Army Contractor To Build A 1566 Xserve Cluster 465
olePigeon (Wik) writes "MacCentral has an interesting article on a new computer cluster. From the article: 'Apple Computer Inc. will announce on Monday the sale of 1566 dual processor 1U rack-mount 64-bit Xserve G5 servers to COLSA Corp., which will be used to build what is expected to be one of the fastest supercomputers in the world. The US$5.8 million cluster will be used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight for the U.S. Army.'" alset_tech was one of the many readers to point to
CNET's version of the story.
Artillery shells, rockets, bullets... (Score:4, Insightful)
They pretty much all go pretty fast through the atmosphere.
Re:Why the Army? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't follow the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Had you read the article you would have known that thr Army machine is connected using standard gigabit ehternet whereas the Big Mac used Infiniband.
Since this is Slashdot you are par for the course.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (Score:5, Insightful)
$5.8 M is absolute peanuts in terms of US Military budgets. You can't even buy replacement engines for a KC-135 (of which there are hundreds in service for various tasks) for $5.8M.
This purchase is segment of a drop in the bucket. It won't even make a dent on the balance sheet. Cutbacks and low funding in other areas is a result of the net picture (stemming from policy and tradition...)
Just be glad they didn't buy $58.0 M worth of Cray X1 or SGI Altix gear.
Re:Better then real life testing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torn between... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are zero societies on Earth that do not hew to this axiom.
Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a political playground much larger than I can try to imagine...I'm just asking the simple question of where our priorities are.
Re:Not 1100 CPU's (Score:4, Insightful)
1556 ???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (Score:1, Insightful)
Otherwise the richest 1% wouldn't be getting 51% of Bush's tax cut by 2010.
Just the facts sir.
I personally can't wait for the military coup in the USA in 2012 when Hilary gets elected and the forces say "Hell NO!"
Re:I don't follow the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
GigE is about 10x slower (for this type of networking, see http://www.infinicon.com/pdf/LSTCUG-2003-Final.pd
Perhaps they're measuring different applications, and the Army machine doesn't need much communications? Kinda an odd way to benchmark...
Re:True purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the Army? (Score:2, Insightful)
Back to the original point, though, supersonic 'bombs' aren't too likely under any insignia, lest they start dropping them off of spaceshipone. Artillery shells or rockets, sure. Really big bullets, you bet. Not gravity bombs.
Cozzano (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torn between... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course if you see violence as a solution then I guess thinking might be a bit of a novel concept.
Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, no. Government is what keeps society civil. Who has the most to lose if civilization breaks down, the guy living hand-to-mouth, owning little other than the clothes on his back and other depreciating assets, or the guy whose has land, stocks and intellectual property, assets that are worth little to nothing without government's ability to defend his ownership of them? Government might be keeping the poor guy alive but it is keeping the rich guy alive and rich.
Re:True purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1556 ???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:3132 processors (Score:2, Insightful)
Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength. (Score:5, Insightful)
Switzerland's way is... being better at violence than its neighbors. That's how it stayed neutral in the Second World War - even Hitler was afraid to invade the great mountain fortress.
Iceland's way is... being better at violence than its neighbors. It opted to join the most powerful military alliance in the world.
Re:Torn between... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Torn between... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. And decades of "we don't need to have an army" thinking in Europe has drifted into "nobody needs to have an army".
Re:True purpose (Score:0, Insightful)
i love politics when someone's views and logic are boiled down to a single sentence.
you guys are both homos.
kerry and bush are both fucking liars.
Re:Torn between... (Score:2, Insightful)
See my other post in this thread re: Switzerland.
Next?
Re:Torn between... (Score:3, Insightful)
Few large nations are going to invade switzerland. Even should they want to then most of the rest of the world would retaliate. So you do not really have to be better at apllying violence than them. The only time it might is in another world war.
Small nations that may wish to do so need the swiss to keep thier money safe.
Add in the idea that if they are invaded that everyone will fire a shot and go home and you have the best case for someone that can be a pacifist.
Re:$5.8 M is peanuts, maybe even peanut dust (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Torn between... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, did you read your own words? If every society applies your axiom, trying to be better at violence than their neighbours... how exactly does the solution to a violent world appear? You would think the world would engage in a global arms race (and eventually a global war, as strategigy give rise to tactics). Is this a solution for a violent world? I honestly think I don't get your point.
Re:True purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
As the military continues to become more high-tech it takes a greater and greater level of techinical skills to operate, especially at command centers. At some point it is going to become difficult to recuit those people (simply put, if 15% of the population has - or is capable of - the technical skills and the military needs 50% of it's troop to have them they must come from someplace).
I do not think it is in the next few years. But since sometime in the 90's (can't really specify a single point in time) it has been a possibility. Any large theater we may have to get invovled in may require this.
Though this has little to do with the current Iraq war and more to do with the shift the military has been taking.
But yes, as to what the vast majority of people refer to the "upcoming draft", it is what a few democrats have discussed as a talking point and a protest against the war. Others have picked up on it and it has changed to "Bush wants a draft". The military still turns down a certain percentage of the volunteers it recieves as they consider themselfs over staffed - especially in the realm of grunts as they need educated technical skills (and grunts are what armchair or retired generals are moaning about not having enough of). There will be no general draft until that is no longer true.
Re:That'll be a damn pretty thermodynamic simulato (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why the Army? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's just begging for a rebuttal. Care to cite some statistics on your "2000/XP is more stable than OS X" claim?
Re:Torn between... (Score:2, Insightful)
If your society does not make valid cultural points, in the moment it ceases to exist (which will inevitably happen), it will matter no more. If it gives something valid to humanity, it will be appreciated forever. I concede, though, that if your society is annihilated rather than absorbed, your cultural contributions may not matter, either (as those of the Aztecs and Inca people).
Re:Switzerland and Iceland chose military strength (Score:2, Insightful)
The swiss have banks, and they know how to use them. How would Hitler wage his war if he couldn't buy material from neutral states with freely convertible swiss currency?