NSF Commits $16M To Build Cloud-Based and Data-Intensive Supercomputers 29
aarondubrow writes: As supercomputing becomes central to the work and progress of researchers in all fields, new kinds of computing resources and more inclusive modes of interaction are required. The National Science Foundation announced $16M in awards to support two new supercomputing acquisitions for the open science community. The systems — "Bridges" at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and "Jetstream," co-located at the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and The University of Texas at Austin's Texas Advanced Computing Center — respond to the needs of the scientific computing community for more high-end, large-scale computing resources while helping to create a more inclusive computing environment for science and engineering.
Reader 1sockchuck adds this article about why funding for the development of supercomputers is more important than ever:
America's high-performance computing (HPC) community faces funding challenges and growing competition from China and other countries. At last week's SC14 conference, leading researchers focused on outlining the societal benefits of their work, and how it touches the daily lives of Americans. "When we talk at these conferences, we tend to talk to ourselves," said Wilf Pinfold, director of research and advanced technology development at Intel Federal. "We don't do a good job communicating the importance of what we do to a broader community." Why the focus on messaging? Funding for American supercomputing has been driven by the U.S. government, which is in a transition with implications for HPC funding. As ComputerWorld notes, climate change skeptic Ted Cruz is rumored to be in line to chair a Senate committee that oversees NASA and the NSF.
What kind of fucking shit is this? (Score:2)
If TFA wants to talk about supercomputer then it should stick to supercomputers. What is the point of sticking in the following:
1, TFA has failed to substantiate its claim that Ted Cruz is a climate change skeptic
2. Even if Ted Cruz is a climate change skeptic it still has NOTHING to do with the funding of supercomputers
3. Supercomputer can be used for many things, not only for climate pattern modelling
4. TFA also failed to prove that Ted Cruz has refused to fund the purchase of s
Easy Fix: (Score:2)
Start telling Congress how Europe and China can predict hurricanes better than we can, thanks to their supercomputers. Nothing like a good "The furners are beating us!" rallying cry to squeeze money from the right (hell, the left too).
Repuiblicans hate reality (Score:1)
House Republicans pass bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research [salon.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
"Sciences" should not be an independent anything in the state.
You want to keep science as far from government as you can. Indeed, this only shows that its too close already.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, on crack? The Republicans in the House can pass pretty much anything they want. That's a fact of life for now. That doesn't get it through the Senate. Even after January it doesn't fly through the Senate because of the filibuster/60-vote procedure. And even if it makes it through there it sure as hell doesn't get signed by President Obama.
So really, who cares?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They are calling to task the "Most transparent US administration in history", which is threatening to veto this bill because "the Environmental Protection Agency should, in some case, be able to write regulations based on science and data that is not made available to the public." There's some transparency for you.
Of course propaganda from the left-wing Salon (and the only references in the article are to the even-more-left-wing ThinkProgress site) gets this bill completely wrong. Maybe try reading it?
The
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public? Or that EPA should pretend not to know any that, for whatever reason, aren't?
Re: (Score:3)
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public?
Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, I never said or intimated anything of the sort. If some idea is being used to create public policy, enforced by armed bureaucrats, then, yes, absolutely, the science needs to be public and available.
Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel
Another nice straw man. Oh, right, since we had worse pollution 70 years ago, every little tyrannical behavior of the EPA [scotusblog.com] should be allowed without question.
But hey, maybe you fancy living in Mordor.
... and you fancy living in North Korea. nyah.
Re: (Score:1)
The happy man lives in a different universe than the unhappy man. Etc.
Cloud-Based, Data Intensive,Super Computer? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is a possibility for some research (and there are PIs who haven gone that route). There are a couple of problems:
1) If you use EC2 24/7 and need a ton of data storage and fast data transfer capabilities it's no longer that cheap.
2) Sending potentially sensitive data off to amazon servers isn't a great idea. Even if you have data that is supposed to be de-identified, there are PIs who will intentionally or unintentionally screw up and put sensitive data on your cluster. It's one thing if this is in
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree that there are certain applications that AWS would be not so good for.
If you can guarantee nearly full utilization of your equipment and a certain amount of bandwidth, you're probably best with buying your own stuff. The price tag will be large up front, but you'll save money over the long term.
That said, if the problem is ramping up and down your needs, you might have a good case for at least adding Cloud services to your existing mix. It is probably a bitch to get new equipment for the governm
Cheap Mutha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer is a a tough one because it is not actually one disease, but many causes for abnormal cell division and tumor growth.
Most of the other ones are actually not things you need computers to fix. Except for temporary situations caused by disasters, the only real reason for plagues and poverty is human nature.
We could feed the entire planet with the food we're growing now. Everyone. Instead we burn it or turn grains into ridiculous forms of fuel or drinks because we don't care to share it, and what is m
the skeptic is ... who? (Score:1)
Or do the opinions of ordinary people count for nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
When compared to the broad consensus of science, yes. Belief doesn't enter into it, the research is done. Global warming is an established fact. And not just by one paper, but by repeated, peer reviewed research. Even early skeptics in climate modeling have come to the same conclusions.
I hesitate to call him or others skeptical, as it suggests there is really any room for doubt. There really isn't. The core findings about global warming are established. Covering our ears and shouting "it's not true" won't c
Re: (Score:1)
When people see "the experts" insisting, pushing, fighting, and demonizing that they understand what ordinary people don't
The articles are peer reviewed so dissenting voices are kept out. See climategate.
The hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited.
Global temperatures have been dropping more than they've been increasing.