Slashdot Mirror


Simulating the Universe with a zBox

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the University of Zurich predict that our galaxy is filled with a quadrillion clouds of dark matter with the mass of the Earth and size of the solar system. The results in this weeks journal Nature, also covered in Astronomy magazine, were made using a six month calculation on hundreds of processors of a self-built supercomputer, the zBox. This novel machine is a high density cube of processors cooled by a central airflow system. I like the initial back of an envelope design. Apparently, one of these ghostly dark matter haloes passes through the solar system every few thousand years leaving a trail of high energy gamma ray photons."

192 comments

  1. Hmm by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like MS will need to come up with a new name for the Xbox 3.

    1. Re:Hmm by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Don't you love those marketing coups ;-) If they ever try to manufacture a zbox, I can sell zboxes first ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Hmm by gustgr · · Score: 1

      Or release a zBox mod chip

    3. Re:Hmm by pmjordan · · Score: 1

      Xbox 3? More like Xbox 2 - they'd better save up that valuable letter Y for their portable Y-Boy.

      ~phil

    4. Re:Hmm by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      Official Micro$oft Press Release We have hired the SCO legal team to begin enforcing our rights to any and all names with box in it.

    5. Re:Hmm by nofx_3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually I believe if MS were to build a pocket gaiming system the would name it something like XpocketPC and it'd probably just be a pocket PC device with a souped up graphics proc and ram, probably with sd or some sort of card for games. This would make it easy, just port directX over and they have a whole environment. Also they would need to change the layout from the standard devices to something a little more gaming friendly.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if Steve and Bill got together again?

      We'd have a NextBox!

  2. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    At the center of the box is a small piece of fairy cake

    1. Re:Let me guess by Jester99 · · Score: 0

      At the center of the box is a small piece of fairy cake

      Nope, but the whole thing comes in a nice chocolate-egg with graphical assembly instructions. :)

    2. Re:Let me guess by themuffinking · · Score: 1

      Goddammit I wanted to say that!

      Do not look directly into the zBox unless you are the most important person in the universe.

    3. Re:Let me guess by schleyfox · · Score: 0

      You both stole my joke, oh well
      This story really doesn't interest me, call me when you can create a new universe with one of those things.

    4. Re:Let me guess by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 1

      that would have an improbability factor of 489762376781292873 to 1

      --
      time is a perception of a being's consciousness
      time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
    5. Re:Let me guess by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Wrong, it's a very hot cup of tea!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    6. Re:Let me guess by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you put them into the TPV they don't seem to mind at all.

    7. Re:Let me guess by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      Wrong, it's a cat.

  3. Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the yBox ?

  4. I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If people can't predict the weather reliably, how on earth is anyone able to predict anything about the way the universe operates?

    1. Re:I don't understand... by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem in question is the number of distinguishable bodies. With weather you would have to go down to the single molecule in the air, to get a quite good prediction. In fact current weather models use cubes of air where the conditions are considered constant (same temperature, same pressure, same direction of air flow in the same cube) and take them as distinguishable bodies. Those models are a compromise between the sheer number of necessary elements, the number crunching limits of current calculation hardware and the difference between the used model and the reality.

      With stellar bodies it's much more easy. The number of stellar bodies you need for a prediction is much smaller, the bodies themself can be considered almost constant for the whole calculation etc.pp. With the number crunching capacity of today's weather prediction centers you can simulate whole galaxies (if you consider stars constant, which they mainly are for about 10mio to 10bio years, depending on their mass). With the differences between your model and the measured reality you can spot elements you didn't simulate yet and add them to your model. The swiss team now was simulating clouds of about the mass of the earth and the size of the solar system and found that those added to the stellar simulation made a quite good fit to the measured data.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:I don't understand... by orangesquid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm still waiting for a simulation engine that models the subatomic and atomic particles' behaviors.

      Basically, I want a program that simulates chemical reactions. If I have a bunch of molecules mixed together, and I add another mixture, what will happen, on the atomic level?

      We have SPICE for electrical circuits. Why not something for chemical reactions?

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    3. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I remember correctly, chemical reactions happen at the atomic level, not subatomic.
      Here is a GPL program, there are plenty of others (commercial and FOSS):
      http://ruby.chemie.uni-freiburg.de/~martin/chemtoo l/chemtool.html

    4. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The problem in question is the number of distinguishable bodies. With weather you would have to go down to the single molecule in the air, to get a quite good prediction"

      This is utter nonsense.

      Weather models are fluid models, not particle models like the N-body simulation described here. They are quite different, and require different computational approaches. Both are numerically intensive, however.

    5. Re:I don't understand... by orangesquid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, you'd have to have a capture/drawing tool like Chemtool, and then something that could approximate polarity, electrical charge distribution, and bond length/strength. (Those involve things like electron orbitals, hence the subatomic.) Next, you'd have to have something that handles movement of fluids and gases with respect to the temperature, pressure, etc (gas laws and the partial diff. eqns. whose exact solution is one of the Clay instutite Millenium problems). Then, you'd have to have something that will predict what happens, probabilistically, when two or more molecules interact. These interactions would have to modeled in terms of molecular collisions, so that things like titration, stirring, etc, would be accurate.

      Finally, you'd have something which would prepare an "answer" to each problem by waiting for a reasonable amount of precipitate to settle, or measuring pH, or simulating a gas chromatograph of the contents of the beaker.

      Other helpful things would be crystallization and such. I would think that if you could simulate the physical laws and properties at a sufficiently low level, most things would arise automatically, but IANAC.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    6. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the Folding.com distributed computing project do this for the special case of protein synthesis?

    7. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those involve things like electron orbitals, hence the subatomic."

      Wrong.

      Anything to do with electronic orbitals is at the atomic level. Sub-atomic refers to elementary particles like bosons, hadrons, leptons, etc.

      I just love it when programmers show off what they know about science!

    8. Re:I don't understand... by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. Do let me know, though, if you come across anything that would be of use.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    9. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what? Reality?

    10. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a matter of semantics. The electronic orbitals are defined by the atomic structure, but then, electrons themselves are subatomic particles, so it's a matter of definition whether you want to refer to electronic wavefunctions as "subatomic".

    11. Re:I don't understand... by NichG · · Score: 1

      Depending on what exactly you're trying to figure out, you might not even need to simulate multiple molecules. If you just want to know if two relatively small organic compounds will react to form other organic compounds, you could probably at this point in time do it with a quantum chemistry package like MPQC (among others). Ghemical (http://www.uku.fi/~thassine/ghemical/) will interface with those. But I should warn you, even calculating a 10-atom system with dynamics will take ages. But this is pretty much as 'complete' as you're going to get. If you could do it on a beaker, you'd get all the fluid dynamics, crystallization, etc without having to add in any extra rules.

      If you know what reactions will occur, then you can model those with rate equations and go up to the fluids level (so no more dealing with individual molecules). This will be a lot faster, and you can get such interesting things as reactions that form spirals and other spatially-extended patterns.

