Slashdot Mirror


Army Contractor To Build A 1566 Xserve Cluster

olePigeon (Wik) writes "MacCentral has an interesting article on a new computer cluster. From the article: 'Apple Computer Inc. will announce on Monday the sale of 1566 dual processor 1U rack-mount 64-bit Xserve G5 servers to COLSA Corp., which will be used to build what is expected to be one of the fastest supercomputers in the world. The US$5.8 million cluster will be used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight for the U.S. Army.'" alset_tech was one of the many readers to point to CNET's version of the story.

465 comments

  1. Why the Army? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't hypersonic flight research better suited to the Air Force?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Why the Army? by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Funny

      well, you know, they saw this spaceshipone on tv tonight and thought that hey, "we want one of those too".

      or possibly "wtf how does that thing fly??".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Why the Army? by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not everything that flys is an aircraft. Think bombs, not planes.

    3. Re:Why the Army? by Conossuer · · Score: 2, Informative

      This will more than likely be used for R&D with regards to rockets, from anti air craft to ICBMs.

    4. Re:Why the Army? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Hmm...Air Force has the ICBMs, too. SAC-Peace is our profession (war is our trade).

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Why the Army? by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Manned aircraft aren't the only things that move faster than the speed of sound. In fact, since the pilot is now the limiting factor in most aircraft designs, the Army may have more use than the Air Force for hypersonic simulations - for SAMs and Patriot-type interceptor missiles that will have a flight envelope that is largely unexplored since an unmanned machine can withstand g-forces that would cause a pilot to blackout or worse.

      --
      Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    6. Re:Why the Army? by andreMA · · Score: 3, Funny
      SAC-Peace is our profession (war is our trade).
      I was stationed at HQ SAC (Offutt AFB) in the early 80's and we always said:
      • "Peace is our profession... war is just a hobby.
    7. Re:Why the Army? by almaon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's to simulate something that can be loosly described as an anti-anti-missile. (like a patriot that hunts other patriot missiles)

      US Army Space & Missile Command is around the corner after all.

    8. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not a lot of bombs that fly hypersonic.

      Tank and artillery shells, on the other hand...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Why the Army? by mlk · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I was in the TA (Weekenders), we had a motto very like that "Drinking is our profession, *hick* Mmugh... *hick* somethingorother... your round"

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    10. Re:Why the Army? by e03179 · · Score: 1

      Not everything that flies in our military belongs to the Air Force. AMRDEC = Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering center. If it's aviation-related or missile-related, it gets researched, developed, or engineered there. Think about Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, UAV's and bombs. In today's joint force initiative, R,D, and E from AMRDEC gets shared around the US Military and eventually (in one way or the other) the world.

      http://www.redstone.army.mil/amrdec/
      http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/28/rocket.ci ty/

      --
      -516
    11. Re:Why the Army? by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not yet, but they will ;->

    12. Re:Why the Army? by dbirchall · · Score: 1

      Aside from the kinds of missiles, anti-missiles and anti-anti-missile-missiles or whatever that other people have mentioned, the Army may be interested in other small hypersonic projectiles. Like, for example, kinetic energy weapons designed to penetrate armor. Or railguns. Or... whatever. :)

    13. Re:Why the Army? by blueZhift · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Two words...Starship Troopers...Others have mentioned hypersonic modelling for artillery shells or rockets, but imagine a platoon of troopers doing a near orbital drop from around 100km up. How'd they get there? Well with the hypersonic suborbital ballistic troop transport of course! Imagine a wing of these getting troops and equipment over any place on the globe in an hour or two.

    14. Re:Why the Army? by angrist · · Score: 1

      I'm currently interning at an Army ARDEC base and I wish i could reply with more substance..... but, there are quite a few reasons the Army is interested in hypersonic flight. A tank round can exit a tank at well over 1400m/s

    15. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not if they're carried by Army aircraft.

      The Army is not allowed to operate armed, fixed-wing aircraft. And if you can figure out how to get a helicopter to go hypersonic, then the Airwolf designers want to hire you.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:Why the Army? by Mulletproof · · Score: 5, Informative

      " Isn't hypersonic flight research better suited to the Air Force?

      How about some hypersonic sub-orbital artillery with your fries, Sir? Granted that's the navy version, but whatcha wanna bet that the Army could put a land based platform to good use?

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
    17. Re:Why the Army? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suppose a bomb with a rocket attached to it is classified as a missile. I can see it being a possible hypersonic-jet missle. I think one US armed service has something that is hypersonic but it is a rocket and not a jet.

      A jet can use air as one fuel component, a rocket has to carry all of its combustibles. Anyhow, at these speeds, one doesn't need explosives, the kinetic energy from such a hypersonic jet-missle is enough to cause plenty of damage.

    18. Re:Why the Army? by sdmacguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF? Aren't A-10's operated by the Army? They seem to be armed and fixed-wing. What's this 'not allowed' language? The Navy has planes, the Army has boats, the Air Force has trucks and the Marine Corps has one of everything.
      Back to the original point, though, supersonic 'bombs' aren't too likely under any insignia, lest they start dropping them off of spaceshipone. Artillery shells or rockets, sure. Really big bullets, you bet. Not gravity bombs.

      --
      If I had some ham, I'd make a ham sandwich, if I had some bread
    19. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      The A-10 is not operated by the Army. The Army tried to buy all the A-10's from the Air Force, but the Air Force didn't want the army to operate them. So they gave them to the Air Force Reserves.

      It all comes from the WW2 era pissing contest which made the Air Force a separate branch from the Army. It is a pretty silly distinction, to everybody except the Air Force, to whom it is Holy Writ.

      And you're right re: the bombs. That was my original (oblique) point. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      US Army Space & Missile Command is around the corner after all.

      So will basic training in the future consist of playing old 80s arcade games?

    21. Re:Why the Army? by DAldredge · · Score: 0

      A supersonic bomb, with a correctly harded shell, would be perfect for taking out deeply buried objects like north korea and china are building.

    22. Re:Why the Army? by __aawwih8715 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps to better understand how to destroy such an object.

    23. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Army is indeed testing a hypersonic anti-tank missile that launches from a box mounted atop a HMMWV. A buddy of mine worked on the guidance system.

      As a matter of fact, a lot of Lockheed Martin's next-gen missiles are kinetic kill vehicles: No explosives, just a lot a lot a lot of velocity.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There are no supersonic bombs, amigo. Bombs are not dropped from aircraft travelling supersonic. Ever. Even if they were, they would not stay supersonic for long.

      The notion you are looking for is a "missile" or a "rocket".

      And the currently-deployed bunker busters are large, sub-sonic iron bombs with precision guidance systems strapped to them. In the future, there may be some other systems that rely on rocket propulsion to drive them through hardened structures.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    25. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test

    26. Re:Why the Army? by JayHerrick · · Score: 0

      You might have it with the spaceshipone idea. Imagine dropping guided bombs from orbit. Devastating supersonic bombs anywhere on earth in the time it takes to be pushed from orbit.

    27. Re:Why the Army? by utexaspunk · · Score: 0, Troll

      not bombs, but cruise missiles. what they want is the ability to administer "shock and awe" anywhere in the world in an instant by launching hypersonic attacks from the mainland US.

      What bothers me is that a progressive liberal company like Apple that so readily identified itself in its "think different" ad campaigns with peace activists like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon, etc, would so happily provide them with the means to do this. Business is business, I guess, but I thought Apple was a company founded on "principles"...

    28. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What, the principle that we shouldn't fight wars?

      That's a pretty principle. Too bad it never works.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you drop a bomb from orbit, the bomb will stay in orbit.

      Why would you operate a platform that can launch missiles from orbit, when you can launch them from guided missile cruisers or loitering aircraft a hell of a lot cheaper?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    30. Re:Why the Army? by hazem · · Score: 1

      The army can have small fixed wing aircraft. I belive the RC-12, used at least in Guardrail, is the largest plane the army is alowed to operate.

    31. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, how cute, another Slashbot gets his naive world view shattered. One can almost see the broken dreams crumble. Wait until he finds out about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Jesus.

    32. Re:Why the Army? by Hungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the reason for this is because the mass is traveling faster than the wavefront of the explosion would. Seriously an explosive would only disrupt the kinetics. There was a call for shoulder fired hyper-velocity missiles a few years back, I have no idea what happened with them.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    33. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What, the principle that we shouldn't fight wars? That's a pretty principle. Too bad it never works."

      It works just fine for Switzerland, but then that country's not run by a bunch of millionaire sociopaths who think their manifest destiny is to rule the world.

    34. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      ...which are supposed to be unarmed. Sometimes, clever quartermasters manage to find a way around these stupid restrictions, but as a rule Army fixed-wing aircraft are unarmend.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    35. Re:Why the Army? by JPriest · · Score: 1

      The Army has more planes than the air force.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    36. Re:Why the Army? by irokitt · · Score: 1

      It is worth noting that artillery rounds, which have always and will always be the purvue of the Army, can achieve very high velocities during flight. In particular, there are some rocket-boosted rounds in use now that are something less than accurate, but are capable of reaching out and touching people that are outside the envelope of tradition artillery rounds. Since we're still having a few problems with letting shells land too close to our own guys, making more accurate models of shell trajectories would be a good thing (TM).

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    37. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No, it's populated by a bunch of people who have state-issued H&K G3's in their closets, in the middle of some of the most defensible terrain on the planet, who have a tremendous amount of wealth and a military tradition so formidable that the rest of Europe basically asked them to never, ever, ever please EVER export any more mercenaries. Except to the Vatican.

      Please come up with a better example.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    38. Re:Why the Army? by JPriest · · Score: 1

      And to elaborate on this look up info on the APFSDS (or Sabot, pronounced say-bo) 120mm tank round. Pretty much just a big fast dart. Picture a train going 60 mph hitting something with the impact area of a dime. You'd need some pretty good armor to stop it.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    39. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Good thing the M1A1 has good armor. : )

      A friend of mine who was a tank driver in Desert Storm told me a story. Apparently, one of the tanks had been disabled (thrown a track I think) and was being rapidly left behind by the advancing forces. The decision was made to scuttle the tank and move on. Its platoon mates all fired at it, but the thing wouldn't die. According to my friend, the tank wrecker took it back to base, replaced the track and the turret, and sent it back to the front lines.

      Don't know if it's true, but there ya go. He also told a story about a Russian sabot round (from one of the Iraqi tanks) sticking out of the turret glacis like a lawn dart.

      Chobham armor is kick ass. The Brits know a thing or two about tanks.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    40. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then The next supercomputer will be 2000 Xserve G5 designed to simulate anti-anti-anti-missile. (Sorta reminds me of the movie The Big Hit)

    41. Re:Why the Army? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      The last great power to try invading the Swiss was Burgundy. As a result, that was the end of Burgundy.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    42. Re:Why the Army? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Good old mass driver attack. Bush's love for space-based weapons shines through.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    43. Re:Why the Army? by hazem · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that... I missed the "armed" part of your statement.

    44. Re:Why the Army? by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Funny

      thought Apple was a company founded on "principles"...

      The negotiation went something like this:

      Steve Jobs: No way dude! I'll never work with the military! You're harshing my mellow!
      Army: We'll tell everyone that Apple is insanely great, and that you personally are a genius.
      Steve Jobs: Well that's OK then. Hypersonic missiles are insanely great too!

    45. Re:Why the Army? by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in the age of XP and 2000, you'd be lucky to get such stability from an OSX machine.

      Well that's just begging for a rebuttal. Care to cite some statistics on your "2000/XP is more stable than OS X" claim?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    46. Re:Why the Army? by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

      So when did the USAAF disapeared... ? In 1947 at the birth of the airforce ? and why is the US army involved in the A10 training simulator ? (http://www.afrcrequirements.wpafb.af.mil/a10ig.as p)

      Seems complicate storry to me (and a continuing pissing contest between Army and USAF as you said...)

    47. Re:Why the Army? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      And somewhere in that whole conversation, Steve Jobs shit in his pants.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    48. Re:Why the Army? by Hungus · · Score: 3, Informative
      APFSDS would be "Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot", but that is a tank munition and I know for a fact that you don't want to shoulder fire a tank round. :)

      This was supposed to be javelen sized and used a delpleted uranium core. I believe the payload was ultimately pencil sized. lets say it was 5mm in diameter and 10cm shaft of uranium moving at Mach 7 well, doing some google math gives me
      (((((.25^2) * pi * 10 * .0190508) / 2) * (2320.5^2)) / 4.18400) * 9.0779184e-07 = 0.0218509768kg of dynamite
      in laymans terms. which certainly doesn;t sound like much until you realize that that force is exerted on an area of .196cm^2 and it is 100,710.849 joules applied in 1/23205 of a second or 2.33699525 × 10^09 watts yes that 2.33 gigawatts applied to .196cm^2 Now thats a lot of juice
      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    49. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an M1A1 fired on a M1A1 its depleted-uranium shell would cut right through it. This is were a lot of the casualties came from in the war; tanks firing on friendly tanks.

      There's no way there'd intentionally destroy a perfectly-functional M1A1 because it needed to have its track repaired.

    50. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      yeah, it's a pretty hairy story. I don't remember the date exactly, but it was somewhere in the immediate post-WW2 vicinity. Before Korea, as I recall...

      As to why the Army is involved in training Warthog jocks, the Army is the one that benefits most from well-trained Warthog jocks. In a sane world, that'd mean that Warthog jocks would be Army personnel, but it's not a sane world.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    51. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple would just fake the benchmarks like they always do.

    52. Re:Why the Army? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why? Is the Army also going to hire Jonathon Ives to design the look of the hypersonic misiles? That's just great. The iBomb!

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    53. Re:Why the Army? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      No, it's populated by a bunch of people who have state-issued H&K G3's in their closets

      G3's? Nah, Stgw.90's more likely.


      And the last time I stubbed my foot on one it was under the bed, not in the closet.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    54. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose a bomb with a rocket attached to it is classified as a missile.

      I was under the impression that a "missile" must be self-guided. What you describe is just a, well, "rocket" in weapons terms. And in between lies the (radio/wire) "guided rocket".

      But I'd bet a "missile" needs to be able to determine (and adjust) it's own course, whether it's by active/passive radar, GPS, IR, image recognition, or little suicidal-maniac gnomes onboard.

      But I'm not sure if it's really this clear-cut, even in the parlance of the armed forces that use these. I see news reporters perpetually messing these up...

    55. Re:Why the Army? by bonkedproducer · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a six year (Ch)Air Farce errr, force vet, let me 'splain you sumthin' Lucy!

      Ok, the A-10 is not operated by Army personnel. A big part of the reasoning by the DOD (not the Air Force) for not selling/transferring the A-10 to the Army in the early 90s was the fact that it would have been highly cost prohibative to train the support personnel, and purchase the proper maint. equip. for the birds, and the weapons systems.

      The A-10 is an awesome bird - the only one ever built specifically around a gun. The GAU-8/A 30MM Gatling gun is quite effective at turning the enemy into "pink mist and bone chips" but is a pain in the rear to keep maintained and loaded. This is the primary reason that the Air Force, who had trained, qualified personnel and equipment, as well as bases , etc. kept the A-10. Not because of some 50 year old pissing contest (by the way the only pissing contests I can ever remember were AF/Navy or AF with Army/Dept. Navy because the AF still views the Army as more of a sister service.)

      The AF provides ground based combat controllers to Army units (the reason you will occasionally see blue suiters with ranger patches etc.) to do ATC for CAS (close air support) with the Army - but the Army doesn't always have one of these ground controllers handy, so they train their people how to communicate with the pilots of the A-10 and v/v - That is why they are involved in the A-10 Training Simulator.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    56. Re:Why the Army? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The army was first to have a working hyperjet "vehicle" in the form of a self-propelling shell (self-propelling once it left the canon tube).

      This was discussed here on Slashdot about a year ago. You dig it up. I'm karma toped. :-)

    57. Re:Why the Army? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Since it's the army, I'd assume its just gonna run PowerPoint really fast.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    58. Re:Why the Army? by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

      They had some spare cash to blow before the end of the financial year.

    59. Re:Why the Army? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Umm, can you back that statement up? Or are you going along with your "-1,FLAIMBAIT,ROCK" sig?

      I personally have no stability problems with XP. To me, MS finally got it right (a very good OS).

      But I also recently made "the switch," though am no way near a zealot. My Powerbook has yet to give me any problems what-so-ever. In fact, for many reasons, my PowerBook has become my primary computer. I only boot into my Wintel PC for games or accessingthe 120+ GB of crap on the secondary partition.

      OS X is a very stable OS, and is positively great! My only complaint is that it might be considered somewhat of a hog compared to XP (sometimes isn't as responsive cycle-for-cycle).

      I think both os's are finally at a very nice place. They are both very stable and have some security.

      But to diss OS X for being unstable is definately flaim.

    60. Re:Why the Army? by schnell · · Score: 1

      I suppose a bomb with a rocket attached to it is classified as a missile.

      Technically speaking, as far as I remember, a missile has to be guided. An explosive device with a rocket attached to it that just flies in a straight (or curved, natch) line is still called a rocket. The same device with internal or external guidance is a missile.

      Most everything the US military has produced in a long time has been a missile, so we tend to think of that as a generic term. But in the past, the US has created some pretty fascinating rocket weapons as well...

      Of course, I could be wrong. And I frequently am.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    61. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how fast the arm is moving and in which direction when it drops the bomb.

      Okay, okay, that's called throwing.

      It's also called dropping, though, as is disengaging and then firing reverse thrusters remotely. All it takes is burning off enough energy to get the thing to _drop_ into the atmosphere.

      Of course, if you want the thing to hit a target, you do have to control the trajectory of the fall somewhat, which might be part of the purpose here -- a supercomputer that can simulate the drop.

    62. Re:Why the Army? by Pope · · Score: 1

      What about Einstein? His work lead to the A Bomb.

      That, and you have a lot to learn about marketing ;)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    63. Re:Why the Army? by rasz · · Score: 1

      and they to things like THIS ?

      So it WAS a friendly fire after all.

