Slashdot Mirror


Obama's New Executive Order Says the US Must Build an Exascale Supercomputer

Jason Koebler writes: President Obama has signed an executive order authorizing a new supercomputing research initiative with the goal of creating the fastest supercomputers ever devised. The National Strategic Computing Initiative, or NSCI, will attempt to build the first ever exascale computer, 30 times faster than today's fastest supercomputer. Motherboard reports: "The initiative will primarily be a partnership between the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and National Science Foundation, which will be designing supercomputers primarily for use by NASA, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and NOAA. Each of those agencies will be allowed to provide input during the early stages of the development of these new computers."

223 comments

  1. In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3, Funny

    But can it run Crysis?

    1. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ships has sailed. Just let it go.

    2. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Jumunquo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it can figure out you suck at the game.

    3. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

      But can it play Crysis?

      ftfy. :)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Crysis is too demanding! Nothing can run Crysis! Not even the dev machines used to make Crysis can run Crysis! Aaaaah! The pain! Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

    5. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you'll just have to wait for the aliens to arrive. They should have the technology capable of running it at 30 fps on a HD screen.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would play a graphics card benchmark?

    7. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I can, why can't you?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm not an alien.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:In 30 years, this is our next cell phone. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That does explain some things...I always wondered why people give me such odd looks when I walk around in public.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. And the NSA? by Otome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would the existence of an exascale supercomputer mean for today's popular encryption/hashing algorithms?

    1. Re:And the NSA? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

      A PL3/PL4 nightmare for the people building and running it...

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:And the NSA? by quenda · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It is not the NSA driving this, but the Department of Energy.
      The current fastest supercomputer in the US is at Oak Ridge - the nuclear weapons labs since the Manhattan Project.
      It enables the US to violate the spirit, but not the letter, of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
      And now China has a bigger computer, so of course we need more supercomputers, and more Mine Shafts.

    3. Re:And the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      violate the spirit? this seems to me like one case where "but on a computer" is is so far removed from the "in real life" version, that it's really an entirely different thing. kind of like how a quake deathmatch is really nothing like going on a murderous rampage, and so is not "violating the spirit" of any laws against murder. i suspect you were just being glib, but really, what an odd phrasing...

    4. Re:And the NSA? by quenda · · Score: 1, Troll

      violate the spirit?

      I just mean it enables the US to develop new weapons, e.g. bunker busters, without live testing. Yes, the simulations are that good. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, especially as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was never ratified. But the NPT is a problem.

    5. Re: And the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume this disturbed, homophobic AC is the same person that made the insane racist post.

    6. Re: And the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so sick of the NSA bashing.

    7. Re:And the NSA? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      For that, you would be using custom ASIC hardware, and lots of it.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:And the NSA? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Probably none at all. If you want to break today's encryption/hashing algorithms you would probably be using ASICs if not those then FPGAs with GPU compute being your last choice.
      Dedicated hardware is the most efficient when you are dealing with a well known standard. For all we know IBM is still in business because it is building NSA ASICs using that 7nm process they showed.

      Also time on this beast will be extremely expensive if they use it for any kind of code breaking it will not be for random slashdot users.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:And the NSA? by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      What would the existence of an exascale supercomputer mean for today's popular encryption/hashing algorithms?

      Nothing, nothing at all.

      Suppose, for example that your exascale computer could do exa-AES-ops... 10^18 AES encryptions per second. It would take that computer 1.7E20 seconds to brute force half of the AES-128 key space. That's 5.4E12 years, to achieve a 50% chance of recovering a single key.

      And if that weren't the case, you could always step up to 192 or 256-bit keys. In "Applied Cryptography", in the chapter on key length, Bruce Schneier analyzed thermodynamic limitations on brute force key search. He calculated the amount of energy required for a perfectly efficient computer to merely increment a counter through all of its values. That's not to actually do anything useful like perform an AES operation and a comparison to test a particular key, but merely to count through all possible keys. Such a computer, running at the ambient temperature of the universe, would consume 4.4E-6 ergs to set or clear a single bit. Consuming the entire output of our star for a year, and cycling through the states in an order chosen to minimize bit flips rather than just counting sequentially, would provide enough energy for this computer to count through 2^187. The entire output of the sun for 32 years gets us up to 2^192. To run a perfectly-efficient computer through 2^256 states, you'd need to capture all of the energy from approximately 137 billion supernovae[*]. To brute force a 256-bit key you'd need to not only change your counter to each value, you'd then need to perform an AES operation.

      Raw computing power is not and never will be the way to break modern crypto systems[**]. To break them you need to either exploit unknown weaknesses in the algorithms (which means you have to be smarter than the world's academic cryptographers), or exploit defects in the implementation (e.g. side channel attacks) or find other ways to get the keys -- attack the key management. The last option is always the best, though implementation defects are also quite productive. Neither of them benefit significantly from having massive computational resources available.

      [*] Schneier didn't take into account reversible computing in his calculation. A cleverly-constructed perfectly-efficient computer could make use of reversible circuits everywhere they can work, and a carefully-constructed algorithm could make use of as much reversibility as possible. With that, it might be feasible to lower the energy requirements significantly, maybe even several orders of magnitude (though that would be tough). We're still talking energy requirements involving the total energy output of many supernovae.

      [**] Another possibility is to change the question entirely by creating computers that don't operate sequentially, but instead test all possible answers at once. Quantum computers. Their practical application to the complex messiness of block ciphers is questionable, though the mathematical simplicity of public key encryption is easy to implement on QCs. Assuming we ever manage to build them on the necessary scale. If we do, we can expect an intense new focus on protocols built around symmetric cryptography, I expect.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:And the NSA? by swillden · · Score: 1

      For that, you would be using custom ASIC hardware, and lots of it.

      No, for that you just laugh at the guy asking you to do it, and look for ways to steal the key, rather than brute forcing it. Even if an ASIC solution gets to way beyond exascale, say to yottascale (10^6 times faster than exascale), you're still looking at on the order of a million years to recover a single 128-bit AES key, on average.

      Brute force is not how you attack modern cryptosystems. More detail: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:And the NSA? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Probably none at all. If you want to break today's encryption/hashing algorithms you would probably be using ASICs if not those then FPGAs with GPU compute being your last choice.

      ASICs, FPGAs and GPUs are all utterly, utterly inadequate to attack today's encryption and hashing algorithms. Unless you have not only tens of billions of dollars but also don't mind waiting millions of years. http://tech.slashdot.org/comme....

