Slashdot Mirror


Iran Builds Supercomputer From Banned AMD Parts

Stony Stevenson writes with the news that, despite a ban on US PC hardware, Iranian techs have built an enormously powerful supercomputer from 216 AMD processors. The Linux-cluster machine has a 'theoretical peak performance of 860 gig-flops'. "The disclosure, made in an undated posting on [the University of] Amirkabir's Web site, brought an immediate response Monday from AMD, which said it has never authorized shipments of products either directly or indirectly to Iran or any other embargoed country."

61 of 778 comments (clear)

  1. Bush is relieved... by Schnoogs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...he now has the justification for invading Iran.

    Not only can they never be allowed to have nukes but it will be a cold day in hell before they are allowed to get the processing power to run Windows Vista!!!!!

    1. Re:Bush is relieved... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      but it will be a cold day in hell before they are allowed to get the processing power to run Windows Vista!!!!!

      No worries - they still don't have enough horsepower for Vista ;)

    2. Re:Bush is relieved... by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And, in the Vista licence, you can only run it on 2 or so processors, so in other news, MS is suing Iran for illegally using Vista.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    3. Re:Bush is relieved... by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

      AMDs, WMDs... What's the difference, really?

    4. Re:Bush is relieved... by MrShaggy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows of Mass destruction! I for one bow to our new Iraninan-Borg Overlord.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    5. Re:Bush is relieved... by kscguru · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, no worries, they're using Windows Vista Despot Edition. Unlimited processors, support for WMD simulation* (* = linear speed-up not guaranteed on Microsoft products), a new World Domination Wizard, and a customizable anti-American slogan at startup.

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    6. Re:Bush is relieved... by pluther · · Score: 5, Funny

      AMDs, WMDs... What's the difference, really?

      A type of root beer.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    7. Re:Bush is relieved... by magarity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Global Thermonuclear Jihad
       
      "The only way to win is to play"?

    8. Re:Bush is relieved... by Funkcikle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will 2008 be the year of Linux on the nuclear death machine mainframe? Next up, Iranian Information Minister Dvorakakakakak will tell us what the implications are.

    9. Re:Bush is relieved... by Fordiman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, no. Since A==0, it's closest tenth would be 0, so it's the base 26 equivalent of '900'. They're obviously going to use that linux cluster as a PBX for a massive phone sex scam.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    10. Re:Bush is relieved... by Mercano · · Score: 4, Funny

      a new World Domination Wizard. It looks like you're trying to take over the world. Need some help?
      --
      #include <signature.h>
    11. Re:Bush is relieved... by rvw · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be one of those people who can easily solve those "lateral thinking" problems.

      Like, "in what month do Australians drink the least beer?" Wasn't that last month?
    12. Re:Bush is relieved... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Technically, what they have is not precisely a despotic regime, although it not really democratic either. Iran's constitution is designed to be as democratic as possible, without quite being democratic.

      Essentially, there are two halves of the government, one of which consists of the Majlis (parliament) and the Presidency, which is elected in a straightforward fashion and is responsible for most day to day government work. The other half of the government consists of the Supreme Leader, Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts. That half doesn't so much do things as stop things from happening. It is empowered to interfere in any government or political process, including in extreme cases disqualifying candidates it does not like for standing for the election to the Majlis.

      In theory the Supreme Leader is indirectly elected: the people elect the Experts, and the Experts elect the Supreme Leader. However the Supreme Leader appoints the Guardians, who determine who may stand for election as an Expert. Therefore the Supreme Leader is in a position to indirectly disqualify any potential Expert who might vote against him.

      The system is much too cumbersome to be despotic, although it has despotic elements. It is certainly more democratic than the old Soviet political system, and there are a number of curious ironies in how it operates. For example, the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, is relatively speaking a political moderate and compared to the popularly elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is considered pro-western.