    64. Re:Why the Army? by Chiron+Taltos · · Score: 1
      COLSA works with the Army on a number of Missile Defense programs.

      Argh!! I can't believe my timing. I'm a Mac-fanatic and I just left COLSA last year. Sob!!!

      If only there had been a leak about this ... LOL!

      --
      CT

    65. Re:Why the Army? by ChuyMatt · · Score: 1

      erm... How about the uBomb. Hell, it is not directed at the person called "i" by me!!

    66. Re:Why the Army? by Chiron+Taltos · · Score: 1
      --
      CT

    67. Re:Why the Army? by perdu · · Score: 1
      Or perhaps the anti-anti-missle-missle. Right Agent 86?

      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    68. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ours at Minot AFB, ND, was "Peace is our profession, War is just a profitable sideline."

    69. Re:Why the Army? by djtripp · · Score: 1

      2.33 GIGAWATTS!!! Great Scott!!

      --
      "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
    70. Re:Why the Army? by JayHerrick · · Score: 0

      Now, now. Make sure your read the whole post before you reply. Orbit is nothing more than a constant state of falling. When "pushed from orbit" it will come down somewhere. As for why:

      A) Who could stop a super sonic shell from orbit? No real defense at this point.

      B) Time from decision to strike to killing the target. Cruisers or loitering aircraft still take time to get in place. With enough birds in low earth orbit. There wouldn't be a spot on earth that you couldn't hit in an hour.

    71. Re:Why the Army? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, I have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics. You'd have to have a rocket on your projectile to do a de-orbit burn. It's not as simple as throwing a crowbar at the car next to you while driving down the highway.

      With enough cruisers in the water, there isn't a spot on Earth you couldn't hit in an hour.

      Would this work? Sure. Would it be cost effective? I bet it wouldn't.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    72. Re:Why the Army? by Y2 · · Score: 1
      What about Einstein? His work lead to the A Bomb.

      Not really. He was a famous name, so they got him to write a letter to the president. That was the extent of his essential involvement.

      The bombs could have been designed without understanding that well-known unit-conversion formula* between matter and energy, since the fission process and its products were understood.

      [*] That's all "E equals m c squared" is, a conversion between different units.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    73. Re:Why the Army? by SB5 · · Score: 1

      If you hold in the reset button, you can have two shots on screen at one time....

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    74. Re:Why the Army? by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      Rockets are missiles, but missiles can be anything. Rocks are missiles if you throw them.

    75. Re:Why the Army? by jimbolaya · · Score: 2, Funny
      Imagine dropping guided bombs from orbit.

      Better still, image a Beowulf cluster of said bombs.

      --

      There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.

    76. Re:Why the Army? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is an Army/AF pissing contest. Read about the late 50's and early 60's and the hoops the Army had to jump through to get armed helocopters. The Army was not allowed any, repeat, any armed aircraft according to the Key West agreement of 1947 which dilineated roles and missions for the three services. Yes three, the Commandant of the Marine Corps takes his orders from the Chief of Naval Operations.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    77. Re:Why the Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reviewing NASA's space attempts, one could say that
      rocket == missile == bomb ?? ;)

    78. Re:Why the Army? by bonkedproducer · · Score: 1

      But that pissing contest from 30-40 years prior didn't affect the DOD decision to not sell/transfer the A-10 fleets to the Army.

      Also, unlike one of the prior posters, the A-10s are not all flown by reserves, it was a plain that was being phased out when Desert Storm occurred and it proved it's worth during the conflict and was saved from the boneyards.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    79. Re:Why the Army? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      umm.. They might destroy it if the area it is in is questionable over who was controling it. I mean they have destroy perfectly good apache helicopters that were grounded behind enimy lines because of hydolic and engine malfunctions so it wouldn't fall inot enemy hands.

      I remeber durring press breafing when the last iraq thing was going on, one of the generals durring a press conference corected a reporter saying that they have had no tanks destroyed in combat but they have demolished some that were disabled.. that being said, i r ead somewere once were the m1a1 can still make somethign like 30 mph while missing a track if the terain doesn't let it get stuck so your probably right, it is uunlikly they would destroy one because of a trac comming off.

    80. Re:Why the Army? by friedo · · Score: 1

      Yes three, the Commandant of the Marine Corps takes his orders from the Chief of Naval Operations.


      He most certainly does not. (Not anymore, anyway). Both the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations report directly to the Secretary of the Navy. They are co-equal in rank and position with the Chiefs of Staff for the Army and the Air Force, who report directly to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force, respectively.
    81. Re:Why the Army? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      He still is junior to the CNO, and will never be Chairman of the JCS. They are not equal rank because the Marine Corps is still technicly part of the Navy.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  2. Only $5.8 Million? I Want One by powera · · Score: 4, Funny
    Screw atmospheric calculations or modeling atmospheric flight. I want to see the frame rate for Duke Nukem Forever on that one.

    What, Duke Nukem Forever still isn't out yet? Hey, maybe such a computer could create Duke Nukem Forever from scratch so I could play it.

  3. This just might meet the system requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for America's Army!

  4. Better then real life testing by Wasteofspace · · Score: 1

    Glad to hear that the Military are going towards simulations to test their new fangled gadgets rather than catapulting chickens and sending poor test pilots on flights that are most likely going to make them sterile (or worse) :)

    1. Re:Better then real life testing by BigFire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, sometimes, the only way to know something, is to do it.

  5. I don't know, but... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple does have this.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:I don't know, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice sig. Where's it from?

    2. Re:I don't know, but... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's from Open Source Shakespeare (look in the "database" paragraph).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure the computers only costs $5.8 million, but how much will the screwdrivers cost they use to install everything?

    1. Re:costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on whether CIA is currently happy with their budget or not.

  7. Re:I wonder.... by andreMA · · Score: 1

    The zdnet version I read earlier said it'd run OS X, at least initially, but they might explore running Red Hat or Yellowdog.

  8. I don't follow the numbers by laird · · Score: 4, Informative

    This sounds like a killer system, but I don't follow the performance numbers.

    The 1655 CPU cluster is expected to deliver 25 Tflops, while the Virginia Tech machine, with 1,100 CPU's (if I remember properly) is rated at 10 Tflops. What else is different? Are they using a different interconnect? Clever programmers to get closer to peak? Or is it something silly like a journalist switching between peak and measured performance, or between computers and CPU's (assuming dual G5 Xserves)? Or is the G5 Xserve really _that_ much faster than the G5 desktop measures VA Tech was benchmarked with? I _like_ that idea...

    1. Re:I don't follow the numbers by hattig · · Score: 4, Informative

      Each machine is dual processor.

      VT used non-ECC machines, so safeguards took up some of the processing power.

      Current XServes use ECC memory, so that should provide more overall computing power and provide a higher final score.

      Different interconnect can also have a greater effect.

      And finally, yeah, I reckon that this could be peak results. I remember VT had a peak of aroun 19TFlops? I don't remember the exact details.

    2. Re:I don't follow the numbers by mrklin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The 1655 CPU cluster is expected to deliver 25 Tflops, while the Virginia Tech machine, with 1,100 CPU's (if I remember properly) is rated at 10 Tflops. What else is different? Are they using a different interconnect?

      Had you read the article you would have known that thr Army machine is connected using standard gigabit ehternet whereas the Big Mac used Infiniband.

      Since this is Slashdot you are par for the course.

    3. Re:I don't follow the numbers by andreMA · · Score: 4, Informative
      I blieve the 25 Tflop figure is a typo. I've read 15Tflop elsewhere

      And they're also using plain gigabit ethernet for interconnects, not Infiniband, supposedly because the applications they plan to run don't require a lot of I/O bandwidth.

    4. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there are any exact details about VT. It sounded like they put the cluster together, ran some benchmarketing for Apple, and then tore it down again.

    5. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ECC RAM is slower anyhow. If the memory is hardware cheching, those checks take clock time, and if your application is already memory bound, you're screwed either way....

      Unless, of course, it takes less time to run the job again--to check against.

    6. Re:I don't follow the numbers by laird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Had you read the article you would have known that thr Army machine is connected using standard gigabit ehternet whereas the Big Mac used Infiniband."

      GigE is about 10x slower (for this type of networking, see http://www.infinicon.com/pdf/LSTCUG-2003-Final.pdf ) than Infiniband. That is, unless there's some sort of magic router involved, I don't see how GigE would make CPU's faster.

      Perhaps they're measuring different applications, and the Army machine doesn't need much communications? Kinda an odd way to benchmark...

    7. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they're using Rmax numbers instead of Rpeak, that puts the BigMac at around 17GFlops, and would put the new cluster in the neighborhood of 25GFlops.

    8. Re:I don't follow the numbers by laird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I blieve the 25 Tflop figure is a typo. I've read 15Tflop elsewhere ... they're also using plain gigabit ethernet for interconnects, not Infiniband, supposedly because the applications they plan to run don't require a lot of I/O"

      Now _this_ makes sense. I can easily believe that a different app could have very different performance characteristics, which could explain a 2x performance difference. That won't affect the Top 500 list too much, though, since it's based on standard benchmarks.

      In any case, it's nice to see another Mac supercomputer. It's kinda cool watching the open source world win (since an Xserve is basically an open source machine as far as supercomputing nodes go -- nobody cares about the GUI on a compute node) that's competitive based on raw performance. Go PPC!

    9. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Virginia Tech's machine sustained 10280 GFlops and peaked at 17600 GFlops. The Army's new cluster has half again as many nodes, as Big Mac did, so they are predicting a 25000 GFlop peak. If the new cluster works on embarrassingly parallel problems, they might achieve 25 TFlops. If not-- perhaps 12-15 TFlops is a more realistic estimate.

    10. Re:I don't follow the numbers by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 4, Funny

      Simple answer: They are using MACS

      No, not Macs as in Macintosh, I'm talking about MACS (Military Acronym Compression Scheme).

      See the military uses acronyms for everything, resulting in a higher throughput to the processors. This will allow them to reach the desired 25Tflops.

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    11. Re:I don't follow the numbers by tupps · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are rebuilding it with X-Serves now. I beleive that the get a 3 times increase in density (eg 3 XServers to 1 powermac).

      --
      Go out and get sailing!
    12. Re:I don't follow the numbers by uvsc_wolverine · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't make any mention of this but...the system that virginia Tech set up used the dual 2.0 Ghz machines. The current top speed of the G5s is 2.5 Ghz and maybe that is what will be going into this cluster.

      --
      This space for rent...
    13. Re:I don't follow the numbers by andreMA · · Score: 3, Informative
      This press release from the contractor seems pretty adamant about claiming 25TF, asserting "second only to the Earth Simulator" which seems to exclude a simple numeric typo.

      Both c|net and Mac Rumors say 15, though, which is as you say much more plausible. Given the degree of confusion, I wouldn't be too sure about other details such as interconnects or price tags... or even number of nodes; perhaps 1566 is an initial confuguration, later growing signifigantly larger to account for the 25TF figure.

    14. Re:I don't follow the numbers by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      Correct. The reason VT wasn't on the most recent top 500 supercomputers list was that they were still bringing in the XServes. Less heat, less space, and ECC memory.

    15. Re:I don't follow the numbers by afidel · · Score: 1

      CAS latency for ECC ram is typically 3-3-3 whereas the memory Apple ships with the G5 towers is 3-3-2. So you won't see a hell of a lot of slowdown with the PPC970FX, in fact since they run at faster speeds you'll see an overall improvement =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    16. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is nice, but indicates they really didn't need it in the first place (except for aforementioned Apple Marketing purposes).

    17. Re:I don't follow the numbers by sarahbau · · Score: 1

      Apple hasn't yet announced a dual 2.5 XServe. Since the tower requires liquid cooling to prevent it from overheating, and the XServe is normally several months behind the towers, they are probably using the dual 2.0 G5s.

    18. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theoretical peak is 17.6 TF. The actual peak is 10.3 TF sustained.

    19. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they paid Apple a couple of millions, just so Apple could do some marketing for Apple.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think they paid Apple a couple million dollars so that they could ... sit around and do nothing!

      This deal stinks so bad, even an Confirmed Apple Zealot like yourself should have enough braincells left to realize it. People do not normally build supercomputers and then take them apart a month later. Either they needed the thing or Apple needed the thing, you choose.

    21. Re:I don't follow the numbers by joib · · Score: 2, Informative

      The linpack benchmark used for ranking the top500 isn't that bandwidth and latency sensitive. That's why you see lots of clusters ranking highly, even though they have low performance interconnects, in some cases only Gb ethernet.

      Apparently the 25 TFlops figure is the peak performance, while the expected max performance in linpack will be about 15 TFlops. This sound reasonable compared to bigmac (something like 17 Tflops peak, 10 TFlops max IIRC), considering that this one has 1.5 times as many cpu:s.

    22. Re:I don't follow the numbers by grahamlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They needed the thing - the first Apple knew about it was when one of their online store employees phoned up VT to check whether they'd made a typo on their request for 1100 dual G5 machines.

    23. Re:I don't follow the numbers by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      Since the tower requires liquid cooling to prevent it from overheating, and the XServe is normally several months behind the towers, they are probably using the dual 2.0 G5s.

      They probably are, but I'm not sure Apple will transfer the liquid cooling to the XServes. Apple went with the liquid cooling for quietness rather than out of thermal desperation. If anything, we're more likely to see it in a PowerBook than an XServe.

    24. Re:I don't follow the numbers by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      They will need more than just embarassingly parallel problems. Those peak scores are generated with codes that can fit their data into the L2 cache, and can fit the entire executable into the L1 instruction cache. They also heavily rely on almost everything being pushed through the fused-multiply-add (counts as 2 fp ops in linpack) functionality of the 970's FP pipeline.

      The 970 has very good memory bandwidth for a scalar CPU, but it's nothing compared to cache speed. Parallelization issues are not the only things that keeps a CPU from running at peak speed.

    25. Re:I don't follow the numbers by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I don't remember which article had it, but they pointed out this differnce and the reason -what the army is doing is much more processor intensive than bandwidth intensive. You spend your money where the bottleneck is.

    26. Re:I don't follow the numbers by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      The 1655 CPU cluster is expected to deliver 25 Tflops, while the Virginia Tech machine, with 1,100 CPU's (if I remember properly) is rated at 10 Tflops. What else is different?

      The first thing different is the Army will get the new G5s systems while VT did it with the older G5s. VT is in the process of updgrading right now, but they have not tested them yet.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    27. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the computation is more parallelizable (oh the spelling, it hurts my brain) than what VT is doing, then interconnect throughput might not be as high a priority.

      VT's Big Mac is a general purpose cluster. They want to run all kinds of things. So they don't neccessarily know how fast the interconnects need to be. The Army's "Maj. Mac" (as I'll dub it) is built for a specific task, so they probably have a more specific idea of their interconnect throughput needs.

    28. Re:I don't follow the numbers by allgood2 · · Score: 1

      From what I understand the next supercomputer at Virgina which will use the X-Serve and is called System X is what will be 15TF. The system for the Army is called Mach 5 and they are shooting for 25TF. If both these systems meet the goal, then Apple may end up with two supercomputers in the Top 10 of the Top 500 supercomputers.

    29. Re:I don't follow the numbers by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      If you're not doing a lot of message passing you wouldn't need infiniband / myrinet. if the application is embarassingly paralell i believe you wouldn't need a lot of bandwidth between nodes.

      --

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

    30. Re:I don't follow the numbers by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      The VT machine was put together with dual 2 Ghz desktops. The current top end desktop G5's are 2.5 Ghz. Xserves top out at dual-2 Ghz according to The order page on Apple's web site right now but I'm sure they will be upgraded soon. Maybe the Army is anticipating implementing this with dual 2.5 Ghz Xserves rather than the current model.

  9. Re:I wonder.... by fmorgan · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not true. The CPU is IBM's but the I/O controllers and other chips are all Apple made.

    check this InfoWorld comparison of Opteron systems with the XserveG5,

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/18/25FE64 bi ts_1.html

  10. Awesome! by wiresquire · · Score: 4, Funny

    1566 X Server cluster? That should get some decent FPS.

    Ohhhh. XServe. My bad.

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    1. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but it probably really help out America's Army hosting.

    2. Re:Awesome! by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      No doubt they will be using it for combat training. As I understand it, a 1566 XServe cluster is the minimum system requirements for playing Doom III.

  11. Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i used to find it funny when someone wanted to hack the gibson.

    now there may be an actual unix cluster worthy of intrusion.

    *drool*

  12. Artillery shells, rockets, bullets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And other things that go boom.

    They pretty much all go pretty fast through the atmosphere.

    1. Re:Artillery shells, rockets, bullets... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ooh, good point!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Artillery shells, rockets, bullets... by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Don't let the Californians or East Coast types go to Huntsville, Alabama. They might get their whole world view warped.

      Yes mod's it is on topic

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  13. Not 1100 CPU's by System.out.println() · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not sure if it helps your math, but the VT cluster had 1100 G5's, with 2 CPU's each for 2200 CPU's.

    1. Re:Not 1100 CPU's by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This one has 3132 CPUs.

  14. Torn between... by jabex · · Score: 4, Funny

    my love for Apple and my hatred for using technology for violence.

    Oh screw it, that cluster is gonna be awesome! Forget imagining a Beowulf cluster... imagine your frame rate in Doom III!

    First.
    20fps.
    In Doom III.
    Evar!

    --
    Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
    1. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only solution to a violent world is to be better at violence than your neighbors.

      There are zero societies on Earth that do not hew to this axiom.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Torn between... by wahsapa · · Score: 0

      somebody had quake3 with raytracing running at 20fps on a cluster of 1900 athlon xp's, im to lazy to link, but i wonder what this thing could pull

    3. Re:Torn between... by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    4. Re:Torn between... by pi+radians · · Score: 2, Funny
      "The only solution to a violent world is to be better at violence than your neighbors.

      There are zero societies on Earth that do not hew to this axiom."
      You must be a real laugh at parties.
      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    5. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was only 20 Athlon XP 1800s. Slashdot article here.

    6. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The chicks dig me.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Torn between... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bollocks. Switzeland, Iceland have a different way.

