India Plans To Build Fastest Supercomputer By 2017 135
First time accepted submitter darkstar019 writes "India is planning to build a computer that is going to be at least 61 times faster than the current fastest super computer, IBM Sequoia. Right now the most powerful supercomputer in India is 58th in the list of top 100 supercomputers. From the article: 'Telecom and IT Minister Kapil Sibal is understood to have written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sharing the roadmap to develop "petaflop and exaflop range of supercomputers" at an estimated cost of Rs 4,700 crore over 5 years.'"
Nonsense (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:0, Insightful)
*ahem*
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/17/0156230/how-the-critics-of-the-apollo-program-were-proven-wrong
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
*ahem*
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/17/0156230/how-the-critics-of-the-apollo-program-were-proven-wrong
*cough* You didn't follow the link, did you. *cough*
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Informative)
Heh, did you? This [slashdot.org] what you're looking for?
Re:Nonsense (Score:0)
actually, your link starts with this article's url so it doesn't really work.
Re:Nonsense (Score:0)
The AC was saying your link was wrong.
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
Still it sounds like a fallacy. A program (A) is pushed to happen using a certain budget, but a group of people want the money to be spent on another program (B). However, the program (A) continues and its result (C) is a success. Now, a program (D) is being pushed to happen, it does not guarantee a similar result (success) because 1)program D is not the same as program A, 2)the group of people involved in these events are different, and 3)the periods when both events occur are different.
Not that I against the idea, but I would prefer to see a different way of spending money seeing how India poverty is. However, if they think that pride can make their stomach full, then be it.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:0)
The difference being that there weren't a large number of Americans in the 50's and 60's literally SHITTING THEMSELVES TO DEATH, as is happening in India right now.
There, fixed that for you. Where'd you learn written English, anyway? Were I you, I'd ask for a refund.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
AC,
Moheeheeko raises a fair point. India right now is nothing like the US was in the 1950's and 1960's. India lacks basic infrastructure throughout a great deal of its country and it has poverty and slums the like of which most of the developed world would find hard to believe. Now knock the US for their rampant gun crime all you like but India as a whole is altogether more messed up.
And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about I spent enough time in India to know that all the Indian 'It used to be like that but it's better now' crowd are lying for the sake of national pride.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Flamebait)
And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about I spent enough time in India to know that all the Indian 'It used to be like that but it's better now' crowd are lying for the sake of national pride.
Just like all the Americans who keep saying we're the best country in the world. Somehow they're always stumped when I ask them, "By what metric?".
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Funny)
There's your problem. We don't use the metric system.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Volume?
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
What rampant gun crime are you talking about?? Aside from the recent lunatic rampages like the movie theater guy....your average person in the US isn't ever going to see or experience gun crime. You don't hear them being fired off constantly on the streets like I imagine many in the EU seem to think.
Unless you are in the projects trying to buy some crack, you likely will never see much less hear a gun go off here in the city limits.
When you hear of gun crime, it is mostly thug on thug....criminals shooting each other over drugs, and who cares if they take each other out, eh?
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Funny)
I personally feel we should give them more guns. And battlefields. These thugs are soldiers for whatever their cause is. They're ready to kill and die for it. And the current laws aren't stopping them. So let them have it. Just make sure they're isolated so stray fire can't hit noncombatants. Maybe rent out Soldier field, the MetLife stadium, set up some concrete barriers and let them go nuts on each other. They get to do what they're going to do anyway, the public is safer, and we've got a new reality TV show that can be monetized and taxed. Nobody loses.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
In a big city (population over half a million) over
In small towns, it looks like it's less than a third of that rate.
Fortunately, the majority do live in smaller towns, but there's still a significant proportion of the population who live in gun-crime-heavy areas.
However, as you say, within those large cities, there's even more of a skew than that - there will be ghetto/project spikes, and more spacious suburbia might be relatively low.