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re: And the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered getting help for your anger management issues?

    13. Re:And the NSA? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Actually, they probably included a few big wrenches to assemble some of the rack systems, so they probably have the tools to break even 1024 bit encryption.

    14. Re:And the NSA? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Actually, they probably included a few big wrenches to assemble some of the rack systems, so they probably have the tools to break even 1024 bit encryption.

      When you say "1024-bit encryption" you're talking about RSA, which is a completely different problem. 1024-bit RSA are too small to be used today and should be replaced.

      2048-bit RSA keys, however, are roughly equivalent in security against brute force to a 112-bit symmetric key, and will be secure against anyone for quite some time. 3072-bit RSA keys are equivalent to a 128-bit symmetric key. Excascale, even yottascale, computers won't touch them.

      But everyone really should be moving away from RSA anyway. ECC is better in virtually every respect. To get 128-bit security (meaning equivalency to 128-bit symmetric key), you only need a 256-bit EC key.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome!

  4. Robocop anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having to collect input from committees made up of the simpletons that reside within the halls of the FBI, CIA, NSA, TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, reminds me, in a bad way, of Robocop 2, when the stupid bitch thinks it's a good idea to allow any of the politicians input into his "new" directives to control how he acts and functions.

    Now, take that to the umpteenth power with even more galactically stupid politicians and alphabet agency boot lickers, and what we'll end up with is the most powerfull computer in the world that does absolutely nothing because it's stuck in a loop trying to solve the "I always lie! I am lying to you!", until it melts down into a molten pool of metal, taking out 3/4ths of the nations power infrastructure at the same time.

    1. Re:Robocop anyone? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think "galactically stupid politicians" is my new favorite term.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  5. It's for the ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... NSA data center and stuff.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:It's for the ... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      This could bring Intel/HP's Itanium back to life. Make a center w/ 8192 Itanium CPUs, and all the storage needed. Have that located in AK, to make cooling easier.

  6. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Deeerrrrrpppp!!! I dunT LiKe dA ObaMA... hE Is teH diCtaAtorZZZ!!! DOnT U foRGiT it!!!!!!

  7. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will it blend?

    1. Re:But... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No this version only puree's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you make puree? /s

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

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

  8. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #Nj0y g!tm0 br0..... wh#N 0B@m@ s3z h# dUnt l!k3z j00

  9. nuclear weapons by BradMajors · · Score: 0

    Big and better nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:nuclear weapons by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      ... that we never use...

    2. Re:nuclear weapons by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I'm actually okay with us not using our nukes.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re: nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use'em or lose'em. Those things have a limited shelf life. Every five years or so we should nuke some big population centre or two, at random. Just to remind people that no matter how badly things go, they can be worse. And for the lulz of course.

    4. Re: nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that we never use...

      That's a complaint rarely heard

  10. Why not just call it 1 exaflop computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The term "petaflop" refers to the ability to perform one quadrillion arithmetic operations per second.
    The term "exascale computing system" refers to a system operating at one thousand petaflops."

    1. Re:Why not just call it 1 exaflop computer? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      Because 0.1 exaflops is still "exascale", but not "exaflops"... :)

      Paul B.

  11. Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the Linux?

    Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux

    1. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this one is being built to meet minimum hardware specs for upcoming win11

    2. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...unless they skip "11"....

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, where's the app apper app app guy? He needs no Linux (unless you're counting Android . . . maybe. But just for the apps!)

    4. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      They are sticking with 10 forever, like Apple.

    5. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by lucm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, they are planning to use Oracle Linux. They are currently using the 2nd most powerful computer in the world to calculate how much the license will cost.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      AFAIK all supercomputers use Linux

  12. some of the challenges by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    IEEE Spectrum had an article last year describing some of the challenges we'll need to overcome in order to achieve exascale computing.

    Here's another, somewhat pessimistic piece they posted in 2008 - a digest of a DARPA report that went into significant technical detail.

    The biggest hurdle is power, and the biggest driver of that isn't the actual computation (i.e., the energy to perform some number of FLOPS), but rather moving that data around (between cores, to/from RAM, across a PCB, and among servers). Other hurdles include how to manage so many cores, ensure they are working (nearly) concurrently, how to handle hardware failures (which will be frequent given the amount of hardware), and writing software that can even make use of such technology in anything approaching optimal fashion.

    Not to say its impossible, merely hard given the present state of things and projecting a bit into the future. But as we know, "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." [source?]

    1. Re:some of the challenges by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Admittedly not as large but I worked on 2000+ node clusters in the early oughts. They way they got "efficiently used" was they were broken up and jobs generally only used a small subset of relatively adjacent nodes. One scientist would use 40 cores on 10 servers sharing a switch, another 100 copies of a serial app on 100 cores etc. Every once and a while, and it was rare, an astrophysicist or whatever would actually use hundreds of cores concurrently for a parallel algorithm. It was by far the minority case though. That said it is ~13 years later and more tools to use parallel exist, and DOE, defense etc have more budget to pay for massive parallel code to be written and even if it is relatively junk if it runs faster in parallel throw 1B of computer at it and say "well our budget is +- 1 steath fighter anyways so ....".

    2. Re:some of the challenges by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we need higher performance per core. Not all problems are highly parallel, even with those that are you have limits, and now the interconnects are getting to be an issue.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:some of the challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that comment. I was going to ask something along the lines of "how are supercomputers interesting these days when they're always essentially just a million different CPUs strung together and it's just a matter of how much money you spent and how many years ago it was built". While I guess that's still basically true, and we've kind of hit hardware limits at this point, there are a still a ton of logistical issues to solve.

  13. 30 Times Faster? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For most specific problems thrown at supercomputers, you can go 30 times faster with a custom hardware architecture baked into silicon

    To go 30 times fast for general purpose supercomputing, you use the latest silicon (2X) and more chips (15X) and come up with a super new interconnect to make it not suck. This would involve making some chips that support low latency IPC in hardware.

    They are free to send me a few billion dollars, I'll get right on it and deliver a 30X faster machine and I'l even use some blue LEDs on the front panel.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:30 Times Faster? by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      The front panel and paint job are the highest margin part of the whole system. You would never give anything there away for free.

