of a mini-detonation. You need IQ and paper and pen.

  177. Test Ban Blues by Mittermeyer · · Score: 1

    Sadly, this process is exceedingly questionable. It's like running constant speadsheets about how well your business was doing without actually making or selling anything. Nothing is going to replace the occasional detonation for ensuring engineering quality control, and we were fools for signing the pesky treaty.

    --
    ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
  178. ...an interesting read by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    check out this link. It goes into various types of EMP bombs, device hardness, etc.

  179. This is out of the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go have a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/instantlinux

    Its a rapid deployment linux distribution with MOSIX and Beowulf daemons. Initial release will be in 2 weeks time.

    So yes, you can have a Beowulf cluster of those ;)

  180. Rapid cluster deployment distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go have a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/instantlinux

    Its a rapid deployment linux distribution (via TFTP) with MOSIX and Beowulf daemons.

    It works straight out of the box and runs in ramdisk. the binaries (and kernel) are all highly optimized for i686 and above, so its ideal for computation intensive clusters.

    Initial release will be in 2 weeks time.

    So yes, you can have a Beowulf cluster of those ;)

  181. retarded = funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i guess you mods like giving points to fellow idiots

  182. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    intelligent discussion here

  183. Re:Moderation of funny? But I'm serious! by Shardis · · Score: 1

    heh, offtopic as hell I suppose, but I agree with ya %100 on that on that last part.

  184. Parallelizability varies greatly between apps by billstewart · · Score: 2
    The comp.arch newsgroup discussed this a decade or so ago - look for "Attack of the Killer Micros" discussions about when you need a Cray vs. a bunch of PCs, and scale up all the numbers by 1000.

    Some problems are easy to parallelize, like SETI - each user gets handed the radio blips from a given chunk of the sky and crunches numbers to see if there's an alien there, and then every couple of hours sends in a "No, nobody there either" message and gets another chunk of sky to look in. Other problems are harder to parallelize, like turbulent airflow over non-smooth surfaces - each processor crunches a bit about the uncoming chunks of air over its chunk of surface, figures out where they're going and how twisty they are and hands them to the next processor, which has just done the same thing and changed all the inputs on that side, and going three-dimensional makes it worse, but if each processor is only interacting with its neighbors, that's still easier than if any change in the system changes everything else in the system. Also, memory bandwidth capabilities differ substantially between Big Iron machines vs. Lots Of PCs, and some problems really need that.

    ASCI White is somewhere in between the Beowulf kind of network and the Super-Mega-Cray kind of machine, with tightly-coupled clusters of processors tied together by still-pretty-fast interconnects.

    As somebody else pointed out, the military couldn't really use home machines for their computing, because the information about the design and engineering of nuclear explosives would leak out, and there are some things that are better off No Source At All than Open Source... But there are many problems that could use similar technology, either rooms full of small machines, or for some less security-critical applications, they might be able to use lots of PCs on bureaucrats' desks (except that if they still do procurement the way they used to, there are a lot of machines that have probably been upgraded to Pentium66s or Pentium133s from their predecessor Z248 286s, but are otherwise Not Blazingly Fast because if they're good enough to run a browser and a word processor and maybe a spreadsheet, they're really just fine for 95% of the users.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  185. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by technizmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    When you get bored trying to help us find alien life with SETI@home, why don't you help us get rid of the life already here, with nuclearannihilation@home.

  186. "Weather Prediction" Not Always Benign by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Yes, you can use it to save lives and improve crop yields, but the military's applications for weather prediction are mainly about when to attack people under the most effective conditions. They also did a lot of really excellent work on atmospheric dispersion of particulates in the 70s-80s that was really about dispersing chemical and biological weapons.

    On the other hand, sometimes they're just trying to schedule a parade or a general's golf game :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:"Weather Prediction" Not Always Benign by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      ...but the military's applications for weather prediction are mainly about when to attack people under the most effective conditions

      That also saves lives - those of our troops.

  187. BLASPHEMY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..about the q3 being better in any way shape or form than UT.

    The tank would only be cool if I could keep it. Otherwise it would suck having to replace crushed sprinkler lines.

  188. Continue/Abort/Detonate [D]? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You have reached the failsafe point.

    To continue this simulation, enter the Presidential Authorization Code:

  189. old news by mar1no · · Score: 0

    this story ran a couple of weeks ago, why the fuck are they posting it again? or if its just a different lab with different people, who gives a flying fuck.

