The DOE has guaranteed to monitor and control the radiation output of Yucca mountain for a million years. That's right, 1 million years - it's the furthest out the government has planned anything.
We have spent $2 billion to study the geology of Yucca mountain, and there is no concern of someone getting hurt by any catastrophic event.
This is paid for, in part, by selling electricity to the tax payer from DOE's reactors.
That is a star made up out of green LEDs. I see precious little that could look like C4.
Either way, the police had a suspicious device reported and responded. That's good. They told her to freeze and not move, and she complied. That's good. Later on, they determined the device was harmless, and (to me) it appears that she was just dumb, but there was no intent. To have a hoax device, you must intend for it to be a hoax.
The problem I have is when the prosecutor steps in and tries to say there was malicious intent. This ought to be a cakewalk for any decent lawyer; I suspect the charges will be dropped in a month or two (after the city spends thousands of dollars on it, of course).
Waste of time, waste of news, waste of taxpayer money.
Her name is "Star", so she arranged LEDs into the shape of a STAR, and headed off to school. On the way to career day, she swung by the airport to pick up her boyfriend.
Sure, she wanted attention at the event at the MIT campus; she didn't want attention at the damned airport. Sometimes you just have to read through the crappy reporting. This isn't a performance piece, it's a case of "forgot to take off my hoodie when I went to the airport and scared some folks accidentally". I see no malicious intent.
I have no problem with security reacting - that's what they are trained to do. Someone reported something suspicious, and police followed protocol to a T.
The problem I have is afterwards, when it is found that it was a harmless oversight (a dumb oversight, yes - but harmless), they charge her with something. A hoax bomb device implies malicious intent, and I have a hard time believing it's there.
Look, she was headed to career day. Her name is "Star" and she is an EE. She had LEDs on her shirt which light up in the pattern of a star. Get it? It's a name tag. She wasn't out looking for trouble.
She needed a stern talking to, but she doesn't need to get charged. The police also didn't need to over-sensationalize the stupid thing. Who the hell decided a security incident needed to go to the international press? They must know that someone is going to report it from the "look at the dumbass police" angle.
It's a tricky situation. She was headed to MIT's career day, and dropped by the airport to pick up her boyfriend. For career day, she made a little LED nametag with a 5 point star which lit up.
Get it? It's a light-up star on her nametag, and her name is "Star".
It sounds like a ticket person outside asked her what it was and she ignored/didn't notice them. Don't know what the silly putty was about. The ticket person did exactly what they were supposed to do when something is suspicious and called the police. The police responded exactly to protocol.
It sounds like the police is running on a little too much testosterone when he said "she's lucky she is in a cell, not a morgue"; that's the sort of thing which exacerbates a media situation. He should have shut up an let a PR person handle it. I'm sure they would have shot her if she started running or something, but she had no reason to.
The police responded according to protocol. The girl did a thoughtless thing (should have answered the ticket lady's question about what it was). In the name of good security, you sometimes have false positives. If there was a mistake made and it so obviously wasn't intentional, the police should search you, question you, and send you away with the crap thoroughly scared out of you.
My frustration here is when the police take a simple, thoughtless mistake (she was just on her way to career day!) on some poor college student's part and blow it up into an international media incident, make it sound scary ("We almost shot her! blah blah blah"), and charge her with a crime (hoax bomb device) that obviously is false.
The definition of hoax is "humorous or malicious deception" according to my dictionary. Unless the bit about the Play-Doh ends up being a significant part of the story, you *really* have to stretch things to make her actions sound malicious.
In my area, I can get basic cable ($50), the local high-def channels ($0), and a DVR ($9). Sounds pretty good, right?
Oh wait, if I want the "Navigator" functionality (the ability to use the digital cable's menus and program recordings), I have to pay $3 AND purchase a $30 "Digital Tier" pack of complete crap channels.
If I built a new MythTV box (no local phone line, so no TiVo... has that changed lately?), it would take several years to recoup my costs. Monetarily, I don't think it would be worth it; however, it's tempting to take a hit just to make sure the money I do spend doesn't end up in Time Warner's pocket.
