Slashdot Mirror


US Gov't Blocks Sales To Russian Supercomputer Maker

Nerval's Lobster writes "T-Platforms, which manufactured the fastest supercomputer in Russia (and twenty-sixth fastest in the world), has been placed on the IT equivalent of the no-fly list. In March, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security added T-Platforms' businesses in Germany, Russia and Taiwan to the 'Entity List,' which includes those believed to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. U.S. IT companies are essentially banned from doing business with T-Platforms, especially with regards to HPC hardware such as microprocessors, which could be used for what the government views as illegal purposes. The rule, discovered by HPCWire, was published in March. According to the rule, Commerce's End-User Review Committee (ERC) believes that T-Platforms may be assisting the Russian government and military conduct nuclear research — which, given historical tensions between the two countries, apparently falls outside the bounds of permitted use. An email address that T-Platforms listed for its German office bounced, and Slashdot was unable to reach executives at its Russian headquarters for comment."

116 comments

  1. US vs. Russia & China by drinkydoh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These artificial limitations on what and with who US companies can work with are just creating a wall between US and other countries. The nations that mainly benefit from this are Russia and China and they can do a lot of business and even military research together. Not only that but Russia and China have always been good friends, even after soviet russia fell down.

    Therefore, both Russia and China wins and US loses.

    1. Re:US vs. Russia & China by ButtonMashingGorilla · · Score: 1

      Not only that but Russia and China have always been good friends, even after soviet russia fell down.

      Friends with whom? With each other I will agree to; There is considerable tension in the past between the US and the USSR, as well as the current issues between the US and China and the US and Soviet Union.

    2. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...Russia and China have always been good friends, even after soviet russia fell down.

      I guess you never heard of the Sino-Soviet Split then? Other than that, I agree with you. The US is only harming itself by alienating Russia and China. They will now have more incentive to work together, and with the amount of money their economies are pulling in it will only be a matter of time before they overtake the West.

    3. Re:US vs. Russia & China by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Redundant

      These artificial limitations on what and with who US companies can work with are just creating a wall between US and other countries. The nations that mainly benefit from this are Russia and China and they can do a lot of business and even military research together. Not only that but Russia and China have always been good friends, even after soviet russia fell down.

      Therefore, both Russia and China wins and US loses.

      It's time to stop pretending all this is going to work. If anyone in the world wants software or hardware it's pretty easy to get it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Minter92 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that but Russia and China have always been good friends, even after soviet russia fell down.

      Actually this statement is inaccurate. Russia and China have been antagonistic toward each other through most of the past. There was a short period of cooperation after the Chinese civil war but that quickly turned sour as the two countries differed in their approaches to communism. Relations only began to improve after the fall of the USSR

    5. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The USSR and China were not always good friends. Research Eisenhower's foreign policy and the difference between urban industrial focused communism and rural agrarian focused communism.

    6. Re:US vs. Russia & China by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's time to stop pretending all this is going to work. If anyone in the world wants software or hardware it's pretty easy to get it.

      It works as well as expected. It slows things down but doesn't pretend stop the flow of information completely. Nobody except the black and white brigade thinks otherwise. Slowing your enemy down is a useful strategic goal. And, in this case, Russia and China are enemies in the great game.

      And lots of things aren't 'easy' to get. You might get the part. You won't get much support. And in complex tech, support is often a deal breaker.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:US vs. Russia & China by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      The U.S. isn't necessarily trying to stop other parts of the world (South Africa) from buying supercomputers from Russia. They are worried that banks or other infrastructure in the U.S. will buy computers that could easily be compromised by many back doors. I don't think this is going to work out well anyway.

      If anything requires that much security, thats one heck of a complex project that I don't even know if it could be successfully implemented without going to "dangerous, un-audited" sources of labor, parts or resources.

      Maybe this is just a symptom of the U.S. becoming paranoid in general of the world. Slippery slope stuff. N.K. has lots of rules like this, but for every day things.

    8. Re:US vs. Russia & China by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Only if having a local dedicated support team is expensive. And guess what, it is true only in US.

    9. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These artificial limitations on what and with who US companies can work with are just creating a wall between US and other countries.

      At least we (the US) can manage to build a wall somewhere.....