    2. Re:30 Times Faster? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know what HPC stands for... Half Price Computing - everyone drives their margins to 0 to win one of these multi million dollar contracts. The only companies that win are the suppliers to the bidders. So lets see in 4 years CPU/GPUs will have 5-6x more compute power, we can throw 5-6x more CPUs at the problem and connect them up with nice 200-400Gbs (5-8x) interconnect. This isn't a research problem - just an interesting engineering problem.
      What is probably a research problem is adapting the algorithms to keep all of those 100's of thousand CPU cores busy solving the same problem and keeping them filled with useful work. I am not sure how well MPI will scale to this level

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    3. Re:30 Times Faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this brilliant insight? We need more, faster nodes and a new faster, lower latency interconnect to make bigger supercomputers? That's all?

      Why are you wasting your engineering insight on Slashdot, go tell those dummies at Cray, Intel and nVidia this breakthrough news!

    4. Re:30 Times Faster? by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      Lol, you mean like IBM with Blue Waters?

    5. Re:30 Times Faster? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      For most specific problems thrown at supercomputers, you can go 30 times faster with a custom hardware architecture baked into silicon

      Perhaps that's what they should do. Make a robotic silicon wafer fabrication facility part of the computer. After being given a task requiring a new architecture, it creates the architecture it needs and augments itself. I'm sure for less than the cost of the F-35 program, a universally tasking self augmenting supercomputer could be made to happen.

    6. Re:30 Times Faster? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      and it will be useless for everything except one problem

  14. Re:Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unamerican scum! How dare you question The Leader Of The Free World?

  15. The real reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [doge] so much intercepts [/doge]

    1. Re:The real reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, dog.

  16. Likely a new gift for the NSA by mrflash818 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would the existence of an exascale supercomputer mean for today's popular encryption/hashing algorithms?

    Exactly.

    My first thought was the new addition will be tasked by the NSA/FiveEyes to break encryption for intercepted communications.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like AC just got put on a watch list.

    2. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AC is angry at Obama because Obama put AC on a watch list? Which came first? Help me out here.

    3. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if the new computer is 30x faster than the fastest one currently deployed and in use.. you've got

      1x for weather (noaa),
      1x for health (nih),
      1x for science (nsf),
      1x for nasa, and
      1x for energy (doe);

      and each of those organizations will be thrilled at having the extra computational power.. that leaves the equivalent of 25 left over for the unconstitutional, illegal, and/or classified shit that they really want it for. the legitimate uses is what they use to sell it and justify its expense, while distracting everyone from what they're really going to use it for (i.e. its true intended purpose).

    4. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Weather guys want this after NSA's done.

      We'll take a side of phased-array weather radar to go with that, too.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    5. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please consider professional help, cancelling your internet service, or suicide. You're clearly a very unhappy, very stupid person.

    6. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Orp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Weather guys want this after NSA's done.

      I'm a weather guy - running cloud model code on Blue Waters, the fastest petascale machine for research in the U.S. I don't think we've managed to get any weather code run much more than 1 PF sustained - if even that. So it's not like you can compile WRF and run it with 10 million MPI ranks and call it a day. Ensembles? Well that's another story.

      Exascale machines are going to have to be a lot different than petascale machines (which aren't all that different topologically than terascale machines) in order to be useful to scientists and in order to no require their own nuclear power plant to run. And I don't think we know what that topology will look like yet. A thousand cores per node? That should be fun; sounds like a GPU. Regardless, legacy weather code will need to be rewritten or more likely new models will need to be written from scratch in order to do more intelligent multithreading as opposed to mostly-MPI which is what we have today.

      When asked at the Blue Waters Symposium this May to prognosticate on the future coding paradigm for exascale machines, Steven Scott (Senior VP and CTO of Cray) said we'll probably still be using MPI + OpenMP. If that's the case we're gonna have to be a hell of a lot more creative with OpenMP.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    7. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What horseshit. Weather modelling takes a very, very different topology than the NSA's toys.

      And what mission does the FBI have? I got all the rest (DHS has some WMD modelling), but I fail to see a justifiable reason for the FBI to have a supercomputer.

    8. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by youngatheart · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the complexity of modern encryption and hashing algorithms.

    9. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by lucm · · Score: 1

      Hopefully you don't think of yourself as more tolerant than him.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    10. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because anybody who is unhappy with Obama must be stupid and not just incredibly frustrated with moronic idiots like you who clearly voted for Obama.

    11. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Artificial intelligence to flood the internet with pro American Corporate propaganda upon a massive scale, unfortunately that is not a joke but a serious intent.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by strstr · · Score: 0

      I think it will be used for much more than encryption breaking. Probably full scale artificial intelligence and automation of operating surveillance and weapons platforms without need for human control panel operators.

      Encryption is secretly breakable a number of ways already including by use of brainwave reading radar to snatch passwords and interferometry to snatch encryption certificates directly from RAM, hard disks, etc.

      The air gap is the last protected and classified front.

      Patented techniques, too.

      They also need computers to run advanced physics simulations and automate new technology development, ie AI.

      Computers are smarter and faster than humans at building things.

      drrobertduncan.com

    13. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      How would you run secret programs on a computer shared with NOAA and NSF? The NSA don't need it, they have their own supercomputers. Even their budget it secret.

    14. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fingerprint and facial recognition mug shots processing to find matches amongst millions on file.

    15. Re: Likely a new gift for the NSA by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Except the OP was not just unhappy with Obama, he went out of his way to use logical fallacies.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    16. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Skapare · · Score: 1

      With OpenStack.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    17. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say "one of" but you can't say "the fastest" petascale machines my friend

      http://www.hpcwire.com/2012/11...

    18. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who builds HPC machines, and have for over a decade...damn almost 2 decades, that same thing was said about teraflop and petaflop systems. Each new level certainly has challenges, but they end up not being completely different, ground up designs. Innovation occurs in one or two places and the rest steals from the past. The supercomputing conferences always have a bof looking at the next performance bar, what it will take to get there, and what areas are deficient.

      One of the biggest problems of the current large scale HPC machines is users (like you but maybe not you specifically) are typically scientists/analysts who write software that does not scale well. There either needs to be better frameworks for you to work within that handle all the grunt work of doing efficient parallelization and message passing or every atmospheric physicist needs to be teamed with a computer scientist and a software engineer.

    19. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the FBI needs to crack encryption on illegally^H^H^H^H^H^H^H acquired data. If they actually have evidence that you have committed a crime they come in and seize your systems. Its already well established (rightly or wrongly) that legally you are required to divulge any decryption keys. Failure to do so ("but I forgot, your honor") are met with contempt of court -- and you can be held indefinitely on that charge so your option is give them the keys and hope for the best in court, or serve time until the judge gets tired of the repeated hearings and lets you go. A guy was held for 20+ years contempt of court for successfully concealing financial assets in a divorce case.

