Things that make you go "Hmmmm…" - Page 134

kracker · 2012-10-30, 19:13

Titan Supercomputer Packs 46,645,248 Nvidia CUDA Cores

EDIT: I don't think I can afford it...

kladner · 2012-10-30, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

Titan Supercomputer Packs 46,645,248 Nvidia CUDA Cores

EDIT: I don't think I can afford it...

Ya Reckon?

chalsall · 2012-10-30, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

Ya Reckon?

You do have to wonder what it's modeling though. Don't you?

The DOE tend not to do much medical research.

On the other hand, I suspect many Iranians have purchased many Nvidia cards retail around the world "to play games"....

kladner · 2012-10-30, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

You do have to wonder what it's modeling though. Don't you?

The DOE tend not to do much medical research.

Now that is an uncomfortable question. I believe DOE is involved in nuclear ordinance, among other things.

chalsall · 2012-10-30, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

I believe DOE is involved in nuclear ordinance, among other things.

You are not wrong. The US DOE is very involved with nuclear ordinance.

Thankfully, they are now constrained from exploding nuclear devices in the atmosphere or even underground. Or even in orbit.

They now have to simulate them.

This is why there's now an "arms race" for GPU cycles....

chappy · 2012-10-30, 21:30

Oh, you guys. There aren't any nuclear ordinance ANYTHING being done at the relatively low security Oak Ridge facility. They haven't been involved with weapons development since WW2.

And even if they were, what do you think they would do with such information. This computer, while awesome, is merely a faster way to get to information that could have been done at Los Alamos, in secret.

chalsall · 2012-10-30, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

Oh, you guys. There aren't any nuclear ordinance ANYTHING being done at the relatively low security Oak Ridge facility. They haven't been involved with weapons development since WW2.

And even if they were, what do you think they would do with such information. This computer, while awesome, is merely a faster way to get to information that could have been done at Los Alamos, in secret.

OK, Chappy, Let's play this game.

If there wasn't anything important going on, why was so much money spent?

chappy · 2012-10-30, 22:00

I'm unsure as to where you are getting this supposed argument.

But since you bring it up.

#1 Pride. the Chinese beat us, for a bit of money we beat them.

#2 look up the INCITE program and you'll see that the DOE has a competition every year for projects to use their various computing resources. This is part of that program.

#3. your crazy conspiracy theory doesn't meet any acceptable standard of discourse. it's worded so vaguely as to be meaningless.

#3a. what do you think they are doing?
#3b. since when is $107 million a great deal of money for the DOE.
#3c. what nefarious use can possibly make more sense than #1 and #2

IF you had couched your non-sense in terms of "if they are spending this much money on civilian projects, just think how much they are spending on top secret black-ops, blah blah blah. " then at least you would have followed the normal path of "can't be proven false because there is no evidence either way" conspiracy theory. But, instead you attacked an awesome and fairly open, as things go, research arm, and your only "evidence" for anything bad is based on a silly notion that since the government is doing it, it must be bad.

kladner · 2012-10-30, 22:08

I have to admit to great concern about anything related to nukes, and to outrage about the huge waste of national resources on so-called "Defense." While we clearly need to be able to defend the country, outspending our next several potential competitors combined is beyond unreasonable, it is eating us alive. It is a very inefficient stimulus program. Military spending has a very low economic multiplier compared to civilian spending. Some of the highest multipliers results from things like Unemployment payments. Those recipients are most likely to spend the money immediately. While military spending does provide jobs, a lot of the money ends up in the accounts of the very wealthy, and the products either get destroyed, or end up mouldering in the desert somewhere when retired. Scrapping them only yields a small return on a huge investment. How much more could be done with the $2B each for the new amphibious assault ships to rebuild crumbling Interstates, bridges, schools, etc?

EDIT: @Chappy- Please note that I only saw your response above after I composed mine.

chappy · 2012-10-30, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

How much more could be done with the $2B each for the new amphibious assault ships to rebuild crumbling Interstates, bridges, schools, etc?

Amen! and the military should quit fighting the cold war by spending money and resources to beat Soviet Strategy from the 1980's

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

EDIT: @Chappy- Please note that I only saw your response above after I composed mine.

Kladner, you know we are cool, except for that thing you said about my mom and her military issue combat boots---she needs the arch support dammit!

kladner · 2012-10-30, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

.....Kladner, you know we are cool, except for that thing you said about my mom and her military issue combat boots---she needs the arch support dammit!

2012-10-30, 19:13	#1464
kracker "Mr. Meeseeks" Jan 2012 California, USA 4170₈ Posts	Titan Supercomputer Packs 46,645,248 Nvidia CUDA Cores EDIT: I don't think I can afford it... Last fiddled with by kracker on 2012-10-30 at 19:14

2012-10-30, 22:08	#1472
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2·3·1,693 Posts	I have to admit to great concern about anything related to nukes, and to outrage about the huge waste of national resources on so-called "Defense." While we clearly need to be able to defend the country, outspending our next several potential competitors combined is beyond unreasonable, it is eating us alive. It is a very inefficient stimulus program. Military spending has a very low economic multiplier compared to civilian spending. Some of the highest multipliers results from things like Unemployment payments. Those recipients are most likely to spend the money immediately. While military spending does provide jobs, a lot of the money ends up in the accounts of the very wealthy, and the products either get destroyed, or end up mouldering in the desert somewhere when retired. Scrapping them only yields a small return on a huge investment. How much more could be done with the $2B each for the new amphibious assault ships to rebuild crumbling Interstates, bridges, schools, etc? EDIT: @Chappy- Please note that I only saw your response above after I composed mine. Last fiddled with by kladner on 2012-10-30 at 22:10

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Some things	Une Personne	Information & Answers	8	2012-06-12 18:10
All things Firefox	JuanTutors	Lounge	31	2005-12-15 03:35
A couple things	PHinker	Software	3	2004-12-18 17:08
Two Amazing Things	clowns789	Hardware	1	2003-12-27 16:57
How things are set up...	Xyzzy	Lounge	22	2003-08-10 14:36

2012-10-30, 21:30	#1469
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	Oh, you guys. There aren't any nuclear ordinance ANYTHING being done at the relatively low security Oak Ridge facility. They haven't been involved with weapons development since WW2. And even if they were, what do you think they would do with such information. This computer, while awesome, is merely a faster way to get to information that could have been done at Los Alamos, in secret.

2012-10-30, 22:00	#1471
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	I'm unsure as to where you are getting this supposed argument. But since you bring it up. #1 Pride. the Chinese beat us, for a bit of money we beat them. #2 look up the INCITE program and you'll see that the DOE has a competition every year for projects to use their various computing resources. This is part of that program. #3. your crazy conspiracy theory doesn't meet any acceptable standard of discourse. it's worded so vaguely as to be meaningless. #3a. what do you think they are doing? #3b. since when is $107 million a great deal of money for the DOE. #3c. what nefarious use can possibly make more sense than #1 and #2 IF you had couched your non-sense in terms of "if they are spending this much money on civilian projects, just think how much they are spending on top secret black-ops, blah blah blah. " then at least you would have followed the normal path of "can't be proven false because there is no evidence either way" conspiracy theory. But, instead you attacked an awesome and fairly open, as things go, research arm, and your only "evidence" for anything bad is based on a silly notion that since the government is doing it, it must be bad.