Of course, the flipside of this skewed distribution is that the vast majority of *regions* of the US are not suffering from large quantities of gun crime. Which makes it nice and easy to pick two seemingly contradictory statistics, depending on what side you wish to present.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
I mean, I live in New Orleans...one of the cities with the highest crime rates in the US....and yet, even here..if you're not buying crack in the projects, or looking to find gang members while cruising through 'the hood'....you're not likely to be affected by guns or violence down here. I don't hear gun fire at nights where I live.....I get the feeling that people outside the US have this idea that it is the 'wild west' in the streets here with contant gun fire anywhere you turn, and that simply is not the case.
Sure it spills out from time to time, but in general, I don't feel unsafe in this city, you just know to stay out of certain areas.
It is mostly thugs killing thugs here...
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
The gunfire metric is funny to me because I live WAY out in the country and I hear gunfire pretty much every day, especially on weekends. But it doesn't scare anyone because out here pretty much everyone has a shooting range somewhere on their property. It's hilly, no one lives on less than 10 acres, and most of us have far more than that.
- many old appliances and dead computers rest in pieces at my place.
- I need to find out who it is to the south of me that has full-auto.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Well, isn't Oakland pretty much one big, city-wide ghetto at this point? A few cities are like that (Detroit comes to mind too)...where the whole city itself is something pretty much to be abandoned by all but the criminal element.
In normal cities...I still stand by my statements. Oakland and Detroit are exceptions to the rule it seems.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Well, isn't Oakland pretty much one big, city-wide ghetto at this point?
No, it isn't, but there is rampant gun crime. Asserting that victims are to blame because they're supposedly "in the projects trying to buy crack" is offensive.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Why? It is largely true.
Most everyone getting shot is less than innocent bystander in most circumstances.
You rarely see victims with a rap sheet less than the length of their arm.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
Re:Nonsense (Score:0)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Obligatory "a-country-which-I think-it-underdeveloped-and-full-of-poor-naked-children-is-thinking-of-beating-us-at-hi-tech-stuff-zOMG!" troll.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
It would be far wiser If they just spend all those millions on poverty programs.
Countries have an interest in making their citizens feel proud and confident. Building supercomputers and spacecraft are much better ways of doing that than the traditional methods of starting a war with Pakistan and/or detonating another atomic bomb.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Not arguing that education isn't important, especially in the longer term, but are you seriously claiming that the 100 million CARE packages sent to Europe and elsewhere after WWII weren't useful? People have to be alive to be able to go to school, no?
I don't remember the name of the program, it may've been part of CARE or UNRRA effort, but I recall in grade school back in the Fifties where we contributed (well, most of us via our allowances and small jobs) along with our parents, teachers and local groups to send boxes of tools and seeds to Europe and other places - the idea being that people trying to recover from the ravages of the war would get some help re-building and eating. This by you was worthless?
this is good (Score:0)
needs one more nuke plant to power it up ... nevermind the farmers : )
Re:this is good (Score:2)
needs one more nuke plant to power it up ... nevermind the farmers : )
Nope - runs on compressed air!
Re:this is good (Score:2)
(I'm actually not sure whether you're joking or not, so permission to whoosh granted.)
Re:this is good (Score:2)
Crore = 10^7 (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
Nice to see the editors making sensibly proof-read, accessibly written summaries, rather than the usual treasure hunt for the true meaning.
Re:Crore = 10^7 (Score:2)
Indeed. The weird Indian numbering system is meaningless for almost everyone outside India. The more common three orders of magnitude system ( thousand, million, billion, trillion ) makes a lot more sense.
Re:Crore = 10^7 (Score:3)
It's not that hard. The only difference being that the Indian system uses 10^ odd numbers, more often primes, as a reference.
And thus : 10^0,1,2,3,5,7 all have names - 10^5 being a lakh and 10^7 being a crore. A complete list is rather interesting, showing that the system predates Western mathematical formulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_large_numbers [wikipedia.org] and having pecularities like bodhisattva ( or ) —10^37218383881977644441306597687849648128.
You gotta ask...why 10^37218383881977644441306597687849648128?!
Re:Crore = 10^7 (Score:3)
47 milliards rupees in a furlong squared datacenter. There, now it's in English.