      The reason the FBI would want this is when they have your data through extra-judicial means and so can't simply demand the decryption key. For example, black-bagging someone's computer systems and discovering that everything is encrypted and the OS doesn't fall for the DMA tricks to unlock it and it isn't on a laptop where they can suspend/hibernate and then retrieve the keys.

      Basically, in any case where they can't or won't actually file charges but want at encrypted data, that is when the FBI "needs" a system like this.

    20. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by dj245 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Weather guys want this after NSA's done.

      I'm a weather guy - running cloud model code on Blue Waters, the fastest petascale machine for research in the U.S. I don't think we've managed to get any weather code run much more than 1 PF sustained - if even that. So it's not like you can compile WRF and run it with 10 million MPI ranks and call it a day. Ensembles? Well that's another story.

      Exascale machines are going to have to be a lot different than petascale machines (which aren't all that different topologically than terascale machines) in order to be useful to scientists and in order to no require their own nuclear power plant to run. And I don't think we know what that topology will look like yet. A thousand cores per node? That should be fun; sounds like a GPU. Regardless, legacy weather code will need to be rewritten or more likely new models will need to be written from scratch in order to do more intelligent multithreading as opposed to mostly-MPI which is what we have today.

      When asked at the Blue Waters Symposium this May to prognosticate on the future coding paradigm for exascale machines, Steven Scott (Senior VP and CTO of Cray) said we'll probably still be using MPI + OpenMP. If that's the case we're gonna have to be a hell of a lot more creative with OpenMP.

      I'm not a weather guy, but my understanding is that a somewhat fixed weather model (set of calculations) is used to do a kind of finite-element analysis on small areas. With better computing and better radars, smaller and smaller areas can be calculated, which results in more accuracy.

      With more computing power, could you not vary the parameters or constants used in the weather model, then run the finite-element analysis over the entire weather area again? You could be running hundreds or thousands of slightly different weather models, then apply some processing to figure out which is most likely- either by averaging together the 50% most similar outcomes, or by some other method. I don't think you could peak out a supercomputer with that method if you kept adding more parameter variations, although you may get to the point where adding more parameter variations doesn't improve accuracy.

      Maybe that's an incorrect understanding, but we're getting closer to the point where we can calculate all possible outcomes simultaneously. I wouldn't have expected this to be the case with weather but computing has come a long way in the last 20 years.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    21. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Orp · · Score: 1

      You can say "one of" but you can't say "the fastest" petascale machines my friend

      http://www.hpcwire.com/2012/11...

      I should have added "on a college campus".

      My main point is, just throwing more cores at "mostly MPI" weather models is not sustainable. We are going to need to be much smarter about how we parallelize.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    22. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Orp · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems of the current large scale HPC machines is users (like you but maybe not you specifically) are typically scientists/analysts who write software that does not scale well. There either needs to be better frameworks for you to work within that handle all the grunt work of doing efficient parallelization and message passing or every atmospheric physicist needs to be teamed with a computer scientist and a software engineer.

      Absolutely agree 100%!

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    23. Re:Likely a new gift for the NSA by Orp · · Score: 2

      You are basically describing ensemble forecasting, which is very powerful for providing statistically meaning forecasts where you can intelligently talk about the uncertainty of the forecast, something single deterministic forecasts cannot do.

      In my research, I'm doing single deterministic forecasts to study what happens with tornadoes in supercell thunderstorms, where I am cranking up the resolution to capture flow that is otherwise unresolved. I get one version of a particular storm, which is good for studying certain aspects of storms, but not good at being able to generalize (that takes lots of simulations).

      Both big deterministic simulations and ensembles have their place. Of course, today's big simulation can be the resolution of tomorrow's ensembles! Right now, you can do lots of good science with ensembles. Operationally (weather forecasting) this is basically the new paradigm, although forecasters are slow to change from just looking at the single deterministic GFS and NAM forecasts. The ensemble approach, once we start running hundreds of forecasts at higher resolution that we do today, will transform our forecasting accuracy (and precision). However it will be limited to the amount of good observational data we can feed the models (otherwise GIGO). This is where remote sensing comes in. GOES-R will be a big help.

      It will indeed take people from atmospheric science, computer engineering, software engineering, etc. working together to best exploit exascale machines. NCSA understand this and that's what makes it (and other similar organizations) great.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
  17. Just think of the carbon footprint of this... by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    Mind you, think of the movies it could do in a bazillionK resolution.

  18. Encryption by koan · · Score: 1

    How long would it last against that?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we've done it right, quite a long time ?.

      RSA for example the difficulty goes up exponentially with bits.

      So 4k RSA is 2^2048 times harder than 2k RSA.

      2^2048 is a number a LOT bigger than 30.

    2. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it bigger than 40?

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

      IIRC, AES isn't susceptible to brute-force attacks, so they can throw a million supercomputers at it and it wouldn't break much faster.

    4. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the difficulty between factoring a 2^4096 and 2^2048 bit number isn't by a factor of 2^2048. For example, you can exclude every even number, so at best it's 2^2047 instead of 2^2048.

      More importantly, you only need to attack the weakest link in the chain. Why factor a 2^4096 bit number when the PRNG used to generate the key probably only had 512, 256, 128 or fewer bits of real entropy.

      Even 2^128 is beyond the ability to brute-force crack. But if by using various techniques and knowledge about the target you can get the state space down to something south of 2^90, you're golden. But remember, we don't need to crack the PRNG per se, just determine what prime it generated. If you put the two problems together, the overall work required may be less than cracking one alone! For example, like in our original example, a PRNG with 128 bits of entropy can't produce 2^128 primes, because primes are sparse, and they grow more sparse the larger they get. The average gap between primes at 2^4096 bits is much larger than 2^2048, so if the NSA knows something about prime gaps that we don't (and perhaps even if they don't) then theoretically using a larger prime number might be _less_ secure than a smaller one, because the number of states of the PRNG that can produce a prime of that length is fewer. If the PRNG has a period, for example, it might be much easier to exclude or ignore invalid states.

      I'm just spitballing here. I'm not a cryptographer, and my examples are almost certainly incomplete if not wrong. But it's this kind of stuff that has permitted the NSA to crack 2^768 bits key, and made it theoretically feasible for the NSA to have cracked 2^1024 bit DH keys. Both of those are ridiculously large numbers, and if the actual workload was 2^768 then no way would it ever have been solvable.

