Um, so, don't credit Katrina to global warming unless you want to employ the same fraudulent fear-mongering techniques that everyone accuses the administration of. Read your New York Times. Katrina was part of a new, natural cycle of hurricanes and not part of global warming, per se.
It's a popular misconception that they are the same, but it is just not true. Supercomputer features note present in a cluster computer include things like truly high performance networks, system management infrastructure, and reliability by design. You buy a cluster that's big enough to make up for that 3.75 difference and you won't be able to keep the whole thing running for more than a couple of hours. That's not long enough to get your job done. Worse, the larger the computer gets, the poorer it scales. Scalability curves have a tendency to roll over at some point. (i.e. more processors make it slower).
2) the cost differential MIGHT be 3.75 for the vector system, but it isn't for other supercomputers.
I say "might" on the vector system because, as I pointed out above, scalability isn't just a straight linear thing.
Let's say you are a government who needs fighter planes. Fighter planes are really expensive because they are designed to make sharp turns at high speeds (among other things). Unfortunately, the commercial market will support Cessnas, but it won't quite support fighter planes. Will you let all of the fighter plane makers go out of business and just buy Cessnas?
Such is the world of high performance computing. A lot of tasks work great on a cluster. In other cases, people who need computing capacity (as opposed to computing capability) buy clusters. Many of the governments most important applications, however, need computing capability. That is, I have a big job and I need it done NOW! On a 1000 node cluster, that application might run 200 times faster than a single computer (if you are lucky). On a properly designed 1000 node supercomputer, it might run 750 times faster than a single computer (without that much work). That factor of 3.75 is REALLY important when the job runs for 3 weeks on the supercomputer (almost 3 months on the cluster).
The problem in the market is that the government is one of the primary user of supercomputers. (weather forecasting, climate forecasting, scientific research labs, weapons labs). If they let the industry falter, they will be the ones to pay the price.
Okay that is a stupid generalization. Most companies eventually want to make money, yes, but most startup companies or R&D companies spend years in the Red before ever even thinking about making a profit. To say that an individual or company can't do long term research or exploration just because they can't make a quick buck while the government sits atop the hill and can contemplate a much bigger picture is ludicrous.
Show me a startup with a serious basic science investement. I'm talking about stuff that isn't going to be a product anytime soon. I'm talkinig about research into stuff that no one knows how it will ever become a product. That is the stuff that industry used to do, but it takes one with some capital to invest. Bell labs is a shell of its former self. So is Xerox Research Park. So is every major industrial research complex. Universities are the only ones doing real research anymore and their funding comes from..... the US government.
From my perspective there has been very little advancement in basic science since the US Military and Government has become the primary sponsor in the US after World War II, largely what we have seen is advancement in engineering and refinement of manufacturing based upon the basic science and theories that were created in the 19th and early 20th century. Which was a time when government was largely uninvolved with basic research. Even if you don't agree that the pace of basic scientific research has lessened, you must surely note that many of the great advances in the sciences occured well before the days of Government directed research.
Who, exactly, do you think funded the great scholars of history? Usually some lord or noble of some sort. a.k.a. the government. Yeah, we've had some great achievements outside of the government umbrella, but research is costing a lot more than it used to. It's not like you can sit under an apple tree and discover gravity (been done) or fly a kite and discover electricity (been done). Want to do new science? Realistically, you should have supercomputing resources. Why? You can gain insights that you can never get from a test tube or experiment. We can't see atoms very well, but we have gotten relatively good at modeling them.
And as far as slowing down? Historians seems to think we have come much farther in the last fifty years (scientifically) than in the previous couple of centuries.
Do you think that American Sovereignty can really be extended much beyond the reaches of our atmosphere?
Yep. Frankly, for the near future whoever goes there will rule it. At least, until we treat them badly and have a major conflict with them. It is not like a space colony is going to be capable of sustaining itself anytime soon.
People will go out into space because they see opportunity and they will make up their own rules as they go along.
Columbus was funded by Spain. England ruled the colonies for a long time (until they treated them badly AND the colonies were self-sustaining AND the colonies could muster a big enough army to win). What makes you think that a bunch of private citizens are going to go colonize space? And then revolt? I'm not talking about moving into space for fun or physical space. I'm thinking mining and energy harvesting will be the first major move. Although manufacturing may come first. But it won't be just a fun place to live.
You have just argued to shut down NSF, NASA, NIH, and DARPA. In other words, you are arguing against the government funding basic science, and you are wrong. In the modern economic culture, next quarter's profits are the primary goal. Across the country, investments in basic science at corporations is plummeting. If the government does not pick up the slack, we will be no more technically advanced than a third world country in a few decades.