Re:Crore = 10^7 (Score:1)
indeed, a bit like US Imperial measurements (Score:2)
Indeed, a bit like the Imperial (non-metric) distance measuring system is meaningless for almost everyone outside the USA. The more common decimal three orders of magnitude system (millimeters, meters, kilometers) makes a lot more sense. But we try to get by.
Re:indeed, a bit like US Imperial measurements (Score:2)
Indeed, a bit like the Imperial (non-metric) distance measuring system is meaningless for almost everyone outside the USA. The more common decimal three orders of magnitude system (millimeters, meters, kilometers) makes a lot more sense. But we try to get by.
This is of course true. Everything is easier in metric so hanging onto a dumb system that everyone else has abandoned due to its awkwardness is just, well, dumb. But at least most of the world had some idea what a mile or yard is, if they don't know how long is it they at least know it's a measurement of distance.
Crore is just meaningless to almost everyone.
Crores to USD (Score:1)
1 crore is 10 million, so this comes out to be 875 million USD roughly.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/with-16-petaflops-and-1-6m-cores-doe-supercomputer-is-worlds-fastest/ [arstechnica.com] says that livermore spent 250 mil on sequoia (which seems like a bit of a lowball to me, given the K computer's price at 1 billion), so throwing a lot more money at the problem would seem to give better performance.
Re:Crores to USD (Score:1)
Crore is a counting number i should say. 1 crore of something is 10 million of that something, not 1 crore INR = 10 million USD.
Re:Crores to USD (Score:3)
You are correct sir. Although apparently since I was last there the value of the Rupee has fallen *severely so...
At current exchange R4,700 Crore ~= $87,231,060.00 USD.
I'm sure no one else thunk of that (Score:0)
I'm sure no one else has thought of making the fastest computer.
Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)
More dick waving.
Obsolescence (Score:2, Interesting)
The best part is by the time 2017 rolls around other countries would be doing the same so their fast computer turns out not to be THE FASTEST.
Re:Obsolescence (Score:2)
By the time 2017 comes your iphone 20s will be about as fast as this supercomputer.
Considering Moore's law (Score:4, Informative)
In 5 years we have 3 x 18 month period. The level of improvement in hardware is multiplies by 2^3. Then I'd expect level of parallelism to affect the process by the same magnitude bringing the total to 2^6 = 64.
Re:Considering Moore's law (Score:0)
Re:Considering Moore's law (Score:2)
Re:Considering Moore's law (Score:3)
Except Moore's Law only indirectly applies. All it states is that the number of transistors you can squeeze doubles every 18 months or so.
Number of transistors only really is a passing indication of CPU power. Especially these days where the thing limiting the density of transistors is wiring them up - the "random logic" of a CPU is dominated by the wires that interconnect them together.
Moore's Law does however apply to the most transistor dense logic aorund - memory. Memory arrays (volatile and non-volatile) are basically controlled by how close you can pack them together, so every generation you can pack twice as much for twice the storage or make 'em half the price.
Not quite (Score:2)
The reason why we can't just buy an infinite amount of racks and network them is the MTBF [wikipedia.org]. In the K computer the MTBF means that node failures occur every couple of hours, rendering longer full system runs almost impossible.
For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:3)
How well do the 'fastness' metrics used to rank computers in e-peen order capture some of the messier variables of assorted cache speeds and sizes, latencies and throughputs of network interconnects, dubiously general; but very high speed for certain purposes GPU or fpga elements vs. generic CPUs, and so on?
Obviously, the people building these things to get work done have an incentive to make them actually useful; but is the benchmark itself much of a test of dreadful interconnect design or other serious issues, or could you just buy your way to a shiny spot at the top by shoving together enough gigE connected 1Us?
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the test.
The classic LINPACK benchmark will stress most of the parts which will mean the result is a combination of raw FLOPS with memory bandwidth, cache and etc. LINPACK doesn't stress the interconnects particularly highly and is very regular. As a result, it tends to favour computers that have more FLOPS but cheaper interconnets.
That said, it's not terrible, which is why the computers also have the efficiency (theoretical peak FLOPS/actual flops) listed. Compare the Tinhae-1A computer which was heavy on GPUs versus with 46% efficiency the K computer which has lots of wide SIMD cores with a very tightly coupled interconnect which achieved 93%.