    10. Re:US vs. Russia & China by poity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're making the assumption that the US's plan rests entirely in closing the "open market" gate. Of course it won't stop unwanted tech transfer, so of course it can't be the whole plan, because there will always be black markets and back channels. However, those routes are places where intelligence agencies thrive, and by limiting the avenues of sale, the US makes it more likely that the Russian company or their proxies stumble across CIA-compromised suppliers. It doesn't stop a determined buyer, but it will make that buyer think twice, use more diligence, and generally expend more time, effort and resources to avoid falling into such traps, which, given enough of these speed bumps, will make their project increasingly cost-prohibitive. That's what I think they're doing -- they know they can't stop it, so making Russia pay out the ass to accomplish their goal is the next best option.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    11. Re:US vs. Russia & China by hjf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Argentina tried to buy 5 nVidia TESLA units. We bought 4 and when we ordered the 5th (a public university here in Argentina) the US export controls kicked in. They had to send someone to the US to explain why they wanted "so much computing power".

      We were developing a UHD 3D video codec.

      (We as in Argentina. I have no participation in that).

      Argentina is not China, Russia, and has never been an enemy, or at war, with USA.

    12. Re:US vs. Russia & China by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The US provided material support to the UK in the Falklands War and promised manpower if the UK lost an aircraft carrier. Which is just about as close to "enemy" as you get.

    13. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the US is at war with the whole world until it has full control over global economics.

    14. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Argentina is not China, Russia, and has never been an enemy, or at war, with USA.

      The USA has always been at war with Argentina.

    15. Re:US vs. Russia & China by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Sure sure, but does this really apply as well to your frenemies?

      Lets be serious, there is no real concern with the USSR having a nuclear program. If there is any country in the entire world where we have less interest in interfereing with their nuclear program, I don't know who it is. To call this a day late and a dollar short is being generous.

      So whats the REAL issue? Because this sort of pissing back and forth tends to be over far more petty and mundane issues than pretending to be actual enemies.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Dr.Bykoff · · Score: 1

      USSR wasn't "communist" country - it's a Western media myth

    17. Re:US vs. Russia & China by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Except that Russia has changed a whole lot since the Soviet Union disintegrated, but for the US bureaucrats, nothing happened. Hence, in their foreign policy analysis, Russia is still considered an enemy, which is why you see moronic Western support to Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo and anything that's anti-Slavic.

    18. Re:US vs. Russia & China by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No True Scotsman....

    19. Re:US vs. Russia & China by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The comment read to me that Russia and China are friends, not that the US and China/Russia are friends,

    20. Re:US vs. Russia & China by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      You can use that argument against any economic system that you want to justify that failed.

      They referred to themselves as communist - western media did not start that label.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

    21. Re:US vs. Russia & China by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      These artificial limitations on what and with who US companies can work with are just creating a wall between US and other countries.

      The wall is full of holes. Companies can still sell equipment to a middleman that then resells to Russia. Even if this is forbidden, it is completely unenforceable if the middleman is not a US company.

    22. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They called their party communist, but they never claimed to be already a communist country, they claimed that the USSR was a socialist country under the rule of the one and only party, which was considered to be a required step to become a communist country.

    23. Re:US vs. Russia & China by hjf · · Score: 1

      The US has decided to remain neutral in the Malvinas affair in the past few years. Which is just about as close to an "ally" as we can get.

    24. Re:US vs. Russia & China by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the claim wasn't "isn't an enemy now" it was "has never been an enemy".

    25. Re:US vs. Russia & China by cusco · · Score: 2

      Back in the '80s IBM was prohibited from selling computers to the USSR by the US government. They built a factory in Tacna, Peru, and that subsidiary merrily sold the Soviets all the computers they could come up with cash for.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    26. Re:US vs. Russia & China by cusco · · Score: 2

      Argentina doesn't cooperate nicely with the New York bankers any more. They're paying off loans early, not selling of their infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, and generally acting like they're more concerned for the benefit of their own citizens rather than the mega-corporations. In Washington DC that's seen as 'hostile' actions.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    27. Re:US vs. Russia & China by mutantSushi · · Score: 1

      This is about supercomputers used for scientific modelling, not servers for banks or infrastructure.

    28. Re:US vs. Russia & China by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      This is about supercomputers used for scientific modelling, not servers for banks or infrastructure.