But, back to your core argument against NASA. Like it or not, there is an international space race. Competing successfully in that race is as important to our national security as any defense program we have. The last thing you want is to have China, Russia, and India with bases on the moon and us with no way to get into space. Eventually, the planet will run out of resources. We should not be the only industrialized nation without access to extra-terrestrial resources when that happen.
which IMHO is proof that deregulation doesn't work... at least not when the White House is inhabited by someone who cares more about the welfare of energy companies than about the citizens.
What? I know a little about deregulation (and the hideous things that are happening) and I'm not sure what you mean here.
1) Much of the "regulation" of energy cost is done at the state level. e.g. there is a state level agency that is required to approve increases in energy rates. This was/is necessary because distribution and generation were coupled. That means that the utility is a monopoly and HAS to be regulated in this sense.
2) Many states are attempting to deregulate. Not just electricity, but natural gass too. This is a nightmare that has not "worked" yet. Distribution and generation have to be decoupled. This means that the distribution company is still a monopoly (much like the baby bells which are still mostly regulated). If they aren't regulated, bad things happen. Unfortunately, there isn't any incentive for them to make inifrastructure upgrades and repairs. And, from the generation side, electricity shortages are much worse than gas (as in what you buy for your car) shortages because the grid starts to collapse. But, in a competitive market, it is hard to justify putting in the generation capacity needed.
3) What does the White House have to do with all of that? Especially the current White House (deregulation has been underway for years). Not that I like the current White House that much, but this seems inflamatory for no particular reason...
I'm in favor of personal alternative energy sources. However, this article proposes that during grid failure that individuals should be pushing electricity back into the grid in a distributed fashion. This inherently implies NOT dropping off when you start generating.
Also, there is a big difference in codes (or standards) and actual practice. People have been hooking into the grid willy-nilly for a long time with personal generators. They are SUPPOSED to do something cleaner, but it is hard to control the average idiot. A lot of do-it-yourselfers aren't exactly up on the implications of what they are doing.
Yeah, maybe. In reality, that doesn't quite happen. Wander around somewhere where large numbers of power lines are lying on the ground and you won't find people being so careful. The difference in time to operate as if "the gun is always loaded" is significant and the people doing the work are tired (24 hr. shifts are not uncommon in major snow storms or hurricanes or...). Now, if every idiot in America is pushing power into the grid, it gets real dangerous.
For those who don't know, your household electricity is not terribly dangerous. 120V or 240V CAN kill you, but won't normally (plenty of personal experience). Unfortunately, transformers work in both directions. Plug your little fuel cell into your home electric system wrong and you are push 7200V or more back into the main lines. That stuff can kill you quick. Current, I, is the thing that kills you. I=V/R. R for the average human body is pretty high (if you aren't wet or bleeding). Raising V is very dangerous. There are systems designed to generally protect the public and utility workers (things that trip when a high voltage wire is grounded), but they aren't in the system in a way to protect you/them from power coming out of a home.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, so, don't credit Katrina to global warming unless you want to employ the same fraudulent fear-mongering techniques that everyone accuses the administration of. Read your New York Times. Katrina was part of a new, natural cycle of hurricanes and not part of global warming, per se.
Two important notes:
1) supercomputer != vector supercomputer
It's a popular misconception that they are the same, but it is just not true. Supercomputer features note present in a cluster computer include things like truly high performance networks, system management infrastructure, and reliability by design. You buy a cluster that's big enough to make up for that 3.75 difference and you won't be able to keep the whole thing running for more than a couple of hours. That's not long enough to get your job done. Worse, the larger the computer gets, the poorer it scales. Scalability curves have a tendency to roll over at some point. (i.e. more processors make it slower).
2) the cost differential MIGHT be 3.75 for the vector system, but it isn't for other supercomputers.
I say "might" on the vector system because, as I pointed out above, scalability isn't just a straight linear thing.
Let's say you are a government who needs fighter planes. Fighter planes are really expensive because they are designed to make sharp turns at high speeds (among other things). Unfortunately, the commercial market will support Cessnas, but it won't quite support fighter planes. Will you let all of the fighter plane makers go out of business and just buy Cessnas? Such is the world of high performance computing. A lot of tasks work great on a cluster. In other cases, people who need computing capacity (as opposed to computing capability) buy clusters. Many of the governments most important applications, however, need computing capability. That is, I have a big job and I need it done NOW! On a 1000 node cluster, that application might run 200 times faster than a single computer (if you are lucky). On a properly designed 1000 node supercomputer, it might run 750 times faster than a single computer (without that much work). That factor of 3.75 is REALLY important when the job runs for 3 weeks on the supercomputer (almost 3 months on the cluster). The problem in the market is that the government is one of the primary user of supercomputers. (weather forecasting, climate forecasting, scientific research labs, weapons labs). If they let the industry falter, they will be the ones to pay the price.