      Of course if you see violence as a solution then I guess thinking might be a bit of a novel concept.

    8. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gandi, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, and Jesus Christ disagree. Just because its a shitty violent world doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for ways to change it. So no, being better at violence isn't the only solution. I hope someday you'll realize that.

    9. Re:Torn between... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nearly every last adult male in Switzerland does compulsory military service and knows how to operate a SIG assault rifle, does he not? I'd say that's going a fair way towards being better at violence than your neighbor.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:Torn between... by hazem · · Score: 1

      I suppose, however, that there's a difference between being better at violence than your neighbor and doingbetter violence to your neighbor.

    11. Re:Torn between... by willis · · Score: 1

      It's easier to be non-violent / have small armies when you are sure that there is someone behind with a big stick. Part of the reason why Japan and Europe can be relatively pacifist is the implicit security guarantee from the US. Or at least that's why I'm starting to believe.

      --

      there is no thing
      what else could you want?
    12. Re:Torn between... by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Part of the reason why Japan and Europe can be relatively pacifist is the implicit security guarantee from the US.

      Yep. And decades of "we don't need to have an army" thinking in Europe has drifted into "nobody needs to have an army".

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    13. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Are they using SIGs? I had it in my head it was the H&K G3.

      Either way...the Swiss have been supreme badasses for 700 years.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    14. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iceland has no neighbors.

      See my other post in this thread re: Switzerland.

      Next?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    15. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The Dalai Lama can disagree all he wants. He doesn't have a country anymore, because the Chinese Army decided they didn't want him to have a country anymore.

      Jesus, Dr. King, and Gandhi all died by violence. Many problems can in fact be solved by non-violence. The violence of other nation-states (or some non-state actors) is not in that set.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:Torn between... by bm_luethke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The swiss also have the great threat of "All your money belong to us".

      Few large nations are going to invade switzerland. Even should they want to then most of the rest of the world would retaliate. So you do not really have to be better at apllying violence than them. The only time it might is in another world war.

      Small nations that may wish to do so need the swiss to keep thier money safe.

      Add in the idea that if they are invaded that everyone will fire a shot and go home and you have the best case for someone that can be a pacifist.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    17. Re:Torn between... by 4lex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess your definition of "solution" depends on your definition of "problem". If the solution to a violent world is "to be better at violence than your neighbours", I guess you don't consider war itself a problem, only the war you happen to lose. (I indeed consider any war a major violence problem itself, and specially not a solution for violence.)

      I mean, did you read your own words? If every society applies your axiom, trying to be better at violence than their neighbours... how exactly does the solution to a violent world appear? You would think the world would engage in a global arms race (and eventually a global war, as strategigy give rise to tactics). Is this a solution for a violent world? I honestly think I don't get your point.

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    18. Re:Torn between... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what Hitler said too.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:Torn between... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The only solution to a violent world is to be better at violence than your neighbors.

      I'm sure that's not the only solution. What I suspect when I see you type that is that you like the violence.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    20. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty bold assertion. Care to tell me what makes you think that?

      I have an interest in military history, and a great deal of respect for people who risk their lives to preserve mine, but I don't like violence at all. It is a terrible, terrible thing...but that does not mean it is not sometimes necessary.

      Less often than the current administration seems to think, absolutely...but sometimes necessary.

      Your point is well taken: Violence is not the only solution. It is, however, the final solution, and sometimes the only viable one.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    21. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Are there just wars? Yes. Are all wars just? Absolutely not.

      Sometimes the application of violence prevents or halts a greater violence. Humans are violent. Animals are violent. It is a fact of life. What we can do, as reasoning beings, is strive to limit the application of violence to the situations when nothing else will do. However, to say that violence is never the answer is to be a poor student of history.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So what's your point? Anybody who says that violence is sometimes necessary must be Hitler?

      Way to invoke Godwin's Law.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    23. Re:Torn between... by 4lex · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate that you took your time to answer, I can't really see that you have read my post, or composed an answer to it. I did not introduce the idea of justice, I was just trying to develop your axiom to its logical consequences. I repeat: "If every society applies your axiom, trying to be better at violence than their neighbours... how exactly does the solution to a violent world appear?"

      Why do you assume that being better at violence than your neighbours has something to do with "Sometimes the application of violence prevents or halts a greater violence."? Any nation (or individual) can try to be better at violence than their neighbours. In fact, every party engaged in a war tries to be. Do you mean that every party engaged in a war has prevented or halted greater violence?

      To say that violence is never the answer is absurd, as you point out. Violence is an usual answer. To say that violence is the solution to some problems is correct. Not the best solution, of course, but sometimes necessary. To say that violence is a solution to violence is overly optimistic, in my humble opinion. I think you really mean that there is no solution to violence, and you try to minimize losses (specially on your side).

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    24. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Successful nation-states are good at violence, either by being powerful or allying themselves with powerful nations. Survival of the fittest. Contrary to popular sentiment, peace DOES come from the barrel of a gun.

      "Violence as a solution to violence" was a rhetorical point I made, that you are thinking way too hard about.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    25. Re:Torn between... by 4lex · · Score: 1

      Silly me, I thought decades of cold war and nuclear arms race translated into decades of fear of the world blowing up in pieces and that had drifted into "nobody needs to have the ability to blow the entire world in pieces". Implicit security? Yeah, sure.

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    26. Re:Torn between... by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      Apple (back in the hayday of the Apple II) refused to sell computers to the military - Steve and Steve actually had a conscience about their company and its effect on the world.

      The military obtained them from a third party anyway - and they operated in silos of multi-megaton missles.

      How a few decades and a few millions will change people.

    27. Re:Torn between... by 4lex · · Score: 1

      Successful nation-states are good at violence

      I think we are reaching a point here. Successful at what, may I ask? Successful at winning wars and not being conquered, do you mean?

      I'm thinking of the ancient greeks and romans. I suppose the Roman Empire was the succesful one, in your scale. A great empire, a long-lasting "Pax Romana"... In my point of view, the greek culture was the one inspiring the rise of Science and Philosophy, although they were "the slave nation", and the roman were "the master nation". "Survival of the fittest", you say... surely my mother tongue is derived from Latin, but I don't recall to have studied the thought of many romans, while I can easily think of several greeks (individuals or schools of thought) that pervive in our memories, up to this date.

      Spain, as a close example (to me, as spaniard) was successful in South America, when they annihilated some totally valid civilizations? They surely builded a huge empire then, and argued that those Incas and Aztecs were uncivilized, waiting to be saved by our Lord. I would count that experience as a miserable failure.

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    28. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Successful as in "existing". As in "are still around". As in "Not like the Tibetans or the American Indians or the Ottoman Empire etc etc etc..."

      What "validity" does a civilization have if it gets annihilated or absorbed?

      I'm not making a moral argument here, only a practical one. If your society can not defend itself, it will not exist for long.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:Torn between... by 4lex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, then I agree. A civilization which isn't good at violence doesn't last long. Aside from the Chinese, civilizations which are good at violence don't last forever, either. I suppose you can add to your list of "non successful-because-non-existing Empires" the Romans (as in "the Empire comprising all civilized Earth"), the Spanish (as in "the land where the Sun always shines") or the USSR (remember them?). You perhaps mean that the Romans, the Spanish or the USSR did a bad job in war (both practice and preparation)? No matter how militaristic you are, eventually your time passes (again, Chinese are special, at least up to now... we will see what happens to them now they are beginning to open their frontiers and starting to think aggresively towards the outside world).

      If your society does not make valid cultural points, in the moment it ceases to exist (which will inevitably happen), it will matter no more. If it gives something valid to humanity, it will be appreciated forever. I concede, though, that if your society is annihilated rather than absorbed, your cultural contributions may not matter, either (as those of the Aztecs and Inca people).

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    30. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one wants to live in iceland for any leangth of time (especially the current pop) and have you never heard of the swiss army. switzerland is quite small and is also fully protected ny its neighbours.

    31. Re:Torn between... by Silas+is+back · · Score: 3, Informative


      I guess about 90% of swiss males hate to do the army-service. You have to do training for 3 weeks every other year (schweizer: keine details. ;-) ).
      Anyway, almost every one of them has a Stgw 90 at home, no SIG or whatever you call it. It was developed by the swiss army.

      should I say that I am from switzerland? =)

      --
      this sig is useless
    32. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they have Björk :)

    33. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do, especially the "hew this axiom" part.

      Well what do I know, maybe they really do. It just seems incredibly improbable.

    34. Re:Torn between... by lylum · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Stgw90 is a SIG product. If you get the rifle from your basement you see that on top it is engraved with SIG.

    35. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being better at violence than your neighbor

      But that's easy to do with the French as neighbors...

      Seriously, everybody knows that Switzerland stayed neutral in WWII because they kissed Nazi ass and provided nice discreet banking to everybody.

      They used to produce good mercenaries in Medieval times, but so did many other countries. (German spearmen, Hungarian and Polish cavalry, Spanish gunmen, Finns in Sweden's army, Scots...) The Swiss became pronouncedly well-known only because they could freely mass export (lease) them throughout the centuries due to their hard to attack home terrain, not because they were any tougher than, say, their German counterparts.

      In WWII, had the Nazis wanted, bombing (with complete air superiority) and paratrooper/glider landings on Zurich and other key points would have made a full-scale conquest doable, if not trivially easy.

    36. Re:Torn between... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Both Japan and Europe have rather big armies. They just don't invade other countries constantly.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    37. Re:Torn between... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Anybody who attacks countries with their supperior violence claiming that that country one day might become better at violence than they themself are like Hitler.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    38. Re:Torn between... by cosmo7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyway, almost every one of them has a Stgw 90 at home, no SIG or whatever you call it. It was developed by the swiss army.

      It's the world's first assault rifle with a built-in corkscrew.

    39. Re:Torn between... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Japan and Europe have rather big armies. They just don't invade other countries constantly.

      Yeah, hell, the Europeans have such a HUGE army that they needed the US to get involved in brush fires in their back yard! Why in the hell we ever got involved in fiascos like the Balkans is beyond me.

      I'd concede that Europe as a whole has a substantial number of military personnel. With the exception of the UK, they are likely to be as combat effective as a kitten in a minefield.

    40. Re:Torn between... by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Moofie typeth: "Violence is not the only solution. It is, however, the final solution, and sometimes the only viable one."

      Sun Tzu points out that war is an inevitable condition of a State. War is a form of violence that doesn't need to involve bloodshed, however: "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting" -- and, "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

      The general conclusion from the Art of War is that deception, spying, and manipulation from afar is skillful war, that bloodshed is a failure; and while war is an inevitability, its success (more like 'rightness') is tied to moral 'harmony'--a concept I believe is considerably complexified by the new global 'community,' to the point where initiating war is practically never justified.

    41. Re:Torn between... by perdu · · Score: 1
      Jesus, Dr. King, and Gandhi all died by violence. Many problems can in fact be solved by non-violence. The violence of other nation-states (or some non-state actors) is not in that set.
      Actually, Gandhi supported WWI because a just government may need to resort to war to protect it's citizens and freedom. (From his autobiog which I highly recommend). But to go to war without exhausting diplomatic solutions would be against his principles I think. And having a job and using your talents to make weapons even more lethal would too.

      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    42. Re:Torn between... by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, a lot of people from Steve's generation have grown more conservative and less fanatical in their once strongly-held, pacifistic ideals as they've gotten older, regardless of whether they've made millions or not.

    43. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      And thank God for that. Björk kicks ass. Especially if you're a paparazzi, and then she kicks YOUR ass.

      Can you imagine an Icelandic Army of Björks? Whoo nelly!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    44. Re:Torn between... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      To a degree you are confusing cause and effect. WHY is your money safe in Switzerland? Because it's one big mountain fortress where every male over 18 is trained to use an assault rifle in defense of their home (and incidentally, your money)

    45. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see! You were trying to get from my statement, to an endorsement of the current American foreign policy. How cute!

      Yeah. The war in Iraq is an unforgivable debacle.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    46. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Military skill is necessary, but not sufficient. Certainly societies fall for all sorts of reasons, but a society of pacifists (as if there has ever been such a thing) would be lambs to the slaughter.

      Pacifism is a pretty idea, but all too often it degenerates into letting other people do your dirty work for you.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    47. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      And what happens if you're pretty good at espionage, and bad at war? The people you're spying on say "Hey! Those guys over in Gobboland sure spy on us a lot. They're a bunch of wusses, though...let's go kick their asses." And many Gobbo-ites will then be dead.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    48. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'd tend to agree with him about the first part, but not the second part.

      If more lethal weapons mean that, in the unfortunate event of a war, more bad guys die and fewer good guys die, then (from my perspective) improving weapons technology is a Good Thing.

      Now it gets a lot more murky if improving weapons technology makes it more likely that those weapons will be used. (Think Tomahawk Diplomacy.)

      It is a complicated moral dilemma, that's for sure. However, pacifism is not a stable solution to the problem. That's the root of my argument.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    49. Re:Torn between... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression it was a Sig 550 or one of that series of rifles. Though H&K wouldn't suprise me either

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    50. Re:Torn between... by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1


      aah, okay, thank you.

      --
      this sig is useless
    51. Re:Torn between... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Switzerland had a couple of things that prevented Nazi Germany from invading. The Germans drew up plans three separate times to do so and the Normandy invasion prevented the last set from being implemented. Among the things Switzerland did included:

      1. The entire population was armed and trained for warfare. Militia may not be effective outside of a nation's borders but inside they can be devastating. On invasion, you end up fighting the whole population as happened with the British and the American colonies. Switzerland learned well from being conquered by Napoleon. I can not find the quote on the internet but there is a famous discussion where a Swiss officer is asked what they will do if Germany were to invade with overwhelming force and his answer was, "The militia would be mobilized. They would proceed to the front and fire once. Then they would go home." The Swiss militia outnumbered any invation force (unless the Allies lost) many times over.

      2. Switzerland controlled the train tunnels between Germany and Italy. They made it clear to the Axis that if they were invaded, the tunnels would be destroyed and that the commander in charge of the tunnels had independent authority to do so in the event of invasion. There would be no countermanding orders from the military or government because the commander was ordered to ignore such orders. Those tunnels were important enough to German trade during the war that the risk of losing that at that time was significant.

      3. Similar to 2 above, they deliberately set up their command and control structure so that it was impossible for the army and militia to surrender like other nations in Europe did. Most of the national armies were ordered to surrender after a token fight at best. Switzerland having seen this, made these changes after the start of the war.

      Naturally trade of some sort continued with Germany during the way. They could hardly consign themselves to starvation. A lot of their trade with the Allies included important war materials like bomb sights. While the banking issues are regrettable, what would you have done in their situation? The very existence of Switzerland was at stake and the character of those transactions is different considering duress. Switzerland's objective was to prevent invasion until the Allies could invade Europe.

    52. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yup. Sounds to me like they're pretty good at warfare.

      The Swiss aren't peaceful because they like hugs and rainbows. They're peaceful because they are a militarily powerful, wealthy country, with defensible borders and nobody wants to mess with them.

      Except Napoleon. I thought he was repulsed...I need to read up on that.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    53. Re:Torn between... by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      I believe the two are actually intertwined. There can be more than a single reason as to why people will not attack.

      Banks are simply an electronic number (mostly). So for someone to invade the swiss they need to both be able to beat them *and* assure that thier currency and records remain the same.

      Each one is the cause of them being able to be passive (the effect).

      Why is it there? It was historically (not because of arms but because of the afore mentioned "big mountain fortress"). The Templar Knights learned the really hard lesson that simple military power isn't enough.

      Since neither can occur the swis are able to maintain thier "impartiality" and be passive. They could not withstand a combined effort of several countries or even a few of the great powers singly, but those powers would loose MUCH more than they would ever gain.

      Had Hitler *really* wanted to invade the swiss he probably could but why? Britain was waiting and invading the swiss would have lost him much money. Once europe was all in his power the swiss could be blockaded and eventually fall, they would be very hard to actually invade but cut off from europe they could not survive. Once captured, since he controlled the rest of the countries then thier wealth was not as important since controlling both the creditors and debtors made it much less of an issue.

      In short the loss in life would have been great (and it was dearly needed for Britain and Russia) and a great loss of money for him at that time. Wait a while and it would have made sense and have happened. As is he lost before that occured.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    54. Re:Torn between... by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Getting caught makes you a lousy spy.

    55. Re:Torn between... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

      A better solution for a violent world if for all of us to renounce violence.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    56. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You figure out how to turn that from a pretty idea into an actual viable plan for peace (that checks people who do not believe as you do from assimilating their neighbors), and then we'll talk.

      Until then, I will happily pay my taxes into the US war machine. Despite being mis-purposed from time to time, and despite some really hellacious financial shenanigans, the US Military can (by and large) be trusted to get the job done. As long as the job doesn't include fighting a "war on terror" (which to me makes about as much sense as a "war on that feeling you get just after you wake up from a Saturday afternoon nap". Where did we get this idea that war on notions ever works? War on hunger? War on poverty? War on drugs? Which of these was successful? War works great against nation states and evil dictators. It's really bad against ideas.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    57. Re:Torn between... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      One has to wonder if the issue of violence in the world isn't just a grand movement to keep up with the Jones'. Obviously, there has never been a unified attempt to lay down arms by all parties involved. Alas, I have long come to terms with the idea that people are just intelligent animals, and our instincts often best our reasoning.

      Mind, I have to commend you for being at least -rationally- pro-military. The difference between a war against the tangible (a nation or a clear aggressor) and the intangible (terror, or much more comically, drugs) is something that so very few people really articulate. What scares me more is that for most, it's not just an issue of articulation.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    58. Re:Torn between... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll lay down my arms at the same time as China and North Korea. You have to give me cookies until they do.

      You are going to be out a lot of damn cookies.

      Hugs and rainbows don't keep out the invaders. Guns and oceans do.