    --
    "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
  190. Neutron Bombs aren't good bunker busters by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative
    Neutron bombs are designed to output a large blast of radiation so you can kill people quickly without turning the target into a glowing uninhabitable wasteland or creating major fallout. Specifically, they're designed for applications like nuking Russian soldiers and tanks in Germany and Poland without having to destroy Europe in order to save it.

    Bunker busters are also lower yield than city busters, but that's because there are times you want to make a 100-ton or 1 kiloton hole in the ground without having to haul in a kiloton of high explosive or making a 20kiloton Hiroshima-sized hole in the ground and wiping out the city. Similarly, "Tactical nuke" is defined as "Designed for use in Germany" -- some of the nuclear cannon shells are designed for taking out Russian tank forces without wasting the country.

    But yes, both of these are relatively scary, in that they lower the threshold for nuclear use to some thinkable, as opposed to Mutually Assured Destruction. This did deter the Russians, but it also made it easier for the US to step on Russian satellites so it wasn't decreasing the chance of war, just changing the terms and the probable battlegrounds.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Neutron Bombs aren't good bunker busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that's because there are times you want to make a 100-ton or 1 kiloton hole in the ground without having to haul in a kiloton of high explosive or making a 20kiloton Hiroshima-sized hole in the ground

      Hiroshima is more or less a tactical sized device (~10kT iirc). It is hard to make something much smaller and still have good reliability... perhaps 0.5kT is a reasonable lower bound, up to 100kT. It takes a lot to peneterate feet of reinforced concrete or rock.

  191. All this power, all this investment... by tcc · · Score: 2

    Will there be a doom III port on it? :)

    33 teraflops... you could calculate true radiosity/raytracing/caustics/shadows/photon maps/etc in realtime with that bitch (without using some fake lightmap effects and such).

    You know what's weird? We're all impressed by this machine, but seeing how things evolve, that thing will probably be the "new and improved edition" of my kid's "GameBoy RealLife (TM)" in a not too distant future... unbeleivable. I just hope Carmack will "live long and prosper" to get to this, and me to enjoy it.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
  192. Oh Goody! (from the 24�th Cennntturryyyy!!!!!) by Merik · · Score: 1
    There's supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom.

    The fact that very few have gotten this is makeing me feel old.

    --

    --

    What is the sound of this sentence?

  193. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    Yeah - two Athlon 1.4MP warheads

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  194. Fastest Non-Governmental Machines in Top500 by billstewart · · Score: 2
    It's nice to see that the fastest computer in the world, Seti@Home, is a volunteer project that's 5-10 times as fast as the biggest nuclear weapons design computer in the world. If you look at the other top500.org machines, most of the Top 100 are either run directly by governments, or else run by universities that are presumably government-funded, or government-run consortia. The biggest non-government machines (other than SETI) are
    • #25 - 795GFlops - Charles Schwab
    • #40 - 618GFlops - Real World Computing Project http://pdswww.rwcp.or.jp/ - seems to be a computer industry consortium
    • #46 - 648GFlops - State Farm Insurance
    • #47 - 546 GLops - Saudi Aramco
    • #49 - 536 GFlops - Rottendorf Pharma GMBH
    • #53 - 512 - State Farm again
    • #54 - 507 - Compaq
    • #62 - 447 - Cray
    • #69 - 441 - Financial Institution, Hong Kong
    • #71, #72 - 420 - "Service Provider"
    • #73 - 420 - Sun
    • #78 - 371 - IBM TJWatson
    • #95 - 315 - Silicon Graphics
    • #99 - 301 - Edinfor, Portugal http://www.edinfor.pt/

    So other than nuke labs, governments, universities, government weather bureaus, and computer companies that make really big computers, most of the really big computers are run by financial institutions. There's the occasional petroleum company, Pharma, or car company, and some universities that are smaller and might be doing non-government research, but there basically isn't a lot of general industry until you get down to about #150 around 200 GFlops (in particular, there are a bunch of 128-processor HP machines from 150-180.)
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  195. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by glitch! · · Score: 1

    I thought the first and biggest E-Bomb was the Apple Newton.
    Faux! There to eat lemons, axe gravy soup.

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
  196. NUKE@home by cappadocius · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, I'd rather donate a few cycles to a virtual nuke than have the government actually explode one to test it.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis

  197. What should be done about this by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

    I think this is the real reason why they are doing this:

    Its much cheaper to send an email to the president of an enemy country, with an attachment thats a simulation of a few nukes being dropped on their country, then it is to actually do it. Its just a new diplomacy tool =)

    1. Re:What should be done about this by mpe · · Score: 1

      Its much cheaper to send an email to the president of an enemy country, with an attachment thats a simulation of a few nukes being dropped on their country, then it is to actually do it. Its just a new diplomacy tool =)

      Then they can send some simulations of nuclear truck bombs back. Or they show the simulation you sent to the UN general assembly to demonstrate what a nasty country you are.