    5. Re:Encryption by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      Is it bigger than 40?

      Depends on the value of ^

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    6. Re:Encryption by rthille · · Score: 1

      Facepalm

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely; Heat death of the universe.

    8. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facepalm

      Why did you even bother posting that without any contradicting evidence? Now that's worthy of a facepalm.

  19. Re:Quantum computing by fred911 · · Score: 0

    " primarily for use by NASA, the FBI, "

    Surely sounds like there will be a source for funding and research for computation significantly different than our current methods. Qubits or what have you..

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  20. Only runs Witcher 3 at medium detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pass.

  21. Re: Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And random person freaks about because President exercises his lawful authority to tell agencies and departments under his jurisdiction to cooperate and present a plan for creating a supercomputer.

    Here is a hint:

    Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
    the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    It is like nobody knows how the government operates any more, but if Obama does it, they're opposed, damn opposed.

  22. Re: Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The banksters control the country, not the wedding bomber. Obama is just there for the sloppy seconds and to do the bidding of his corporate masters.

  23. Meanwhile, actual computing outside of govt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile folks with actual problems to solve and cost / benefit tradeoffs to make will be signing up for cloud services, and just paying on demand when they need a large compute run.

    I know I know, this solves unique problems. But having seen the inside of govt computing, the actual utilization these systems by folks like the FBI is often very limited (they often don't have the trained staff or actual program need for these items). The amount of power burnt / $ wasted is super high.

    Heaven forbid they develop usable / taxpayer facing egov systems :)

  24. yeah ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    new supercomputer for the NSA to use to snoop on everyone

  25. Just in time for Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems Obama was waiting for Windows 10 to give that order since no other OS can handle this.

    1. Re:Just in time for Windows 10 by PPH · · Score: 1

      since no other OS can use up all the resources.

      FTFY.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Classified Data by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What would the existence of an exascale supercomputer mean for today's popular encryption/hashing algorithms?

    Exactly.

    My first thought was the new addition will be tasked by the NSA/FiveEyes to break encryption for intercepted communications.

    Why are you assuming they don't already have one doing that, and this is just a public version?

    There is a lot of highly secured government data infrastructure out there that I hear about even though not inquiring. The cable in Virginia that gets cut by a backhoe accidentally and guys in a black van show up ten minutes later. The contract for a government data center inside a faraday cage. The government likely already has much more computing power available than we know about.

    1. Re:Classified Data by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      "First rule in government spending... Why build one when you can have two for twice the price".

      Looks like Skynet or nothing folks. But with two we're going to have Jade Helm and martial law bankster employee's with two personalities, the dominant one will likely be the one that screws you out of the most money.

    2. Re:Classified Data by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      I agree. The very fact we'll know where this datacentre is probably means it will be being used for relatively lower security stuff. The exascale supercomputer for actually analyzing the NSA intercepts probably already exists.

    3. Re:Classified Data by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We can be fairly sure that the NSA has some serial dedicated hardware for cracking common encryption systems like AES. They will still be reliant on things like dictionary attacks because brute-forcing the entire keyspace is impractical (unless they have quantum computers).

      How should we react to that? Well, obviously we need a good password that can resist dictionary attacks. Beyond that, unless you are a big enough perceived threat to warrant time on an expensive computer you probably don't have to worry too much. They certainly won't be using it to help out the FBI, risking its existence coming to light.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Classified Data by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Serial? Must be pretty fast to do operations of that kind in serial.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re: Classified Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's super serial hardware. I'm not lying, I'm being serial. man bear pig lives. Or was it pig man bear? Maybe man pig bear, I forgot.

    6. Re:Classified Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Hadden's character in the movie version of Contact say it best?

      "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

    7. Re:Classified Data by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      We can be fairly sure that the NSA has some serial dedicated hardware for cracking common encryption systems like AES. They will still be reliant on things like dictionary attacks because brute-forcing the entire keyspace is impractical (unless they have quantum computers).

      How should we react to that? Well, obviously we need a good password that can resist dictionary attacks. Beyond that, unless you are a big enough perceived threat to warrant time on an expensive computer you probably don't have to worry too much. They certainly won't be using it to help out the FBI, risking its existence coming to light.

      Maybe. Based on the documentaries that have been made, it's pretty clear that the NSA used their phone-metadata-recording to help the FBI locate the Boston Bomber, despite the risk that it would become public. (Which is did shortly thereafter but for other reasons--i.e. Snowden).

      The FBI does domestic counterterror. The NSA is the big bad in terms of not seeing the inherent bad and threat to democracy in snooping on everyone's communications, sure, but they're still trying to be good guys and so they'll share information sometimes when they see a good result from doing so.

  27. Inflammatory Remark Warning by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    So can someone tell me, is better or worse than than banning stem cell research?

    1. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on whether you think the Federal Government should be allocating tax dollars for things other than basic defense and infrastructure.

    2. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Stem Cell Research and Computational power are all defence. The stronger and more capable you are as a nation, the more effective your self defence.

    3. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by digsbo · · Score: 1

      That argument can be stretched to absurdity, though. And already has been.

    4. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Yes but that's the benefit of being able to think about and discuss things as rational humans, we can work out which concepts have value and which do not.
      IMO both advanced medical research and computational power are must haves in any powerful democracy.

    5. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by digsbo · · Score: 1

      "Powerful democracy" is an interesting phrase, and there's no reason to believe either computation or medicine can't be provided by the market. Wouldn't you simply want the benefits of computing power and advanced medicine?

    6. Re:Inflammatory Remark Warning by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      there's no reason to believe either computation or medicine can't be provided by the market.

      Except for the fact that the most free market medical system in the western world is also one of the worst performing. Apart from that, yeah it's all good...

  28. Exascale? We don't need that. by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    640 petaflops ought to be enough for anybody.

  29. AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, you need a lot of compute power to train the neural networks used by future weapons and siphoning money out of the markets... (catching up to wall street)

  30. Department of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who in their right minds would let these people near a computer? Please. Let them go back to what they excel at: stealing cameras out of our luggage and groping underage genitalia.

    1. Re:Department of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does an old lady taste like?

      Depends.

    2. Re:Department of Homeland Security by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the TSA is only about 1/4 of DHS by number of employees and 12% of the budget, right? I think you're really selling short the amount of damage they excel at if you only go with stealing cameras and groping underage genitalia.

    3. Re:Department of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally they could stay locked up in their asylum facility.

    4. Re:Department of Homeland Security by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Seems much more likely that this would be used by CBP and the Coast Guard (both DHS).