      Which are supercomputers of another sort, but supercomputers nonetheless.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    29. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia and China have always been good friends...
      you're a fuckin dope.
      and so are the dopes who mod up pure stupidity.

    30. Re:US vs. Russia & China by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      In which case we'd be really shooting our scientists in the foot by limiting their options severely. Well I guess maybe not that bad considering SRI international is now in charge of operations over at Arecibo and they are maybe a bit less affected by this. But there are still plenty of smaller universities, schools, and corporations that could use scientific computing on the cheep. (yes they need small "supercomputers" to do digital analysis on the insane amounts of data that is collected). This should be mostly unaffected by the industrial espionage and spy shit the bigger governments are pulling. Then again are the Chinese and Russians so mad at us that they would literally mess with astrophysics research...

      I could see the government getting involved if it was DARPA project money. But that should be in the guidelines of the project, not a blanket rule for all in the country to follow and many larger projects are no longer secret and open for anyone or sold to companies like SRI. Keep secret and non-secret systems separate. But it seems like now-a-days they want secrecy everywhere so they expect Universities to require security clearance now and have certified computer networks. Kinda dumb ;p It should be departmental, and universities should be asking for time on the governments certified hardware, not the other way around. That is if the gov is concerned about security for important mission critical war fighting computing resources.

    31. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Would those loans that they are supposedly paying back early be the same ones they have defaulted on and are refusing to pay? Those same outstanding loans that are forcing the government to send public owned ships and aircraft to known safe way points and then having to lease third party aircraft to complete the journeys, just incase creditors have the presidents aircraft repossessed?

    32. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spelled "Falkland Islands" wrong.

    33. Re:US vs. Russia & China by lxs · · Score: 1

      The US has in the past been at war with Japan as well. Are there restrictions on selling GPUs to Japan? My point is, times change as do allegiances. Besides, if US business is so powerful then why does it still allow the military to tell them who to sell to?

    34. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argentina is not China, Russia, and has never been an enemy, or at war, with USA.

      At least officially.

      If Argentina would have gotten lucky and sunk a carrier you might have found out whose side we were really on. It is probably a good thing you didn't, or you might glow in the dark. Hell, we even gave them access to Vortex. The relationship doesn't get any more special than that.

      Seriously, President Kirchner is shaping up to be a replacement Hugo Chavez. You're not a US or UK ally. Do not overplay your hand.

      You know, I know the US plays hardball in its own interests.. most nations do. But I would not count on screwing around with the UK, Australia, or Canada and not expect to end up with the US in the fray on their behalf.

    35. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With us giving them access to spy satellites, a backup carrier (albeit a small troop transport model), and other intel support without you knowing about it then, what makes you think we're not doing it now?

    36. Re:US vs. Russia & China by hjf · · Score: 1

      hahaha lol. replacement for chavez? stop reading the right wing papers, dude. argentina is broke, chavez was keeping us in welfare. cristina doesn't have a cent now, and no one to finance her. chavez had oil, we have nothing.

    37. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at these machines, the key components are from Intel and probably Xilinx. They are almost totally dependant on the US at the moment. An Embargo will make the Russian state build their own CPUs and FPGAs. It will communicate the message that you need a vassal of the US to get access to anything sophisticated.
      The Russians are not the fastest and sharpest, but they will eventually realize the problem and act accordingly. In a big-time, strategic fashion.

    38. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very much an idiot if you believe that for a second. UK-USA is more or less a single thing "behind the scenes". They share the fingerprints, the DNA, the color of the underpants and the "secret" messages of your head of government. They just don't talk about that in public.

      And certainly the US as the effective 51st state will always be preferred over anybody else. In weapons, in intel, in finance and everything. The US was once a part of the UK, you know.

    39. Re:US vs. Russia & China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errata: "... the UK as the effective..."

    40. Re:US vs. Russia & China by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ... and embargoes are pretty easily circumvented. All this does is add another level of "piss the customer off" to the process.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. BLOCK THE SALE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just let China/Taiwan sell it to them !!

  3. Well, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot was unable to reach executives at its Russian headquarters for comment."

    Executive's secretary: "Sir, Slashdot wants to talk to you."

    Russian Executive: *rolling eyes* "That's OK. No need to respond I know what they're going say. 'In Soviet Russia Super Computers you!'"

    1. Re:Well, of course! by gtirloni · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who cares about Russian supercomputers. I think Slashdot attempting to check the facts is the big news here.