      Overall, the term "Islamic Republic" seems apt. A western republic is as democratic as it can be without encroaching on the prerogatives and liberties of the individual. Iran's government is as democratic as possible without encroaching on the prerogatives and authority of authorities in Islamic law.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Bush is relieved... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I still like Noam Chomsky's summary of Iran - Iran is a democratic utopia compared to Saudi Arabia (who the US fully supports).

  2. Don't panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Folks, no need to panic or call for invasion just yet. They still have twenty two more letters before they can get from AMD to WMD.

  3. Intel's new marketing slogan... by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intel Inside, at least we don't support terrorisim....

  4. Re:Oh well. by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it falls under the "It's my ball, and I'm going home" set of rules.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  5. Less than reputable resellers in the world?? by jzarling · · Score: 5, Funny

    Im shocked that there may be resellers who are less than reputable!

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  6. The Number of the Beast? by Sigismundo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it just a coincidence that their supercomputer has 216 processors which is 6 * 6 * 6 ???

    1. Re:The Number of the Beast? by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it just a coincidence that their supercomputer has 216 processors which is 6 * 6 * 6 ???

      That's right, Satan is a mathematician now...

      I guess he got tired of all the paperwork associated with being a lawyer.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. "Enormously Powerful" by rockmuelle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 years ago, yes. But, seriously, it takes only about $30k to build a tera-scale system with commodity parts. And, if single precision is OK, $2400 will get you 900 "gig-flops" worth of PS3s. Last time I went through Bahrain, you could buy those in the airport for your kids, so they shouldn't be too hard for the Iranian government to buy.

    Not sure what the story is here...

    -Chris

    1. Re:"Enormously Powerful" by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      10 years ago, yes. But, seriously, it takes only about $30k to build a tera-scale system with commodity parts. And, if single precision is OK, $2400 will get you 900 "gig-flops" worth of PS3s. Last time I went through Bahrain, you could buy those in the airport for your kids, so they shouldn't be too hard for the Iranian government to buy.

      Not sure what the story is here...

      -Chris My guess: The real story is that the joiurnalist and his/her editors couldn't wrap their noodles around the idea that that anyone except a select fer universities and think tanks could build a machine that can produce theoretical "Giga-"s.... And are equally clueless that the "Banned AMD technology" is anything more than commodity pc parts.....
      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  8. 'Banned'? by Stavr0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When's the last time AMD motherboard and CPUs have been manufactured in the US? AFAIK, they're all fab'd in Taiwan or China. These parts may never have entered of left the United States at all.

    1. Re:'Banned'? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The company is still a US company, and is required to obey US law regardless of whether the chip fab is in the US, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Germany, or Ireland. I've never seen an AMD chip fabbed in China.

      The ban on business with Iran goes well beyond military exports. It's a ban on business, period. It's called an embargo. It's to economically punish Iran for being enemies to the US and its allies.

      In case anyone hasn't noticed the course of the last 300 years of warfare, it's not the size of your population or the fealty of a few princes in neighboring cities that make a country powerful any longer. It's your economy. The size of your fleet of ships, tanks, planes, subs, helicopters, jeeps, and other vehicles is one key. The logistical support of modern electronics and a worldwide communications network is another these days. A distribution network for troops, equipment, and supplies is a third. The money to keep a standing army well trained is important. The more business you do with enemies or potential enemies, the stronger they can become militarily. All this has been the trend since at least the Industrial Revolution. It became a stark truth nobody could deny in the World Wars, especially WW II.

      This is why so many military people are interested in the US's levels of trade with China. We're not in a very friendly state with them, although relations are fairly solid. We send them more money every year, though, and their year-over-year growth in military spending is starting to closely follow the growth in the US/China trade imbalance. American consumers are supporting the Chinese military, and if they ever decide to assert that power against the US, it'll be those DVD players, dolls, lead-painted trains, and TVs that funded it. Relations with China are good enough right now, though, that it's kind of a long view type of mild concern. The Taiwan issue might change that some day, but China hasn't called for the death of the US, the UK, and Israel just yet, nor has their president denied the Holocaust.