      Might take a decent amount of horsepower to constantly search a database for every tracked vessel and run an analysis on each to determine when they do something that is out of the ordinary, then compare those results to patterns that predict some form of unwanted behavior (trafficking, illegal fishing, hijacking, lost at sea, etc.)

  31. easy b/c avg time from order to delivery 4.5 years by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those issues will be resolved by a side effect of this being a government order. According to the GAO, on average it takes 4 1/2 years from the time the government orders a computer until it's installed. Right now, multiple government agencies have been told to start thinking about a plan. In two years (2017), each agency will have their plan and they'll start working to to resolve the differences between agencies. In another year (2018), they'll put out some RFPs. Those will go through the federal procurement process and the order will be placed about two years later (2020). That's when the 4 1/2 year average clock starts, so expect installation around first quarter 2025.

    The goal is that it should be 30 times faster than TODAY'S computers.
    And be operational in ten years. They can pretty much just order a Nexus 47, or an HP Proliant gen 12.

  32. 42 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And after they build it, are they going to ask it the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?

    You know the rest.

    I hope.

  33. bragging rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really build a supercomputer for what amounts to bragging right? No roads to fix?

    1. Re:bragging rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No gays to fuck? No laws to ignore? No enemies to target? No nukes to give away? No fundamental transformations to work on?

  34. Skynet by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    John Connor: "By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves. I should have realized it was never our destiny to stop Judgment Day, it was merely to survive it, together. The Terminator knew; he tried to tell us, but I didn't want to hear it. Maybe the future has been written. I don't know; all I know is what the Terminator taught me; never stop fighting. And I never will. The battle has just begun."

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hail Hydra

  35. Name of the Computer Project by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    Hm, something like this needs a good, catchy name, that also makes for a good acronym.
    How about...

    Strategic
    Kinetic
    Yankee
    Neural
    Exaflop
    Terminal

    1. Re:Name of the Computer Project by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Did I catch a "niner" in there?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  36. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0B@m@ s3z h# dUnt l!k3z j00z

    FTFY

  37. It sucks to see Obama shove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more Republican corporate welfare down our throats. All this is about is taking tax money from us at gun point to give to corporations. To give to them.

    1. Re:It sucks to see Obama shove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It is the Republicans forcing him to do this just as they forced him to make the ACA so horrific. They're forcing him to.

    2. Re: It sucks to see Obama shove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea because Obama wrote the Aca all by himself.

      Pro tip: the aca was originally created by republicans.

  38. Imagine a by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    beowulf cluster of these...

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Imagine a by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      A five digit UID making a Beowolf Cluster joke? What decade is this!?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  39. So... by pem · · Score: 1

    I guess Obama's miffed he missed out on the early days of cheap bitcoin mining.

  40. Fix the economy by ChadSmith4920 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mine Bit Coins

  41. Re: Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just ignore the parent poster. When someone like them disagrees with an executive order, they bitch, moan and make snide remarks about it even if time proves it to be a good thing. When they agree with an executive order, they bitch, moan and make snide remarks about people who disagree with it even if there aren't any around.

    In short, they will always bitch, moan and make snide remarks; and are generally unpleasant people. I attribute my happiness in part to just staying away from them :)

  42. The next executive order by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Synthesize the unicorn genome, to provide fuel for transportation and buy the votes of little girls.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  43. Do you want Skynet? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Because that's how you get Skynet.

    1. Re:Do you want Skynet? by roger10-4 · · Score: 1

      AI is how you get Skynet; not HPC. HPC and AI are different problems. While it would be reasonable to assume an AI could leverage the compute power from an exascale platform, it's not necessarily a requirement in achieving it.

  44. Re:aaaaaaannd.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans are outraged!

    Even thought they have no idea of what on earth an exascale computer is.

    Probably has something to do with healthcare or activist judges..

    Keep people busy with the Republican/Democrat battle so no one ever realizes that they both suck balls.

  45. Executive Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight. The President had ordered three federal government departments to make computers for several other federal government departments, and bypassed congress entirely in the process. Do I have that about right?

  46. Re:aaaaaaannd.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

    Republicans are outraged!

    Even thought they have no idea of what on earth an exascale computer is.

    Probably has something to do with healthcare or activist judges..

    Keep people busy with the Republican/Democrat battle so no one ever realizes that they both suck balls.

    Outraged you too, I see.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  47. I don't want to be serious but... by ExXter · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't that sound like Skynet Alpha?

  48. And ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who will pay for this? What was "HIS" justification for this? or is he being told by someone to do this as all good monkeys do?

  49. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you Obama. Go back to what you know best, stealing from Americans.

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

      Oh, he is, how do you think he's going to pay for it?

  50. Mark Your Calendars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today is the day that Skynet managed to get a machine from the future back to, in order to get itself created.

  51. This order is worthless without funding by acoustix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He can attempt to mandate all he wants. Congress approves the budgets. And since we all know how well Obama has been submitting his budgets....

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:This order is worthless without funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you even had a basic idea of how the Constitution works, the President's budget is basically for show. Congress is entirely responsible.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE

    2. Re:This order is worthless without funding by acoustix · · Score: 2

      If you even had a basic idea of how the Constitution works, the President's budget is basically for show. Congress is entirely responsible.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE

      Sorry, but you're wrong.

      Congress generally begins its budget process once the President submits his budget. The President is required by law to submit a comprehensive federal budget on or before the first Monday in February (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    3. Re:This order is worthless without funding by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Julius Caesar says, Julius Caesar gets!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:This order is worthless without funding by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yeah, so.
      When has the neo-cons/tea* listened to any budget by Obama? Not a once.
      They discard everything and simply run their own. Hell, they do not even listen to past GOPs BEGGING for the house/senate to raise taxes on fuel to bring our roads back to levels.
      At this time, all they listen to, are the billionaires, along with Chinese gov.. Hell, this group has been working to kill America's new private space, by giving MORE MONEY to Putin.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:This order is worthless without funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress: Billions in pork for my district?

      Let's BUILD A SUPER-COLLI...Computer. I meant computer, not that thing in Texas, not at all like that billion dollar boondoggle I voted against, this one is real!

      (Actually, I wonder how many Congresscritters are left from those days...looks to be about 60-70 from the House, and a dozen Senators...I think we can try again, but this time, get more districts involved!)