About 8 PB of files. If i recall correctly, there's around 500TB of online disk space and 10-30PB of tape storage (some of it is getting phased out).
FNAL has a similar setup, except with a storage manager called dCache. There is no use of protocols like iSCSI or Fiber Channel over IP, but rather physics-specific ones (xrootd, rfio, dcap) and grid-specific ones (SRM and gridFTP).
I think they're up to something like 160-200 dual or quad-core blades, at least.
So, a small to medium university cluster? I doubt the server purchases for Second Life or Eve online from the last year mount up to a tenth of a percent of Intel's weekly sales. It's the *clients* they are thinking about.
Hell, Intel should be *donating* CPUs to EVE online then. If buying a company 200 blades means that 34,000 users upgrade their game boxen regularly, the investment probably pays for itself.
Now it is establishing its own downloading service, which NBC executives say they expect to become a viable competitor to iTunes
Suuure. A viable competitor - but without a quarter of the video content, no music, probably crap software, lousy integrated experience, and no iPod support. It's as if they just opened a new brick and mortar NBC store which sells laser disks.
Forking the Kernel in desktop and server forks will mean that each specific kernel is optimized for such tasks and that the distribution makers have just a subset of the huge kernel to care about when creating their distributions.
Actually, I have a better idea! Let's make it so, at runtime, folks can unload or load tasks - heck, let's call them modules - from the kernel. Even better yet, if there was only a way to control various tunings and constants in the kernel while the computer is turned on!
Sarcasm aside, it's the job of the distributors to tune the kernel for their customers. Redhat tunes their kernels for high performance servers. Ubuntu probably tunes their kernels for desktops. If there was some large-scale concerted effort where desktop performance was sacrificed for server performance and such tunings *couldn't be adjusted* at runtime, I might be concerned. I just don't see it happening now.
I wonder if their thinking is that, since X% of the Linux developers (say 40 devs) are server-oriented (because that's what they are paid to do), that if a fork is performed, 40 highly skilled, unpaid kernel devs will magically appear for the desktop. Sure, one or two people might be able to do this, but there would be nowhere near the backing. Canonical might contribute a bit, but Redhat/IBM/Novell wouldn't.
Unless lots of money appears for Linux on the desktop, a desktop fork of the kernel is DOA.
Indeed. The last thing I want to do is rely on an online tool for a presentation. I've taken to having a copy on CD, thumb drive, laptop, and online. Sometimes two or three of those methods fail before one works. Google needs to kick their offline tools for Google Docs into high gear. It's come in 6 months, I bet.
On the other hand, imagine doing a quick, informal presentation. Prefix it with "please follow along at this URL". Not all companies have WebEx up and going. Not all MBAs know how to upload a file to a FTP server. Even the smallest small business can now host a webinar using this tool - without having any techie knowledge at all.
Indeed. If you want people to take your consumer-level technology seriously, one of the ways to do this is get a positive review from Walt. From his wikipedia article:
Mossberg is widely regarded as one of the most influential writers on information technology. In 2004, in a lengthy profile, Wired called him "The Kingmaker", saying "[f]ew reviewers have held so much power to shape an industry's successes and failures."[1] He is also the highest paid journalist at the Journal.[2]
In other words, despite people here calling him a "fossil", this is possible the most important person in the consumer tech industry. His concerns ought to be addressed carefully.
Gah, that's a bit of a flame. If you look at the architecture, there's good front-end / back-end separation. The front and back ends are necessarily extremely complicated, but you can rip the entire front end and compile your code to GIMPLE, or whatever their SSA form is called. There also have been several different languages (Java, C, C++, Ada, Obj-C) that are production frontends to GCC's backend.
I do know that I wrote an intermediate analyzer for a semester-length class, along with another grad student. In fact, the prof suggested we use GCC because several others have done the exact same thing, going back many years. It's not easy, but it's possible.