    12. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you mean electron (lepton) orbitals only ever refer to the atomic level, but leptons themselves are never considered at the atomic level? My old chem teacher might have a few comments to you about orbital filling and bond length. It's just a context issue. Language is [usually] used to convey information for constructive purposes...

      Besides, who said this kid was trying to "show off" what he/she knew about science?

  5. The new pentium? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    This looks like the processor set up for the new pentium mentioned in an earlier article. This sucker uses more power than my house!

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  6. zBox taking a nap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    zBox has been slashdotted, vat do ve do now? Ve relax and eat some cheese and chocolate, jawohl!

    1. Re:zBox taking a nap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    2. Re:zBox taking a nap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Our in-house designed (Joachim Stadel & Ben Moore 2003), massively parallel supercomputer for running our cosmological N-body simulations. This machine consists of 288 AMD Athlon-MP 2200+ (1.8 GHz) CPUs within a few cubic meters. Under load it produces about 45 kW of heat, about equivalent to 45 electric hair dryers operating continuously! This amount of heat, combined with the extremely high density necessitated a new design for efficient cooling. The 144 nodes (2 CPUs per node) are connected using an SCI fast interconnect supplied by Dolphin in a 12x12 2-dimensional torus. The layout of the machine is ring-like, thereby allowing very short "ribbon" cables to be used between the nodes. This fast interconnect network attains a peak bisection bandwidth of 96 Gbits/sec, with a node-node write/read latency as low as 1.5/3.5 microseconds. Additionally the zBox has 11.5 TBytes of disk (80 GBytes/node) and 3 Gbits/s I/O bandwidth to a frontend server with 7 TB of RAID-5 storage. This is among the fastest parallel computers in the world! At "first light" it ranked in the top 100, but the technology advances quickly. (see top500, June 2003: Rank 144) (see top500, November 2003: Rank 276)

      Holy frack! I wouldn't wanna pay their electricity bill! But then again, they do save an awful lot on heating.

    3. Re:zBox taking a nap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it, "the" is "zee" in a fake German accent, not "zed".

    4. Re:zBox taking a nap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The zBox would have been fine hadn't it been that some post above happened to mention the fairy cake in its center.

  7. Karma whore time - here is the "scoop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [Picture of loads a wires in what looks like a thousand desktops interlinked]

    Our in-house designed (Joachim Stadel & Ben Moore 2003), massively parallel supercomputer for running our cosmological N-body simulations. This machine consists of 288 AMD Athlon-MP 2200+ (1.8 GHz) CPUs within a few cubic meters. Under load it produces about 45 kW of heat, about equivalent to 45 electric hair dryers operating continuously! This amount of heat, combined with the extremely high density necessitated a new design for efficient cooling. The 144 nodes (2 CPUs per node) are connected using an SCI fast interconnect supplied by Dolphin in a 12x12 2-dimensional torus. The layout of the machine is ring-like, thereby allowing very short "ribbon" cables to be used between the nodes. This fast interconnect network attains a peak bisection bandwidth of 96 Gbits/sec, with a node-node write/read latency as low as 1.5/3.5 microseconds. Additionally the zBox has 11.5 TBytes of disk (80 GBytes/node) and 3 Gbits/s I/O bandwidth to a frontend server with 7 TB of RAID-5 storage. This is among the fastest parallel computers in the world! At "first light" it ranked in the top 100, but the technology advances quickly. (see top500, June 2003: Rank 144) (see top500, November 2003: Rank 276)

    We greatly acknowledge the aid of the Physics Mechanical Workshop at the University of Zurich for: 1) turning the "napkin-sketch" into a proper CAD/CAM design of the machine; 2) providing numerous suggestions which improved the detailed design; 3) providing a gigantic room for the construction of the boards; 4) and, well, building the thing! We thank the companies of Dolphin (dolphinics.com) for supplying the high speed network and COBOLT Netservices for supplying the majority of parts. We would like to especially thank the individuals: Doug Potter and Simen Timian Thoresen for their great help in setting up the linux kernel and root file system, getting netbooting to work correctly, and resolving several operating system related problems. Finally we thank all who helped in the construction of the zBox (assembly of boards, etc), Tracy Ewen, Juerg Diemand, Chiara Mastropietro, Tobias Kaufman

    1. Re:Karma whore time - here is the "scoop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can't "karma whore" as an AC...

    2. Re:Karma whore time - here is the "scoop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please.... why don't you admit that the system does not properly scale: have on zbox in a room, ok. have more than one and it becomes a heating nightmare...

    3. Re:Karma whore time - here is the "scoop" by zecg · · Score: 1

      Unless he can somehow convert said AC to DC.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    4. Re:Karma whore time - here is the "scoop" by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      The real question is...

      What would happen if you got a beowulf cluster of zBoxes and had an infinite number of monkeys looking for porn on them. Could you slashdot Slashdot?

  8. Just great... by chiph · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you just slashdotted Switzerland. Who's next, tough guy? Andorra?

    Chip H.

  9. Re:Slashdotting knows no borders.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MirrorDot still going strong! (I know if we all try we can crash mirrordot, come on people - let's work together on this one.)

  10. Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by StupendousMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can read the entire paper in PDF or PS at astro-ph, a web site which collects preprints in the physical sciences. See

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0501589

    I read the paper quickly. The authors have to come up with a model which has virtually no observable consequences (otherwise, we would have seen this source of matter by now), but which can also be tested experimentally in the not-too-distant-future (or else it wouldn't be science). They predict that some of the cosmic-ray shower telescopes may be able to detect the little cloudlets of dark matter. We'll see.

    --
    Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
    mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    1. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll see.

      Only if we can shed some light on the matter.

    2. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by Rostin · · Score: 1

      but which can also be tested experimentally in the not-too-distant-future (or else it wouldn't be science)

      There are plenty of events and areas of study which aren't directly experimentally verifiable but which are considered science. Like evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology. Science is not as easy to define as most people (including most /.ers) like to imagine. If it were, the philosophy of science wouldn't be a very interesting discipline.

    3. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by StupendousMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are plenty of events and areas of study which aren't directly experimentally verifiable but which are considered science. Like evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology.

      Both of which contain some testable statements (e.g. in cosmology, inflation predicts certain properties in the microwave background on specific angular scales), and some untestable statements. Scientists (ought to) ignore the latter.

      Science is not as easy to define as most people (including most /.ers) like to imagine. If it were, the philosophy of science wouldn't be a very interesting discipline.

      I'm a practicing scientist. I don't find the philosophy of science intereresting at all; it annoys me. I wonder what fraction of practicing scientists do enjoy the philosophy of science ...

      --
      Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
      mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    4. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by hobdes · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. IAAAPS (I am also a practicing scientist) and I strictly define science by the testability requirement. But...arguing this with people who don't understand science's boundaries is what makes the philosophy of science fun!