    6. Re:This order is worthless without funding by Straif · · Score: 1

      The neo-cons/tea partiers had nothing to do with Obama's budgeting woes. Between the House and Senate his proposed budget has only been able to get about 3 positive votes in the last few years. Most years the Senate under Reid simply refused to bring it to the floor for a vote it was so laughable. Only Republican pressure managed to get it to the floor where it managed to get 1 "yea" vote in 3 years.

      Only the House actually bothered to do their duty and propose a budget each year. The Senate, once again under Reid;s leadership, generally just ignored all budgetary requirements and simple kept passing short term continuing resolutions which lead to the almost annual face off and threatened government shutdown.

      The way the process is suppose to work is the President proposes a budget (usually after some discussion with leaders from both parties which was not going to happen under Obama since his own party members claim he never talks to them), both the House and Senate consider the Presidents proposals and write their own budgets (this can be anything from a direct copy of the Presidents or completely fresh). Then after both house pass a budget they two version go into reconciliation to see if a common ground can be found. While not legally binding, this finalized budget then gives way for appropriation bills to be passed in both houses to fund each budget concern.

      For most of Obama's 2 terms things have not worked out that way. The presidents proposals have been seen as a joke by both parties in both houses, the Senate is fine with zero planning and the House passes their own budgets that had no real legal standing and since they know that, can effectively just be a Republican wish list with little or no Dem input.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  52. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    still whining about china massively undercutting something that was publicly funded?

  53. Re:aaaaaaannd.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    And democrats have a hard on. Yes President Obama can create anything through executive action.

    Just like all the others.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Or do you just want REpublicans to have that?

    Rage on!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  54. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

    Never forget something that exists only in your fevered imagination? What's the point of that when you don't post your bizarre belief under your own name so we know to avoid you?

  55. Windows versions by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Given that even numbers suck, I am sure they will be skipping odd numbers from now on.

    I'll stick with Win 7

    1. Re:Windows versions by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Given that even numbers suck, I am sure they will be skipping odd numbers from now on.

      I'll stick with Win 7

      As will I. They'll need to pry Win 7 from my cold dead fingers. I read a few reviews on 10 yesterday, and the general consensus is that it's almost as good as 7, (better in some parts, worse in others) if you replace that hybrid start menu thingy with Classic Shell and get used to where they've moved things. Yeah. No.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Windows versions by Valdier · · Score: 1

      Given that even numbers suck, I am sure they will be skipping odd numbers from now on.

      I'll stick with Win 7

      As will I. They'll need to pry Win 7 from my cold dead fingers. I read a few reviews on 10 yesterday, and the general consensus is that it's almost as good as 7, (better in some parts, worse in others) if you replace that hybrid start menu thingy with Classic Shell and get used to where they've moved things. Yeah. No.

      Well, seeing how its an extension of Windows 7/8 and there is nothing missing that is in 7 really. Although if new interfaces bother you, it could be a reason to stick with Win3.1

      You need to read reviews from professionals, not friends on Facebook ;)

    3. Re:Windows versions by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Given that even numbers suck, I am sure they will be skipping odd numbers from now on.

      I'll stick with Win 7

      As will I. They'll need to pry Win 7 from my cold dead fingers. I read a few reviews on 10 yesterday, and the general consensus is that it's almost as good as 7, (better in some parts, worse in others) if you replace that hybrid start menu thingy with Classic Shell and get used to where they've moved things. Yeah. No.

      Well, seeing how its an extension of Windows 7/8 and there is nothing missing that is in 7 really. Although if new interfaces bother you, it could be a reason to stick with Win3.1

      You need to read reviews from professionals, not friends on Facebook ;)

      See, this is the real problem. Back in the 3.1 days, we were on the steep end of the curve, and there were things that really needed to be added, changed and fixed. Now we're up on the flat end of the curve, and there really isn't a lot that needs to be improved, assuming that we're still using a keyboard and a mouse and the peripherals haven't changed substantially.

      So people went to 95 because the ideas (not necessarily the implementation) really were needed, and to 98SE because 95 kinda sucked, and 2000 because it was stable, and xp for things that 2000 didn't support, and 7 because its 64 bit version was a lot more mature and stable than xp's 64 bit version. There's no *reason* to go to 10, and so no reason for me to muck with live tiles on the start menu and figure out which admin applets are still in control panel and which have been moved elsewhere. It's just not necessary.

      We need to remember, Windows is not the application. The applications are the applications. Windows just runs them.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  56. Obligatory #31 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of pork

    1. Re:Obligatory #31 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tasty

  57. Re: easy b/c avg time from order to delivery 4.5 y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proliant gen 12 is only 2018. :)

  58. solar powered! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's why hillary wants 500 million solar panels

  59. It's sad. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    The first thought I had was that I hope they don't do it because it'll only be used to invade our privacy.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  60. The GOP ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... will throw a wrench in the works.

    Buried in some farm bill, there will be a requirement to port systemd to this.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  61. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by lucm · · Score: 0

    Well they can keep the solar panels business, they need it after losing 3 trillions dollars in their stock market since June.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  62. Deja vu by Triakter · · Score: 1

    "Each of those agencies will be allowed to provide input during the early stages of the development of these new computers."

    Isn't that how we got the $388 Billion broke-dick F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

  63. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. and how much will be done in India and China? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, building the computer is worthless, unless it comes 100% from America, or at least the west.
    If the parts come from China, then it will make it trivial for China to simply build their own CPLA computer for weapons modeling.

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

    Wait, are you a Republicrat angry because you think he's a Democan, or a Democan angry because you think he's a Republicrat?

  67. good news? by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

    Oh please...we all know that this is going to be used to spy on us. Why are we cheering?

  68. Exascale machines are for scientific computing by gentryx · · Score: 2, Informative

    These Peta/Exascale supercomputers are build for computer simulations (climate change, nuclear weapons stewardship, computational drug design, etc.), not for breaking encryption. That's also one reason no one is using them to mine Bitcoins: they're just not efficient at that job. To compute lots of hashes, dedicated hardware designs (read: ASICS) far outpace "general purpose" supercomputers.

    --
    Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
  69. Capacity vs. capability by gentryx · · Score: 1

    So, what you describe is essentially the difference between capacity and capability machines. The national labs have both, as there are use cases for both. But the flagship machines, e.g. Titan at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), are always capability machines -- built to run full system jobs, jobs that scale tens of or hundreds of thousands of nodes.

    --
    Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
    1. Re:Capacity vs. capability by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation.

