Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What would it take... (Score 1) 776

Guess I have to wait seven or eight years until today's supercomputers are commodity items. Assuming 1000 instances for a month at $1/day, one run on the cloud would be about $30k USD. I pulled the numbers out of my tea leaves. I have always assumed the UK climate
gate models were essentially statistical, which I treat as a derogatory adverb. I could easily believe the NASA models are physical. Am I being ideological about the UK models being non-physical? Thank you for taking the time to share.

Funny though, if my tea leave numbers are sane, I could probably do a run in a day with 30K units for $30K USD. And a lot more money than that gets thrown around on this subject. But since it is a physical model, and I presume difficult, I might think tight coupling at a medium range scale, so a cluster approach would be a poor choice? Just musing. I kind of like tools and sometimes think about how to share. The Chinese just did a petraflop, homegrown down to including the cpus. I bet the nodes look low cost and the big deal is the power bill is going to be low. The effect is that this would be a low cost box to share--not cheap, but low cost. Again, just musing.

Comment Re:What would it take... (Score 1) 776

Thanks. I wonder about cloud stuff, as in computers, not fluffy. I thought I saw some cluster software discussion on your link, but lost track of it. I really have not done much in clouds. I also think I cannot get read access to the Git repository unless I have a nasa.gov address. This is a problem, since to understand current software, you would want to see the notes on how it got there. And the data sets seems to be simulation output data sets, rather than ideally in some ways, the raw data on the input side.. Oh well.

Comment Re:What would it take... (Score 1) 776

NASA is an ornament to our Republic. Since the files had a tgz type and I run something unixy, I downloaded and looked at the doc lightly. It needs gmake and some sort of fortran, which I find I have some sort installed. It is tempting to see if it could port and then run a pretty raw data set through it and then do a press release. Peer review seems pretty much optional these days.

I kind of have the vision of making it trivial to run the live NASA models with real data sets and see what people do with the capability. Maybe this idea needs some visualization software? Probably just idle daydreams. But at least this is a different approach to all the ideology floating around.

Comment Re:What would it take... (Score 1) 776

Hee, 1 degree C since 1970 and .25 of that due to AWG? Oops, 1 degree AWG between 2011 and 2161. Well, I do have a math degree, but gosh I must have done some bonehead thing in using the google math calculator. Help me out here.

Seriously, if you have some settled science, then most people will want to see some data and some math. And these days something like computer code.

Here is a funny story. I guess you might understand that there are not a lot of political points to be scored directly in cosmology. And physics types sometime pay attention to rigor and transparency. Now it happens that on slashdot there was a debate around whether the universe is infinite or finite and I chimed in with Einstein's comment on the question: the universe if finite but unbounded. A response said there were only 5 data points on the whole issue and only one supported Einstein, the analysis of the cosmic background radiation data set. So I go looking. And it turns out that the results from the computer model code, completely described at I suppose a specification level, were not independently reproducible. Now I might think the computer model itself was very much physical law based, not some silly statistical prediction. But I end up just having to walk away while it gets sorted out.

Mistrust data that supports your position.

Comment Re:Military Industrial Complex (Score 1) 416

Hee, does "traitor" have the same meaning as "committing treason"? If it does have the same meaning to you, you need to go read the constitution. :-)

And "plotting with foreign agents" is usually not a crime.

Oh well. I guess it clear that you think POTUS has the power to declare war and so everywhere in the world has become a war zone. Assassination therein is still illegal, but slight of hand is easier.

 

Comment Re:Military Industrial Complex (Score 1) 416

"clearly engaged with foreign enemies" is not a crime, Being on foreign soil does not preclude being outside the US legal system, including an obligation by the US to provide due process. Recalling that we are dealing with secret decrees, it appears to me that the drone attacks were made *because* the americans were there. so we have assassination and not on any reasonable field of battle and no claim that these guys were bearing arms. And the 16 year old was months ago and that one is so unsupportable that it is not being acknowledged.

Now you claim Obama ordered the hit. But the word is that he has given JSOC authority on its own to prepare hit lists, execute people, and tell him after the fact. Oh, and there are no other civilians in the command chain.

Here is something that came over my desk today. Sort of part of the European view:

Denmark Features Obama Administration's Liquidation of Terror Suspects
October 30, 2011 10:41AM

"The U.S. is liquidating terror suspects as never before," was the title of a major article in the Danish daily Information on Oct. 28. The Information article then became a major story in other Danish media yesterday, including Denmark's largest newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and both DR and TV2, the two leading electronic media in the country.