      I think that a lot more people than you might think (including a lot of people in the military) love peace at least as much as you do. The people in the military, however, are willing to put their lives on the line to guarantee peace for people they've never even met. I think that's pretty honorable.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  15. Defense $$$ by kwishot · · Score: 5, Informative

    "US$5.8 million"

    I'm a grunt in the USMC (former computer geek...who would have figured?)
    Anyways... I'm about to go *back* to Iraq in September.
    The high brass has some f*ed up priorities some times.... the army has $5.8mil to contract out *research* to some company for technology what.... 10-15 years away at the minimum?
    Meanwhile the Marine Corps is scraping nickles and dimes to get us basic equipment the army has had for most of a decade.
    Hell, when we go to the field to train, we often have to yell "bang! bang!" because we don't get enough (or any) blank rounds for training.
    Imagine if they took just ONE Osprey off the project..... maybe then I wouldn't have a hand-me-down-from-the-army m16a2 (does the army use them anymore?)

    1. Re:Defense $$$ by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I was over in Saudi, for Desert Storm, we had the original M-16's issued to us, with no forward assist. You had one shot and then a rather fragile baseball bat. We also had our .38 Special revolvers. I guess we could shoot ourselves if we were overrun. Gotta' love life in the Air Force Reserves.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Defense $$$ by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      You think thats bad, you should see the MDA's money.

      --
      I do security
    3. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Man, at least you might get the A2. My term in the Louisiana National Guard got me shared TA-50 gear (we actually had to share) and i think the exact same 1911 Colt my dad used in 1964....

    4. Re:Defense $$$ by Gunfighter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have fond memories of yelling many a "bang! bang!" and (my personal favorite) "budda budda jam!" during training exercises.

      I was active duty USMC from 1992 through 1998 (aptly dubbed "Clinton's Corps"). It's good to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Whether you have a Republican globalist in the White House or a Democrat globalist ruling the roost, the people who need it most still get the short end of the stick when it comes to military spending. In the end, the D.C. suits in charge are all globalists with the common goal of the oligarchy in mind.

      We had practically no green money (USMC money) for things like training and education, but blue money (US Navy money for the aviation side of the house) seemed to come out of the friggin woodwork. I couldn't get a new three ring binder without filling out two forms (in triplicate!) and a two week wait for the purchase to be approved, but one avionics jockey with a few too many beers in him from the night before drops a $45K helicopter battery on the tarmac and POOF!! a new battery practically materializes out of nowhere with no paperwork and no questions asked.

      The Marines are well known for doing the best job with the worst equipment and no preparation. Keep up the good work, and watch your ass in Iraq.

      Semper Fi!

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
    5. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, when I was stationed in Vietnam, we had nothing but a belt of flares to call in airstrikes and little twigs to beat away the bugs. And we had to march out of base camp in the driving rain in the morning. We marched for hours only to march right back in at night. It was uphill both ways. And we liked it!

    6. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should stop spending $3000 on a toilet seat and accepting bribes from the contractors.

      It's supposed to be about honor, but it is clearly not...

    7. Re:Defense $$$ by __aawwih8715 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm aircraft maitenance in the army... i think your battalion level commander is more concerned with keeping his FMC (fully mission capable) percentage higher than he is concerned about the binder. The paperwork will get done. Having an aircraft not FMC makes him look bad.

      The stuff i work with is on the same level, even an order of magnitude larger. The budget is out of this world. And about the money... every part, servicable or not, is worth 70%+ of what was paid for it and is turned back in.

      I work on apache longbows, i almost dropped a battery last time in the field. There was a nasty component faliure that was hard to trace and was causing the battery controller to charge all the time, not trickle. It was still hot enough to boil an egg after 4 hours sitting on the ground.

    8. Re:Defense $$$ by __aawwih8715 · · Score: 1

      all my buddies in/just back from iraq all got brand new shit.

    9. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think the exact same 1911 Colt my dad used in 1964

      Meaning it's more effective than the Berettas used today, jams once about every 3000 shots (given good magazines), and will still be around when your grandson volunteers (provided it isn't melted down to make something with a chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect...maybe something in a caliber that starts with a 2).

    10. Re:Defense $$$ by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1

      Anyways... I'm about to go *back* to Iraq in September.

      Good luck!

      (Maybe the Iraqi Linux Users Group needs volunteers? :)

    11. Re:Defense $$$ by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      $5.6 Million will buy about 45 minutes of Iraq occupation (do the match - Wolfowitz said $5B/month).

    12. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux == Communism == Terrorism == Saddam

      Watch you don't get shot. There are 150,000 people playing pretty fast and loose with their reasoning these days...

    13. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well! Nobody is forcing you to invade others countries do they?? Quit the army or quit whinig!

    14. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Canada, it's "Budget-cut! Budget-cut!"

    15. Re:Defense $$$ by burns210 · · Score: 1

      he army has $5.8mil to contract out *research* to some company for technology what.... 10-15 years away at the minimum?

      The cluster is suppose to be operational by late fall, of this year.

      However, that is lame about your situation... I don't think that the rediculously large budget is to blame, just poor distrobution of funds... 1 less fighter, would pay for a lot of equipment for 'grunts' AND this world record(speed vs. cost) setting cluster, that does have practical and important use.

    16. Re:Defense $$$ by Binary+Judas · · Score: 0

      I still don't understand why they're called the Marines if they're part of the army. Marine sounds more like part of the navy to me...

      --

      Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux. Tu delenda est!

    17. Re:Defense $$$ by joib · · Score: 1

      My impression is that the US Marine Corps is a separate branch, just like the other branches of the military such as the Army, Air Force and the Navy.

      I think they're supposed to be the guys that run out of landing crafts and storm beaches and stuff. As most of them are going to die on the beach anyway, it's no use pissing away money getting the latest and greatest equipment for them. ;-)

      Nah, seriously, I guess the fact theat they get worse equipment than the rest of the military has to do with Pentagon politics.

    18. Re:Defense $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta' love life in the Air Force Reserves

      We sure do love you guys, call you Bullet Sponges!

      USAF

    19. Re:Defense $$$ by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

      The Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy. Technically, they're a separate entity. However, the USMC chain of command goes through the Secretary of the Navy. At least they let us play in the Joint Chiefs of Staff games.

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  16. Re:True purpose by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Implementing the draft doesn't require number-crunching, it requires I/O bandwidth to run database engines.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  17. Re:Steve Blowjobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    handjob please

  18. Another misspell by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Army Contractor To Build A 1566 Xserve Cluster You totally misspelled "1337."

    1. Re:Another misspell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this funny? Someone plz explain

    2. Re:Another misspell by kylector · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because 1337 is leet (elite) speak. It's a hax0r joke. A juvenile might write that headline as such:

      Army Contractor To Build A 1337 Xserve Cluster

      And it would still make sense, believe it or not. It'd be like saying "...To Build A Sweet/Cool/Awesome Xserve." It was a joke because only juveniles use 1337-speak and the parent was being sarcastic.

  19. Re:But how fast will it copy a 17meg file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfft like you're gonna hear that from them. At most you'll get a few death threats, but never an intelligent reason.

  20. That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulator by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Physics computations and weapons simulations so good looking, you're going to want to lick them." - Steve Jobs
    "Uh, we'd advise against that sir." - Army colonel
    "But he SAID I could lick them! Ooh, red, yellow and green WMD icons!" - G. W. Bush

  21. That's about 9 terahertz by BandwidthHog · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you need me I'll be off in the corner, sobbing over my 0.533 gigahertz G4.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it funny when Mac users try to tell me that 2 x 2 GHz G5 = 4 GHz. Trying to explain to them otherwise results in them telling you that Apple 0wnz!11!1!! and that Steve J0bs is G0d!1!1!`~!~1

      Sorry bud, it ain't 9 THz.

    2. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I just bumped my b/w G3 up to 450MHz G4. Woot. Now I'm playing with power.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      Sorry, let me restate that with the proper tags:
      <MATH TYPE="bullshit">That's about 9 terahertz</MATH>
      Yes, I realize that's not actually how it works. Jeez. Smoke yourself a joint or something.
      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    4. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      don't be cheap...spend about 350 on a 1.25 GHZ G4 and plop it in there.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I'm holding out for dual 1ghz G4s that I can afford. Don't try to reason with me, I've got my heart set on duals as my next upgrade.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    6. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are we supposed to know if you are one of the rare smart Mac users or one of the teaming masses of idiots polluting the Internet with thoughtless mac advocacy?

    7. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      that you can afford? well they are not going to get cheaper than 1200 or so, I would buy now.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    8. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by kylector · · Score: 1

      Get an upgrade card at OWC and save tons of cash.

    9. Re:That's about 9 terahertz by jaysones · · Score: 1

      That doesn't count as liquid cooled! :D

  22. Re:Steve Blowjobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not fail it!!

    Oh... sorry AC. I'm afraid he wont be able to pay up. He's still finishing off the mac cabal while they mod down any bad comments regarding apple.

  23. Re:True purpose by b17bmbr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ther is no chance of reinstating the draft. one, the public is not supportive of it. two, there is no need. we will never have a million men in the field again. third, the army doesn't want it. long time ago, it used to damn near impossible to get out, now, it's not too hard. they classify you as unfit for military life, and say have a nice life. look at what the army is doing in iraq. those aren't conscripts. even if you think bush is satan, what we are doing has never been possible, nor accomplished before. and conscripts won't do that.

    the often overlooked issue in abu ghraib is that they were reservists and some civi contractors. the army and air force have been doing this for some time now. farming things out to reservists and civilians. there will be no draft. we need 2 more divisions. those can accomplishged within normal recruitment.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  24. $5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> "US$5.8 million"

    $5.8 M is absolute peanuts in terms of US Military budgets. You can't even buy replacement engines for a KC-135 (of which there are hundreds in service for various tasks) for $5.8M.

    This purchase is segment of a drop in the bucket. It won't even make a dent on the balance sheet. Cutbacks and low funding in other areas is a result of the net picture (stemming from policy and tradition...)

    Just be glad they didn't buy $58.0 M worth of Cray X1 or SGI Altix gear.

    1. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by kwishot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $5.8m may be "peanuts" (and I am well aware of the fact) .... but if it were that simple .... why don't I have bullets? Why is the kevlar helmet I wear to combat the same one marines wore twenty-five years ago?

      It's a political playground much larger than I can try to imagine...I'm just asking the simple question of where our priorities are.

    2. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you expand on your comment about Altix? My department is about to make a purchase decision and an Altix machine will be in the mix (agains a p690 and something from HP).

    3. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm just asking the simple question of where our priorities are."

      25 years ago, the same marines would have been bitching that they had a copper pot on their head and where is that kevlar helmet that was promised.

      25 years from now, maybe forces won't be put in so much risk because techology that is being developed today keeps folks out of danger.

      Sometimes you have to sacrific the day to make certain tommorow is protected. Yeah it sucks...there are actual people that are being harmed by it, but at the same time you signed up for the bullshit. You knew that the budget wasn't there 10 years ago and its not going to be there 10 years from now. I work for a public entity...I bitch about it all the f'n time...but I know what I do is valuable for others and maybe one of the kids I works with might make something of himself. It pays nothing and the administration generally hates the folks like me that gets shit done regardless of the politics. Its the same thing everywhere -- you just elected to do the same job but with bullets wizzing past your head.

      I commend you for defending the country -- or at least theoretically defending the country if we didn't have such a corrupt gov't. At least Iraq is good live fire practice for when some real danger threatens the US. Regardless of the current political nightmare -- you are serving your country and doing the job the most of the rest of us wouldn't or couldn't.

    4. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that the reason you don't have any good equipment is because the USMC and the USN blew their allowance on a wasted IT upgrade from EDS. You know, that 7 _BILLION_ dollar contract which has already triggered SEC investigations for fraud.

      Want to bitch about not having bullets? Look to your own leadership and stop whining about how the Army is going to spend its budget.

    5. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Pockets of the rich, the politicians & big business? I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that's where the priorities lay.

      Otherwise the richest 1% wouldn't be getting 51% of Bush's tax cut by 2010.

      Just the facts sir.

      I personally can't wait for the military coup in the USA in 2012 when Hilary gets elected and the forces say "Hell NO!"

    6. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by danharan · · Score: 4, Informative

      GI Rights Hotline might be useful if you find yourself uncomfortable with the answers you come up with.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    7. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by strictnein · · Score: 0, Troll

      Otherwise the richest 1% wouldn't be getting 51% of Bush's tax cut by 2010.

      That's because they pay the most taxes, at the highest percentages. Talk about biased "facts".

      Does it hurt you to know that the top 50% pays over 95% of the taxes, while the bottom 50% pays the rest?

      Not only do the wealthy fund the programs with their taxes, they also use the least government services.

      How much more redistibution of wealth do you want in this country? Should the top 40% pay 95% of the taxes? The top 30%? The top 20%?

      The majority of rich people don't hoard their money. That idea is an untrue stereotype. The majority invest it, start new companies, hire more employees, expand their businesses, buy expensive cars, boats, homes, etc. and, in general, keep the economy moving.

    8. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just happen to be a contractor on that project, not with EDS, but with another subcontractor.

      And I can tell you now that it not a *wasted* upgrade. The NMCI was in horrid condition before, it's amazing they got anything done and that things worked at all. I'll concede that the cost is probably a bit higher than what it should be, but they needed this. And, for the record, any problems with the project are EDS's mismanagement of it. From what I've seen, the other subcontractors on the project are doing an excellent job, except for the one that got the boot for overcharging.

    9. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by tupps · · Score: 1

      It is interesting because isn't 80% of the wealth in the US held by 10 or 20% of the people. It would be interesting to see how much the top 10% contribute in tax?

      --
      Go out and get sailing!
    10. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by kylemonger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not only do the wealthy fund the programs with their taxes, they also use the least government services.

      Er, no. Government is what keeps society civil. Who has the most to lose if civilization breaks down, the guy living hand-to-mouth, owning little other than the clothes on his back and other depreciating assets, or the guy whose has land, stocks and intellectual property, assets that are worth little to nothing without government's ability to defend his ownership of them? Government might be keeping the poor guy alive but it is keeping the rich guy alive and rich.

    11. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government might be keeping the poor guy alive but it is keeping the rich guy alive and rich.

      wtf retard... government sure as hell doesn't keep the rich guy alive, he can afford to do that better than the gov. ever could for him. and yeah, the government is really what keeps rich people rich.

      why the fuck do so many retards hate rich people?

    12. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The majority of rich people don't hoard their money. That idea is an untrue stereotype. The majority invest it, start new companies, hire more employees, expand their businesses, buy expensive cars, boats, homes, etc. and, in general, keep the economy moving.

      Unlike the poor people, who, when given a tax break, hide the extra money in mattresses because they don't know what to do with it.

      Okay, enough sarcasm.

      The difference between a poor family, or even a lower middle-class family, and a rich family is that when the rich family saves $200 on taxes, they buy another big screen TV. When poor or middle-class family saves money on taxes, they buy *groceries*. Bush cut taxes, maybe, but the bottom 50% or so isn't any better off.

      Should the top 40% pay 95% of the taxes? The top 30%? The top 20%?

      Yes -- you make the money, you pay the taxes on it. Should the top 40% pay 90% of their income above, say, $100,000 in taxes, like they did in the 30's and 40's? Doubtful. Should they pay more than they do now? Definitely.

      The top 50% *may* pay 95% of the taxes (doubtful) in terms of the government's total tax intake. The top 50% are not paying anywhere *near* 95%, or even 50%, of their *income*. Remember, the tax system is a bracketed system, so if the tax rate for the lowest bracket gets reduced a couple percent, *everyone*, from Jane Welfare to Bill Gates, pays less in taxes on the income in that bracket. I realize that wealth naturally accretes in the hands of the few -- I'm a realist about economics -- but I don't think we need to help that process along any. Since money naturally trickes *up*, and economic health is determined by the movement of money, why the hell are we giving the tax breaks to the people who would get the money anyway? Keynesian economics requires none of the hand-waving you need to make Reaganomics seem sensible. Giving tax breaks to the rich to "stimulate the economy" is like pouring water into the ocean and waiting for it to flow to the mountains.

      How much money do you need to live, anyway? $30,000 a year? $50,000 a year? $100,000 a year? There's a certain point at which you can purchase pretty much every basic thing you could ever need (food, clothes, and shelter) -- above that, it's gravy. You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs. Maybe the rich use less in government services -- that's mostly because they can afford to get theirs elsewhere. The more the poor are able to afford their own medical care and groceries, the less they have to rely on the government for that.

      Try living within spitting distance of the poverty line, and *then* tell me that the rich deserve their tax breaks. How many plasma screen TVs and yachts do you need, anyway?

    13. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by eggegg · · Score: 1

      about 50%.

    14. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by green+pizza · · Score: 1

      Can you expand on your comment about Altix? My department is about to make a purchase decision and an Altix machine will be in the mix (agains a p690 and something from HP).

      There's nothing wrong with the Altix, it's actually an amazing piece of kit. (Provided the task you're working with can make use of the Itanium2 and needs insane amounts of interconnect bandwidth with very low latency).

      Altix, like any other big machine, is expensive. When it comes to price, it's no cluster. (Well, I suppose you could cluster a bunch of Altix 350s, but why bother when you can use real NUMAlink?)

    15. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Not only do the wealthy fund the programs with their taxes, they also use the least government services.

      You are right, the people they fire after outsourcing their jobs do. Sure, they wouldn't outsource if they wouldn't have to pay all those taxes. Sure. Oh Hell, sure.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    16. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's pointless to talk in percentages. Start talking dollar figures. If the top 50% of people own 95% of the wealth, it's reasonable for them to be paying 95% of the taxes -- and even if that figure is lower some form of progressive taxation should be acceptable, there has to be some way for people to be able to work their way out of poverty.

    17. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See how well your money protects you when the angry mob is at the gates.

    18. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things the evaporate with government:
      Patents, copyright, loans, stocks, bonds, the value of fiat currency, organized military, fire department, police department, rescue squad, ...

      So when you $50B is suddenly worth $0 because there is absolutely nothing backing, and no one to force anyone to observe it, who is going to stand around and protect your assets with the masses come to take it away? No one.

      Ask the French aristocracy how much their wealth was worth during the French Revolution. I'm sure their heads have much to tell!