  198. Non-proliferation doesn't just mean no loud bangs by jgp · · Score: 0

    That the western leaders, the US in particualar, claim that the simulation is used to model safe "containment" is what is usually referred to in civilian arenas as a "lie".

    That's what struct me dumb(er) when the French went as far as to admitt that that last dedonation in that hapless atol was mainly to get their simulation more accurate.

    So, what is the fucking point in banning/shunning atmospheric, then underground explosions when all the money is just channeled into evil computer programs. Evil? Indeed. You think they're not model blast radius, radiation effects, re-occupation time limits? How could they not with such an arsenal? Re-machining, re-targetting, 10 old warheads become 10 new warheads and the treaties be damned - we can wage war on a technicality with technology.

    Makes my skin crawl.

  199. the end of war as we know it? NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kind of mobilization seen in WWII is not going to happen in future conflicts. Modern forces do not fight with mass-produced, overwhelming quantities of cheap weaponry. They use small quantities of specialized high-tech weaponry, which they have already, and then try very hard not to lose it.

    This old arguement keeps trotting itself out, and seems ingrained in western culture. WWI was the war to end all wars, as was the 30 and 100 years wars. Yet WWII happened. Yeah the nuke was new and scary, but so were machine guns, gas weapons... somewhere along the road the taboo is going to drop away, and inspite of all the misguided MAD advocates, it will not be the end of all civilization. Until recently I thought it was going to be in Korea, but it seems pretty clear that it is going to be the world vs Islam and massive mobilization is going to happen.

    1. Re:the end of war as we know it? NOT by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that WWII was the war to end all wars. That would be silly. But US military doctrine doesn't depend on mass conscription anymore. It depends on very high levels of training of a volunteer force and high levels of technology (e.g. *fewer* bombs to eliminate targets). There isn't any reliance on calling up civilians for military service, and no reliance on a massive switch of the civilian economy to a military standing.

      The point was in response to a previous poster who claimed targeting civilians and the industrial infrastructure (with nukes) was going to be a strategy in future conflicts. It wouldn't work against the US.

      The "world vs. Islam" is not going to look like WWII either. Hopefully it won't get nuclear either; the West can easily handle any conventional threat, and nothing can "defend" against some unconventional threats, but it isn't clear the West could be "defeated" by unconventional means either. What does it mean for Islam to win? Convert us all to fundamentalist Islam? Sink the West into a dark age? Get US troops out of Saudi Arabia? Destroy Israel? Eliminate secular governments in the Muslim world?

      Mass mobilization of the US population doesn't help fight Osama bin Laden or his cohorts, or prevent him from "winning" in a number of those situations. How would millions of civilians putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle, or staffing new bomb factories help the West?

  200. OT: Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a ... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2

    But who needs a simulation? If you have an Athlon, just jiggle the fan off and watch the thing in real life!
    Preach on, brother. I realized I had poor cooling in my PC when the Athlon 1.33 GHz CPU fried itself one week ago. It actually smells like a microwaved CD when you turn it on now... :^( A tip to self-builders -- don't think that cooling your CPU with the biggest and baddest CPU cooler will do the trick... You need as many fans as you can stand to have in your case if you are running with an Athlon CPU.
  201. treaty is not a US creation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Urm, We didn't write the treaty, and the Senate did not ratify it. We have chosen to abide by it for so long as it is convenient (isn't that all a treaty is good for?)

    Blame the French for this one.

    1. Re:treaty is not a US creation by a_p_irwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes america does a lot of things while it is convenient. They sign treaties and then when it isn't convinient anymore they break them. To hell with whether it is for the common good or not.

      America signs a trade agreement to lower tariffs, sometime down the track it is not "convienent" so they put the tariffs up anyway and screw some smaller country. America treat their detainee's inhumanely and claim that, technically, they are not POW's, so they are not bound by the Geneva convention. Because they aren't POW's does that mean they aren't human and should not be protected by that convention?

      This is why there are people who don't like the USA.... This is why some people crash planes into buildings... and this is why some people are not sorry about it.... arrogance, and hypocracy... this is why people dislike the USA.

      --
      -- Cut and paste is not code re-use!
  202. How does this affect key cracking in crytography? by Agronomous+Cowherd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would be interested to know how long this machine takes to find primes etc.