      Iran, on the other hand, was ruled by a US ally. It was taken over by militant theocrats who held US citizens hostage for well over a year. Many of us still remember the yellow ribbons for those hostages. They have supported terrorists in Israel, and they are believed to be funding and supplying terrorists within Iraq. No, I don't mean insurgent freedom fighters. Insurgent freedom fighters don't blow up women and children at Mosques and in the marketplaces. Insurgent freedom fighters attack military personnel and military targets with minimal collateral damage to their own country's people and property. I believe there are some people in Iraq who really are trying to just fight against the US occupation, but there's something else going on there as well. Don't be fooled for a second into thinking that religiously ruled Shia Iran is keeping any money or weapons it supplies away from death squads killing Aramaic Christians, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds in the streets. If they are indeed placing weapons and supplies into Iraq as is claimed, it's surely to help the Shiite cause more than anything else.

      Why would a country so against what the US and our allies represent not be on a banned trading list? Hell, we still don't trade with Castro except for selling Cuba medicine and food. I still can't legally buy a Cuban cigar just because he nationalized a bunch of US-owned nightclubs and hotels and took the country socialist. Sure, Castro's a dictator, but when has that single fact ever stopped the US? I'd remove Cuba from the list long before Iran. Hell, we're even friendly with Libya now, and they blew up a Pam Am flight in the 80's. But Iran? No. Not under Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.

    2. Re:'Banned'? by Khuffie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to point out your history of Iran, please don't act like the US was clean. The US ally you referred to that ruled Iran was installed by the US government after an operation by the CIA to overthrow a freely elected leader. To Iran, the US is seen as terrorists, mostly for meddling with the sovereignty (sp?) of other nations.

  9. new crunching machine by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess we'll expect to see Team Tehran moving up in the seti@home rankings.

  10. Re:Obligatory by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

    I suggest that from now on, we just use "Obligatory .... Nevermind" and bypass any pretense of anything else.

    See below for example ....

    Subject: Obligatory

    Comment: Nevermind

    We'll eventually just shorten it to

    Subject: Nevermind

    Comment:

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  11. Good for them by Sylvak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, I'm getting tired of governments who are scaring their citizens about Iran's threat to this world. I'm glad they were able to achieve this despite all the embargoes against them.

  12. Doesn't make the top 500... by flabbergast · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Iranian supercomputer falls far behind the world's fastest computers. In November, the BlueGene/L System, jointly developed by IBM and the U.S. Department of Energy was ranked No. 1 in the world with a benchmark performance of 478.2 teraflops. A teraflop equals a trillion calculations per second."

    Indeed, the article mentions at the end that it falls far behind the rest of the world. In fact, to make the Top 500 this year you had to have a supercomputer worthy of 5.9 Teraflops.

  13. I am encouraged by this by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This tells me that there are university professors and students who are passionate about hi-tech. That passion is a productive alternative to the other model we have of Iran as a bunch of wild eyed fundamentalists who want to bomb the world back to the 8th century. Perhaps this competing force of moderation in Iran will grow its influence through hi tech and universities.

  14. Re:Too bad... by webmaster404 · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, they just want to play WoW without any lag.

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
  15. Re:Oh noes! by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realise that it was the Australian media that posted this.. not the US Media... I mean seriously.. this is not even a case of reading the fucking article.. its a case of mousing over the link to the fucking article and seeing its a .au domain... Don't be such a lazy ass.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  16. They are the Boogeymen! by explosivejared · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you get it. We have to be afraid of Iran. They are a threat. Ahmidnidaklsjadeasred, whatever, wants to end civilization as we know it!! With this SUPERCOMPUTER they could calculate the exact coordinates of New York and bomb it into oblivion!! (end sarcasm)

    Seriously though, Iran is a scapegoat for US politicians. They can't handle, politically, the fact that their foreign policy initiatives fail consistently in the Middle East. They need a shadowy, vageuly evil figure to pit the fear of the electorate against the critical thinking of the electorate, which is the side that says invasions, coups, and exploitation aren't working. If it weren't for the Iran, the Iraq war would have zero political viability. Instead, Iran provides a "threat" so it becomes politically viable to call for indefinite troop deployment.