Sounds like whoever posted that was just extremely frustrated and wanted to blow off some steam. It can happen. GCC used to be a lot worse, and a lot further behind academia. There have been growing pains in the last couple of years getting it to "catch up". Perhaps that's what he was frustrated with?
These tests *did* factor performance into this (well, that's what the tester says. Intel is contesting this claim. You decided who you believe). In fact, those tests draw the same conclusions as folks I know who recently bought Opteron servers.
The Intel chips have great performance per watt *as a chip*. Perhaps even better than AMD does; I've never measured a chip's power usage.
The Intel servers, on the other hand, have worse performance per watt *as a fully loaded server*. Unless you're running the chip without a server, you generally should care about the power draw from the outlet - like these tests did.
The Intel servers seem to have the edge in performance per watt when the server is going nearly unused. However, in my area, usually the CPU is pegged 24/7 (unlike, say, a webserver).
It's good to see the chip wars are still alive and kicking. When the competition is healthy, consumers benefit instead of stockholders.
If it's an easy problem, you can use Matlab/Maple, but not if it's a big one.
I'd suggest looking at PETSc, a C/C++ scientific computation toolkit. It follows a few modern programming paradigms (gah, I hate that word) which make it singularly pleasant to work with, yet has all the speed of the crap you get from netlib.
Netlib is great for low level algorithms written by experts, but is the pits for usability. For example, a matrix-vector multiply in BLAS is called DGEMV (not exactly obvious to beginners), and has this calling sequence:
DGEMV(TRANS,M,N,ALPHA,A,LDA,X,INCX,BETA,Y,INCY)
Oh, and if you want to parallelize this, you have to use ScaLAPACK which is even more horrible to use.
On the other hand, PETSc's C interface looks like this:
PetscErrorCode MatMult(Mat mat,Vec x,Vec y)
You pass it a matrix object, an input vector, and an output vector. If you want it parallelized, you start it up with mpirun on your cluster/SMP/NUMA/BlueGene machine. The same code is portable to all.
And yes, there are python bindings which makes the above calling sequence even more stupidly easy. They give you a MATLAB-like syntax with the ability to scale from 1 - 5000 cores.
You can't hate if it's on someone else's website and you have agreed to their TOS saying you can't/won't on their site. Remember, it's only censorship if the government does it!
That said, you can say whatever you want on your own website hosted on your own servers. In that case, I also have the right to be disgusted by it and not visit your website..
Maybe we're just old fashioned in believing that free speech extends to people we don't like.
""" Q: Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property?
A: Yes. A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof. """
However, if you can jury-rig something in an area that is for your "exclusive use". The rule does mention that you can legally put up a 40 foot pole (anything 12 feet over the roofline may require a local permit, but is allowed), again, as long as it is safe:
""" In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). """
Near the bottom says that the onus is on the HOA to show that their rules do not infringe on your right, that they cannot fine you unless if you lose the ruling *and* fail to remove the antenna within the 21 grace period. Plus, while you are fighting, you do not have to remove your antenna unless it's a fight about safety or historic preservation.
It seems like you could easily get away from using a "recommended installer" by calling it an unreasonable expense. From the fact sheet:
Q: What is an unreasonable expense?
A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs.
Q: I want to install an antenna for broadcast radio or amateur radio. Does the rule apply to me?
A: No. The rule does not apply to antennas used for AM/FM radio, amateur ("ham") radio (see 47 C.F.R. 97.15), Citizen's Band ("CB") radio or Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS").
So, he isn't within his legal rights to have an amateur radio tower.
I understand Fermilab and other American institutes will be involved in processing the deluge of data produced by LHC.
I would say so! FNAL (plus 7 other universities) will probably have around 50% of the processing capacity for the CMS project (one of the LHC detectors).
Just because the detector isn't physically located at FNAL doesn't mean their contribution isn't significant. The whole design for grid-computing is that a physicist can be just as effective on their laptop in Starbucks as sitting next to the detector.
A lot of brain power is still there. They're great people to work with too.
I think that's a bit different, however. I understand that the Mormon church *itself* owns 30 billion in assets. Thrivent is a financial services organization which has $60 billion in holdings.