      --
      none
    2. Re:Well, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful!

  4. Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot, I'd like to speak to...

    *click*

    I find it very amusing to think of Timothy calling up a company in Russia for comment on why they just got blacklisted by the US Gov't. I'm not sure why, though it could be because every time I see his name on the editor line I think of the monkey from ThinkGeek.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot... by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1

      Any one that would use Slashdot in their greeting would be hung up on. "Oh Slashdot, that website with all those shit disturbers...we will get back to you on that."

    2. Re:Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I find it very amusing to think of Timothy calling up a company in Russia for comment on why they just got blacklisted by the US Gov't.

      I guess you've never tried. I talked to the US Department of Treasury once as a member of the press merely by being a volunteer for a not for profit prediction market which in case you're wondering is a lot less authoritative a position than being a Slashdot editor (though better than a drunk in bar). Some will talk to you. Some won't. All it takes is a telephone call or email to find out.

    3. Re:Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot... by guttentag · · Score: 0

      (On the second attempt, Timothy calls again using a blatantly falsetto voice)

      Timothy: Hi, this is Dawn Kawamoto from Dice. I'd like to speak to...
      Russian: Did you just call five minutes ago pretending to be from Slashdot?
      Timothy: Maybe... it's hard to keep track these days.
      Russian: *click*

      In Soviet Russia, Slashdot editor pretend to be Dice news editor

    4. Re:Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the email bounced. that's the equivalent of them not wanting any contacts in a method they themselves advertise to be contacted at. are they in business even? and if they are why wouldn't they spin the business to another company name to buy cpu's..

      and companies respond to reporters from far shadier web pages than slashdot(i'd be willing to bet money on that 70% of the upper tier of people in the company know about slashdot anyways).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  5. As if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if any HPC silicon is actually manufactured in the US today.

    1. Re:As if... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, we do. BUT, it is duplicated in places like China, and as long as China is allowed to manipulate their money and defy all of the WTO and USA-China treaty, then it will continue to be duplicated or moved to China.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. friends...enemies.....wtf? by stanlyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it is to use russian space station, they are good enough to be friends, but if it is to actually lend them some computer power, they become enemy!!! No, really, what the heck!
    And, just for the record, i don't see how this ban would stop them to buy the parts directly from the manufacturer, China.

    1. Re:friends...enemies.....wtf? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you ever stopped to consider that human relationships are complicated? People write books about this sort of thing. Plays and movies even. Tears are shed, bottles of booze drank and broken. Wars started. Wars ended.

      I mean, people Tweet about this stuff!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:friends...enemies.....wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the Chinese don't like Vodka! lol

      You think the geeks here know anything about human relations or politics? Look around, they probably don't even know that in the 1930's U.S. Republicans aligned against Hitler, with the U.S. Commies, and the same "doggedly uncompromising" Republicans then villified their temporary friends in the 50's, when McCarthy decided that it benefitted their new, uncompromising politics. (By the way I just found out that 3 of the U.S. military leaders charged with violently removing the "Bonus Army" from Washington D.C., when the Hoover refused to pay the WWI vets their legally due bonus, were Patton, MacArthur and Eisenhower.)

      It's not just in the mideast that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    3. Re:friends...enemies.....wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's more it's a Russian company and Russia has ratified the non-proliferation treaty. When I read the news I was thinking about T-Platforms selling somebody under UN embargo, like Iran or North Korea.

  7. if it looks like a shell company, and acts... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    gotcha, caught 'ya, General Ivan

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  8. US vs. Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimme a break. We won, they lost, you know? It's been in a couple of the papers.

    1. Re:US vs. Russia by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes, those who lose, will come back to defeat you. Ask Europe how that works out.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:US vs. Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we won... then we sent our bankers to Versaille after WWI, then we "rebuilt" Europe after WWII.

      What could possibly go wrong now?

  9. This is getting a little out of hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not the listees. The lists. That is, the USoA government.

    Yes, the parallels with the TSA's no-fly-lists are apt. The bullying is entirely comparable, too.

  10. No problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No problems, China can just manufacture any kind of electronics component the Russians are interested in buying, and then deny sales of the same components to the US citing the same reasons. Now the rest of the world can trade and grow together while the US can isolate itself and sit in the Atlantic being as superior as it wants.