    This is a most bizarre case of symbiotism. Ahmadinejade is pretty much an idiot (see no gays in Iran comment) who doesn't really have all that special of a record. Is he a threat to world civilization, probably not. He does, however, say enough dumb things that he gives political capital to his enemies in the west. His enemies in the west return the favor by imposing sanctions, threatening pre-emptive attacks, etc. It's a twisted quid pro quo kind of thing. He gets to appeal to Iranian nationalism against the threat of American attack, and the White House gets to appeal to Americans' fears of an evil terrorist state with nukes and a supercomputer.

    Moral of the story is that fear, uncertainty, and doubt breeds political power. Any time someone tells you to be afraid, take it with a grain of salt.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by seven+of+five · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahmadinejade is pretty much an idiot

      Yeah, but our idiots are better than their idiots!

      U-S-A! U-S-A!

    2. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahmadinejade is pretty much an idiot (see no gays in Iran comment) who doesn't really have all that special of a record. Is he a threat to world civilization, probably not. He does, however, say enough dumb things that he gives political capital to his enemies in the west. Calling somebody who apparently was in the top 99.9% on his college entrance exams and with a degree in civil engineering and Ph.D in transportation engineering an idiot is 'pretty much' lame. He may not be wise, or may be too religiously conservative for us, but I seriously doubt he's so stupid. More likely he is pandering to the Arabs for good will by agreeing with them on the subjects they care most about. You know, the people that actually live in the same region.

      It seems he gets mistranslated a lot too, like about the wiping off the map, or about there not being gays like in the US. Maybe he meant as in with their own parades and being in everybody's face... although I hear that the Iranians watching also laughed at that one. I don't know, but it sounds to me like an Al Gore "invented the internet" kind of spin.
    3. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by jackpot777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What IF Iran finds unicorns that poo gold bars?

      Because if America is basing foreign policy on hypothetical situations that are contradicted by real intelligence reports / common sense, just imagine what Iran could do IF they had enough unicorn poo gold to destabilize the dollar blah blah Amero blah SuperInterstateHighway the width of Manhattan blah blah tin foil hats blah Ron Paul?

      They have guns. And yet they don't shoot across the Iraqi border with reckless abandon. And North Korea has the bomb, and yet South Korea still steadfastly refuses to be a glass ashtray.

      Hmmmm.

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    4. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by Bandman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a whole lot of research you can do with a super computer that doesn't involve nuclear attacks.

      Also, out of curiosity, how is it a discussion of equals right now in the M.E. when Israel has nuclear weapons and no one else does (that we know of)?

    5. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by galoise · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ehem, isn't israel "a bunch of religious radicals with nuclear bombs" too? actually... i'd say that a country that even remotely considers discussion of creationist views as part of their science curricula a bunch of religiuos radicals... why is Iran religious radicalness worse than israel's or USA's?

      --
      entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    6. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by Ungulate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the prospect of a nuclear Iran seems disquieting on the surface, I have to wonder if that's really the case. The only time nuclear weaponry has ever been used was at a time when only one power possessed the technology. Mutually assured destruction is a very powerful deterrent. Sure, you can find a few extremist crazies willing to give up their lives, but getting an entire nation to suicide bomb is a harder prospect.

    7. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by tomatensaft · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hehe, last time I (and some others) checked, Iranian leader did not in fact threaten to wipe anything off the map. It turned out to be a mistranslation by a bunch of incompetent journalists.

    8. Re:They are the Boogeymen! by AxeTheMax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last time I checked, Israel had invaded neighbouring countries several times - 1956 (Egypt), 1966 (Egypt, Syria, Jordan), 1978, 0982 and 2006 (Lebanon). Iran has invaded no one, not in the ayatollah's period, and not for decades or perhaps even centuries before that. It has however been invaded by Iraq (1980), with the aggressive support of the US, one feature of which was an unprovoked shooting down of a civilian airliner over open sea by the US Navy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_6550. They have reason if they feel paranoid.