  203. Do it yourself Nuke by dattaway · · Score: 2

    A neat trick for old CPU's, chips, bugs, and other insects for detonation purposes, is a stout motor capacitor from an air conditioner and a high voltage DC power supply found from a discarded laserjet. I have seen 480uF capacitors rated at 480 volts actually hold 8KV generated from the drum power supply. Now wire up a dozen of these capacitors to charge two parallel plates.

    Arm the bomb. This will take a few minutes. Defective capacitors will report with a large bulge on the side and may jump off the table. Safety glasses, leather gloves and jacket are recommended. Hearing protection is manditory. If everything goes well, a large concentration of potential energy will rest between those two deadly plates.

    Now drop the old electronic part or pesky insect between the plates. Observe the complete destruction. Some flying parts from silicon chips may damage surrounding areas. Insects will be completely vaporized and harmless.

    Xray radiation during detonation should be minimal unless voltage is increased somewhere around 30KV. Be careful!

  204. do we know the math? by Unordained · · Score: 1

    so, do we actually know the physics of nuclear explosions well enough that such a powerful computer can serve us? last i knew, we were a bit shaky on the whole quantum-level interactions ... wouldn't those show up fairly well here? or are more classical (newtonian) physics sufficient for this?

    i'd just hate to waste all that cpu power on an equation that isn't accurate ... quake is a much better use for it.

  205. ASCI fluid dynamics stuff by Copid · · Score: 1
    If you're interested, there's some older ASCI turbulence work (including videos) Here

    Amazing (and very pretty) work.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  206. All this computing power....wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could run seti@home on it, and what do they do? Bomb research.

    Sigh.

    1. Re:All this computing power....wasted by Inthewire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait...you don't see seti@home as a tremendous resource sink? Hmm. Protein folding would have been a decent example. Searching for little green men that aren't there is a lousy example.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    2. Re:All this computing power....wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there isn't anyone else out there, it's an awful waste of space.

  207. Cancer Projects by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 1

    Nuclear Bomb -> Nuclear Fallout -> Cancer

    See, they are on a Cancer project :)

    --
    Maybe you live in interesting times
  208. Re:it may take 1000 years to simulate on a home co by linzeal · · Score: 1

    the ocr was pretty bad on it

  209. And inevitably by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Someone has to say the dorky, "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these." I guess it'll be me.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  210. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be a sight for sore eyes. Ex-stone running around chewing bugs. *Mmmm... crispy*

  211. Do I remember correctly .. by Noobie · · Score: 0

    Did Nato use something similar in their war against Milosevic.. ?

    1. Re:Do I remember correctly .. by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      No, we didn't use any EMP devices. The only neat toy that you might be thinking of was a specialized bomb that was used on power distribution facilites. It basically a chaff bomb, with strips set so that the electrical systems would short circuit and be destroyed, without any harm to anyone. People around the target definately were happy we used that instead of 500-2000 pound bombs.

  212. no Natalie Portman? by maxpublic · · Score: 2

    Lessee...we can simulate the intricate details of a nuclear explosion but not the heaving, naked body of Natalie Portman???

    Helloooo! Priorities people!

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  213. ASCI White by cookiedude · · Score: 1

    So, with ASCI White you could simulate a nuclear explosion happening right outside Bill Gates' house. I know I would.

    Things seem bad when you buy a new PC and a faster one is in the shops a month later; imagine how IBM will feel when someone brings out a faster machine than the ASCI White. Serve them right.

    http://www.cookiedude.com
    Deliberately Different Design

    --
    Deliberately Different Design
  214. Comforting to know that when I'm vaporized... by bodland · · Score: 1

    It was perfectly simulated ahead of time in real time in 3d.

  215. Exploding Nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone thought of superimposing the data of one of these over Iraq. Then posting it on the internet and say this is what will happen to Baghdad +/- 0.00000001%

    The gov should have plenty of photo data of the place. Especially circa 1991.

    It would send shivers up my spine to see one superimposed over my house.

  216. first ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe these guys
    http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/fr/prestations/ev al uation/centre/competence/infrastructures/lrba/inde x.html

    forgot to announce to /. when they made a beowulf cluster of these.

  217. Re:Instead of simulation... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Computer: $1299
    Broadband: $50
    Spelling/grammar flame wars on Slashdot: priceless

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  218. Duh by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    They have the Matrix. What, you thought *this* was reality?

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  219. bombs are cool by timecop · · Score: 0, Funny

    huhuhu uhhuhuhuhu uhuhuhu.

  220. ASCI White's True Meaning by SuPrNaTrL · · Score: 1

    War Games II: the WOPR strikes back

    :-)