Show me a startup with a serious basic science investement. I'm talking about stuff that isn't going to be a product anytime soon. I'm talkinig about research into stuff that no one knows how it will ever become a product. That is the stuff that industry used to do, but it takes one with some capital to invest. Bell labs is a shell of its former self. So is Xerox Research Park. So is every major industrial research complex. Universities are the only ones doing real research anymore and their funding comes from..... the US government.
From my perspective there has been very little advancement in basic science since the US Military and Government has become the primary sponsor in the US after World War II, largely what we have seen is advancement in engineering and refinement of manufacturing based upon the basic science and theories that were created in the 19th and early 20th century. Which was a time when government was largely uninvolved with basic research. Even if you don't agree that the pace of basic scientific research has lessened, you must surely note that many of the great advances in the sciences occured well before the days of Government directed research.
Who, exactly, do you think funded the great scholars of history? Usually some lord or noble of some sort. a.k.a. the government. Yeah, we've had some great achievements outside of the government umbrella, but research is costing a lot more than it used to. It's not like you can sit under an apple tree and discover gravity (been done) or fly a kite and discover electricity (been done). Want to do new science? Realistically, you should have supercomputing resources. Why? You can gain insights that you can never get from a test tube or experiment. We can't see atoms very well, but we have gotten relatively good at modeling them.
And as far as slowing down? Historians seems to think we have come much farther in the last fifty years (scientifically) than in the previous couple of centuries.
Do you think that American Sovereignty can really be extended much beyond the reaches of our atmosphere?
Yep. Frankly, for the near future whoever goes there will rule it. At least, until we treat them badly and have a major conflict with them. It is not like a space colony is going to be capable of sustaining itself anytime soon.
People will go out into space because they see opportunity and they will make up their own rules as they go along.
Columbus was funded by Spain. England ruled the colonies for a long time (until they treated them badly AND the colonies were self-sustaining AND the colonies could muster a big enough army to win). What makes you think that a bunch of private citizens are going to go colonize space? And then revolt? I'm not talking about moving into space for fun or physical space. I'm thinking mining and energy harvesting will be the first major move. Although manufacturing may come first. But it won't be just a fun place to live.
But, back to your core argument against NASA. Like it or not, there is an international space race. Competing successfully in that race is as important to our national security as any defense program we have. The last thing you want is to have China, Russia, and India with bases on the moon and us with no way to get into space. Eventually, the planet will run out of resources. We should not be the only industrialized nation without access to extra-terrestrial resources when that happen.
What? I know a little about deregulation (and the hideous things that are happening) and I'm not sure what you mean here.
1) Much of the "regulation" of energy cost is done at the state level. e.g. there is a state level agency that is required to approve increases in energy rates. This was/is necessary because distribution and generation were coupled. That means that the utility is a monopoly and HAS to be regulated in this sense.
2) Many states are attempting to deregulate. Not just electricity, but natural gass too. This is a nightmare that has not "worked" yet. Distribution and generation have to be decoupled. This means that the distribution company is still a monopoly (much like the baby bells which are still mostly regulated). If they aren't regulated, bad things happen. Unfortunately, there isn't any incentive for them to make inifrastructure upgrades and repairs. And, from the generation side, electricity shortages are much worse than gas (as in what you buy for your car) shortages because the grid starts to collapse. But, in a competitive market, it is hard to justify putting in the generation capacity needed.
3) What does the White House have to do with all of that? Especially the current White House (deregulation has been underway for years). Not that I like the current White House that much, but this seems inflamatory for no particular reason...
I'm in favor of personal alternative energy sources. However, this article proposes that during grid failure that individuals should be pushing electricity back into the grid in a distributed fashion. This inherently implies NOT dropping off when you start generating. Also, there is a big difference in codes (or standards) and actual practice. People have been hooking into the grid willy-nilly for a long time with personal generators. They are SUPPOSED to do something cleaner, but it is hard to control the average idiot. A lot of do-it-yourselfers aren't exactly up on the implications of what they are doing.
Yeah, maybe. In reality, that doesn't quite happen. Wander around somewhere where large numbers of power lines are lying on the ground and you won't find people being so careful. The difference in time to operate as if "the gun is always loaded" is significant and the people doing the work are tired (24 hr. shifts are not uncommon in major snow storms or hurricanes or...). Now, if every idiot in America is pushing power into the grid, it gets real dangerous.
For those who don't know, your household electricity is not terribly dangerous. 120V or 240V CAN kill you, but won't normally (plenty of personal experience). Unfortunately, transformers work in both directions. Plug your little fuel cell into your home electric system wrong and you are push 7200V or more back into the main lines. That stuff can kill you quick. Current, I, is the thing that kills you. I=V/R. R for the average human body is pretty high (if you aren't wet or bleeding). Raising V is very dangerous. There are systems designed to generally protect the public and utility workers (things that trip when a high voltage wire is grounded), but they aren't in the system in a way to protect you/them from power coming out of a home.