  17. Largest non-porn computer by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is notable because it is the largest amount of computer power assembled that will never be used to collect porn.

  18. Re:It's one thing to have a supercomputer.... by protolith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe they want to play a wicked fast game of pong...

  19. Re:Oh well. by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 4, Informative

    .basically we don't like Iran, so we can't do business with them at all.
    Unless, of course, we're Halliburton! (Read the 9th entry)
    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  20. You cannot ban commodities, it just doesn't work by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Computer chips are now commodities. Back in the day they weren't, but the times moved on. Trying to ban computer chips from reaching anyone who wants to buy them is like trying to ban corn, oil, gas, rice, or soybeans. It's just not going to happen. These computer chips are sold around the world in bulk quantities at low prices. In addition most of these things aren't even manufactured on US soil anymore.

    The idea that you can somehow 'ban' a country from getting ahold of a commodity is ludicrious and stupid. The only way you could really do that would be to effectively seal and close their borders militarily and embargo them to the point that you controlled all of their travel and trade outside of their borders. Good luck with that.

  21. Could someone explain by pembo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why Iran is not (apparently) allowed to have nuclear energy, or high powered computers? Have they ever detonated a computer guided nuclear weapon in someone else's country?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  22. Re:Oh well. by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  23. Re:Oh well. by Arcturax · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess they went to the blowout sale for the CompUSA in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  24. Re:Oh noes! by UdoKeir · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually the link is an Australian repost of an American media story. Here's the original (as linked in the Australian repost): http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204800653&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

  25. Cause for concern by acb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Iran has vowed to annihilate Israel, which is an (undeclared) nuclear power. It would be impossible for Iran to have anything resembling a chance of doing so without effective nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them, and impossible to get a nuke working reliably without testing it. (Imagine if you're Ahmadine-Jihad and your nuke misfires, showering undetonated uranium over downtown Tel Aviv; not only has your glorious jihad failed before it ever began, but you are, to all intents and purposes, screwed.)

    Were Iran to test a nuclear weapon in real life, they would get noticed pretty quickly (the seismic readings would see to that), and a preemptive strike would soon follow. (Once there is no doubt that the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons, there'd be little resistance to ensure that they don't succeed; it's not only the US, Europe and Israel who are worried, but their Sunni Islamic neighbours, regarded by them as apostates, are none too comfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran. Add to that Ahmadine-Jihad's support of the concept of martyrdom (the Iranian government actually recruits suicide bombers for jihadist attacks against US/Jewish/Sunni interests), and you've got the sort of nuclear power that can't be trusted to do the sensible thing and sit on its nukes as a defensive weapon of last resort.

    As such, supercomputing power of this sort would be vitally important in running nuclear simulations and perfecting a bomb.

  26. Before you panic by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The purpose of this machine is forecasting and meteorological research, which imho is a reasonable thing for the nation of Iran to do. Granted this just what they say the computer is for, but we only know about it because they announced that they built it. If it was a computer that designed nuclear weapons (or whatever), we can assume they wouldn't tell anyone about it.

  27. It just doesn't matter by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most US nuclear weapons were designed using computers under 1 MIPS. Even the fusion bombs. About 40 years ago, I was visiting a UNIVAC 1105 installation (the biggest all-vacuum-tube computer ever built as a commercial product, designed when Gen. Leslie Groves was at UNIVAC), and they'd done some work on bomb design. It took about two days per run, and they'd run the program at the same time some other location was running it. Every three hours, the console typewriter would print out a checksum, and they'd phone the other location to see if it matched. If not, they had to back up to the last checkpoint tape and restart.

    This huge machine was comparable in power to a PC/AT with an FPU chip; a good 1985 desktop.