So even LINPACK which is generally considered as "too easy to be a useful test" still can distinguish between raw peak FLOPS and sustained performance.
In practice, some tasks will depend heavily on the interconnect. Others, like protein folding are so embarressingly parallel that the interconnect basically a non-issue which is why floding@home works.
IOW YMMV HTH HAND
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:5, Informative)
Modeling.
Weather modeling (solving navier-stokes and a few other equations on a discrete cartesian grid or on a spherical grid in spectral space). Add in land surface models, ocean models, data assimilation, chemical processes, and then crank the resolution way up and you need a lot of power.
DNS (direct numerical simulation) -- if you want to simulate a fluid flow with turbulence and you want to resolve the turbulence explicitly you need to have a grid spacing in your model that is smaller than the kolmogorov scale. For some flows this may produce a grid spacing measured in millimeters. If you want any decent sized model domain, this produces a lot of grid points.
Monte-carlo type simulations -- i.e., run a simple simulation but do it 1e50 times to amass a statistical representation of the process.
and lots of other types of modeling. Basically if you have a set of partial differential equations that tell us something and you need to solve them numerically (no analytic solutions, etc) and need to do it on very large domains at high resolution and your neighbor grid dependencies are such that your problem is parallel, then a supercomputer is for you.
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
They model protein folding, cosmic events such as the big bang, creation of black holes, stellar collapse and creation,they are used in modeling atomic bomb blasts, and better electrical grids, they are used to work out highly complex math and number crunching such as finding holes in encryption schems, they are used for analyisis of high speed partical excelerator data. Pretty much anything that requires lots of compex math.
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
* The weather report
* Finding oil and gas
* Supernova research
* Big bang simulations
* Designing rockets for the space program
* Simulating nuclear fusion
In general, solving large problems where there is turbulence, other complicated phenomena or the data set is hard to search
Re:For these 'fastest' metrics: (Score:2)
They are, in fact, used for landing robots on Mars. I worked on a supercomputer with my professor during my physics undergrad working on fluid-structure-interaction (FSI) code. The supersonic parachute used to land Curiosity was simulated using a FSI code, a simulation which my professor helped with. Cars these days often use fluid dynamics during the design process and structure code as well (which can be just as complicated when you're simulating a collision, as is often done these days).
There's really a lot of room for processing power and memory growth... Just think about it. If I want to halve the grid spacing, I generally have to double the number of points (or elements) in each dimension, plus I have to generally halve my timestep as well (for numerical stability). So, for every halving of the grid spacing, I need 16 times the processing power and at least 8 times the memory (and 16 times the memory if I want to keep all the timesteps). So, it may take a good 6-10 years between being able to halve your grid spacing (if you include the fact that computers don't scale up in performance--especially at the superconductor level--as fast as Moore's law says you scale in per-transistor cost). And if you're doing a fluid or solids simulation, you usually want as small of a grid spacing as feasible. At this rate, the time between a 1cm grid spacing and a 1mm grid spacing in performance would be 30-40 years, a whole career. And that's assuming Moore's law continues.
Difference between 2007 and 2012 was only 34x grea (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.top500.org/lists/2012/06 [top500.org]
Should be interesting to see them double the rate of growth over the preceding five years
And there will be (Score:5, Insightful)
One supercomputer to outsource them all
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And there will be (Score:2)
Re:And there will be (Score:2)
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
Just like the $30 tablets that were announced and then cost $150. Let's see what they build
Please it is a Joke (Score:1)
Our Minister Kapil, is a good comedian. So please dont take this seriously.
Check out what happened to his $35 laptop! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_(tablet)
Our closed room scientists in CDAC will have plenty of money to play around for 5 years!
Thank god, Minister Kapil wont be there that long.
Re:Please it is a Joke (Score:3)
Our Minister Kapil, is a good comedian... Minister Kapil wont be there that long.
hey... celebrating world optimism day today are we?
you see, just like managers, these dickheads are expected to come up with "next big idea", spent a lot of money and move on. and that is what this is, just like the akash tablet project, the complete literacy project, remove proverty project and what not.