    5. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I'm a practicing scientist. I don't find the philosophy of science intereresting at all; it annoys me. I wonder what fraction of practicing scientists do enjoy the philosophy of science ...
      Are you able to articulate why it annoys you? After all, it's pretty important to understand things like how to determine if one theory is better than another, for example. Any scientist has some philosophy of science, and this affects their practice of science. If you're not willing to examine the foundations of your knowledge, then your output is more suspect than someone who is willing to do so.
    6. Re:Read the entire paper: astro-ph 0501589 by radtea · · Score: 1


      I'm a practicing scientist and find philosophy of science both interesting and irritating. It's interesting (and important) because questions like, "What makes a good explanation?" aren't quite part of science but still need to be asked. It's irritating because philosphers are by-and-large such complete and utter wankers.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  11. Dark matter passing through the solar system by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So one of these dark matter clouds may pass through the solar system every few thousand years? Have they taken the next step and hypothesized that such an event could account for major climate changes? Like the event that killed off the dinosaurs?

    1. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      So one of these dark matter clouds may pass through the solar system every few thousand years? Have they taken the next step and hypothesized that such an event could account for major climate changes? Like the event that killed off the dinosaurs?

      It'd be interesting if these things could be tied to mass extinctions, but these occur much more rarely than every few thousand years. And unless these clouds can account for high levels of iridium, shocked quartz, melt glass, and a hundred-mile impact crater in Mexico, it's not terribly likely they account for the dinosaur extinction.

    2. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe it was really dense dark matter.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Hellasboy · · Score: 1

      or maybe that the increased radiation leads to an increase in mutations that speed up evolution?

      --

      "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
    4. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Or accounts for the various ice ages we go through. But that is probably due to variations in our own sun and orbit most likely.

      Much more likely reasons for global warming than other theories. :)

    5. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Since "dark matter" is per definition electromagnetically weakly interacting, such hypothesis wouldn't stand a chance.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    6. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      Have they taken the next step and hypothesized that such an event could account for major climate changes? Like the event that killed off the dinosaurs?

      Well ... asteroids don't give off a lot of light :)

      Is there any reason why dark matter has to be exotic? My layman's instinct would be that for every star we see in the sky, there must be a large number of jupiter-sized balls of gas and debris that never managed to accumulate enough mass to ignite. Would we even be able to detect these or get an estimate on how common they would be in the universe by looking for eclipses of distant stars?

    7. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any reason why dark matter has to be exotic?

      A substantial fraction of it does.

      My layman's instinct would be that for every star we see in the sky, there must be a large number of jupiter-sized balls of gas and debris that never managed to accumulate enough mass to ignite. Would we even be able to detect these or get an estimate on how common they would be in the universe by looking for eclipses of distant stars?

      What you're proposing is what is known as Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). MACHOs have been detected in precisely the way you describe, gravitational microlensing observations, but the problem is, if dark matter was all MACHOs, we would have been able to see more than we have. MACHOs can't be all of the dark matter. Also, IIRC, a pure-MACHO dark matter contribution doesn't properly describe structure formation in the early universe ("seeding" of galactic clusters, galaxies, etc. by dark matter); some exotic Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) are needed to fix that.
    8. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are searches for such types of objects (called MACHOs - Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects), usually by searching for gravitational lensing. To account for the dark matter, there would have to be trillions of these objects in the galaxy and they will ocassionally pass in front of other stars (or galaxies). When that happens, the bending of light from the gravitational well of the MACHO can cause the background star to become brighter. Several experiments are currently searching for this brightening (which usually lasts several weeks).

      But there is another reason why we think dark matter is more exotic. Studies of the Big Bang show that there must have been a large component of matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically (i.e. doesn't absorb or radiate light). This excludes protons and neutrons (baryons) that make up balls of gas and jupiter-like objects. Since there was likely something exotic back during the Big Bang, it's commonly believed this unknown matter would still be around and account for the dark matter today.

      While the astronomers referred to those early dark matter candidates as MACHOS, the new particles have been dubbed WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). Who says astronomers don't have a sense of humor....

    9. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm not mistaken 1000 years is well inside recorded History. So if an event takes place that would be capable of killing dinosaurs, i think some people might notice it and write it down.

    10. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      Or maybe this could explain the "jumps" in evolution that biologists have observed in the fossil record.

      There seem to be certain periods in our history when evolution has occurred very rapidly on a global scale. This has always been a problem for those who theorize the slow random evolution. Perhaps the dark matter side effects can reconcile the two evolutionary camps.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    11. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooo you fucked up. You proposed a source of climate change that didn't involve republicans. You are a troll!

    12. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1
      So as far as I can tell:
      We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space [reverb effect here]. These insignificant lumps came together to form the first union, our sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gas bag, rotated the earth, a catseye among aggies, [reverb begins to really build] blinking in astonishment across the face... of time. [reverb overwhelmes everything, sounds disappear]
      /Thx FT
    13. Re:Dark matter passing through the solar system by Bay+Boy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, I agree but do you think it would be a handy excuse for speeding? After all when Mr Plod pulls you over and asks the fatefull question that you can ONLY get wrong: "Is there any reason for you to be speeding today?" He's hardly likely to expect you to say that it was a direct result of the "trail of high energy gamma ray photons." flying past... ...suddenly boosting your car's already powerfull turbo and causing you to speed uncontrollably.

  12. Opportunity by Bolshoy+Pimpovich · · Score: 1, Funny
    Hrmm... The next time one of these "ghostly dark matter haloes" comes around, can we launch every copy of "Gigli" into it?

    Or maybe they could use that supercomputer to calculate how much fuel it would take to launch these dreaded things into the sun.

    Well... it's just a thought.

    --
    Ehta nyeh IBM, ehta Macintosh!
  13. Photo Story by gustgr · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/~stadel/zBox/story.ht ml

    The 3D temperature monitor is really cool.

  14. Mirror by Rufus211 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe they should have use the zbox to host their site =)

    http://rufus.hackish.org/~rufus/mirror/krone.physi k.unizh.ch/~stadel/zBox/

  15. For some reason .... by Doverite · · Score: 5, Funny

    All it keeps saying is 42...42...42...42...

    --
    You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
    1. Re:For some reason .... by tardibear · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      You can legislate morally you can't legislate morallity

      I can't disagree because there's no such thing as morallity. Did you mean morality?

    2. Re:For some reason .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0
      drink@churchill include $ grep 42 */errno.h
      asm/errno.h:#define ENOMSG 42 /* No message of desired type */
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. ObYes,but by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 1

    ... does it run SkyOS?

    1. Re:ObYes,but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      SkyOS, no...SkyNet, yes.

    2. Re:ObYes,but by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..but who cares about a commercial os that you have to pay to beta(more like alpha)test..

      that sounds so Zeta..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  17. I was wondering what the power supply would be... by deft · · Score: 2, Funny

    but then I read in the article:
    "and had sufficient forced air through the heat exchangers to transport the heat from a small car out of this small room."