    The silly thing about export controls on computers is that the U.S. Government keeps increasing the control threshold for "supercomputers". The current threshold is 750 gigaflops, which is a few racks of servers. In 1995, it was 2 gigaflops, or about where a low-end PC is today. Back in 1987, there was a big flap when Iran tried to get hold of a VAX 8600, which is about 0.005 gigaflops. But bomb design isn't getting any more difficult.

    Any modern laptop can do the calculations necessary for bomb design. Deal with it.

  28. because they are a theocracy by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ultimate power rests in a bunch of grumpy old men who believe they have a monopoly on determining what god wants

    that doesn't bother you?

    whether pro-usa, or anti-usa, or pro-israel, or anti-israel, this should bother you, regardless

    i'm sorry, but in this world, very little concepts frighten me more than a theocracy with nukes

    and i'm not talking about the loose propagandistic label of "theocracy" one might apply to say, the usa, because the current president (who will soon be gone) is a conservative southern baptist. i'm talking about an actual, stated, as clearly implied in the constitution, theocracy. as in, our government serves god and those unelected grumpy old men over there interpret what he wants. the real deal, a real genuine clearly stated theocracy

    any rational human being should feel threatened by a theocracy with nukes. regardless of any of your other concerns in the middle east, or any of your other politics in general

    http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html

    Article 2

    The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

    1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
    2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
    3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
    4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
    5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
    6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  29. Re:Oh noes! by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are wrong.

    Google the news on Iran and that latest CIA report that says Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003. Guess what you'll find -- the EU, France, Germany and others basically saying the U.S. intelligence is flawed and Iran is a much greater nuclear threat than that report states.

    France and Germany are pushing for harsher sanctions than the U.N. ones. They want separate EU sanctions on Iran, and still call their nuclear program "a threat".

    The Middle East nations all are fearful of Iran as is, and terrified of them having nuclear weapons. Arabs != Persians.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  30. Easy to locate by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since they're using AMD, this should be an easy target to visit with your basic heat seeking missile.

    Unless, of course, the signature overwhelms the sensor.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  31. Re:Oh well. by Poruchik · · Score: 5, Funny

    CompUSA + Iraq = Compaq

    --
    $signature =~ s/$signature//;
  32. You don't know SHIT! But I will 'try' to educate by linumax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "It takes them from a bunch-of-religious-radicals with guns to a bunch-of-religious-radicals with a nuclear bomb."

    So sick of this misconception and ignorance, I really want to insult you somehow, but since that probably won't help much, I'll explain:

    There are a few religious radicals in Iran in the lower to mid levels of the government, but they are significantly outnumbered by the other group.

    Wanna know who this other group is? Please read on, till the end...

    I start with someone you are familiar with; do you consider Dick Cheney a radical Christian or a ruthless businessman which uses religion or any other tool as a means to make profit? like when he talks about supporting the troops does he really care about the troops or he has an agenda of his own?
    Well, Cheney is one of the members of the "Other Group", the businessmen, except he is American.

    In Iran we have our own businessmen. Since the 'Islamic' revolution of 1979, these people have taken over the government in a country where 90%+ of the economy is owned and operated by the government.

    A clear example, is the largest of these business entities: Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), most recent bogeyman on CNN/FOX. While the American media focuses on the 'military' part of IRGC's operation, they neglect to mention the much much bigger side of IRGC.
    Revolutionary Guards is the single biggest business entity in Iran, they build all the dams, bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad, they operate civilian airports all across the country, they do the largest mining operations, they own many of the largest and most profit generating financial institutions in Iran and this list goes on forever.
    Almost half of the members of the current parliament are former IRGC members, Ahmadinejad himself made his way to being Tehran's Mayor and later, Iran's president through IRGC.

    Another example is Mesbah Yazi, a mid-level clergy, known as the mentor of Ahmadinejad, the biggest fucking piece of shit I know in Iran. Plays the same role to Ahmadi Nejad as Dick plays to Bush. But there's another side to this guy, he is also known as "Sultan of Sugar" in Iran. He controls import, distribution and sale of all Sugar in Iran. Believe me, in a country of 70 million population a monopoly on sugar is better than a monopoly on gold mines. He also says that the 'Zionist regime' of Israel is doomed, however nuking them means end of the sweet sugar business for him.