  11. Hi, welcome to Toys 'R Us! May I help you? by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Da, may I have 10,000 PS4s please?

    .

    1. Re:Hi, welcome to Toys 'R Us! May I help you? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      PS4s aren't going to be like PS3s with their super-fancy specialized processors that intrigued some super-computer builders--those gave the developers fits. While it's not going to use a PC architecture, you're not going to see any technology in it that you can't get in a high-end PC with high-powered graphic cards. For non-gaming purposes, you might as well just buy PCs; they'll be easier to configure and use for non-gaming purposes.

    2. Re:Hi, welcome to Toys 'R Us! May I help you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While it's not going to use a PC architecture, you're not going to see any technology in it that you can't get in a high-end PC with high-powered graphic cards.

      I think that was GP's point. The US has (apparently) said that you can't export high-end PC processors to Russia, so the obvious work-around is to buy toys that have PC-caliber processing power

  12. LOL; does not matter by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our executives have been offshoring all of our technology. As such, all we did was move this company over to China who using our technology, some stolen, but far too much was given. Just for a few dollars.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:LOL; does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK... there will be sequel. "Just for a few More Dollars," followed by, "I'm Yuaning All the Way to the Bank."

  13. Dear US Govt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes it is necessary to remain vulnerable and trusting in order to not be a paranoid asshole... Supercomputers and other potentially useful stuff made outside of the US is scary? the US govt needs to understand that it is not the centre of the fucking world.

    1. Re:Dear US Govt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between "trusting" and "selling nuclear weapon design materiel"

    2. Re:Dear US Govt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... not the centre of the fucking world.

      Why do you hate Uranus so much!? Americans/Uranusians are from Uranus, don't hate Uranus! Love Uranus!

      Please?

    3. Re:Dear US Govt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG. Nukes !!!!

      The Russians have all the nuke technology they will ever need. They used brainpower (mathematician+pencil+paper) to achieve essentially the same as the US with all those Cray machines. Their latest land-mobile ICBMs and their SAMs are setting standards for everybody else to follow. So are the aerodynamics of the Mig29 and Su27/34. Both beat the crap out of anything except the F-22 in the US inventory. And when they have somehow (there are lots of ways to that end) acquired an F-22, it will be at a very serious disadvantage to the Su-34.
      They have Radars which can acquire "stealthy" American airplanes at very long distances and then cue the SU34s, so that they can play their aerodynamic superiority combined with their thrust-vectored AAMs.
      They got all of that with very moderate computing technology on the levels of a few 486s connected to a cluster.

  14. Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is fairly common knowledge in the electronics industry, that anything that can be used in nuclear weapon R&D is export controlled and taken very seriously by the Commerce department. I work for a company that makes extremely fast oscilloscopes. We can't sell anything without an export license that can acquire data faster than a certain sample rate to Russia, Isreal, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and several other countries due to nuclear non-proliferation. This is a separate restriction from ITAR, which bans anything related to weapons R&D from export without a license. This doesn't mean that you can't export these things, just that you need approval to do it. Much of Europe and countries who are friendly with the US have similar legal constraints.

    1. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by sinuscavity · · Score: 1

      And this constraint is used to undermine the industries and national security capabilities of other countries.

    2. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prohibiting sales of COTS gear that can be assembled into a respectable HPC system is a fool's errand of course. OTOH, real supercomputers with highly integrated components from Cray and IBM are a different story.

    3. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      So? Don't like it? Build it yourself. I don't see anything stopping you from doing that.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    4. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      When's the last time a US company actually built a US product in the US with US workers?

      This is a pissing contest, plain and simple. If Russia wanted to nuke us, we'd be dead already. I'm pretty sure any CPU made in the last 15 years in sufficient quantities would make a decent supercomputing platform for nuclear research.

      This is a move to prevent competition.

      I'm sure the Chinese will help them out. They have that little MIPS clone they're fond of.

    5. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      When's the last time a US company actually built a US product in the US with US workers?

      Don't like it? Make us do it without your country's help. Who said it was a one-way street?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    6. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, perhaps preventing Russia from gaining simulation capabilities leads to walkout and an ending during the next test ban talks, which gives the US a reason to commence testing of their own. Surely the latest generation of nucular weapons would like little testing done to them before the release, if you know what I mean.