    19. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 1
      Who has the most to lose if civilization breaks down, the guy living hand-to-mouth, owning little other than the clothes on his back and other depreciating assets, or the guy whose has land, stocks and intellectual property, assets that are worth little to nothing without government's ability to defend his ownership of them? Government might be keeping the poor guy alive but it is keeping the rich guy alive and rich.


      Bullshit. If you're rich you can pay for your security, hire an army, build a castle - and in fact many rich people already do just that. Without the government they and their armies would be the only oasis of stability, so people would fight for the right to work for them, even if it meant being reduced to mere slaves. Sounds familiar? Yes, that's what happens in areas where the police appears only to stop huge riots and everyday it is easier to hear a gunshot than to see a police officer and people prefer bad safety of working for mafia or gangs to no safety of living on your own. And that's what used to happen after the collapse of Roman Empire: no government, rich people with enough money to hire an army living in at least some safety, poor people either dying of hunger or of violence or accepting leige - that's how feudalism started.

      Raf
    20. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by joib · · Score: 1

      The Altix is to my knowledge among the best large NUMA, i.e. shared memory, machines around.

      That is, if you run shared memory applications using threads for parallelization, I don't think you can go wrong with the Altix.

      OTOH, if you're going to run MPI applications, i.e. separate processes communicating by message passing, which a lot of HPC applications actually do, you're just pissing away a huge amount of cash by getting a NUMA machine such as the Altix instead of a cluster.

    21. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Here are some facts for you. 20 years ago 2/3rds of American companies payed taxes, the rest were exempt after breaks, etc. Today 30% of American companies pay taxes-- mostly small business. 2 of the fortune (I believe it's fortune's list, not sure) top 100 companies pay taxes.

      How much more redistibution of wealth do you want in this country? Should the top 40% pay 95% of the taxes? The top 30%? The top 20%?
      For starters the bottom 40% should pay no tax. Do remember that a family with $40,000/year is much poorer than a single person with $40,000/year. Also remember any given dollar amount gets you different things in different states (this is why taxes are complicated) such as apartment prices.
      Up from that tax needs to increase accordingly. Anything above normal is luxury so you can do something like take $40,000 (Arbitrary number, not defending it), subtract it from the income, then pay based on a scale that starts at 20% up to 50% as income increases. Again, arbitrary numbers.

      The majority of rich people don't hoard their money. That idea is an untrue stereotype. The majority invest it, start new companies, hire more employees, expand their businesses, buy expensive cars, boats, homes, etc. and, in general, keep the economy moving
      Actually, yes they do. This is way top-down economics doesn't really work. There is a "propensity to consume". It is basically the measure of how much of a dollar someone would spend if you gave them a dollar. A propensity of .7 would mean 30 cents saved per 70 cents spend. The propensity to consume is very much inversely proportional to income, mean, the more you make the lower % of it you'll spend. This makes complete sense if you apply a little brain power. If an economy starts to weaken propensity goes down, investing stops from the rich boys, and things plummet.

      That being said there's one other key: Rich people don't run, help, or even support the economy. They make up the vast minority of purchases. Those that do buy things are usually through businesses with tax exemptions. Tax exemptions pass congress all the time for various industries. This is known as corruption.

    22. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you want to punish the people who have worked hard their entire lives to earn money and live how they want to by taxing more and more? Is that not contradictory of the basic principle of our entire country; that you can work hard and make a great life for yourself?

      we do not live in a communist society. the people who worked hard to earn their money should get to keep it and handle it as they see fit. tax rates should be a flat percentage on everyone's income that is equal no matter what that income happens to be.

    23. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up on the underside of the poverty line. I had the desire to work hard, take out lots of student loans and go to college. I now make just about the median income for my area. That being said, I also am in favor of tax cuts for the "rich". The ability to work hard, or to come up with a novel invention, or to write a best seller; and be able to make a million dollars is the dream of most Americans. I would hope that if I was able to reach that point I wouldn't have to give half to to government. I would also hope that if I were to die suddenly my spouse and children wouldn't lose another half.

    24. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand taxes, man. Nor do you understand your dreams. Inflation, man, is bigger than whatever you're sending the IRS this year, and that is driven by what?

      It's that stupid dream of writing the bigseller novel that keeps the grunts in the trenches.

      Who needs religion as an opiate in the modern world?

      (They send the heart police to put you under cardiac arrest.)

    25. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich are rich because they keep doing what ever it is that makes them rich.

      The poor are poor because they keep doing what ever it is that makes them poor.

      Why should the gov come to me (with a gun if I dont pay taxes) and take my hard earned money and give it to the less fortunate? I am being punished for working hard while the less fortunate are being rewarded, with my money, for screwing up.

      If I want to help out the less fortunate I will give to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Local Church, or any other charity. The gov should not force me to give to there own charity.

      In my opinion the gov should govern the country not redistribute the countries wealth.

      The only way to move away from income tax and go to a sales tax only system.
      Fairtax.org

    26. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Epistax · · Score: 1

      so you want to punish the people who have worked hard their entire lives to earn money...
      HAHAHAHhahahahahahahahah!!
      Sorry
      heh.. heh... AHAHAHahhahahahahahahhahahahaha

      This is too much. You're hurting me dude!
      OMG!!
      you can work hard and make a great life for yourself

      I just crapped myself laughing. Send me $20 for a new pair of jeans.

    27. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      The fact of the matter is that the government is too inefficently ran that I wouldn't want to give more money to it either.


      How much money do you need to live, anyway? $30,000 a year? $50,000 a year? $100,000 a year? There's a certain point at which you can purchase pretty much every basic thing you could ever need (food, clothes, and shelter) -- above that, it's gravy. You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs


      My father makes about $70000 a year farming, weilding, and driving a semi on the weekends. I don't have that much simpathy for the poor since my father with just a high school education can support a family of six, end up buying a house, and send four kids through college with just hard work alone.

      The fact is that poor people got poor for a reason, usually because they are either lazy, uneducated, mentally ill, disabled, drug addict, excon, were ill prepaired for the future(like people who don't save for retirement), or a combination of the above.

      It does kindof get to the point where these problems aren't my own and shouldn't be because they are irresponsible. I don't really like the idea of having to help support some 24 year old divorced high-school dropout with 8 kids who doesn't work and has thousands of credit card debt.
    28. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      While your wealthier brethren lobby to keep good jobs out of the country so their poverty-wage professions are the only ones available to those "screw-up" poor people. Did you know Wal-Mart soaked up millions (possibly up to a billion) of dollars in government subsidies to create jobs that no American could live on? Corporations like Wal-Mart are killing off businesses that give decent pay because decent pay is not feasible with Wal-Mart down the street providing all the services anyone could ever need while maintaining an all-part time minimum wage benefitless work force. Poor people stay poor because the rich want them that way. Period.

    29. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      News Flash: Not everyone can get a $70,000 a year job.

      You advocate ill will towards people that couldn't get an education because it was not available to them, people that had no choice about their illness and people who are disabled through no choice of their own?

    30. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      The top 50% *may* pay 95% of the taxes (doubtful)

      It's actually over 96%!

    31. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you're rich you can pay for your security, hire an army, build a castle...


      Slept through your history classes, eh? Loius XVI ring a bell? How about Nicolas II, remember him? The list of rich folks with their own army and castle being made into hamburger meat by the "poor" after the fall of the government is quite long.

    32. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When poor or middle-class family saves money on taxes, they buy *groceries*.
      No, actually the poor buy a much higher proportion of cigarrettes and alcohol than the rest of the population. The middle class, aren't hurting for groceries, they just may not be able to buy a new car.

      Bush cut taxes, maybe, but the bottom 50% or so isn't any better off.
      That is because the bottom 50% pay so little of the overall tax as it is.

      The top 50% *may* pay 95% of the taxes (doubtful) in terms of the government's total tax intake.
      Not doubtful, thats numbers straight from the Government

      You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs.
      Why? Occupations are a choice in this country. The reason one person makes $30,000 is their services are worth $30,000. If they were worth $150,000 or $2million, then the rational person would simply form their own business and earn that much instead. It's about supply and demand and finding opportunities to create value. They are out there for anyone willing to find and work for them.

      Try living within spitting distance of the poverty line, and *then* tell me that the rich deserve their tax breaks
      I have. I grew up below the poverty line in fact. I just refuse to believe that the "government" owes me anything. I believe I should be able to work for what I get and nothing more. The rich don't "deserve" their tax breaks because that way of thinking is backward. They just deserve to keep more of what they produce. The only difference between the rich and the poor in this country is the rich understand how to produce. They reallize that they are not dependent on an employer for their job, but instead their ability to make or do something that is worth more to someone else. Simple as that.

    33. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by notbob · · Score: 0

      So you want to tax those that work hard so that we can all be encouraged to be lazy?

      I mean really why should I bust my ass 60+ hours a week to barely get by to pay more taxes for some pos to sit on their ass all day and claim disability from obeisity, or pop out 12 kids while the hubby is in jail just so the gov will pay for them to watch springer all day.

      Tell ya what, I"ll pay more taxes when my taxes start solving these "people" problems, i.e. ship em back... cull the heard you name it

      Till then I need my money to defend my own family's needs, piss on those not willing to stand up and fight to get anywhere in life, its not my fault or my responsibility. I pay my dues. Give me flat tax rate for everyone, equal work / equal pay / equal tax... till that day I'll use my dollars to make sure I get treated better by our bribed politicians.

    34. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Keynesian economics requires none of the hand-waving you need to make Reaganomics seem sensible.

      That has to be the most laughable statement about economics I've heard all year. You want hand-waving? How about the idea that the government spending money it doesn't have can magically make us all better off? Yes, it may increase GDP in the short run, but I have never heard a believable explanation about why we are actually better off because of it (and no, the "money multiplier" argument is not believable).

      Make Reaganomics seem sensible? Look at New Zealand around 1984, when it elected a reform government. The reform government cut taxes by about half -- and ended up with about 20% more revenue. (You can read about it in an Imprimis article by Maurice P. McTigue, former New Zealand Parliament member.) Part of this was due to simplification of the tax code, which provided less incentive for individuals and businesses to search out "loopholes" in the tax law; but I doubt that would account for all of the increase. In any case, as far as I know most economists don't argue that the Laffer curve is in itself incorrect; it's a debate over what exactly the curve looks like and where we are on it.

      Mike

    35. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by allgood2 · · Score: 1

      Amen brother! I love the comment >>The poor are poor because they keep doing what ever it is that makes them poor. That would be what--oh' yeah WORKING. The parents post is just full of random ignorance and bias, unfortunately a bias shoved down the throats and minds of a fair amount of the upper class.

      In America, the largest number of poor people are the working poor. Not your welfare moms, or derelict dads. But those who's family 10-20 years ago were consider middle-class. They may still consider themselves mentally middle-class, but the truth is they are one step away from being homeless. Hell many have been homeless, while still working and sleeping in their cars or at friends, or moved back in with their mom and pop.

      These people are poor because they believed that corporate America would take care of them. They believed that if they were devoted to a company that a company would be devoted to them. They may have known that they'd never make middle management, but they did assume that as long as they worked hard, they would have a job and be able to support their family.

      But they've been asked to compromise their livilihood away, with paycuts here so we don't cut jobs or cut fewer jobs. With scrapping of various benefits and support systems, and more paycuts, and longer work hours, etc., etc. The problem with corporate America is that shareholder profit matters more than workers.

      I grew up poor, super-poor, poor enough that stealing bread of the local bread truck was an acceptable manner to get food for the week (and yes a loaf of bread can feed five for five days if you portion it properly). But during that period the goals of the poor were to get low-paying factory jobs or join the Army so that you could be clothed and fed. With hard work a low paying factory job would move you up to "poverty" or if you were really lucky, "just below middle-class". That's when things like almost new shoes and clothes from KMart instead of Goodwill kicked in.

      I've meant plenty of the middle-class, who rode the technology wave with good jobs, great income, nice places, that then found themselves working at Starbucks or doing minial office work for CA minimal wage. And sure they weren't "unemployed", but see how you like it if your income drops from close to $100,000 a year down to under $35,000 while your $1500 month rental lease doesn't expire for another six months, and you have car payments, car insurance, student loans, etc.

      All of a sudden people (friends and acquaintances) who use to think the poor didn't work hard enough or didn't do enough to remove themselves from poverties grasp, suddenly realize--its damn near impossible to go to interviews for good jobs while your working 50hrs a week at a low paying job that won't give you time off. Not that you can afford to take time off, because, you need every hour you can get to cover rent and food.

      And that's when you recognize, that despite it all your still middle-class, because you HAVE Parents that you can fall back on, parents that will take you in, and help you get back up on your feet. Unlike the generational poor, who's parents are too busy struggling to support themselves, to help you so if you fall down, you better know how to get back up, even if you have broken a leg, broken mind, or broken faith.

      Corporate America has long since abdicated its responsibility to the American public. And the number of rich people who claim they did it ALL BY THEMSELVES, despite support from friends, family, community, etc. is just damn dispisable. Social responsibility calls for those who have more to give more. I'm a Roosevelt democrat, so call me names.

    36. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! An overwhelming majority of Wal_Mart employees are full-time and earn more than minimum wage. If you can't even get those basic facts right why should anyone bother to pay attention to your analysis of societal problems?

      It's amazing how people on unemployment insurance get real good at finding jobs the week their benefits are scheduled to run out. Check the Current Population Survey data to see for yourself.

    37. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his point, idiot, was that you don't need to wait for a pie-in-the sky $70k job to come along; you take multiple jobs yourself, you try hard and you maybe start your own business (the farm) on the side, and soon enough you will succeed.

    38. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liquidity Trap! If that's not hand-waving, Hah!

    39. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      The difference between a poor family, or even a lower middle-class family, and a rich family is that when the rich family saves $200 on taxes, they buy another big screen TV. When poor or middle-class family saves money on taxes, they buy *groceries*. Bush cut taxes, maybe, but the bottom 50% or so isn't any better off.

      Hmmm. I have a brother who makes about $25k/year or so teaching some of the worst kids you could imagine in a public school. He is also bringing up 2 kids. I distinctly remember him being very, very positively surprised at the tax credit he got and it helping quite a bit.

    40. Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1

      It's real nice that your father can make that much money, but I know a lot of *couples* with master's-level college educations who can barely scrape $50,000 *together*. Part of it is being able to find employment in the fields you want, where you want to live; part of it is hard work; and another part of it is just plain dumb luck.

      Tell you what, if I stayed in my home state and tried to work in computers, I would be *very* lucky to make more than $40,000. The jobs *just* *plain* *aren't* *here.*

  25. Think different? by psyconaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kinda hard when you're in the army ;-)

    -psy

    1. Re:Think different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think different, they just all think different in the same way.

  26. Re:I wonder.... by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The zdnet version I read earlier said it'd run OS X, at least initially, but they might explore running Red Hat or Yellowdog.

    I have a feeling that as more time goes on, more and more Apple-based clusters will use OS X. Apple continues to optimize the OS. They also continue to add remote administration features (both GUI and command line) while at the same time keeping the BSD-ness of OS X as pure as possible. (OS X is based on NeXTstep and OPENSTEP, so it does have some oddities when compared to "pure" 4.4BSD or Free/Open/Net BSD).

    There are also some Apple software cluster technologies (such as Xgrid) but I'm not sure if they're hardcore enough for something of this magnitude. Apple has mainly been aiming their cluster software and marketing towards the small-scale (10 to 100 notes) research groups.

  27. Is this the same thing... by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 5, Interesting
    that croquer was talking about in April? Translation:

    (Translation:

    2004-04-07 - Reasons of the G5 delay

    (...) The new G5s are not yet announced and available because a customer is buying the entire output: U.S. governmental agencies have decided that from June 2005, no sensible data will hosted on Windows machines any more. Too many security holes and risks. They ordered 80,000 G5 xServe and Powermacs from Apple.

    2004-04-08 - G5 delay (continued)

    Around 70 U9 (cf. below) have been ordered by large goverment agencies, like NSA... About ten institutional laboratories already received the supercomputer, equipped with 1024 G5 processors @ 2.6 GHz. That already makes over 10,000 G5, a major part of IBM's production d'IBM => shortage.

    The U9 project will officially be announced next fall in a version equipped with PPC975 @ 3 GHz, available to the wealthy (about 3 M$ per unit).)

    --
    This is...

    O
    U
    T
    R
    A
    G
    E
    O
    U
    S

    !

    1. Re:Is this the same thing... by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      How is this flamebait? Has it been discussed before?

    2. Re:Is this the same thing... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it was modded to flame bait their predicted G5 update specs were dead on.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  28. Re:True purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Then why the two bills in front of the House and Senate having to do with the draft?

  29. form factor... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After the article about the renderfarm, I was asking myself why people didn't use the blade for factor to build renderfarms and clusters...

    I know there aren't available for mac, but I seem to remember Opterons and Xeon blades were the hot topic some month ago, with dual opteron blades and all...

    any reason not to use them blades to build a cluster, each blade bay connected to all other, creating a (sic) beowulf or mosix cluster of some sort ?

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:form factor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got two clusters built out of blades. Sadly they are no longer powerful enough to rank on the top 500. /me sobs...

      well not really. oh well. Someone want to loan me $$$ to get me back on the list? I need infrastructure charges factored in as well, A/C, power, etc.

    2. Re:form factor... by Junta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For render farms and low interconnect requirements, blades are really popular because of manageablity and density (though I am curious about the manageability of Xserves beyond OS management, i.e. service processor presence/capabilities).

      As to the comment about no 'mac' blades, it is true, but if you are a big fan of power architecture, IBM has announced JS-20, a power based blade, which has the 970 (same as G5), but only at 1.6 GHz (ironically enough, IBM doesn't seem to sell anything at the clock speeds Apple gets to sell at, and they are all IBM's chips...).

      The cost of blade solutions with myrinet or infiniband solutions is significant. Otherwise, most chassis' I see communicate externally through an oversubscribed ethernet switch. Ethernet is inherently sub-optimal, but oversubscribed ethernet is particularly troublesome for some of the fine-grained parallel applications (embarrasingly parrallel applications, of course, don't care, and rendering is one such application).