    Suprising.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  18. Eggheads, What do they know? by user317 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Astronomers from Tacoma to Vladivostok have just reported an ionic disturbance in the vicinity of the Van Allen Belt. Scientists are recommending that necessary precautions be taken.

    --
    me fail english? thats unpossible
  19. movies and pictures here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The group's homepage with press release, movies and pictures are here. Seems
    to be working ok at the moment...

    http//www.nbody.net/

    1. Re:movies and pictures here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correct url
      http://www.nbody.net/

    2. Re:movies and pictures here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please visit Slashcode bug #981137, which concerns automatically hyperlinking URLs in "Plain Old Text" mode, and add a comment to show your support for a speedy resolution. No progress has been made on this trivial feature request for longer than six months.

      Redistribute this comment at will.

  20. theoretical background by tengwar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I wonder if anyone can answer a naive question for me. As I understand it, the solar wind consists of charged particles moving outwards from the sun. (a) Do these have a net charge? (b) If so, does this mean that there is a net movement of charge outwards from the galaxy?

    The reason I'm interested is that a non-neutral charge distribution would tend to attract the outer part of the galaxy towards the centre more than would be expected from gravity alone, which is (simplistically) the evidence for dark matter / energy.

    1. Re:theoretical background by chazR · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I understand it, the solar wind consists of charged particles moving outwards from the sun. (a) Do these have a net charge?


      No. There's no net charge. If one developed between the sun and the solar wind, the solar wind would fall straight back in.

      A good primer on dark energy can be found here
    2. Re:theoretical background by tengwar · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the link, I'll follow up on that. However you say:

      No. There's no net charge. If one developed between the sun and the solar wind, the solar wind would fall straight back in.

      I have to say that that does not follow. Whether the particles fell back in would depend on their initial velocity and on the total charge of the sun. Do you have any other reason for saying that there is no net charge?

    3. Re:theoretical background by chazR · · Score: 1

      Whether the particles fell back in would depend on their initial velocity and on the total charge of the sun.

      Absolutely. However, the only force currently causing them to accelerate towards the sun (that is, slow down) is gravity. If there were a net charge between the sun and the solar wind, there would also be an electromagnetic effect. This would be many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational component. Observation of the solar wind shows that this is not the case. (If it were the case, there would be no solar wind).

      Incidentally, a less maths-heavy link is here
    4. Re:theoretical background by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      Yikes... doesn't that assume that the particles are propagating into a theoretical vacuum? which of course they do not.

      The particles propagate (acceleration mechanism still unknown) into a dynamic system that is so totally unknown it's not even funny. We have no idea at all how the low corona works, what the fields are (only theoretical estimates with large error bars), plasma interactions (many of which are probably not even on our charts), etc... The High corona is no exception. Interplanetary space, where we have had numerous observations is a very dynamic region that we have only begun to comprehend.

      Freshman physics wont work here boys... back to the drawing boards.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    5. Re:theoretical background by PDAllen · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make much difference what goes on far away from the Sun.

      If there was a net charge to the solar wind, then the Sun's net charge would be the opposite sign and be increasing. Things would even out, and it probably wouldn't take several billion years to do so: you'll have an exponential curve, and the time constant most likely isn't huge.

      (note: this is probably exactly what has already happened, since electrons are much lighter than protons hence more likely to be kicked off into space)

  21. mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pointless plug.

  22. AMD does it again... by krang321 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "All 288 CPUs shipped by AMD worked perfectly and none needed to be replaced" My 500Mhz AMD works perfectly... as long as I use reliable software (Linux) not that other product - what's it called again... XPee?

    1. Re:AMD does it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet I've had AMDs (admittedly over 500MHz) that would get so hot, they melted the thermal paste and the heat sink fell off. Two of my friends had the same problem. Of course, once that heat sink falls off, the processor burns up (literally).

    2. Re:AMD does it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat sink has mass, thus weight in gravity. Heat sink has metal clips meant to firmly secure this weight to the well-secured mainboard. If you did not use these clips it is your own fault. If you did use these clips, the heat sink would not have fallen off provided that they were all properly engaged, unless a blunt force impact stressed the socket plastic so much that it snapped those pieces off.

    3. Re:AMD does it again... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Outright bad ICs are pretty rare, regardless of brand. I know a guy that designs and builds custom circuit boards and he says he's never had a faulty circuit component, ever.

      I've never really had a stability problem with Windows NT, 2000 or XP. Good hardware with good drivers reduces or nearly eliminate these problems.

    4. Re:AMD does it again... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      So it melts the retaining clip too? cool. Where can I get one?

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    5. Re:AMD does it again... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Now that's funny... ex-pee, so Microsoft is in the sewage treatment business?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  23. Someone had to say it... by William_Lee · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!

    1. Re:Someone had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it could be used to heat the building. would be really effcient. when was the last time your heater gave you a detailed map of the universe.

    2. Re:Someone had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like a tsunami of computational power

    3. Re:Someone had to say it... by InsideTheAsylum · · Score: 1

      Isn't it already one?

  24. Doing it the old fashioned way by JumboMessiah · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see some folks still doing things the old fashioned way, even if it was a couple years ago. One question that I have, if anyone is familiar with zBox. Why not go with 2 or 3 racks packed with commercial 1u 2CPU nodes? Was it cost, Heating/cooling? Perhaps it just wouldn't of had that "this is cool shit" factor...

    1. Re:Doing it the old fashioned way by rpozz · · Score: 1

      Price? They built it themselves, so surely that's cheaper than getting it practically pre-built.

    2. Re:Doing it the old fashioned way by wizard_of_wor · · Score: 2, Informative

      My guesses are: 1) Cost. A commercial 1U dual processor pizza box is actually very expensive for the computing power, compared to the do-it-yourself method. Of course, you're mostly paying for support, overhead, the brand name, and a sturdy, cool-looking case. 2) Cost. Commerical racks can be pretty pricey, too. 3) I/O speed. The zBox is wired up for good inter-CPU throughput, whereas you lose significant speed with the typical ethernet patchboard scheme you find in a commerical rackspace. Of these (3) is probably the most important.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    3. Re:Doing it the old fashioned way by iocat · · Score: 1

      Price is what it seems like. Way cheaper to build it yourself -- especially with help from the univerity's metal fab people -- than to just buy off the shelf rack-mount systems. It's a pretty straightforward design if you look at the pictures.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    4. Re:Doing it the old fashioned way by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      One question that I have, if anyone is familiar with zBox. Why not go with 2 or 3 racks packed with commercial 1u 2CPU nodes? Was it cost, Heating/cooling? Perhaps it just wouldn't of had that "this is cool shit" factor...