Thrivent is not ultimately controlled by the church, while I understand the Mormon church directly controls its holdings.
However, the lines between organizations for the members of the church and corporations owned by the church are rather hazy. It's hard to make exact pronouncements one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
The DOE has guaranteed to monitor and control the radiation output of Yucca mountain for a million years. That's right, 1 million years - it's the furthest out the government has planned anything.
We have spent $2 billion to study the geology of Yucca mountain, and there is no concern of someone getting hurt by any catastrophic event.
This is paid for, in part, by selling electricity to the tax payer from DOE's reactors.
If they are using Excel to analyze their data, I don't want to drive over a bridge they are designing...
None of the math or physics folks I work with would think about using Excel for their data.
You're probably in luck! As the article states, Apple is requiring 867Mhz or faster G4 instead of a 800Mhz or faster G4.
Too bad for the people who didn't RTFA and just read the (incorrect) summary.
Meh. That's hardly impressive, unless if someone has never seen a dynamic language.
I like Python's version better:
for root, dirs, files in os.walk('/home'):
for file in files:
do_something(file)
If you want to sort the directories as you recurse through them, add 'dirs.sort()'.
If you ask me, Ruby is like an ugly Python.
Here's a pretty good photo of it:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html?p1=MEWell_Pos3
That is a star made up out of green LEDs. I see precious little that could look like C4.
Either way, the police had a suspicious device reported and responded. That's good. They told her to freeze and not move, and she complied. That's good. Later on, they determined the device was harmless, and (to me) it appears that she was just dumb, but there was no intent. To have a hoax device, you must intend for it to be a hoax.
The problem I have is when the prosecutor steps in and tries to say there was malicious intent. This ought to be a cakewalk for any decent lawyer; I suspect the charges will be dropped in a month or two (after the city spends thousands of dollars on it, of course).
Waste of time, waste of news, waste of taxpayer money.
Yeah, she wanted to stand out on career day.
Her name is "Star", so she arranged LEDs into the shape of a STAR, and headed off to school. On the way to career day, she swung by the airport to pick up her boyfriend.
Sure, she wanted attention at the event at the MIT campus; she didn't want attention at the damned airport. Sometimes you just have to read through the crappy reporting. This isn't a performance piece, it's a case of "forgot to take off my hoodie when I went to the airport and scared some folks accidentally". I see no malicious intent.
I have no problem with security reacting - that's what they are trained to do. Someone reported something suspicious, and police followed protocol to a T.
The problem I have is afterwards, when it is found that it was a harmless oversight (a dumb oversight, yes - but harmless), they charge her with something. A hoax bomb device implies malicious intent, and I have a hard time believing it's there.
Look, she was headed to career day. Her name is "Star" and she is an EE. She had LEDs on her shirt which light up in the pattern of a star. Get it? It's a name tag. She wasn't out looking for trouble.
She needed a stern talking to, but she doesn't need to get charged. The police also didn't need to over-sensationalize the stupid thing. Who the hell decided a security incident needed to go to the international press? They must know that someone is going to report it from the "look at the dumbass police" angle.
It's a tricky situation. She was headed to MIT's career day, and dropped by the airport to pick up her boyfriend. For career day, she made a little LED nametag with a 5 point star which lit up.
Get it? It's a light-up star on her nametag, and her name is "Star".
It sounds like a ticket person outside asked her what it was and she ignored/didn't notice them. Don't know what the silly putty was about. The ticket person did exactly what they were supposed to do when something is suspicious and called the police. The police responded exactly to protocol.
It sounds like the police is running on a little too much testosterone when he said "she's lucky she is in a cell, not a morgue"; that's the sort of thing which exacerbates a media situation. He should have shut up an let a PR person handle it. I'm sure they would have shot her if she started running or something, but she had no reason to.
The police responded according to protocol. The girl did a thoughtless thing (should have answered the ticket lady's question about what it was). In the name of good security, you sometimes have false positives. If there was a mistake made and it so obviously wasn't intentional, the police should search you, question you, and send you away with the crap thoroughly scared out of you.