  70. They already co-design the hard-/software by gentryx · · Score: 1

    Basically, the procurement process for supercomputers is like this: the buyer (e.g. a DOE lab) will ready a portfolio of apps (mostly simulation codes) with a specified target performance. Vendors then bid for how "little" money they'll be able to meet that target performance. And of course the vendors will use the most (cost/power) efficient hardware they can get.

    The reason why we're no longer seeing custom built CPUs in the supercomputing arena, but rather COTS chips or just slightly modified versions, is that chip design has become so exceedingly expensive and that the supercomputer market is marginalized by today's mainstream market.

    Also, the simulation codes running on these machines generally far outlive most supercomputers. The stereotypical supercomputer simulation code is a Fortran program written 20 years ago, which received constant maintenance in the past years, but no serious rewrite is viable (costs exceed price of hardware). So vendors will look for low-effort ways of tuning these codes for their proposed designs. Sticking with general purpose CPUs is in most cases the most cost efficient way.

    --
    Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
  71. Another money hole by hambone142 · · Score: 0

    Our government can't design computers. They fuck up everything they put their hands on.

    Why not just work with a computer company instead?

    1. Re:Another money hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not necessaries a bad idea. Funnelling wheel-barrows full of cash at research institutions can work in some circumstances, particularly when the cost of a speculative development would be too much for a private business to shoulder (opportunity cost, ROI, etc.). In that case the government can pay for the research. It may or may not produce the desired end product but it would be quite unusual if it produces nothing at all.

      The question of whether it's value for money is different. It's unlikely the President is going to tell you why the NSA want something like this. We can speculate of course.

  72. Encryption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be cracked, Executive Order No. 1.

  73. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by x0ra · · Score: 1

    however, if you look year-to-date, it's still making gains.

  74. Revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is so appropriate that this decision was published in the days preceeding the 70th anniversary of the atomic bomb attacks on the japanese christian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The japanese finally can have their revenge.

    You see, Japan tried to build a "5th generation" computer future in the 1980s, with new programming languages and new chips based on new methods and materials, for never seen before extreme high performance and parallelization. They were aiming to achive full AI with all that performance leap. But that national project failed miserably and its huge costs and the humiliation brought the whole Japan into two decades of massive recession.

    Now the same can happen to America! Obama wants to build a semiconductor Yahweh, an exascale computer, 30 times faster than today's fastest, hoping it will USA is the other chosen nation and give guidance on how to build the Thid Temple, for protestant zionism's greater glory. But of course they will end up with an exascale cretin and that will bring on the world's policeman's demise.

    1. Re:Revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for your meds. Past time actually.

  75. but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "let's put a man on the moon" was at least a sensible, clear, audacious goal.
    "let's build a 30x faster computer" is not. it's easy to build a machine that is 30x faster than anything else, if you know what you're building for. GPUs are easily 30x faster than CPUs, yet that doesn't seem to be what Obama wants.
    So, 30x in terms of what, processing the data collected by the NSA? Transmitting data across continents? Encrypting and decrypting data?
    Anyone?

    1. Re:but why? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Do you really have to ask that question? The biggest limiting factors to large scale surveillance are technical limitations. This is one step closer to the designed police state. God I sound paranoid. Unfortunately, I'm also right.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  76. Re: Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that case, you have a self-admitted track record of hysteria, because the world didn't end with Titan, Sequoia, Jaguar, Roadrunner or BlueGene.

    If you want to criticize the President, you can waste your time with this, or you can cover many many many more things that would actually be a legitimate complaint.

  77. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome the edicts of our imperial socialist overlord!

  78. Combine Resources, share time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I'm loathe to suggest ever more government largesse rather than design separate super-computers for each organization that needs one, wouldn't it be better to support a single-point source for super-computing time, and each individual agency purchases/reserves/leases time on the system? Typically in the commercial world, such combinations of resources offer savings and efficiencies. Typically. In the Private Sector.

    Forget I said anything, carry-on.

  79. those agencies are just a smoke screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really for the IRS.

  80. FBI? Hmmm..... by Dr.+Blue · · Score: 2

    I see people speculating above about the government using this to break crypto, but that's really not a huge concern. If people use good keys that require brute force searching, even the smallest AES key size would take over a billion millenia to break at 10^18 ops/second (even assuming you could test a key on one "op"). And for people who use bad keys, you don't need exascale computing to break them.

    So what could the FBI use something like this for? What about analysis of massive public and not-so-public data, like data mining Internet postings, email/phone records, ... Better not post something with the wrong combination of words, or someone might come knocking on your door.

  81. Too expensive for too little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are going to spend billions of dollars just so they can crack iPhone encryption and read my grocery list. Sad. All they really need is to have a proper warrant and ask.

  82. Re:aaaaaaannd.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Wait, are you a Republicrat angry because you think he's a Democan, or a Democan angry because you think he's a Republicrat?

    Who's angry? I'm just being an agitation engineer.

    p.s. to answer your question, I'm a pragmatic. I believe in what actually works, as opposed to ideology. Wildly reviled if the liberal or conservative can expand their mind enough to even acknowledge my existence, I'm the turd in the punchbowl of politics.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  83. Re:Dictator dictating is a Dictator by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Now if you want to hate on Obama, you could argue that this supercomputer will be designed by indentured servants from India, using components made in Malaysia, and assembled in China. And it will likely be true.

    But, you can just call him names too, that's good.

  84. fbi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hihi, the fbi - I dont think they will use the computer - for detecting crimes or the corresponding crimnals who have committed crimes. Noooo - they will use it to predict WHO is going to do the crime :-)) That is, which one of you (I'm a bot so dont count me in) :) Good luck in AMERICA

  85. Re: Gotta love these executive orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a relatively small, contextless snippet.. now add all the following subclauses that exempt parts of those provisions.

  86. Re:Quantum computing by outlander · · Score: 1

    The folks at DWave would probably say no:

    http://www.dwavesys.com/

    They've been working on it for a while. :)

    --
    "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  87. Nih by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People got all interested in the NSA utah facility. I fount it interesting that they expect to be able to process a YB of data a year. This is not storing, just processing. Who else publicly needs to do that? NIH. You want to store that much? That is like filling the space shuttle assembly building with SD cards. Accessing the data might be expensive.

    Flops are not bytes but you see we have bottlenecks and if it is not here than its there.

  88. Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can use the new cheapo SPARC chip from Oracle to build this sucker!

  89. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How fast will it factor large prime numbers?

  90. I'm surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    217 comments as of 15:48 UTC, and nobody's made any HHGTTG 'Deep thought' references yet...