      Add to this a lack of expansion capability (i.e. IBM blades can take one daughterboard, so there is not any possibility of, say, having a fibre channel *and* myrinet adapter in a blade server.

      The only thing I'm aware of with respect to high-performance interconnect solution for blade servers available today is to get IBM blades with Myrinet daughter boards and an optical passthrough module. Ultimately, it can really reduce cabling for things like ethernet, kvm, etc etc, but those myrinet cables are still going to be a tad unwieldy (80+ wires to the cabinet, even if they are fiber cables).

      I actually want to see a solution that would aggregate, say, 1X infiniband to each blade into 4 4X connectors, no oversubscription and much sturdier and fewer cables.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:form factor... by amerinese · · Score: 1

      FYI, The reason IBM sells lower clocked processors is because the chips they use are much higher quality, with a lot of error correction built in.

      With something this huge and parallel, you're probably going to have a lot of error correction going on, so to see what would give you the most bang for the buck, you'd have to examine the economics of getting fewer more reliable chips versus getting more less reliable ones (and I bet the answer isn't necessarily so clear).

    4. Re:form factor... by Tiosman · · Score: 1
      The only thing I'm aware of with respect to high-performance interconnect solution for blade servers available today is to get IBM blades with Myrinet daughter boards and an optical passthrough module. Ultimately, it can really reduce cabling for things like ethernet, kvm, etc etc, but those myrinet cables are still going to be a tad unwieldy (80+ wires to the cabinet, even if they are fiber cables).

      The next Myrinet switch, based on 32 ports crossbar, will use cables composed of 4 optical fibers for switch to switch connectivity. So, a Myrinet switch module for the Blade Center will be connected to a big switch (256 ports) with only 4 of those 4-fibers cables. No more need for optical passthrough module...

      Patrick

    5. Re:form factor... by joib · · Score: 1

      Some of the vendor specializing in clusters do build blades. Linux NetworX for one, I'm sure there's lots of others.

    6. Re:form factor... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      The reason IBM sells lower clocked processors is because the chips they use are much higher quality, with a lot of error correction built in.

      No, a 970FX is a 970FX.

  30. Not too many mice used with rack servers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xserves are 1U backroom server machines.

  31. Re:Only $5.8 Million? I Want One by lewp · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think I could have made Duke Nukem Forever by now. No need for a supercomputer.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  32. Other countries can be worse by mr_tap · · Score: 1

    The general impression is that the US military has the biggest bucket of money in the world.

    My old man was in the Australian Army (30 yrs ago though), and he certainly implied that the equipment that the equipment issued to the US guys in his day beat the crap out of the stuff the Aussies got.

    From examples in the parent post, the money is not always flowing down to the guys at the front anymore.

    1. Re:Other countries can be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From examples in the parent post, the money is not always flowing down to the guys at the front anymore.

      Did it ever?

  33. Re:I wonder.... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the ASIC and probably other chips are made in IBM chip plants but they are designed by Apple.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  34. 3132 processors by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...But only one mouse button.

    I sure as hell hope Steve Jobs threw in an iPod and a BMW to go with it. :P

    1. Re:3132 processors by OmniVector · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It only takes one mouse button to open the terminal

      --
      - tristan
    2. Re:3132 processors by ncc74656 · · Score: 0
      It only takes one mouse button to open the terminal

      Mozilla's a pain to use with a one-button mouse...yes, you can hold it down to get a context menu, but right-clicking is faster. The wheel's also nice to have for opening links in new tabs as well as for scrolling...too bad the Mac OS X version of Mozilla doesn't support this functionality, but the Windows and Linux versions do. (FWIW, you can add USB Overdrive (or something similar) to add it back in, but this is basic functionality that ought to be built in.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    3. Re:3132 processors by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So it's Apple's fault that Mozilla doesn't support mousewheel.

      Seems to work fine in Safari, but what the hell do I know?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  35. Re:That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "'But he SAID I could lick them! Ooh, red, yellow and green WMD icons!' - G. W. Bush"

    I realize this is just a joke, but it's totally out-of-synch with Bush's character. Bush does not ask anybody for permission to do anything. He is not easily distracted. He does not show excitement.

    I'm as liberal and anti-Bush as anyone, but your joke doesn't work for me.

  36. Netcraft Confirms... by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that the Army is buying.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  37. Re:I wonder.... by fmorgan · · Score: 1

    like the AMD chips....

  38. Hey now they can run Longhorn! by rune2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    oh wait...

  39. 1556 ???? by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not sure if this is a stupid question - but why 1556. It seems like a rather odd number. Is it budget or does this number of nodes work?

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
    1. Re:1556 ???? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 2, Interesting


      1566 is probably evenly divisible by however many racks they have alloted for the cluster.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    2. Re:1556 ???? by binkzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would assume they were counting TFlops, not processors. 25 TFlops might have needed 1566 processors by calculation, so they would go for 1566 processors.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    3. Re:1556 ???? by joe_bruin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but why 1556. It seems like a rather odd number

      1556 = 1024 + 512 + 20 hot spares.

    4. Re:1556 ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      but why 1556. It seems like a rather odd number.

      I does look that way, doesn't it? Further inspection, however, reveals that it's actually a rather even number.

      Thank you. I'll be here ... *yoink*

    5. Re:1556 ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya, that answers it. NO!

      1000 + 500 + 56 means as much to most of us.

  40. the age of skynet may be nigh by kylemonger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the price of processing power keeps dropping these clusters are getting closer to the magical 100Tflop mark, which is what Ray Kurzweil and others speculate is required to run a human-level AI . Maybe we should start worrying about the computing projects that military isn't announcing.

    1. Re:the age of skynet may be nigh by burns210 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      i think the code could exist at sub-100Tflop speeds... whether it be text I/O only, but that is still highly powerful. Lets get THAT AI working(and plug it into some big IRC Channels, for it to 'grow' at light speed!!) and the 100Tflop goodness will come later.

      A 10,000 dollar grant or donation from IBM, Intel, AMD or HP could give the server box needed to run a system of that power.

    2. Re:the age of skynet may be nigh by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      singularity now!

      "robots are people too."

    3. Re:the age of skynet may be nigh by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      All the processing power in the world won't help you if you don't have any idea what you're trying to do. Define sentience for me, please, and then we can talk about computing requirements.

    4. Re:the age of skynet may be nigh by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      As the price of processing power keeps dropping these clusters are getting closer to the magical 100Tflop mark, which is what Ray Kurzweil and others speculate is required to run a human-level AI . Maybe we should start worrying about the computing projects that military isn't announcing.

      Aww, crap, I never expected that SkyNet runs on a Mac.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  41. how do they get so many flops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1566 machines x 2 CPU's x 2.0 GHz = 6264 GHz = 6.264 THz.

    How do they get 15 or 25 Tflops out of less than 7 THz? What does the G5 do to make this possible?

    1. Re:how do they get so many flops? by cynical+kane · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vector processing. SSE for Intel and AMD, AltiVec for the G5, and 3DNow for AMD all are instruction sets that allow one to manipulate vectors of 4 floats or 2 doubles (or other assortments) as though they are one operand.

    2. Re:how do they get so many flops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      One thing to note is that vector processing doesn't help the G5 on the linpack benchmark (what the top 500 list uses). Altivec only helps single precision calculations. Good for games and graphics, but not desirable for many scientific calculations.

      It's the fact that the G5 can dispatch two floating point operations per cycle (like the Athlon's fpu) and that it has a fused multiply/add instruction that can be done in 1 cycle. This effectively gives it the ability to do 4 flops/cycle.

      So the theoretical peak is given by 1566 xserves * 2 cpus each * 2 GHz * 4 flops/cycle = 25.056 teraflops/s

    3. Re:how do they get so many flops? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      The Linpack benchmarks are IIRC, double precision. Since Altivec can't manipulate doubles, it can't account for much of the performance. Instead, the PPC970, like most superscalar processors, can execute multiple instructions at once. The PPC 970 also contains multiple (two?) FP cores, which makes up for Aktivec's deficiencies.

  42. Re:True purpose by strictnein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But wait... how does that fit in with the right-wing-bush-enron-saudi-haliburton conspiracy? The bill cited was sponsored by a bunch of Dems. The only conspiracy I can smell is that a bunch of Dems want the topic of a draft to be out there in the press. Talk of a draft = bad press for the president.

  43. Gigabit Ethernet??? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    How will they be able to get the performance with gig-E instead of the Infiniband? I appreciate that it might work fine for the application (CFD analysis), but I wouldn't think that the benchmarking would bring it to number 2!

    Can anybody enlighten me???

    1. Re:Gigabit Ethernet??? by joib · · Score: 1


      Can anybody enlighten me???


      The linpack benchmark used for ranking the top500 isn't that demanding of interconnect bandwidht nor latency.

  44. Re:I wonder.... by khuber · · Score: 1

    I understand that G5s don't support ECC RAM. That is a major limitation meaning that scientific computations will have to do their own error checking in software using redundant calculations.

  45. Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just wait until they find out it doesn't run Windows.

    Zing.

    1. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, talk about a great surprise. I bet they'll jump up and down and party all night. It's like finding a diamond among charcoals.

    2. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, they can still use Virtual PC if they want Windows... and with all that power, it'll probably run at near 1 Ghz!

  46. Re:True purpose by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because the two Democrats who proposed the bills are using it merely to snipe at the administration.

    [from MSNBC]
    "In the past year, some lawmakers have urged that a draft for military service be reintroduced, most notably New York Rep. Charlie Rangel and South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings, both Democrats, who have sponsored bills to that effect, primarily as a way to protest against war in Iraq. Though both bills (S. 89 and H.R. 163) remain stuck in committeeand Sen. Hollings was unable even to garner any cosponsors for his bill"

    The Army/Air Force/Navy neither wants nor needs a draft.

  47. Re:I wonder.... by khuber · · Score: 3, Informative

    I stand corrected. It looks like Xserves do support ECC http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/06xserveg 5.html

  48. Re:I wonder.... by benmcgruer · · Score: 1

    Can't imagine they'd run Red Hat seeing as they don't make a PPC version.

  49. Re:True purpose by DreadCthulhu · · Score: 1

    Those bills are being pushed by Democrats; if you want to avoid a draft then I suggest you don't vote for Kerry come November.

  50. Location? by Satertek · · Score: 0

    I was wondering where they are putting it. There HQ is in the city i live in. And that'd be pretty cool to have the 2nd fastest computer in the world in my city :D

  51. Cozzano by crumbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    COLSA is too similar to Cozzano from Interface by Stephen Bury aka Neil Stephenson for my liking. This is a great time to re-read that book.

    1. Re:Cozzano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Bury is actually Neal Stephenson and Frederick George, his uncle.

    2. Re:Cozzano by dan14807 · · Score: 1

      COLSA is too similar to Cozzano from Interface by Stephen Bury aka Neil Stephenson for my liking. This is a great time to re-read that book.

      No. That is a terrible book. Don't bother. The Cobweb is better, and I think, also written under the pen name Stephen Bury. It's still not that great, but readable.

  52. Re:True purpose by theRG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want to avoid more deaths of American soldiers in Iraq (845 so far and counting), then I suggest you don't vote for Bush in November.

  53. Re:I wonder.... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


    100 notes

    At least it beats a piano.

    --
    -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  54. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada as always beaten the crap out of the US of A ( see your history book ladies of the US ).

    Violence only engage in more Violence , The only way to break this vicious circle is to say stop , what whe really whant his peace , And really work at peace.

    Whe have one of the biggest country ( in territory ) with one of the smallest army in number of unit in the world. Whe have the best nuclear reactor and MEDICAL nuclear program in the world but NO NUCLEAR FOR WEAPON program even do whe know how and can build in 30 minutes the best nuke in the world, whe CHOOSED not to.

    Whe have -"NO"- Known enemy.

    Learn from the Past and the Best or die like the rest.

    1. Re:Canada by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm a canajun pacifist, eh, but that was just ridiculous. (Obviously you're ESL, otherwise I'd pick on your grammar too. Umm, english is NOT your first language, right? Please tell me I'm right.)

      Some of the residents who predated Confederation joined with British forces to repel U.S. invasions (on the very spot on which I type, actually), but whatever. The CANDU system is not proven to be the 'best' program in the world, it has its own problems. We participate in many instances of international belligerence that have, in fact, made us enemies to various jihad-driven factions. And, while we don't make nuclear weapons, we'll happily supply the raw materials to those who do--and then rely on their protection.

      Our military is small because it's relatively pointless as presently conceived: either use it for overseas operations--the so-called 'peacekeeping' missions or collaborating with the emerging meta-empire(s), or defend ourselves from what, the USA? If they found sufficient reason to roll across the border, what are we going to do about it in our present state of preparation?

      You're right however about violence begetting violence, even if only deferred. The ones on top just don't get that, and then wonder why they're hated...

    2. Re:Canada by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I find this embarrassing.

      You're out of the club. Please pack your things and move out immediately. I don't care where you go, though I hear Iraq is nice this time of year.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
  55. We're lacking troop strength/ Extended tours by acomj · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've don't know if you know anyone over there, but tours of duty in Iraq for almost all troops have been extended, for some multiple times. Clearly they're running kinda thin on troops, if we need a major deployment elsewhere....

    From USA today
    The 1st Armored Division, which arrived in Baghdad in the first week of May 2003, spent most of the past year in and around the Iraqi capital. Then, just as the division's 20,000 troops were about to head home, they were ordered to race south to counter the bloody insurgency of renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. The Pentagon extended the division's tour by 90 days, until mid-July.

    1. Re:We're lacking troop strength/ Extended tours by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      I think that the slack is being made up by (the long overdue) diminution of troop strength in South Korea. After that, probably Germany.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    2. Re:We're lacking troop strength/ Extended tours by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      [disclaimer - I am retired USAF]
      Stop-loss has been a recurring factor for years. During and after GulfWar I, Jan-Sep last year, just after Vietnam, and a few points in between.

      Stop loss is to retain trained troops. It takes a looong time to bring a new service member to full combat/duty status. Systems and procedures have changed. Things are much more complex. A 2 year(?) draftee would see less than a year of effective use.

  56. Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bollocks. Switzeland, Iceland have a different way.

    Switzerland's way is... being better at violence than its neighbors. That's how it stayed neutral in the Second World War - even Hitler was afraid to invade the great mountain fortress.

    Iceland's way is... being better at violence than its neighbors. It opted to join the most powerful military alliance in the world.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  57. Re:I wonder.... by andreMA · · Score: 1
    I don't know what flavors Red Hat comes in, as I run OS X and Slackware. I was merely repeating what I'd read in this article:
    Colsa will use Mac OS X as the primary operating system, though it will evaluate other options including Red Hat Linux and Yellow Dog Linux, Whitlock added.
    Given the conflicting reports of the anticipated speed, I'm quite willing to accept that this is (also) an error.
  58. Ray Kurzweil's 100 Tflop number by menem · · Score: 2, Informative

    In order for Kurzweil's AI to work, it isnt enough to have 100Tflop. Kurzweil based the 100Tflop number on the idea that we would have algorithms available to replace the brain functions such as vision, pattern recognition, etc.. Just using a simple neural simulator would require many orders magnitude more of power to simulate a human brain. We are a long ways from having the needed algorithms (probably 30 years at a mininum).

  59. Spoken like.... by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    Torn between my love for Apple and my hatred for using technology for violence.

    Spoken like a true tree hugging hippie.

    *ducks behind tree*

  60. I'm betting it's going to be in Huntsville by DavidinAla · · Score: 1

    Given the amount of R&D that the Army does in Huntsville and the fact that this contractor is based there, I'm betting that it's going to be there. Also, if you read the company's press release, they specifically credited U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) for helping get the funding. With his involvement, do you think it would be anywhere except Alabama?

    Of course, since I'm in Birmingham, I'm certainly hoping it's here in the state. Since Windows is so dominant here, this might triple the amount of Mac processing power in Alabama. :-)

    1. Re:I'm betting it's going to be in Huntsville by zoid.com · · Score: 1

      It's probably going in the Advance Research Center (ARC) that COLSA runs for the Army

  61. X-Plane bundle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Apple should give them X-Plane software as a bundle with this lot - it'll save them having to develop their own simulation! Apparent;y you can use 4 x G5's with X-Plane to yield airline-training quality simulations, so 1566 of them....

  62. Re:But... by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

    nuh uh ... it will have 1566 mouse buttons. duh!

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  63. You need a new stop watch by 819 · · Score: 1

    Might you have read 20 seconds as 20 minutes?

    Seriously, here are some results I just got with a few file copying tests:

    Powerbook 1400 G3 233Mhz 64MB Ram 1GB hard drive.
    14.9MB file 12.5 seconds.
    88.9MB folder 1:24 minutes.

    Power Tower 180 604 195Mhz 96MB Ram 2GB hard drive.
    39.6MB folder 49 seconds.
    14.9MB file 13 seconds.
    64MB folder 1:53 minutes.

    PowerMac 6100 601 60Mhz 72MB Ram 2GB hard drive.
    18.6 folder 55 seconds.
    14.1 file 11 seconds.

    1. Re:You need a new stop watch by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 1

      Gentoo linux, P4 2.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 36.7GB HD
      205.9MB folder: 7 seconds.

      Eat my linux dust, mac boy.

    2. Re:You need a new stop watch by 819 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't testing either my linux machine or my G5. I was telling some windows user that, contrary to his absurd claims, old Macs don't take 20 minutes to copy files.

    3. Re:You need a new stop watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are comparing a 2.8GHz P4 against 233MHz G3?
      Not to mention that hard drive speed is a big factor as well. I think you are trying to be funny, but this smells pretty close to trolling.

    4. Re:You need a new stop watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a standard Mac bashing troll. It's been posted many times to /. and other fora. The variations are 17 MB in 20 minutes and 14 MB in 20 minutes.

    5. Re:You need a new stop watch by Binary+Judas · · Score: 0

      I hope you realise you just compared your 2.8 GHz to his 233 MHz machine...