    7. Re:Anything related to Nuke research is controlled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern Cray and IBM machines are very much the same as the Russian machines in question (CMOS single-chip CPU lashed together with some sort of high-speed network. Essentially a cluster of PC processors). There is no such thing as a "supercomputer CPU" anymore. These days have been over since the days of the Cray-3.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-3

      Regarding mainframe CPUs, they have been trailing PC CPUs in performance for more than a decade now. They excel in things like I/O and fault tolerance, NOT in terms of computing performance. Beancounting != Engineering.

  15. Great wall of USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only this time it's a wall for commerce :P ... this would be brilliant, USA has to learn fair trade the hard way, now you can be your own bitch USA.

  16. Ban Microsoft by sinuscavity · · Score: 2

    In response Russia should ban someone like Microsoft for working against its foreign policy interests. Russia is already a nuclear power -- what advantages or threats is this going to bring to the world? This is about undermining Russian industry and nothing else. It's a sort of economic warfare.

  17. Out of business by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Funny

    An email address that T-Platforms listed for its German office bounced, and Slashdot was unable to reach executives at its Russian headquarters for comment."

    That's because T-Platforms has gone out of business. Most unfortunate.

    However, there's somebody here from a new supercomputer company "U-Platforms", that would like to speak with you about purchasing some HPC microprocessors...

  18. USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did the USSR and Red China have governmental policies against formal religious organizations and structures?

    A: They didn't want dog-dick sucking (advocates), dog shit eating (fanatics), religious zealots banding together and taking over the financial framework of the nation. Green eggs and ham is a crime "against the state".

    Hindsight is always 20:20. We see how it worked out. The secret international ba-ra (joke ra, joke sultan) ca-ca (shit) eaters union has been around for much longer than the USSR or Red China.

    learn more @ http://mapfortu.wikidot.com

  19. they're using it for nuclear research? by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Yikes, who knows what kind of things would happen if the Russians ever get their hands on a nuke! We've got to stop them from developing nucular weapons at all costs, or they'll corrupt our precious bodily fluids!

    1. Re:they're using it for nuclear research? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      it's come to this... toe to toe with the russians in new-clear-ar combat.

    2. Re:they're using it for nuclear research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall, the Brits gave us Radar and the Jet engine for free, and helped us develop the nuclear bomb, and then we turned around and said that they couldn't have any information about it, so they had to develop one entirely separately...

    3. Re:they're using it for nuclear research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, I needed that!

  20. T-platforms is a Russian company by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 3, Informative

    T-platforms is a Russian company headquartered in Moscow. This is no more surprising than Boeing selling military equipment to the USA.

  21. Export control on computers needs to stop by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US export control on computers needs to stop. The need for it ended decades ago. All US nuclear weapons were designed with computers below 10 MIPS, and in many cases below 1 MIPS. (The most recent US nuclear weapon design is from the mid-1970s.) The problem isn't getting any harder.

    1. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, most recent US. weapons designs are from at least the late 80s, even though those weapons not deployed some test versions made.

    2. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you forget maintenance of an aging fleet of weapons does require supercomputers, quite powerful ones

    3. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you forget maintenance of an aging fleet of weapons does require supercomputers, quite powerful ones

      sure, if the contractor says so.

      there's other stuff to calculate with them though and I guess designing bombs you're never going to even attempt at building is a pretty good business.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's not the contractors that say so, it is the reality of aging explosive lenses, initiators, neutron reflectors, etc. the alternative is live testing.

    5. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just buy lobsters instead of trying to catch them yourself.

    6. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      US export control on computers needs to stop. The need for it ended decades ago. All US nuclear weapons were designed with computers below 10 MIPS, and in many cases below 1 MIPS. (The most recent US nuclear weapon design is from the mid-1970s.) The problem isn't getting any harder.

      While a computer helps a great deal, the US also had years of experience, a brigade of experienced designers, a well tested and proven set of basic components (especially the primary) and could haul a candidate device out into the desert to set it off and see if the results matched the calculations.
       
      A modern wannabe nuclear state has none of these things.
       
      Thus, it's not about really all about the design.. it's also about testing that design. With a really fast computer you can run a bunch of simulations to test and optimize your design... (Despite their apparent simplicity, there's a lot of subtle complexities in even a basic, unboosted, single stage nuclear weapon.) Thus it's really useful if you want to test your design without letting the whole world know by setting off a real one. It's also extremely useful if you want to produce a small, weaponized, device without years of simulation, non-nuclear experimentation, and nuclear tests.
       