      Because you could get graduate students to work on it. Graduate students are sort of like slaves, except that you don't have to feed them like you do slaves.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  25. Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know you can get rid of this incredible strange, massiv and invisible (did I mention undetectable by normal means) dark matter by changing the law of gravity for very long distances? In fact the data from the movement of the Voyager probes shows that something funny in regard to gravity is indeed happening...

    But "dark matter research" sounds cool today and and trying to prove it will pour a lot of money into particle physics to build more and more powerful accelerator machines. So for me it is crystal clear which 'solution' to the problem is prefered and why.

    1. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you can get rid of this incredible strange, massiv and invisible (did I mention undetectable by normal means) dark matter by changing the law of gravity for very long distances?

      Not really. Such alternatives, specifically MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), have had a terrible time trying to fit all of the observations (galactic rotation curves, cosmological expansion, early-universe structure formation, etc.) that dark matter can. Attempts to make a version of MOND compatible with relativity turn out to be rather ad-hoc, as Bekenstein has shown.

      In fact the data from the movement of the Voyager probes shows that something funny in regard to gravity is indeed happening...

      MOND hasn't explained the Pioneer anomaly either.

      But "dark matter research" sounds cool today and and trying to prove it will pour a lot of money into particle physics to build more and more powerful accelerator machines. So for me it is crystal clear which 'solution' to the problem is prefered and why.

      Yeah yeah, it's all a conspiracy for funding by selfish scientists. Has it ever, just maybe, occurred to you that dark matter has become the dominant proposals because the alternatives don't work as well?
    2. Re:Occams razor by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      and how exactly is the definition of gravity over very long distances different? if it is, could that mean that perhaps there is some other force that is active in deep space that we do not know about because gravity is so strong here near the center of a well?

      forces do not just change behavior, when there is a change in behavior it is usually due to another force expressing itself.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:Occams razor by B3ryllium · · Score: 1
      forces do not just change behavior, when there is a change in behavior it is usually due to another force expressing itself.


      I guess this explains Abu Grahib.
    4. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modified gravity theories can explain the velocity curves in our galaxy, but cannot explain them in all types of galaxies (but dark matter can). In addition, the modified gravity theories fail to produce numerous other observations (e.g. Cosmic Microwave Background).

      In other words, modified gravity can explain only one type of observations, requiring additional theories (such as dark matter....) to explain other observations. Dark matter can explain numerous different types of observations at once. And dark matter has been postulated by both astronomers and particle physicists for two very different reasons. So which choice seems more reasonable?

    5. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOND is just one theory - other modified theories of gravity can provide better explanations: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/m g18524834.000 (Remove the space between 'm' and 'g' to view, slashdot seems to clobber the URL)

    6. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, other theories of gravity exists (beside MOND), some of them explaining all the observed effects.

    7. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bekenstein's theory is a MOND theory. Moreover, it's a prime example of how many hoops you have to jump through to get MOND to work; even moreso than what you need to get dark matter to work. This Usenet article summarizes the opinion of one well-known gravitational physicist (and also reflects my own opinion on Bekenstein's paper). It is also unknown whether Bekenstein's theory -- which is extremely new -- really is a better explanation, because it has not yet been subjected to the full battery of tests to which dark matter has already been subjected. Read the paper for a list of some of them.

      As an aside, in science it's generally a poor idea to hail a month-old unpublished proposal as a valid alternative to a widely-accepted paradigm -- even if the author is Bekenstein. Ideas need to be published, vetted by peers, discussed and tested in the literature, before they can be accepted.

    8. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're the same AC who posted this, I already mentioned Bekenstein's paper, and used it as an example of what's wrong with MOND. First off, Bekenstein's theory does not explain all the observed effects -- if you actually read his paper, he says that there are a number of tests to which he has not yet subjected his theory. Second, read this response.

      If you're not the aforementioned AC and have theories other than Bekenstein's in mind, name them. I'm sure the astrophysics community will be fascinated to learn that dark matter has been superseded.

    9. Re:Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a new version of the old Usenet rule that "the first side to mention the Nazi loses" for using Abu Grahib when not talking about politics.

  26. I wonder .. by tiks · · Score: 1

    how would this perform with new 2.6 linux kernel ..
    the one they are using seems pretty old suse distribution

    --
    We are always correct.. even when we realize we were wrong.
    1. Re:I wonder .. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The dates on the pages are from two years ago. They might very well be running something newer now.

    2. Re:I wonder .. by drudd · · Score: 1

      Generally the applications you run on a supercomputer are dedicated (i.e. one process should get all of the CPU except when doing I/O and other kernel operations). Because of this, any scheduler should be able to do as well as any other, so there's no reason to change to a new kernel.

      Of course, changing the kernel might get you slightly better drivers and improve I/O performance, and perhaps memory allocation, but the linux 2.4 kernel was mature enough that I doubt there are any significant improvements for the type of jobs they run (CPU not I/O bound).

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
  27. Re:Slashdotting knows no borders.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Site is up, the main page with press release, pictures and movies here:
    http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/~moore/

    now then, will it withstand 40Mb movie downloads?

  28. Ob. Futurama: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't want to be the Swiss! The Swiss are small, and neutral... we're ambitious, and misunderstood... like Germany!

  29. "Patented" Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment is in regard to the physical design of the system and to that only. To quote from the web page:

    http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/~stadel/zBox/design .h tml

    Our patented design channels cool air directly into a central column within the machine from which it flows evenly over the component layers (Fig. 1).

    Granted, it's an interesting design for a super computer cluster but I wouldn't agree that it's that unique of a design concept. A lot of modern skyscrapers are built around this very same design. Basically theres' a central 'core' of the structure with the floors built around it. Again, I'm not nit-picking here but if the patent was granted on this design concept, I would definitely have to question that. It may be something new for a super computer but definitely not a super structure.

  30. Actually, this could be a good design for offices by panurge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually thought myself a few months ago about putting a group of 4 HDs and 4 mobos on a large aluminium plate, placing in a wide, flat enclosure and feeding air in at the center and out via 4 peripheral ducts to build a 4-way unit that could sit under a set of office desks arranged roughly in a square. The benefit is that the hardware takes up zero usable desk space, is well protected from physical damage, and the under-desk air flow results in low noise. For high density offices (e.g. call centers) with all power and network connections feeding in to the center of the desk clusters, this could be a very efficient arrangement. It's nice to know I was beaten to it by a Swiss supercomputer.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  31. Re:Not Funny: ZBox and Chinese Nuclear Weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, you jackass, China won't need nukes to dominate the West, they'll flood our shores with cheap consumer goods and accept outsourced positions and dominate us that way. While your kids will have to go to university until they're 45 just to get entry level jobs, the Chinese will have no such barriers of an older capitalist society.

  32. High energy gamma photons? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    You guys are screwed.
    From now on, I'm carrying a scorpion in my pocket!