Re:Please it is a Joke (Score:0)
Our Minister Kapil, is a good comedian. So please dont take this seriously.
Check out what happened to his $35 laptop! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_(tablet) [wikipedia.org]
Our closed room scientists in CDAC will have plenty of money to play around for 5 years!
Thank god, Minister Kapil wont be there that long.
Also the same guy who wanted services like Facebook and Twitter to be unrealistically policing user content to ensure that it doesn't offend Indian sensibilities.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/kapil-sibal-on-facebook-google-don-t-want-censorship-but-content-must-be-screened-155706 [ndtv.com]
He doesn't want censorship. He simply wants these sites to remove anything that could cause offence - such as posts or images critical of public figures. He's pretty clear in demonstrating two things:
1) He has no idea what censorship means.
2) He has no idea how the social media thing is working, and the impracticalities of requiring hosts to censor anything that offends someone somewhere in India.
what kind of chips... (Score:0)
Does anyone know what type of CPUs they'd likely use?
I hope they further develop their power grid before they turn that thing on...
PARAM and beyond (Score:5, Informative)
India's current supercomputer - one that it's developed since the 80s - is the PARAM [wikipedia.org], which has had 6 generations to date. The first was based on the Inmos Transputer, the second on an Intel i860, the third on a SuperSPARC II (and it even had an Alpha variant), the fourth on an UltraSPARC II, the fifth on an IBM POWER 4, and the most recent - unveiled in 2008 - was based on the Intel Xeon (Tigerton 73xx). They are currently working on one that's supposed to break the 1 petaflop barrier (that would be 10 crore crore flops for Indians). So this new announcement would be the successor to that.
So it's not like they're new @ this, and what is impressive is that they've used a wide variety of CPUs from different vendors. For this next one, they might want to do that w/ an Itanium III or a POWER7 (unless POWER8 is anywhere close). It would seem that for that, they might get some Intel/HP expertise to help w/ that. I have no idea how good they are @ writing compilers. But yeah, planning a supercomputer based on this CPU and tossing in enough of them should enable them to achieve that goal. Put Debian on it, and then use it for whatever they need - weather forecasting, nuclear simulations or whatever they want to use it for. A lot of the 52 PARAMs that they've manufactured & sold have been sold to other countries.
I just wish that aside from the Indian government, there were a few companies in India that made supercomputers.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:PARAM and beyond (Score:2)
Re:PARAM and beyond (Score:5, Informative)
As the history part of the wiki link shows, India originally wanted to get Crays from the US, but couldn't due to a technology embargo by the US. Which actually was justified @ the time, given that India was one of the main technology partners of the Soviet Union and would voluntarily give them things that the KGB couldn't steal from the West (India originally wanted to buy this in the mid 80s). So it's not like they wanted it for dick waving rights - I doubt that any of the first 6 PARAMs were #1 @ any point in time. Weather forecasting was initially the main thing, followed by other things. The US was @ one time concerned about India's use of nuclear technology for making nukes, but in the last agreement b/w the 2, India agreed to separate out its military usage of nuclear technology from its commercial usage. In any case, since these are home grown supercomputers, India could well use a few for nuclear simulations, and there's nothing the US could do.
As for whether India should have nukes when it has the problem of poverty and related issues, India first lost a war against China in 1962 (started by the latter), and IIRC, China was either a nuclear power then, or became one since. India's initial interest in becoming a nuclear power happened as a result of that. Pakistan, in turn, decided to be one so that it could seize back Kashmir, and today is one, but they have been becoming increasingly extreme over the years since 9/11, and are a genuine threat to India. So India would be criminally negligient to its own people if it didn't put a few supercomputers out there to do the nuclear weapons simulations that they need to to ensure that it has a good deterrent. Of course, w/ an Islamic country, even that may not be a deterrent, but since not all Muslims have suicidal fantasies, having that has some likelihood that they'll never be used.
IT minister in India built that (Score:1)
Re:IT minister in India built that (Score:3)
The problem with India is, "India wants to do it". It is not the scientists or researchers in a university or institute in India who will do it, but a telecommunication minister. Till this mentality dissipates and the government bets on the independent institutions in India to come up with such headlines, India is going nowhere.