      But there's also a more subtle reason nuclear programs need fast computers (one often missed by those unfamiliar with the issues)... stockpile verification. Remember what I said above about experiments and testing? That doesn't just happen when the device is designed and prepared for service - it also happens while the device is in service to make sure that various age related physical changes to the weapon don't reduce it's yield or reliability or (worst case) dud it entirely. Under the current test ban, such testing has been banned, leaving simulation the only viable option.

    7. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      While that might well be true, Russia is not a modern wannabe nuclear state, having detonated it's first atomic weapon in 1949 and first thermonuclear weapon in 1953. That's a whole 60 years ago.

    8. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, but like us their weapons establishment has been drawn way down (dissipating their experience base) and they're also limited by the current test ban. There's no particular reason to help them, and they've been... less than judicious about who they share technology with in the past, which gives further reason not to help them.

      And I really wish people would stop talking about what happened decades ago as if it were in any way relevant to current conditions. (Especially when they're unfamiliar with those conditions.)

    9. Re:Export control on computers needs to stop by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

      the restrictions are not because the processors might be used in weapons, but that they can be configured into supercomputers / clusters to SIMULATE the weapons ignition / blast profiles - blast-less weapons experimentation / testing

      --
      redneck geek
  22. Right, all those Chinese CPU makers by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I mean there's Intel.. wait, no, they fab their stuff almost entirely in the US, though also some in Israel. Ok well those bastards at AMD... wait, no, they use Globalfoundries who is in Germany, the US, and Singapore (the NY plant being where the new stuff comes from). Ok well IBM surely those cheap... wait, no, they are in the US as well for fabrication (NY and NJ).

    So, ummm, precisely which US chip maker do you think has their stuff in China? Because I don't know of one.

    1. Re:Right, all those Chinese CPU makers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it matter when the Chinese can manufacture an equal chip if they want to?

    2. Re:Right, all those Chinese CPU makers by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you have proof they can? they have a MIPs architecture chip they are perfecting but I haven't heard any done with features below 65nm

    3. Re:Right, all those Chinese CPU makers by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it doesn't matter where they fab them. it matters that the company does business in USA - germany isn't in USA, but amd can't waive their american business.

      welcome to business bullying 101 and why someone would want a supercomputer built out of chinese mips cpu's...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  23. There are no principles, only interests... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Attributed to Vladimir Lenin, though I am unable to verify. Either way, all the world's governments are confirming the statement.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. "Slashdot was unable to reach executives..." by mutube · · Score: 1

    Since when did Slashdot start doing real journalism?

    1. Re:"Slashdot was unable to reach executives..." by guttentag · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since when did Slashdot start doing real journalism?

      Never. The submitter, Nerval's Lobster, is a frequently-accepted shill that submits stories for Slashdot's "business intelligence" and "cloud" channels, which are usually paid advertisements disguised as journalism.

      The submitter's name is a pun in reference to 19th-century French surrealist poet Gérard de Nerval, who had a pet lobster he would take for walks in the Palais Royal gardens in Paris on the end of a blue silk ribbon. He was quoted as having said, "Why should a lobster be any more ridiculous than a dog? ...or a cat, or a gazelle, or a lion, or any other animal that one chooses to take for a walk? I have a liking for lobsters. They are peaceful, serious creatures. They know the secrets of the sea, they don't bark, and they don't gnaw upon one's monadic privacy like dogs do."

      Dice sees paid content writers as pets on a ribbon it takes for walks in the Slashdot gardens. When people comment that it is absurd to masquerade these paid content writers as journalists, Dice asks why a paid content writer should be any more ridiculous than a journalist. Or a cat, or a gazelle, or a troll, or other animal. It likes paid content writers. They are peaceful, serious creatures that keep secrets, don't bark and don't gnaw upon one's privacy like journalists do.

      The only thing funny about the pun is that it's fairly obvious and we haven't noticed.