    Former president Rafsanjani, former parliament speaker Nategh Noori and many others are businessmen too. They don't give a fuck about religion unless in public when preaching people.

    In conclusion, I just want you to think, what benefit does nuking Israel which guarantees a much much harsher reaction from Israel bring to these ruling businessmen? See, that's why Iran, even with nukes is no threat at all to any other country?

    All that matters to these people is survival of their business, they are not religious zealots, they don't believe in the second coming or afterlife or crap like what they preach to people. If a day comes where wiping their asses with pages of Quran helps them keep control of their business, then that's what they WILL HAPPILY DO.

    Thanks for reading my rant.
  33. "because they are a theocracy" So? by bareman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How exactly is their form of government supposed to be any more of a threat with nuclear weapons than any other form of governance which posseses nuclear weapons? Why is a constitutional theocracy more dangerous to the world than a 'democracy' ruled by theocrats?

    Are the leaders of a theocracy any less motivated by desire for wealth and power? Are they more suicidal than a theocrat, or any other politician, ruling a democracy?

    I haven't seen anything in your argument showing why a theocracy is more of a danger with nukes beyond using "theocracy" as a magic fearphrase like "think-of-the-children" etc.

  34. Should have bought Playstations by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting
    US supercomputer export laws are constantly being revised - the Sony Playstation 2 and Playstation 3 were both fast enough to be illegal-to-export supercomputers when they came out. This new Iranian machine is about 2% as fast as the world's fastest - and about as fast as the fastest machine of 1996-1997. It's also about as fast as the cluster of 70 PS2s that a US university built 4 years ago, or the cluster of 8 PS3s that an astrophysicist built this fall.


    Getting good performance out of cluster machines requires some work, but that's what open source software and spare grad students are for. You can't use them for every kind of problem, but they're pretty flexible, and they're certainly good enough for most kinds of nuke design or fluid flow.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  35. Re:Not too hard by Ajehals · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm,
    From:
    The Iranian Consulate
    50 Kensington Court
    Kensington
    London
    W8 5DB

    To:
    PC World
    47/53 Kensington High Street
    Kensington
    London
    W8 5ED

    0.2 mi - Quite a bit less than a 5 minute walk.

    Head east on Kensington Ct (259 ft)
    Turn left to stay on Kensington Ct (240 ft)
    Turn left at A315/Kensington Rd &
    Continue to follow A315 (0.1 mi)

    Not really that far, There's even a McDonalds just a little further on after PC World if you need a snack before you head back.
    Of course on the downside you would end up paying over the odds for anything you buy....

  36. Re:It's not design, it is testing by abb3w · · Score: 3, Informative

    However supercomputers have now progressed to the point that you can actually TEST a bomb all in software.

    This is inaccurate.

    The basic nuclear design tools are finite element modeling and Monte Carlo simulations. With larger and larger number of elements modeled, you can get more and more accurate simulations in the same timeframe, so that the model has closer and closer resemblance to experimental reality. You also need some baseline data; some of that is declassified, some can be obtained experimentally on smaller scale using neutron beams, lasers, and high explosives. But the most important data on the high efficiency yield properties, and the algorithmic optimizations allowing rapid and detailed simulations, remain classified.

    Even with a supercomputer design, without an actual test, you can't be sure your extrapolations and simulations will be as good as you hope. Getting a nuclear explosion isn't the real challenge; it's making one that's efficient. (This may have been North Korea's problem; sub-kiloton yields can result if you make a mistake.) However, a good computer lets you get a better idea of the sorts design variants you want to play with before you go risking your very expensively obtained fissionables on a test explosion.

    But basic work and a rough model once you have the basic materials data? Two days on the HP-49 calculator, including programming time. A 7x7x7 element model gives you numbers that will be within 10% of the final... which does translate into an order of magnitude difference in possible yield, but anything from 1 to 100 kilotons still gets attention.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.