Yeah. As I sit here posting on the internet via the World Wide Web I have to ask, what innovations has government ever produced?
Re:IT minister in India built that (Score:2)
True, there are some things the private sector is better-suited for. But you make the mistake of infering from this that governments are incapable of doing anything.
Distinction between computer and cluster? (Score:2)
I don't really see a distinction. Computer chips keep adding cores. It's all networked together at varying speeds be it bus or Ethernet signaling. It's all cloud one way or another.
The really impressive part? (Score:2)
Re:The really impressive part? (Score:1)
Re:The really impressive part? (Score:2)
I expect to see the results published at the HotChipatees conference.
I wonder if they'll use off-the-shelf processors, or build their own Sag-ALU, or even utilise Ghee-P.U.s
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.
Mr Fusion (Score:1)
And it will only cost $35!!! (Score:1)
Done! (Score:1)
Nothing to do with Poverty. (Score:1)
Basic necessities, infrastructure and other issues that people pointed out are issue in India - but how does that equate to wasting money on building a supercomputer? Would you rather have it that they spend much more buying when they can build it locally for cheaper? Also after all the dust of 'they should rather help the poor instead' argument has settled you can see that despite so many issue they still need to predict the weather.
Popular Politicking (Score:1)
Wow! (Score:1)
I hadn't realized that you needed so much computing power to run a call center.
Re:A big help (Score:0)
Is it a corollary of Turing-completeness if it can model the money flow from all the bribes and backhanders involved in it's own construction?
Mod parent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
You're responding to a post about a:
(*) Technical innovation in a developing country
( ) Product shipped to a developing market
( ) General discussion about IT in the devbeloping world
The location is:
( ) Africa
(*) India
( ) Bangladesh
( ) China
( ) Somewhere else in Asia
( ) South America
( ) Central America
( ) Other _unspecified_
You're objecting to it on the basis that:
(*) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in that country yet
( ) American jobs will be lost
Your argument is bogus because:
(*) Poverty hasn't been eliminated in the developed world either, that doesn't mean we should halt all technological research
(*) This will not adversely affect any efforts to alleviate poverty
(*) This will help to alleviate poverty
( ) Poverty in that country isn't as widespread as you say it is
( ) The US does not have a divine right to keep all the cool jobs
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:1)
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:3)
I believe the original post's argument was that India would be better served spending the money on basic infrastructure. While a supercomputer is great, it's not going to pay the same dividends that clean drinking water and reliable power would. Not only do those very basic utilities reduce healthcare costs, they are productivity multipliers and would benefit the Indian economy greatly.
*Rolleyes*
FFS sake would you people give it a fucking rest?!
What the hell is it about India that brings out the "social programs and public works are the answer to the country's problems" crowd who always seem to be skeptical of exactly that sort of spending when it comes to the USA? There are problems with basic infrastructure in England but I don't see anyone suggesting that their R&D budget should be slashed and the funds diverted to roads, hospitals, schools and all the other usual "think of the children" suspects!
Read my lips and listen very carefully because this bears repeating:
Investing in R&D is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Investing in R&D is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Investing in R&D is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Investing in R&D is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Investing in R&D is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Capiche?
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:1)
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:2)
Isn't a supercomputer a "public works" project?
Thank you for repeating your argument. I can now see it multiple times. Although, I am interested in hearing about how a supercomputer is going to lift Indians out of poverty.
Yeah. What the hell did Apollo ever do to make life better for Americans, eh?
FFS.
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:1)
I believe that India would be better served developing more reliable and robust power and water utilities because it would:
-Drive healthcare costs down
-Increase productivity in the Indian economy by giving industry what it needs to thrive, namely power and water
-Ensure a greater portion of the money is spent domestically, rather than a supercomputer which would involve significant foreign remittances
-Create a stable environment to attract foreign investment
Re:They should build more showers instead. (Score:0)
Re:same old same old (Score:1)
Yeah, that's one of my favorite quotes from the bible:
"Fuck the poor." - Jesus Christ, New American Version
Re:In unrelated news... (Score:1)