As a former NNSA Lab employee, I have followed the ASC program from the original ASCI initiative. There has been plenty of hype, but also some good science. Is it about time for a critical discussion of how far scientific computing - particularly MP computing - can go to serve the NW mission? By the way, how many of the more important problems actually scale on the new machines?
Dan Segalman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LLNS Contract discussion
SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE
Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...
-
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will have a huge negative effect on the ...
-
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises t...
-
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref...
3 comments:
I see why having a strong supercomputing program is important to maintaining US leadership in this field (industrially). So whatever application they pick is fine by me, whether it's NW, weather prediction, genomics, cryptography, spying, or whatever.
I think most of the stockpile was designed by very smart people using calculators, slide rules and tests, no?
We some of the later ones designed with early codes?
Your timeline is off by about 20 years. The first ones were designed using stone tools, and the later ones were designed using iron slide rules and tests.
Post a Comment