    MUAHAHAHAHA

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  33. 6 Months? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the computer ran for 6 months straight using 1.8GHz processors, couldn't they have waited several months and utilized newer CPUs running at double the speed, halving the computation time?

    Regarding their design, I'm somewhat surprised they used an individual power supply for each board. It seems there would be more efficient and smaller power systems available that could power multiple boards at once. It looks like a quarter of the volume of the computer is comprised of power supplies. Plus all that extra heat is thrown into the mix too.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:6 Months? by William_Lee · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on homebrewing super computers, but I would think the reason they go with one power supply per cluster is for redundancy, so that it is very easy to swap out individual clusters with bad components.

      I would guess in these types of applications clean power is an absolute must which is another reason to use individual power supplies with more than enough juice on the rails to keep the CPU happy.

    2. Re:6 Months? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      No, because for them to "profit" computationally, the new CPUs would have had to come out before 3 months.

      Sometimes the measure of efficiency is called "you have X Euros to spend on this project".

      While not technically the most efficient, if said mobos+PCU+Power supply cost $250, compared to utilizing a bunch of blade-like units that effectively cost $500 per CPU unit, then you go with the less "efficient" solution.

      Sort of like all those render farms we've seen pictures of, where they just have 1000 or so white-box PCs set up together, not a few 96-CPU Microway blade systems, or a couple of decked out SGI Altrix systems.

    3. Re:6 Months? by nbert · · Score: 1

      Along with Forbman's comment I would also guess that doubling the CPU speed won't cut the time by half - other factors like bandwith also play a role. You also have to consider that newer CPUs will likely produce more heat and consume more power. The parts of the article I read suggest that they can't conduct much more heat.

    4. Re:6 Months? by wizard_of_wor · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's Zeno's Paradox meets Moore's Theorem.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    5. Re:6 Months? by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 1

      More or less. See the paper "The Effects of Moore's Law and Slacking on Large Computations".

      It's quite entertaining....

      http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/?9912202

    6. Re:6 Months? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Again, someone misses the fact that this cluster was done in 2003, when theren't any faster chips

      Even now, there aren't any chips that are twice as fast as a 1.8GHz Opteron. At the time, I think 2.0 was the max, and those get expensive, to the point where you are better off spending the money adding nodes than spending more per chip.

    7. Re:6 Months? by ottffssent · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you pervert Moore's law into a statement of speed, you end up coming out ahead for any computation that

      1) is CPU-bound rather than interconnect-bound or disk-bound or memory-bound
      2) will take 3 years+ with current technology / budget, and
      3) produces no useful intermediate results

      At 3 years, you come out even buying current tech and running it for 3 years versus waiting 18 months and buying spending the same money on tech that can do the job in 18 months.

      There are few such computations. Note that the universe simulation being discussed here does not qualify, even if it were run for the requisite 3 years. Clearly interconnect latency/bandwidth was a significant concern, necessitating special high-speed components and a torus topography.

    8. Re:6 Months? by RichDice · · Score: 1
      If the computer ran for 6 months straight using 1.8GHz processors, couldn't they have waited several months and utilized newer CPUs running at double the speed, halving the computation time?
      This 'research' regarding optimizing for this effect has already been done...

      Here's a google cache of it...

      (I searched on the name of a buddy of mine who worked on this paper to find this, which is why the search terms were like that.)

      Cheers,
      Richard

    9. Re:6 Months? by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but your post is far too accurate to get modded up.

    10. Re:6 Months? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      1) is CPU-bound rather than interconnect-bound or disk-bound or memory-bound

      Actually, Moore's law will probably help out with memory access speed. Also, if you're interconnect-bound Moore's law will allow you to keep total CPU power constant while reducing the number of CPUs, and consequently the number of interconnects.

      2) will take 3 years+ with current technology / budget, and

      I'll definitely agree there... Moore's law isn't THAT fast...

  34. zBox ancient design shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prettiest Swastika* you'd ever seen.

    http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/~stadel/pictures/zBox InitialPlan-small.gif

    * The emblem of Ganesha, the Hindu god of good luck.

  35. sure, dark matter. by Bongzilla · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Isn't dark matter like the cosmological constant? Like, there's no direct evidence for it existing, but if you plug it into the equations it makes everything balance out? Always sounded like extremely genius bullshit to me.

    --

    ;///////////////////////////////////////////////// /
    1. Re:sure, dark matter. by Heoko · · Score: 1

      Shhhh... Don't Say that, The Physicists will lose their funding!

      --
      Pie, A magical delicetessant!
  36. Will the simulation simulate the zbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    simulating the universe? If so, will the simulation simulate the simulation simulating the zobx simulating the universe

    My Head hurts.

  37. Great pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Everyone, take a look at those pictures. No, not of the results, but of the computer itself. The page goes over how they built the thing, with pictures of assembling the nodes, the frame, and the completed box. That's a sight to see, all the internal guts forming that piece of computing power.

  38. Wow... by ccharles · · Score: 4, Funny

    a self-built supercomputer

    I thought we where years away from having to defend ourselves against the machines...

  39. They make look so easy by g33ker · · Score: 0

    Funnily enough, it looks easy to make a supercomputer like this. Although, I'm not 100% sure how it works, like is each node an independant machine performing tasks for the host?

    1. Re:They make look so easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks easy, although you aren't sure how it works. Is this the way you feel about sex, too?

      Nothing personal, of course.

    2. Re:They make look so easy by g33ker · · Score: 0

      What I meant was, it looks easy-er than I thought it would be; If someone said to me: 'Build a supercomputer.' I'd have no idea where to start.

  40. WOW by CiXeL · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats alot of porn!

    1. Re:WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn... think of the pong factor!
      How many instances of pong can be played at the same time on this puppy? ... wow!

  41. Difference is the time frame I'd guess by hajihill · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you were trying to predict rain in the next six months it would be a lot easier than predicting it with any real useful accuracy.

    It's the difference between saying it does rain, and when it will. On this scale they are just explaining a phenomena that can happen every so often, in a stellar sense. I'm guessing this eases the difficulty of computation from what would be necessary to predict the number of years before the next occurrence.

    --
    Of blankness, I know nothing.
  42. Re:Not Funny: ZBox and Chinese Nuclear Weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool. I welcome China taking us over. The power structure in the West has risen a bunch of nihilists by continuously pressuring them "buy Buy BUY!" and then you want us all to care about the nation? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  43. This is really about cracks in Big Bang theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dark matter is necessary to support big bang theory, as without it, many of the predictions of the theory fail. This is the start of similar trends with previous cosmologies that ultimately collapsed under the weight of improbable necesseties like a quadrillion clouds of dark matter.

    1. Re:This is really about cracks in Big Bang theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like in 1846 how Newton's theory of gravity ultimately collapsed under the weight of improbable necessities like the existence of unseen sources of gravity to make the orbits of the planets come out right. Oh wait, it didn't -- an unseen body, the planet Neptune, was discovered.