      --

      Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux. Tu delenda est!

    6. Re:You need a new stop watch by Radon+Knight · · Score: 1

      This statement (the 20 minutes copying) is a well-known troll. Poke around on 'net lore and read about it.

    7. Re:You need a new stop watch by J268 · · Score: 1

      Not to burst your bubble. My 1Ghz 768 Mb Ram, 80 Gb Hd MAC just copied 209 Mb at 3.3 Seconds.

    8. Re:You need a new stop watch by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 1

      If I was really trying to troll, I'd say that my work server is a 500MHz Celeron and then it would get a 2.5 second copy rate on a ATA33 HD for the same size folder ;) (Sorry, but I like my sarcasm rather dry...)

  64. Slightly misguided Canadian patriotism by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 4, Informative
    The nation of Canada has a great deal to be proud of, but your points border on the ridiculous.

    Canada as always beaten the crap out of the US of A ( see your history book ladies of the US ).

    "Canada" has been at war with the United States twice - once during the American Revolution and once during the War of 1812. On neither occasion was the United States fighting "Canada", because that nation was not yet founded. It was however fighting the British Army in His Majesty's colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. On both occasions the British Army repelled an American invasion of Canada. On the latter occasion the American army also repelled a British invasion of the western United States from Canada. Your statement is, to say the least, a little simplistic.

    Whe have one of the biggest country ( in territory ) with one of the smallest army in number of unit in the world.

    Canada is defended by the armed forces and nuclear arsenal of the United States (and, for that matter, the other NATO countries). It is therefore unsurprising that it has a small "army in number of unit".

    Whe have the best nuclear reactor and MEDICAL nuclear program in the world but NO NUCLEAR FOR WEAPON program even do whe know how and can build in 30 minutes the best nuke in the world, whe CHOOSED not to.

    Setting aside the easy jokes about limited grammatical technology, Canada has not constructed any nuclear weapons because nuclear attacks on Canada would trigger retaliation from the United States. It's not likely that Canada could design and construct a nuclear weapon in "30 minutes the best nuke in the world", but it's certainly clear that any modern industrialized nation could manufacture a nuclear weapon with comparatively little trouble, especially if a substantial nuclear facilities complex is already in place. It's not really obvious what this has to do with being better than anyone else.

    Whe have -"NO"- Known enemy.

    Well, according to this story reprinted from the National Post, Al-Qaeda has declared that Canada must be destroyed, because it is part of Dar ul-Harb. I can understand the strong desire to want to pretend that everything's just fine, but it should be pointed out that only one side has to agree in order to have a war.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:Slightly misguided Canadian patriotism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was going to say that having a great big friendly neighbor is an excellent survival strategy that has nothing whatsoever to do with pacifism, but you said it even better.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Slightly misguided Canadian patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, thanks for all the insight.

      What does this have to do with Macs, Super Computing, or anything Slashdot?

      Responding to a lame post shouldn't instantly make you insightful or interesting. It makes you a drone.

    3. Re:Slightly misguided Canadian patriotism by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Responding to a lame post shouldn't instantly make you insightful or interesting. It makes you a drone.

      Out of curiosity... what does responding to the response to a lame post make you?

    4. Re:Slightly misguided Canadian patriotism by deputydink · · Score: 1
      As a Canadian, i'd like to apologize to you on behalf of all sensible Canadians for the grandparents post.

      Canada as always beaten the crap out of the US of A ( see your history book ladies of the US )


      The War of 1812 was fought over 50 years before the British North American act created the Dominion of Canada, and IIRC the Amercians succeeded in many of there offensives and objectives in that war. Consider this: Are the British still in Lower Canada?


      Whe have one of the biggest country ( in territory ) with one of the smallest army in number of unit in the world.

      Sure, we have a large "square kilometer to soldier" ratio, so did the Russians 20 years ago. However, comparing our "citizen to soldier" ratio is more apt in this case,, there we have a medium sized army, along the lines of Austria or Japan.


      Whe have the best nuclear reactor and MEDICAL nuclear program in the world but NO NUCLEAR FOR WEAPON program even do whe know how and can build in 30 minutes the best nuke in the world, whe CHOOSED not to.

      Canada has not constructed any Nuclear weapons because, in part, it hasn't needed to and, it agreed to not pursue an independent weapons program in the 70's. This was asked of us by both NATO and the UN Security counsel, presumably to stop further WMD proliferation. We have complied, and most like will continue to do so. Also, i'm not sure we have the "best" nuclear anything. Recall the Candu reactors? I don't think we could "choosed" to build a bomb in 30 minutes even if we were not barred by international law to do so.


      Well, according to this story reprinted from the National Post, Al-Qaeda has declared that Canada must be destroyed, because it is part of Dar ul-Harb. I can understand the strong desire to want to pretend that everything's just fine, but it should be pointed out that only one side has to agree in order to have a war.


      Yes, Canada has many "enemies", and many of those we share with our Neighbours to the South, which is all the more reason to present a united front.

  65. Can you imagine ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a whole platoon of those?

  66. I'm probably a moron, but... by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this really a supercomputer? Sounds more like a... supercluster to me.

    At what point does linking together a bunch of off-the-shelf fully-self-contained PCs become a supercomputer? If doing so is the case, wouldn't it be a heck of a lot cheaper to link together whitebox machines, much as datacenters (the type that rent servers) tend to use whitebox servers rather than rackmount boxes?

    I just feel like the term "supercomputer" is being sullied by so-called supercomputers that are nothing more than a simple cluster. Of course, I'm probably a moron, as I said earlier.

    1. Re:I'm probably a moron, but... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      when they can act as one system they become a cluster. when ur compute task can run on it as on single system u can call it a supercomputer.
      these divisions are quite arbitrary, of course.
      c http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/multipro cessing

      white boxes aren't any cheaper - they take up expensive server room space. and with the current technology white boxes require dramatically more complicated cabling and hence their setup is more expensive (labor intesive), maintenance as well.

    2. Re:I'm probably a moron, but... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I understand them taking up more space, but the dedicated server providers seem to have solved that problem. For ~1600 servers, you wouldn't need a very large datacenter at all... But I suppose even a very small datacenter is a lot more expensive than a place to house 10-11 racks for the 1u server versions (XServe).

      I'm confused about cabling, however. Whitebox machines would surely have the exact same cabling requirements as an XServe (One power, one or more network), albeit a bit longer...

    3. Re:I'm probably a moron, but... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      *slaps self* What am I talking about with 10-11 racks, that'd be for blade servers. 1u, that'd be 37-38 racks.

    4. Re:I'm probably a moron, but... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Is this really a supercomputer? Sounds more like a... supercluster to me.

      They're measured by how much work can be done. All modern supercomputers are massively parallel; we're pretty close to arguing about where the sheetmetal is in the supercomputer and what the OS looks like.

      wouldn't it be a heck of a lot cheaper to link together whitebox machines, much as datacenters (the type that rent servers) tend to use whitebox servers rather than rackmount boxes?

      Don't forget about the environment costs.
      * You need server space - data-center costs are measured in square footage
      * You have to cool that space - a Xeon or Opeteron at similar performance runs much hotter than G5. Air Conditioning can run 50% of the cost of a system when you're talking G5's, probably 100% for Xeons, which is millions of dollars more.
      * The G5's are Aluminum with pretty blinkenlights on the front. Don't underestimate the military "look and feel" - Some guy will get a promotion based on the way this thing looks when his boss walks in the room.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:I'm probably a moron, but... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      :-)
      Maybe couple more racks for the networking and storage stuff.

      Yeah, that's a lot of servers. I forgot to mention the power consumption (blades are savers, of course) and MTBF (don't know the exact figures but in such large clusters they probably have couple of failed servers every day - their identification, disposal, installing a replacement, then re-provisioning is quite labor-intensive).

  67. What ever happened to.... by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Funny

    What ever happened to the days when our Army would build their own giant evil super computers?

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  68. Beo... by FlameboyC11 · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowolf cluster of th... Oh wait...

  69. The coolest part by Cow007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The true radness in this is how cost effective it is to biuld xserve clusters. Not only will they save lots of money biulding the thing they will save lots of money supporting it. RAD!

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  70. HDD by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    and dont forget the IDE hard disk...

    due to limited expansion space blades aren't as suitable for beefed up cluster nodes as 1u servers are.

    my take on the whole apple hpc thing is that it's very hyped up. just like their xserve raid which is pathetic but people think it's a revolutionary new SAN - you pay little and yet you get EMC quality SAN.. yeah right.

    ibm could cause intel big troubles with their powerpc blades though... amd is currently hot but let's see how intel will do with the new 64/32 processor..

    1. Re:HDD by Junta · · Score: 1

      At the same time a lot of cluster configurations want to have diskless nodes, because administering 1000+ systems with hard drives is painful (relatively high failure rate component). A lot more clusters are set up to run nodes mainly out of san, nbd, nfs root, or evem ramdisk for the absolutely essential things. There are all types of interesting configurations out there that are highly adapted to very specific needs.

      But you are right, having to use the Blade hard drives (laptop IDE drives) is a significant performance issue for those that cannot operate via fast networks or out of ramdisk.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  71. Re:True purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    wow.

    i love politics when someone's views and logic are boiled down to a single sentence.

    you guys are both homos.

    kerry and bush are both fucking liars.

  72. coporation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'd think a company with all this advanced technology and such would have a spell checker

    http://www.colsa.com/company_data_page/president _p age/president.htm

    back in my day...

  73. Yay! by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Haven't we seen this before?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  74. How do they come up with 1566? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can anyone with an insight explain how one can come up with 1566 units for the supercomputer? It seems such an odd (as in strange, oh, you know what I mean) number? Is it determined by the budget? The topography of the network? Some magic number?

  75. Re:True purpose by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    perhaps you should read Stephen Hayes' book The Connection, or look at the data regarding Saddam/al Qaida. was there a direct 9/11 link? the commission cannot conclude there was, however, you should also read a book called The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis. There has been a much more than casual relationship between terrorists, of which aQ was a major group, and saddam. like at salman pak where they had a full fuselage of a 707 where terrorists trained for plane/hostage attacks. and now it seems that a high ranking colonel in the Rep guard was also an aQ operative.

    there have been 850 or so deaths. hell, we are in world war 3, whether people around here want to believe it or not. in ww2, we lost 850 per day. and rememebr, japan only wanted us out of the pacific, and hitler never had us on his checklist. he wanted land in the east (lebensraum) and wanted peace originally with the brits. (thank God for Churchill!!) we face people who want to impose the extreme sharia on everyone, and want to kill as many americans as possible. i am not downplaying the 850, they are all terrible, however, if we cannot stomach the losses, if we cannot susain the will to fight, and win, the 3000 will be nothing compared to the next attack.

    given what bush could have reasonably have known after 9/11, the war in iraq was not only necessary, but mandatory. did he overstate some things, or rely on shaky intel? sure. but what choice did he have? no, containment didn't work (as much as gen. zinni wants to claim it), and given what might happen, anything other than removing saddam, would warrant impeachment. we can only imagine if aQ could have gotten wmd's on those planes.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  76. Re:Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually Switzerland did collaborate with the Nazi's that is how they stayed safe during WWII, not because them Germans were afraid of the Swiss army (laughable at best).

    Since every nation needs Switzerland somehow, they have managed to be allowed to "exist." Not because of military might, but rahter due to very clever positioning in the global community, and of course everybody needs the Swiss banking system.

  77. So do we blame IBM for the holocaust? by romanval · · Score: 1

    Because IBM sold the Nazi's some census machines that were eventually used to track down and account for all the Jews in their country.

    Technology by itself doesn't have any principals attached to it... It's end usage is up to humanity to figure out.

    1. Re:So do we blame IBM for the holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis: no apostrophe necessary.

      Principles, not principals.

      Its, not It's.

    2. Re:So do we blame IBM for the holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally a Grammar Nazi who sure found the proper occasion to post ;-)

    3. Re:So do we blame IBM for the holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology by itself doesn't have any principals attached to it... It's end usage is up to humanity to figure out.

      Nah, it's up to Skynet to figure out.

  78. Re:True purpose by bm_luethke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a real possibility of a targeted draft - has been for years.

    As the military continues to become more high-tech it takes a greater and greater level of techinical skills to operate, especially at command centers. At some point it is going to become difficult to recuit those people (simply put, if 15% of the population has - or is capable of - the technical skills and the military needs 50% of it's troop to have them they must come from someplace).

    I do not think it is in the next few years. But since sometime in the 90's (can't really specify a single point in time) it has been a possibility. Any large theater we may have to get invovled in may require this.

    Though this has little to do with the current Iraq war and more to do with the shift the military has been taking.

    But yes, as to what the vast majority of people refer to the "upcoming draft", it is what a few democrats have discussed as a talking point and a protest against the war. Others have picked up on it and it has changed to "Bush wants a draft". The military still turns down a certain percentage of the volunteers it recieves as they consider themselfs over staffed - especially in the realm of grunts as they need educated technical skills (and grunts are what armchair or retired generals are moaning about not having enough of). There will be no general draft until that is no longer true.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  79. Weapons don't excite me. by nfotxn · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't mean to flame but... let me get this straight. No public healthcare yet defense contracts like this aren't a big deal? Even the usually rational slashdotter geeks are all "Hooha hypersonic flight!". This shit is primarily for killing people. But I'm just some commie cannuck. What, with my morality and all.

    --

    _nfotxn

    1. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing is our business...

    2. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by Etcetera · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Off-topic, and feeding a flaming troll, but I can't resist...

      No public healthcare yet defense contracts like this aren't a big deal?

      If you break your arm and walk into any Emergency Room in the country, you'll be provided with medical care, regardless of whether you can pay or not. That's the law.

      And if your medical system serves your citizens so well, why do many of the wealthier ones come down here when they need to get the best treatment? It's not just Canada, though... from all over the world people fly in from their wonderfully "progressive" state-run health care systems at home to be treated by our "horrible" and "broken" health care system or specialists here in the States. Actions like these speak louder than words and posturing.

      The (some would say, overpriced) $120/month that I (or my employer) pays for my Calif. Blue Cross PPO plan helps pay for R&D for everyone else (in the US and abroad). And you know what?... I'm okay with that.

    3. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather the Army buy a new computer than let the Federal gov't try to get healthcare working.

      Did you see the enormous cock-up that was the Medicare drug benefit? Multiply that by about a zillion, and you'd see the goat rodeo that would be socialized medicine in America.

      And you can say goodbye to your cheap drugs when that happens, Mr. Canadian.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by nfotxn · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      And if your medical system serves your citizens so well, why do many of the wealthier ones come down here when they need to get the best treatment? It's not just Canada, though... from all over the world people fly in from their wonderfully "progressive" state-run health care systems at home to be treated by our "horrible" and "broken" health care system or specialists here in the States. Actions like these speak louder than words and posturing.

      That's a recent phenominon as a result of a foreign private interest looking to have public healthcare de-regulated. Much of what was publically funded before has become private so the system as it exists here in Canada presently is in transition. Over the last term of provincial government the public system was large dismantled in a effort to make it appear broken. Yet despite a reduciton of 6 billion dollars in funding healthcare here still works. The majority of people going to the USA were getting medical imaging done not major surgeries. Even in the USA diagnostics and imaging are expensive.

      I wrote this post in haste orginally and apologise for the tone. To clarify witout getting too much further off topic private and public systems of healthcare tend not to co-exist well in the Canadian experience. For us in the industry it's well known that the influence from the US is a major political power even here. It makes us awfully resentful when companies from abroad railroad us by pressuring government to further cut funding in the face of increasing demand. Well of course we're going to start failing. Then to see the US defense budget as a blueprint for my country to come? No wonder we're more resentful than ever of our neighbours to the south. Our sovereignty has always been regarded as some sort of quaint and primitive custom.

      --

      _nfotxn

    5. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      Hah!
      If you've ever dealt with the US government, you'd know that you'd NOT want them running your healthcare!

      Case in point: last friday I was supposed to receive a direct deposit from the government for my salary.
      I never got paid.
      The reason? For some unknown reason the routing number was switched to something completely different. My bank is Wells Fargo (I live on the west coast of the US), and my direct deposits have gone to my account just fine for as long as I've worked for the government. But this last Friday, my direct deposit got direct deposited to some bank in BOSTON.
      Yes. You read that correctly, BOSTON.
      The government has NO CLUE how, or why the routing number got switched to something else. Supposedly once you fill out the direct deposit form, it stays that way in the computer system. And no, the routing numbers weren't even CLOSE. The routing numbers on the east coast start low and they get higher as you move west. There is a huge difference from 1250 to 0110.

      And you want me to trust the government with my healthcare? The same government that will fix your problem but take at least a month when they say a day? (Or they say a week and they mean a year?)

      If that's the case, can I assist you with some financial planning services?

    6. Re:Weapons don't excite me. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      No public healthcare yet defense contracts like this aren't a big deal?

      Yes, because government is about coercion - just think about what the word "government" means. Even in the case of "public" healthcare what makes it "public" is that if you as an individual don't want to pay into the system men with weapons will make you. If you refuse to pay in they will imprison you, if you resist them they will shoot you. All government action flows from the barrel of a gun.

      There are some who think that the only justification for violence is self-defense and that the violence implicit in all government action is only legitimate as an expression of our collective right of self-defense. Anything beyond that is immoral, it is using violence to impose our collective will on others who pose no threat to us. In this view paying for a military is legitimate (as long as that military is used for self-defense) while public healthcare is always immoral - the use of violence to compel others to do what we think they should rather than what they choose themselves to do.

  80. Re:That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulato by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think the joke taps into the old image of boy-Bush and Daddy Cheney (played here by the colonel) who makes all the decisions in the house and keeps the boy out of trouble and looking presentable. Maybe you're too anti-Bush to get it. It requires seeing Bush as somebody who's not inherently evil, only because he is borderline retarded. He just gets manipulated into doing evil, but all he really wants is to play with trains and baseball cards, and shoot up "bad guys."

