Slashdot Mirror
NSF Commits $16M To Build Cloud-Based and Data-Intensive Supercomputers
aarondubrow writes: As supercomputing becomes central to the work and progress of researchers in all fields, new kinds of computing resources and more inclusive modes of interaction are required. The National Science Foundation announced $16M in awards to support two new supercomputing acquisitions for the open science community. The systems — "Bridges" at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and "Jetstream," co-located at the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and The University of Texas at Austin's Texas Advanced Computing Center — respond to the needs of the scientific computing community for more high-end, large-scale computing resources while helping to create a more inclusive computing environment for science and engineering.
Reader 1sockchuck adds this article about why funding for the development of supercomputers is more important than ever:
America's high-performance computing (HPC) community faces funding challenges and growing competition from China and other countries. At last week's SC14 conference, leading researchers focused on outlining the societal benefits of their work, and how it touches the daily lives of Americans. "When we talk at these conferences, we tend to talk to ourselves," said Wilf Pinfold, director of research and advanced technology development at Intel Federal. "We don't do a good job communicating the importance of what we do to a broader community." Why the focus on messaging? Funding for American supercomputing has been driven by the U.S. government, which is in a transition with implications for HPC funding. As ComputerWorld notes, climate change skeptic Ted Cruz is rumored to be in line to chair a Senate committee that oversees NASA and the NSF.
Start telling Congress how Europe and China can predict hurricanes better than we can, thanks to their supercomputers. Nothing like a good "The furners are beating us!" rallying cry to squeeze money from the right (hell, the left too).
If TFA wants to talk about supercomputer then it should stick to supercomputers. What is the point of sticking in the following:
1, TFA has failed to substantiate its claim that Ted Cruz is a climate change skeptic
2. Even if Ted Cruz is a climate change skeptic it still has NOTHING to do with the funding of supercomputers
3. Supercomputer can be used for many things, not only for climate pattern modelling
4. TFA also failed to prove that Ted Cruz has refused to fund the purchase of supercomputer
5. Even if Ted Cruz is such a villian, that the guy would end up destroying NSF and whatnots, why didn't the American government, led by the Obama administration and its Democratic party congress critins, before Ted Cruz arrives at the scene, fund the purchase of supercomputers?
Is TFA going to be an article about the lack of supercomputer or is TFA going to be a political character assassination propaganda against Ted Cruz?
I have no relationship whatsoever with Ted Cruz. I just can't stand this kind of below-the-belt sneak attack disguising as a Slashdot article
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
What are you, on crack? The Republicans in the House can pass pretty much anything they want. That's a fact of life for now. That doesn't get it through the Senate. Even after January it doesn't fly through the Senate because of the filibuster/60-vote procedure. And even if it makes it through there it sure as hell doesn't get signed by President Obama.
So really, who cares?
So what does that mean? They are going to spent $16M on a contract with Amazon to have them host some data in the cloud?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Instead of a paltry 19 million why not toss them a billion bucks to build a computer that will rock the world. Apparently some nations now engage us in forms of cyber warfare daily. So lets not get slightly ahead. Let's get Star Wars types of ahead and build a computer that can easily handle any threats thrown at it. And such a machine just might get rid of problems like cancer, poverty and other plagues that mankind has always endured.
They are calling to task the "Most transparent US administration in history", which is threatening to veto this bill because "the Environmental Protection Agency should, in some case, be able to write regulations based on science and data that is not made available to the public." There's some transparency for you.
Of course propaganda from the left-wing Salon (and the only references in the article are to the even-more-left-wing ThinkProgress site) gets this bill completely wrong. Maybe try reading it?
The whole "controversy" is over some pure conflict of interest language. Exact terms: "Board members may not participate in advisory activities that involve review or application of their own work." Any of the nine board members can provide scientific data from any scientist with defense of that data; however a specific board member cannot self promote his own work. This is language found in nearly every piece of legislation that charters and administrative board. It's the same deal as requiring a judge to recuse himself it he has a personal interest in the judgment.
Anything that curtails the power of the tyrannical EPA is a good thing in my book - they have become way too powerful. If they don't have authority to regulate something, they just call up one of the many NGOs (that they provide grant money to), and tell them "Hey, you should sue us over this so we can stop it or at least tie it up in court until they run out of money or give up." If it doesn't work, at least those colluding organizations can get some settlement money out of it. That's the current SOP for the EPA, and it's undemocratic and should be illegal.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public? Or that EPA should pretend not to know any that, for whatever reason, aren't?
Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel. But not to worry, fracking is already working on getting them back.
But hey, maybe you fancy living in Mordor.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public?
Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, I never said or intimated anything of the sort. If some idea is being used to create public policy, enforced by armed bureaucrats, then, yes, absolutely, the science needs to be public and available.
Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel
Another nice straw man. Oh, right, since we had worse pollution 70 years ago, every little tyrannical behavior of the EPA should be allowed without question.
But hey, maybe you fancy living in Mordor.
... and you fancy living in North Korea. nyah.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Considering that only 42% or so of Americans believe global warming is real, I'm not sure why Cruz is getting labeled a "skeptic".
Or do the opinions of ordinary people count for nothing?
Harry Reid wants you to know only a straight majority matters now.
... As he hands over the majority leader status.
As Wittgenstein (a very liberal guy) noted: reality is a personal construct.
The happy man lives in a different universe than the unhappy man. Etc.
"Sciences" should not be an independent anything in the state.
You want to keep science as far from government as you can. Indeed, this only shows that its too close already.