    2. Re:"Slashdot was unable to reach executives..." by guttentag · · Score: 1

      That was not a troll. By "never," I meant that Slashdot doesn't produce journalism, it aggregates it. I was pointing out that this story's submitter, Nerval's Lobster, is not a user, but a shill that exists solely to submit Slashdot-produced content (slashdot.org/topic/) to Slashdot and is nearly always posted by the editors. See a brief sampling of Nerval's Lobster's very recent history below. Note that he/she never makes any comments in discussions, but submits about 10 stories a week and nearly all of them are posted. How many real users have a success rate like that?

      4/11
      "Winnti" Attacks on Online Gaming Servers Dissected
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, (NOT POSTED)
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/winnti-attacks-on-online-gaming-servers-dissected/

      U.S. Government Blocks Sales to Russian Supercomputer Maker
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Posted by Timothy
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/u-s-govt-blocks-sales-to-russian-supercomputer-maker/

      4/10
      How Google Fiber Could Do Some National Good, or At Least Scare the Carriers
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Posted by Soulskill
      http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/how-google-fiber-could-do-some-national-good/

      If Apple and Yahoo Got Together, What Would the Baby Look Like?
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, (NOT POSTED)
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/if-apple-and-yahoo-got-together-what-would-the-baby-look-like/

      4/8
      Should California Have Banned Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving?
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Posted by Samzenpus
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/checking-a-smartphone-map-while-driving-banned-in-california/

      HP Hopes Its 'Moonshot' Project Will Kick Off a Big Shift
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Not posted, but Unknown Lamer posted a story submitted by "new submitter" linatux (who has never submitted anything else, and has never posted any comments) that linked to the same slashdot-paid-content
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/hp-hopes-moonshot-servers-will-kick-off-big-shift/

      4/5 Ask Slashdot: Is Making Government More Open and Connected a Good Idea?
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Posted by soulskill
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/is-government-2-0-a-bad-concept/

      4/4
      Facebook Launches "Home" for Android
      Submitted by Nerval's Lobster, Posted by Timothy
      Links to http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/facebook-launches-home-less-than-an-os-more-than-an-app/

    3. Re:"Slashdot was unable to reach executives..." by Magada · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points to give. Some asshat modded the informative parent post "troll" for some reason.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  25. Silly and stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like anything electronic is manufactured in the US anymore... Heck most of is is probably designed overseas now too. The end result is some fat cat American business buying cheap shit from China/Korea/etc, and reselling it to the Russians is SOL. They will just buy it directly from the Chinese/Koreans/etc. Now its going to come with a lenovo/asus/etc logo instead of an Dell/IBM/HP/CISCO one. The one or two components they can't buy from China/etc (large infiniband switch?) will be redesigned in a couple years by some Foreign company that sees a buyer.

  26. Re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    upto I saw the draft four $8907, I accept that my neighbour was like actualey earning money in there spare time online.. there best friend started doing this for less than twenty one months and just cleared the dept on there home and bought a new Ariel Atom. we looked here, BIC5.COM

  27. thanksss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This particular article was in fact exactly what I had been looking for!

    www.tvgoog.com

  28. They could use ARM by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    ARM CPU's manufactured at TSMC completely removes the US from the supply chain. Paying royalties to a British company and manufacturing in Taiwan.

  29. They already have them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bit late to stop their development. Also, there is no longer an east/west divide. There are countries fully capable of building super computers that are more then willing to do business with Russia.

  30. WTO membership obliges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a breach against WTO. Russia is a member, USA has no business blocking them.

  31. Oh Yeah, Yank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you should come down a bit from you high horse and realize you can build massively powerful systems even if you have "just" 1GHz of clock. Intel CPUs are very wasteful with transistors and not at all energy-efficient.
    If you have lots of capital, some clever people and a white sheet of paper, you can build a competitive supercomputer entirely without Intel and Xilinix technology. You do NOT need the latest 20nm technology. 65nm will be fine, especially when you integrate traditional, GPU and FPGA-style elements on a single chip.

    The more you embargo Russia and China, the more money will be spent on replacing Intel and Xilinx technology. I think they call it "shooting your own foot".

  32. Re-All-lly ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were to run a covert nuke design/building program I would not advertise that by buying supercomputers. Instead, I would set up a "high-end-PC-gaming" trade company. I would actually buy and sell 90% of PCs and then set up a warehouse with the other 10%, wire it up with 10GE Ethernet and use FOSS software to do the simulation.

    They key element is not the computing hardware and software, but the scientists and software engineers who write proper code and validate simulation results in actual experiments.