  81. Re:That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I thought it was dead on. Remember that this Bush:
    1. is a puppet of the neo-cons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Aschroft and others)
    2. went after Al Qaeda and got distracted with Saddam
    3. needed to be accompanied by Cheney to 9/11 commision

  82. Re:Only $5.8 Million? I Want One by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but then you'd have to wait another year for the Mac version.

  83. Re:I wonder.... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

    Yes they do. They've had it for a few years. But they've never pushed it very energetically.

  84. Fighting for sake of peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is like fucking for sake of virginity! ;)

    1. Re:Fighting for sake of peace... by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      If you know of a better way to make more virgins, I'd like to hear it.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    2. Re:Fighting for sake of peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anal dude. :-) Tap dat ass.

  85. No Bickering... by 819 · · Score: 1

    We dual citizens don't like it.

  86. Rocket scientist with no brain? by Sulka · · Score: 1

    From all the places in the world, you chose Slashdot to divulge you have details of a military project that's most likely protected with NDA's so thick you could probably climb to the moon if you stacked it all into one pile.

    Apparently rocket science doesn't take too much common sense. :)

    --
    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
    1. Re:Rocket scientist with no brain? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh, since they put it on their web site, I'm pretty sure I'm OK.

      http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/112102.h tm

      But hey! Thanks for your concern. I guess.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Rocket scientist with no brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's sure much common sense involved in advertising a homepage written in Finnish in your Slashdot user information.

  87. How about this? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    I'm an old style liberal, and I agree with you. If you can absolutely kick anyone's ass, especially if you can kick two or three or more asses in different parts of the world, then it's highly doubtful that any other nation-state is going to attack you or your friends. Thus, peace, if you are a peace loving nation.

    However, if you are not a peace loving nation, or if your peace loving nation is in the hands of war mongers, you're not going to have peace, obviously. Instead, you will have "pre-emptive" war in the name of peace, since wars of conquest are considered bad manners these days.

    Lastly, there is asymetric warfare, which some will remember was put to great use in Viet Nam by the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong). Without getting into the underlying causes, today you have non-nation-state groups who use many of the same principles of asymetric warfare.

    As I said, I agree with your basic concept, but there is more to it than simply peace through might.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:How about this? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      We are in total agreement.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  88. duh by LordMyren · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    railguns.

    dont make me break out the johnny pnemonic quotes.

    1. Re:duh by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      "used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight"

      oh please. bullets or rails, eitherway thats about the extent of the hypersonic flight research the air force is doing.

      fuckin mods.

  89. Who cares! by iR-Corp · · Score: 0

    Why do we really care who builds the damn processor, whether they be Air Force, Army, Bogan or Hippie, what difference does it make, apart from the Hippie, where the processor isprobably just an ounce of weed stuffed into a tin can that does absolutely SQUAT, except when smoked...

  90. Re:Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Risk/reward as opposed to doability... the swiss have an army, and they know how to fight.

  91. Re:Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ... The swiss have an army, and they know how to fight.

    The swiss have banks, and they know how to use them. How would Hitler wage his war if he couldn't buy material from neutral states with freely convertible swiss currency?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  92. Gerry Bull by Genady · · Score: 1

    Of course no conversation of really big guns can be complete without a link to Gerry Bull. Kinda like Werner von Brahm for guns.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  93. Imagine! by CaseM · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Imagine a beowulf c. . . gah nevermind.

  94. Re:True purpose by Lynxara · · Score: 1

    Actually, National Public Radio reported this morning that the "high ranking colonel in the Rep guard was also an aQ operative" was in fact merely a high-ranking colonel in the Republican Guard who shared the same common name as an al-Qaeda operative. The CIA had long since dismissed the connection, but one of the (Republican) members of the 9-11 council inexplicably started quoting it as revolutionary new intelligence this week.

  95. New 2.5 Ghz XServes coming? by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

    Maybe Steve is going to announce that they are purchasing a new model that uses 2.5 Ghz G5s instead of the current 2 Ghz G5s. There is plenty of room inside the XServes to squeeze a liquid cooling system as well.

  96. Re:True purpose by Lynxara · · Score: 1

    Ah, found a link to the story here.

  97. More accurate math by edremy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's been a long time since I was a tanker, but IIRC, the actual dimensions of a long rod penetrator are roughly 3cm by 75cm. Speed is ~1500 m/s, not Mach7

    Volume of penetrator =~530cc
    Uranium density=19g/cc so the penetrator weighs ~10kg
    Kinetic energy = 0.5*10*(1500)^2 =~11MJ
    Dynamite is 4.3GJ/ton, so this is 0.0023 ton or 4.6 pounds of dynamite.
    11MJ are applied in roughly 5e-4 seconds, so total power is 1.65GW. Cross sectional area is about 7cm^2. Not quite as extreme as you have-the penetrator is a lot heavier but a lot slower.

    I've got an older M392A2 spin stabilized sabot round in my office. Heavier than it looks :^)

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:More accurate math by Hungus · · Score: 1

      Edremy,
      I was refering to the shoulder fired version which was supposed to be a hypervelocity round not the tank fired round, but thanks for the info on the tank fired round.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    2. Re:More accurate math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you said "long rod penetrator".

  98. Re:True purpose by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    ah yes, the same cia that missed 9/11, wmd's, etc., gets this one right. i know that half that part of the world is named muhammad, and that names might be common, but, i'm still waiting on this one. there is more than just a name. there are also receipts for money to ansar al islam and others. people who would have us believe that there is no saddam/aQ link have to follow this logic.

    aQ was in Pakistan, Afghaninstan, Malaysia, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, even upstate New York and southern florida, but no aQ in Iraq. aQ cut deals with the secular Pakistani gov't, are now operating in secular Syria, got funding from the Saudis (secular), but never cut a deal with the man who hates america as much as they did. hmmm...makes sense to me. and don't forget, hexbollah is iran backed through syria, a shiite terrorist group, receiving money and support from secular sunni syria. those who want to destroy bush are doing the same thing the brits and french did in 1937. like hitler, the jihadists aren't going away.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  99. 1655 Xserv by medvezhatnik · · Score: 1

    This is is nice, but why 1655, this is strange, would it be easier to have 1700 They measure the capacity not in Tflops anyway, in cubic acres...

  100. Apple's Secret Deal by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Is the Army also going to hire Jonathon Ives to design the look of the hypersonic misiles?

    No, actually the reasoning behind the deal has to do with Apple's huge thirst for titanium and aluminum for their cases. The army has graciously offered to let Apple engineers scavenge the 'ghost yards' of retired aircraft for metal in exchange for a supercluster.

    Also, the army is keen on developing Apple's 'firewire' into a viable weapons platform, the cables are expected to be 24 inches in diameter and spew 8000 trilobits of flaming death per second.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Apple's Secret Deal by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope that the Army's version of firewire doesn't fall into the hands of a madman, or we'll have a serial killer on our hands.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Apple's Secret Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or we'll have a SERIAL killer on our hands. "

      I do hope you are proud of yourself.... ;-)

  101. Re:Defense $$$ (you were lucky) by IAmAMacOSXAddict · · Score: 1

    According to my former roomate, You had it good. He is a flight nurse with the Air Reserve and he only got the Dam Revolver!!! I told him, one of my friends is a survivalist nut, and I could have sent him some hardware and some better armor if he just asked. He came back in July (2 months after his unit commanders came back, yes he was forgotten). But now he has just been told he is going to Volenteer to go back (which he does not want to do, of course). Maybe I'll be sending over a care package anyway... Bob

    --
    MacOSX, because making *NIX better is a lot better than waiting for Micro$loth to fix Windows
  102. I lost my pants.... by syrrys · · Score: 0

    "The US$5.8 million cluster will be used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight for the U.S. Army." That's stupid...they should use a supercomputer like this for something better, like an SOF2 server, YEAH! Fire in your hole!

    --
    "Patience is not a virtue, it's a waste of time."
  103. 1566 Xserves? by Skibbering · · Score: 0

    If you're really, really quiet, and you listen really, really carefully, you can just about hear the sound of 1566 IT admins, weeping into their (still) empty server racks...

  104. Re:True purpose by d474 · · Score: 1

    Republicans: party of big gov't
    Democrats: party of really big gov't


    Correction:

    Democrats: party of stupid gov't
    Republicans: party of really stupid gov't

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  105. Re: iBomb? (was Re:Why the Army?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Apple already invented it.

    It was known as the "G4 Cube."

    Ba-boom!

    Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the fish, I hear it's great.

  106. Missing applications by saha · · Score: 1
    We have several SGI Origin machines in our department and would like to replace them with an Xserve cluster as well and G5 PowerMac for individual researchers as a development platform. We use FastShip, Maxsurf, Rhino, Tribon CAD systems and therefore unix CAD applications, like CATIA, IDEAS, Unigraphics, ProEngineer are not critical for us in the Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering (for the layman think of aerospace engineering in the water).What we are missing are the following commercial engineering software:

    Nastran

    Hypermesh

    Abaqus

    Fluent

    Fluent doesn't want to support Apple OS X, yet they will support FujitsuPrimepower? I wonder how many seats they sell to Fujitsu customers and how many more seats they could sell if they woke up and ported to OS X with X11.

    HPItaniumHP-UX 11i v1.6 (11.22)
    HPPA 8x00HP-UX 11.0
    HPPA-RISCHP-UX 11i (11.11)
    HPAlphaTru64Unix 5.0A, 5.1
    HPAlphaTru64Unix 5.1A

    IBMPower3AIX 4.3.3
    IBMPower3AIX 5.1
    IBMPower4AIX 5.1

    SGIR10000 R12000 R14000IRIX 6.5
    SGIAltix-ItaniumLinux Red Hat: 7.2

    SUNUltraSolaris 8
    SUNUltraSolaris 9

    FujitsuPrimepowerSolaris 8

    LinuxItaniumRed Hat: 2.1AS
    LinuxPentium/XeonRed Hat: 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
    LinuxPentium/XeonRed Hat: 8.0
    LinuxPentium/XeonSuSE: 7.2
    LinuxPentium/XeonSuSE: 7.3, 8.0
    LinuxAthlonRed Hat:7.3
    LinuxAthlonRed Hat: 8.0
    LinuxAthlonSuSE: 7.2, 7.3, 8.0
    LinuxOpteronSuSE: SLES8

    WindowsPentium/Xeon2000, XP
    WindowsPentium/XeonNT 4.0
    WindowsAthlon2000, XP

    1. Re:Missing applications by sysjkb · · Score: 1
      Fluent doesn't want to support Apple OS X, yet they will support FujitsuPrimepower?

      Sure. Because supporting Fujitsu's Primepower boxes is pretty much the same as supporting Sun UltraSPARC -- Primepower runs Solaris on Fujitsu's SPARC clones. You don't run into them all that often in the USA, but they've a strong presence in Japan and Europe.

      It's not like they are already selling Fluent for Net/Free/OpenBSD, so porting and supporting the application on MacOS X would not be a trivial task.

      Yours truly,
      Jeffrey Boulier

  107. Apple the new Sun? by revscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've asked this question before and been modded as troll, but I'm serious: Is Apple the new Sun? It seems that while Apple doesn't have the broad product line that Sun does on the high-end server market, they are nonetheless making inroads into that very market. Further, Apple is sleek and sexy and has a lot of goodwill going for it, whereas Sun mostly brings out ambivalence.

    I'm not saying they are direct competitors, but they are competitors in at least some respects. And it seems that Apple is profiting from sales of its products whereas Sun's biggest revenue inflow recently has been its $1b settlement with Microsoft, not from its product lines.

  108. Part is Constitutional by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that the Air Force is also technically part of the Army (although with its own ceremonial, normally, Secretary). If you look up rank insignias, Congress can authorize a 5-star Admiral or General in wartime, but not Marine or Air Force, because technically the Marines are part of the Navy and the Air Force is part of the Army...

    The reason for this, to my understanding, is that the Constitution establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (when called up from the state militias of course)...

    If you actually had another military, it wouldn't have a Civilian Commander... Therefore, their are four major branches, but Constituionally, there are two.

    That's my understanding at least.

    Alex

  109. Net/Free/OpenBSD not as prevalent as OSX by saha · · Score: 1
    Net/Free/OpenBSD are great server OSes and in the case of Net BSD the widest multi-platform hardware support ( I know of). Apple probably sells many more PowerMac G5 and Xserves than Sun units. I know that not everyone uses a OS X as a Unix workstation or server replacement, but there are a growing number of users who are doing this. Including a few in my department who no longer want to replace their aging HP-UX workstations or Sun Ultras. Porting Fluent which runs on a variety of Unix flavors and Linux, should be 'fairly' easy to port to OS X and using the X11 window system.

    If you get a chance you can read an article on E-Commerce news. The market for OS X users in engineering, research and defense in growing. Its just a matter of time for the marketing and sales folks to realize that.

  110. Re:True purpose by hmbJeff · · Score: 1
    And I suppose they "hate us because we're free". Why can't kill-hungry folks like yourself ever acknowledge that there is cause and effect in these things?

    The U.S. is and has been an empire that is seeking to exert effective control over every valuable resource and every person on the planet. They exert force to this end using a wide range of instruments: Wal-Mart, Wall St., the World Bank, the G8, the WTO, the UN Security council, the CIA, USAID and other foreign "aid" programs, all the way to cruise missile strikes, threats of nuclear attack and direct military conquest and occupation.

    This global empire even has a name: it goes by the grand moniker "Our Interests" (i.e. "we must bomb these civilians to protect our interests").

    This may seem a glorious adventure and noble cause to you, but to the millions whose lives are diminished or destroyed by this aggression, I suspect it looks simply greedy, self serving and evil.

    When one is being harmed, one attempts to abate that harm. The more we harm people, the more they fight back. Why is that so hard to understand?

    When our empire has blocked all legitimate avenues for fighting back against its acts (i.e. political, economic, or military) the only remaining options are illegitimate, such as terrorism and sabotage.

    Or do you expect people to simply acquiesce to whatever conditions we feel like imposing on them? Should people be expected to surrender their lives, well being, economic opportunities and human dignity to the caprices of the hungry empire? Should they be good little slaves and "set on the front porch singing spirituals" while we count the swag?

    What the fuck would you do, were the shoe on the other foot? I suspect you would fight for your rights, your way of life and your family in any way you had to. That is what human beings do! So don't try to cast it as evil when other people do it.

    If you really want to reduce terrorism against the U.S., a great place to start would be to take our foot off the neck of the rest of the world. We spend about 50% of our federal budget on the military (counting veterans benefits and interest on military-related debt) and have bases in 180 countries. We sell more arms than any other country, and have the largest stockpiles of WMDs of any country. We routinely and knowingly kill civilians with our "targetted strikes", such as the one last week that killed 22 (most of them women and children) in a residential neighborhood in Iraq where they "suspected" a resistance leader might happen to be (he wasn't).

    If we would stop trying to have it all our way and end the dirty dealing and (dare I say it) terrorism that we effect daily, I believe that anti-U.S. terrorism would become an insignificant problem (it would not be completely eliminated, any more than disease, crime, or child abuse could ever be completely eliminated).

    America is a rich land blessed with many advantages. We can live well and actually BE the kind of beacon for the rest of the world that we like to say we are, if we can get our masters in Washington and Wall St. give up on their sick dream of world empire.

    The false-patriot warmongers like to say that our wars are to protect our freedom and our way of life. But actually, I can think of no more certain way to destroy the real promise of this country and the hopes of its citizens than to continue this ever-accelerating rush to empire by force. To fight them and their misguided agenda is the finest form of patriotism.

  111. Re:Defense $$$ (you were lucky) by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Our med-evac unit was originally planned to be within an Army or Marine firebase, ala Vietnam. Desert Storm turned into such a fast moving battle that we were kinda' left hanging out on our own. We were supposed to only have the revolvers but once it became clear that we were going to be responsible for sight security, food, power, etc, we all donned multiple hats. don't know just where they found the M-16's for us but one would think that they hadn't seen the light of day since 1966.

    I got out about a year after Desert Storm and haven't heard how they changed the tactics for use of the Air Evac units.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  112. Why is this worth reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A number of supercomputers are being built using AMD opteron machines. Why is this worth front page news?

    1. Re:Why is this worth reporting by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      Because I haven't seen any 2000+ CPU opteron clusters that are ranked (or are expected to be ranked) in the top 5 of all supercomputers on the planet for performance.

      [[your clue] release]

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
  113. Reality Distortion Effect by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

    Come one, we all know that they're really just trying to create a reality distortion field powerful enough to annihilate all of America's enemies.

    --
    Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
  114. shells by frkline · · Score: 1

    hypersonic projectiles came along before flight. an austrailian university launched the first hypersonic off of a specially modified artillery shell. as it is almost like those kinetic energy projectiles the navy is developing this would be a nice, land-based complement

  115. Re:True purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. It's being pushed as an attention-getter for backlash against the Republicans. Not exactly the most honorable of tactics, but it doesn't mean the Dems want a draft.

  116. Here's why you're wrong by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs.

    I'm a middle class person, and I do give a sizable percentage of my income to charities. I'd be able to give a hell of a lot more if I weren't being taxed at confiscatory rates. Moreover, I'm very selective about the charities I give to; they must have an efficiency of at least 90% (i.e., at least 90 cents of every dollar actually reaches the needy beneficiaries, and less than 10 cents goes toward administrative overhead or fundraising). Government "entitlement" programs are notoriously inefficient: less than 10% reaches the persons the programs were designed to help.

    An example of how it would work: a government program for homeless persons has its budget cut by $1000. We'll be generous and say that results in an actual reduction of benefits to homeless persons of $100. That $1000 is refunded to me. I keep $800 for myself, and donate the other $200 to a private charity that helps the homeless. Due to its 90% efficiency, that results in a $180 increase in benefits to homeless persons -- a net increase of $80.

    I'm better off and so are the homeless. The only loser is the inefficient government bureaucracy that never deserved the money in the first place.

    I'm better off spiritually, too. True acts of charity are voluntary -- unlike the contributions I am forced to make to government "entitlement" programs.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  117. Smoken! by plutoiddiamonds · · Score: 1

    That is going to be one sweete machine!