      On the other hand, there was the perihelion precession problem of Mercury, which presaged general relativity.

      Lesson: sometimes discrepancies in theory mean you have to toss the theory, sometimes they mean that you've missed a contributing factor. Moral: wait for the experimental evidence to accumulate before declaring "cracks in a theory".

      Anyway, regardless of whether dark matter really exists or not, the fundamental tenet of Big Bang cosmology -- that the universe was once small, hot, and dense, and subsequently expanded and cooled -- will remain unchanged. The dark matter problem doesn't change that.

    2. Re:This is really about cracks in Big Bang theory by Heoko · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Yes, it will.

      And Humans will finally come out of the dark ages once the idea is "cracked". If people still quarrel about something that is PROVEN wrong or just plain stupid:

      Like the age of the Sphynx, the existance of Dark Matter. And you know "Merlin was one magical mofo, but those God Damn Native American Shamen's, they were just like Charls Manson,Savage and they used LSD and crap."

      Every time I look at history of scientific discovery, I allways see the Roman based cultures allways bash the people with their Ideals when they think everything "has been solved" and you cant do shit or we will kill you.

      now their is a lot less killing. But it still happens. You can just drown out the people yelling, screaming in your face that history and theory's are not allways right.

      Grow up people, we are not ominecient beings. If there is a discrepency lets not say

      "Wait there is something INVISIBLE, and we cannot detect it, and its EVERYWHERE, so we are not wrong!"

      I heard that in third grade while playing with my brothers, I wish I could kill this idea where it stands. But hell it makes us scientists alot of freaking cash!

      --
      Pie, A magical delicetessant!
    3. Re:This is really about cracks in Big Bang theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow down there, sizzlechest. Relax and take yer meds.

  44. SCI interconnect? by bundaegi · · Score: 1
    I checked the specs and saw the interconnect they used for the cluster is SCI provided by a company called dolphin. 64 bit cards, works with linux. Kind of expensive, though... SCI reminded me of an old project aimed at transporting TCP/IP packets over SCSI... There's even a page on sourceforge now and some benchmarks.

    Is SCSI P2P used in real world clusters though? How does it compare to SCI or gigabit ethernet? Price? Performance? Status of the project? No idea...

    --
    bundaegi is good for you
  45. Re:Slashdotting knows no borders.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well it's back up now...

  46. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    BuT DoEs It Run LinUx?

  47. Something else to look for by khallow · · Score: 1

    While finding nearby moving compact sources of gamma rays might be a way to find these things, another possibility is to look for smaller objects. For example, looking for seismograph records of the passage of a dark matter body through the Earth. Here, the Moon probably is better despite its smaller cross section area since it already has proven to be very quiet seismically.

  48. Actually... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    there's probably a a cancelled CBS comedy.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  49. INSPIRED BY HITLER??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better take another look at that "Back of an envelope" design.

  50. How much for the zBox? by sakahna · · Score: 0

    I can't find any hard numbers on how much this thing cost. Can anybody help?

  51. The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    42

    1. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I just double-checked. It's 43.

  52. Hmmmm by yodaj007 · · Score: 1

    Scientists at the University of Zurich predict that our galaxy is filled with a quadrillion clouds of boobies with the mass of the Earth and size of the solar system. I like this solar system.

    --
    These aren't the sigs you're looking for.
  53. Cooking the dog by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I had this novel idea - how to get hot women to come up to you in the street and do something really cool!

    Use flexible architecture to produce a dog jacket, that allows the hound to behave more or less normally. You could go looking for wi-fi hot spots and get your computer to play chess with other computers, while you walk the dog.

    Then I realised, two things:

    1. The dog would cook
    2. I don't have a dog

    Don't laugh. Packet loss could happen to any one.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  54. Blinkie Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are all the blinkie lights? Any self respectable supercomputer will decorate itself with blinkie lights.

  55. Where's my jet pack? by skids · · Score: 1


    Actually, where's my BOINC-ready space heater appliance?

  56. Interesting, gravity sucks not by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Whether the ions in the solar wind worked as an attractive force towards the rest of the galaxy would depend on whether they had enough energy to move out that far. If they had enough energy, then at least that would give me an opening to advocate pushing gravity again, which by the way is also a cool thing to simulate on a zBox.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  57. Seriously bad news for FTL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it, you are crusing along at 800c and you encounter an uncharted dust cloud.

    At least you'll never know what hit you.

  58. supermodel by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    There's a really impressive simulation, at the Hayden Planetarium ("Rose" something to the kids) in NYC, of a zoom-out from the planetarium, through the Solar System, the Milky Way, local groups, etc, to the "big picture": the entire 15B light-years of the known galaxy, with its weird stringy structures. It's generated from a 4D color model, projected inside the theater's dome, for a breathtakingly convincing ride.

    But it lasts only 30 minutes, and has Tom Hanks narrating over the otherwise superb soundsystem. I'd love to get the model and a renderer for my PC. I want to drive around, mix my own soundtrack, maybe pave a few planets in a 3D studio. I'm sure public money paid for the data, and probably the construction of the model. How do we get our copy?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:supermodel by kraut · · Score: 1

      This isn't exactly what you're after, but have a look at http://www.redshift.de/ - that's pretty impressive astronomy software.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    2. Re:supermodel by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks - it looks like it might be impressive. But I'm not paying $50 to find out (maybe that it's not). Isn't there a visualizer that all the astronomers use to swap around their datasets? I'd expect such a beast to be freely available for Linux, along with the data that our public research creates.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:supermodel by steve_vmwx · · Score: 1

      Yepo!

      The Hayden display is based on a package called Partiview. Google away :)

      Stevo

      --
      Forget the truth. Science is fact.
    4. Re:supermodel by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      Celestia might do some of what you are after. It's gorgeous, but only (!) simulates a hundred thousand stars or so.

      The software that astronomers use for visualisation tend to be either home-grown or else part of very complicated data reduction and analysis packages (eg IRAF, MIRIAD, AIPS++) that nobody in their right mind would want to use if they didn't have to!

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    5. Re:supermodel by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Woo hoo! Partiview is available as open-source, free packages for Linux. It uses open data formats, and datasets are available. Slashdot is cool, and Partiview is cooler! Thanks, Steve :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  59. Pionneer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice theory but probably total bullshit since it doesn't explain the anomalous slowdown of the pioneer 10 and 11 space probes

    1. Re:Pionneer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says it has to explain the Pioneer anomaly? The anomaly could be due to some other phenomenon.

  60. Neutralinos? by dgenr8 · · Score: 1

    Could someone explain why these clouds are postulated to be not only dark, but made out of an exotic new particle? Why can't they be clouds of hydrogen? You know... something normal. I can guess, but maybe a physicist would care to respond?