My frustration here is when the police take a simple, thoughtless mistake (she was just on her way to career day!) on some poor college student's part and blow it up into an international media incident, make it sound scary ("We almost shot her! blah blah blah"), and charge her with a crime (hoax bomb device) that obviously is false.
The definition of hoax is "humorous or malicious deception" according to my dictionary. Unless the bit about the Play-Doh ends up being a significant part of the story, you *really* have to stretch things to make her actions sound malicious.
Of course I'm rooting for this one -
In my area, I can get basic cable ($50), the local high-def channels ($0), and a DVR ($9). Sounds pretty good, right?
Oh wait, if I want the "Navigator" functionality (the ability to use the digital cable's menus and program recordings), I have to pay $3 AND purchase a $30 "Digital Tier" pack of complete crap channels.
If I built a new MythTV box (no local phone line, so no TiVo... has that changed lately?), it would take several years to recoup my costs. Monetarily, I don't think it would be worth it; however, it's tempting to take a hit just to make sure the money I do spend doesn't end up in Time Warner's pocket.
The CMS detector will take data at 8GB/s at turn on (that's gigabytes, not gigabits). This will be filtered and a few percent will be saved.
CASTOR's (the CERN data store) current stats are here:
http://castor.web.cern.ch/castor/
About 8 PB of files. If i recall correctly, there's around 500TB of online disk space and 10-30PB of tape storage (some of it is getting phased out).
FNAL has a similar setup, except with a storage manager called dCache. There is no use of protocols like iSCSI or Fiber Channel over IP, but rather physics-specific ones (xrootd, rfio, dcap) and grid-specific ones (SRM and gridFTP).
Hell, Intel should be *donating* CPUs to EVE online then. If buying a company 200 blades means that 34,000 users upgrade their game boxen regularly, the investment probably pays for itself.
Suuure. A viable competitor - but without a quarter of the video content, no music, probably crap software, lousy integrated experience, and no iPod support. It's as if they just opened a new brick and mortar NBC store which sells laser disks.
Let me know how that goes for you.
Sarcasm aside, it's the job of the distributors to tune the kernel for their customers. Redhat tunes their kernels for high performance servers. Ubuntu probably tunes their kernels for desktops. If there was some large-scale concerted effort where desktop performance was sacrificed for server performance and such tunings *couldn't be adjusted* at runtime, I might be concerned. I just don't see it happening now.
I wonder if their thinking is that, since X% of the Linux developers (say 40 devs) are server-oriented (because that's what they are paid to do), that if a fork is performed, 40 highly skilled, unpaid kernel devs will magically appear for the desktop. Sure, one or two people might be able to do this, but there would be nowhere near the backing. Canonical might contribute a bit, but Redhat/IBM/Novell wouldn't.
Unless lots of money appears for Linux on the desktop, a desktop fork of the kernel is DOA.
Indeed. The last thing I want to do is rely on an online tool for a presentation. I've taken to having a copy on CD, thumb drive, laptop, and online. Sometimes two or three of those methods fail before one works. Google needs to kick their offline tools for Google Docs into high gear. It's come in 6 months, I bet.
On the other hand, imagine doing a quick, informal presentation. Prefix it with "please follow along at this URL". Not all companies have WebEx up and going. Not all MBAs know how to upload a file to a FTP server. Even the smallest small business can now host a webinar using this tool - without having any techie knowledge at all.
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Gah, that's a bit of a flame. If you look at the architecture, there's good front-end / back-end separation. The front and back ends are necessarily extremely complicated, but you can rip the entire front end and compile your code to GIMPLE, or whatever their SSA form is called. There also have been several different languages (Java, C, C++, Ada, Obj-C) that are production frontends to GCC's backend.
I do know that I wrote an intermediate analyzer for a semester-length class, along with another grad student. In fact, the prof suggested we use GCC because several others have done the exact same thing, going back many years. It's not easy, but it's possible.