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

      We would be able to "see" hydrogen clouds. If they are not emitting light (i.e. they are dark), then they will still absorb light passing through them. And since they absorb/emit light preferentially at a few different frequencies, they produce a very convincing signature. So you can look at the spectrum of a distant galaxy and find several frequencies are dimmer than expected- you've just discovered a hydrogen cloud!

    2. Re:Neutralinos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because clouds of hydrogen are visible, either because they are lit by a nearby source or when they pass in front of something and absorb light passing through.

  61. Speed, speed, speed! by alienmole · · Score: 1

    The biggest reason for the design is the node interconnect speed. From the article:

    The 144 nodes (2 CPUs per node) are connected using an SCI fast interconnect supplied by Dolphin in a 12x12 2-dimensional torus. The layout of the machine is ring-like, thereby allowing very short "ribbon" cables to be used between the nodes. This fast interconnect network attains a peak bisection bandwidth of 96 Gbits/sec, with a node-node write/read latency as low as 1.5/3.5 microseconds.

    Commercial racks could not be hooked up that way, at least not without a real cabling mess at the very least, and at the cost of higher latency because of longer cable lengths.

    The bandwidth and latency figures quoted above are part of what makes this machine one of the fastest supercomputers of its time.

  62. Epicycles. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 1

    The tech is pretty cool, but I wonder if all they're doing with it is calculating modern-day epicycles.

    If the calculations are correct, then Dark Matter accounts for more mass than any single element in the universe, and has and is reacted on by gravity. There should be some of it close by to take a look at... there should be a good deal of it here on earth, as both earth and dark matter have gravity.

    I half-suspect that both dark energy and dark matter are unexpected aspects of gravity working are cosmic scales, but I don't understand the deep geek physics enough to really comment apart from the obvious:

    The existance of something so prevalent should be easily proven by direct observation. It hasn't.

    SoupIsGood Food

    1. Re:Epicycles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the calculations are correct, then Dark Matter accounts for more mass than any single element in the universe, and has and is reacted on by gravity. There should be some of it close by to take a look at... there should be a good deal of it here on earth, as both earth and dark matter have gravity.

      If dark matter is weakly interacting, as it is postulated to be, we wouldn't necessarily be able to detect it very easily, even if there is lots of of it close by. (Think of how hard it is to detect, say, neutrinos.) And even if it's 10 times more common than ordinary matter in the universe as a whole, that doesn't come out to be that high of an average density when compared to the interstellar medium; not enough for us to detect gravitationally in solar-system experiments. (We presumably can detect it gravitationally on larger scales, since it's what is postulated to account for galactic rotation curves, effects on cosmological expansion, etc.)


      I half-suspect that both dark energy and dark matter are unexpected aspects of gravity working are cosmic scales,

      It's possible, but believe it or not, numerous attempts have been made to explain the observations using only modified gravity theories, and they have been rather unsuccessful. See references to MOND elsewhere in the comments for a discussion of the currently most successful of the alternative gravity proposals.

      The existance of something so prevalent should be easily proven by direct observation.

      This does not follow; see above. In fact, there is no real reason to suppose that tons of weakly-interacting particles should not exist; who knows how many kinds of particles there could be, outside the Standard Model, that are at least as hard as neutrinos to observe and hence have never been directly detected. Their presence would, surprise surprise, should up most obviously in their large-scale gravitational effects.
    2. Re:Epicycles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wait, why would dark matter be less dense than regular matter? Shouldn't it clump up like hydrogen does? After all, it's affected by gravity, or else we wouldn't even be talking about it. In fact, we might expect it to form nodules denser than stars, if you consider that dark matter is weakly interacting, and thus less likely to form repulsive structures, like the fusion reactions in stars.

      I'm with the parent poster-- if we're restoring to Aether 2.0 as an explanation, I can believe that we're missing something fundamental.

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

      But wait, why would dark matter be less dense than regular matter? Shouldn't it clump up like hydrogen does?

      It should form clouds, which is what this project modeled. Its average density is denser than the average density of ordinary matter, but that's still very thin, and unlike ordinary matter, it doesn't gravitationally collapse to become much denser than average.

      In fact, we might expect it to form nodules denser than stars, if you consider that dark matter is weakly interacting

      No, we wouldn't expect that to happen. When ordinary matter collapses to form stars, it can only do so because non-gravitational interactions (i.e., collisions) between the particles reduce its angular momentum substantially. Weakly-interacting particles can't do that. They remain spread out. (Neutrinos, for instance, wouldn't form stars, even if you had a lot of them.) The densest they get is in galaxies -- in fact, their locally-dense clustering is thought to form galaxies. But that's still fairly diffuse, like the "dark clouds" being studied.

      I'm with the parent poster-- if we're restoring to Aether 2.0 as an explanation, I can believe that we're missing something fundamental.

      We're not resorting to aether 2.0. Aether doesn't have any observable implications. Dark matter does. In fact, dark matter is widely believed to be crucial to form the large-scale structure we see today. You can't do it with just any old dark matter, either; there are strong observational constraints as to what kind of matter will do the trick.
    4. Re:Epicycles. by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

      I agree ,I just refuse to help them.Let them work for their money.I cant wait for the day when they really have to produce something logical to stay alive.All of the answers are so easy .The bigest step is to reali Not telling.See

  63. Simulating the Universe? by demon_2k · · Score: 1

    How can you simulate the universe without knowing enought about it. There's still undiscovored planets and other objects which could change significantly the simulation. These unknown variables will cause inaccurate results.

    1. Re:Simulating the Universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planets are utterly negligible on galactic scales. For that matter, so are individual stars, or even clusters of stars. At the gross level of structure they're trying to predict, a gross level of approximation is sufficient.

  64. I miss the old days... by putaro · · Score: 1

    When men were men and supercomputers were really super. It used to take a real genius, like Seymour Cray, to design a computer that could be called "super". A bunch of PC's in a custom case just doesn't do it for me.

  65. Well then you're in luck... by Kunfyused · · Score: 1

    ...it's a cold day in hell when a scientist finds himself with funding for the pursuit of whimsical what-ifs.

    I am yet another practicing scientist and most assuredly find the philosophy of science interesting. I realize a single profession of interest does not make for a good opposing argument and if my kind is really such a minority, perhaps we should question our scientific integrity. However, I do wonder about where you draw the line between useful and pointless inquiry. While direct observation is the only means of validating theory, theorizing before means of observation are available is not a useless endeavor. I doubt anyone would elect to construct a gravitational wave detector or particle accelerator just for shits and giggles.

    --
    "I know I haven't been on my best behavior the past decade" -Some bit of dialogue from "The Life Aquatic"
  66. If you have Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    scroll past that image using the mouse wheel and it looks really cool.

  67. Well at least we've got the Big Crunch by Steve+Witham · · Score: 1

    And, in Asimov's story "The Last Question," the Big Crunch produced the Big Bang.