Sounds like whoever posted that was just extremely frustrated and wanted to blow off some steam. It can happen. GCC used to be a lot worse, and a lot further behind academia. There have been growing pains in the last couple of years getting it to "catch up". Perhaps that's what he was frustrated with?
These tests *did* factor performance into this (well, that's what the tester says. Intel is contesting this claim. You decided who you believe). In fact, those tests draw the same conclusions as folks I know who recently bought Opteron servers.
The Intel chips have great performance per watt *as a chip*. Perhaps even better than AMD does; I've never measured a chip's power usage.
The Intel servers, on the other hand, have worse performance per watt *as a fully loaded server*. Unless you're running the chip without a server, you generally should care about the power draw from the outlet - like these tests did.
The Intel servers seem to have the edge in performance per watt when the server is going nearly unused. However, in my area, usually the CPU is pegged 24/7 (unlike, say, a webserver).
It's good to see the chip wars are still alive and kicking. When the competition is healthy, consumers benefit instead of stockholders.
If it's an easy problem, you can use Matlab/Maple, but not if it's a big one.
I'd suggest looking at PETSc, a C/C++ scientific computation toolkit. It follows a few modern programming paradigms (gah, I hate that word) which make it singularly pleasant to work with, yet has all the speed of the crap you get from netlib.
Netlib is great for low level algorithms written by experts, but is the pits for usability. For example, a matrix-vector multiply in BLAS is called DGEMV (not exactly obvious to beginners), and has this calling sequence:
DGEMV(TRANS,M,N,ALPHA,A,LDA,X,INCX,BETA,Y,INCY)
Oh, and if you want to parallelize this, you have to use ScaLAPACK which is even more horrible to use.
On the other hand, PETSc's C interface looks like this:
PetscErrorCode MatMult(Mat mat,Vec x,Vec y)
You pass it a matrix object, an input vector, and an output vector. If you want it parallelized, you start it up with mpirun on your cluster/SMP/NUMA/BlueGene machine. The same code is portable to all.
And yes, there are python bindings which makes the above calling sequence even more stupidly easy. They give you a MATLAB-like syntax with the ability to scale from 1 - 5000 cores.
(Not a PETSc dev, just a happy consumer.)
That said, you can say whatever you want on your own website hosted on your own servers. In that case, I also have the right to be disgusted by it and not visit your website..
Maybe we're just old fashioned in believing that free speech extends to people we don't like.
Hey -
This is probably what your landlord is citing:
"""
Q: Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property?
A: Yes. A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof.
"""
However, if you can jury-rig something in an area that is for your "exclusive use". The rule does mention that you can legally put up a 40 foot pole (anything 12 feet over the roofline may require a local permit, but is allowed), again, as long as it is safe:
"""
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite).
"""
This is like, the one good thing the FCC does.
Read this fact sheet which others have linked:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Near the bottom says that the onus is on the HOA to show that their rules do not infringe on your right, that they cannot fine you unless if you lose the ruling *and* fail to remove the antenna within the 21 grace period. Plus, while you are fighting, you do not have to remove your antenna unless it's a fight about safety or historic preservation.
I like seeing HOAs get screwed.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
It seems like you could easily get away from using a "recommended installer" by calling it an unreasonable expense. From the fact sheet:
Q: What is an unreasonable expense?
A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs.
Fight the good fight against the HOA!
So, he isn't within his legal rights to have an amateur radio tower.
Just because the detector isn't physically located at FNAL doesn't mean their contribution isn't significant. The whole design for grid-computing is that a physicist can be just as effective on their laptop in Starbucks as sitting next to the detector.
A lot of brain power is still there. They're great people to work with too.
I think that's a bit different, however. I understand that the Mormon church *itself* owns 30 billion in assets. Thrivent is a financial services organization which has $60 billion in holdings.
Thrivent is not ultimately controlled by the church, while I understand the Mormon church directly controls its holdings.
However, the lines between organizations for the members of the church and corporations owned by the church are rather hazy. It's hard to make exact pronouncements one way or the other.