The Information article began:

"License to kill anyone, anytime and anywhere. In practice, that is the right U.S. President Barack Obama has given the CIA and U.S. special forces.

"Since the Democrats took power in the White House, the number of terrorist suspects who have been killed by unmanned aircraft and U.S. special forces, has multiplied. A review of published data from U.S. agencies, NATO and independent researchers show that at least 5,742 people have been murdered by U.S. forces since January 2009. At least 1,877 of them have been killed by unmanned drones, while the rest were shot during so-called 'capture or kill' operations which U.S. special forces have conducted thousands of times in Afghanistan.

"During Obama's administration, the unmanned drones and U.S. special operations have evolved from being a weapon that was used in exceptional cases, to constituting the most important weapon in the war on terror."

Comment Re:Military Industrial Complex (Score 1) 416

Yah, US air force can be that way. Here is a useful link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87. Now suppose we have an aircraft that can not defend itself and has a siren mounted to terrorize civilians. At some point of intention, it has become a terror weapon.

Do you want to say that a terror weapon, used as such, is a weapon of war

Comment Re:Military Industrial Complex (Score 1) 416

Lots of different stories.

On sept 22, 2011, I sent a letter to the local paper about the disarray going into the DC G-20. The tag was "what will happen". I regard statistical predictions as rather silly for anything interesting, but kind of a dynamic directionality is useful to look at. So looking at the financial collapse, there is a possibility of a lot of non-economic stuff happening. If you go to wikipedia you can find by my last count 17 different definitions of (Goodwin). My definition is (Goodwin) is murderous austerity during an economic collapse. Now here are a few contextual datums.

Drones are not a military weapon. They have no survivability in a contested air space. They are a fine terror weapon. People hear them and know that things are going to be bad. During World II, the Nazi put sirens on the Stuka's for the same reason and as soon as the air space became contested, the Stuka's were gone. Military people are starting to compare drones to roadside IED's. Dishonorable.

Obama has chosen to kill three american citizens, far from any offical battlefield, by secret executive decree., by drone. 20 retired generals are quite unhappy. As the details come out, it looks like JSOC, and no civilians are in the chain of command, and the president gets notified after the fact. One of the dead that was individually targeted was 16 years old. The law professors are now getting enough information to be upset.

Here is one where it looks like the President did make the decision up front. Around the first of the week, I started hearing that a lot of people in the know around the world were wondering if Obama was going down on Quaddafi's death. This was a little hard for me to process. As some details come out, here might be the organizing concept: as far as other countries are concerned, obama can kill as many americans as we let him get away with. On the other hand, assassinating heads of state is bad form. This has nothing to do with the fact that US law prohibits Obama from doing assassinations, more to do with the rules of war. What has been said (NYT?, WP?) is on the 21st Obama was given three options and he ruled out the two non-lethal options. The next day, Quadaffi was dead. And with American and French? commandos on the scene. How did Quadaffi get pinned down?-- by drone and french war plane attacks. And the unconfirmed reports are that his convoy was flying white flags. If true, war crime right there.

Why kill Quadaffi? He has been best buddies with Blair and Obama and did all sort favors. You might note the US is trying to take over Africa for raw material supplies? One thought is Quadaffi knew too much and was not sensible about keeping his mouth shut.

So the interesting directionality here is on one side (Goodwin) and on the other, the name newspapers, the judiciary (imminent law professors), and the retired military generals are all moving. And of course OWS. Wishful people say "no program" in OWS and there is not yet agreement. But I like G-S. Hah, Volker likes G-S, thinks its better than what he proposed, he says today,and October 7, I counted seven newspapers who explicitly cited G-S as a major demand of OWS, but almost all were foreign newspapers. :-)

I did see a good quote though. Something like "mistrust facts that support your position". My version is not simply "mistrust facts" but more like "chose your direction and then cherry pick the facts." Oops, I am having an identity crisis here. Dah, is my name Cheney..or Obama ..or ... your favorite mass media?

It is *good* to live now.

 

Comment Re:silver lining (Score 1) 469

I could not find the cite with a casual look, but historically US food reserves are about 60-90 days, but this time down around 30 days and at the time it was falling further. I am not sure what the cause is. However, we might observe that (Obama) opposes food reserves in less developed nations. Here is a cite http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18377 that in turns reference a french newspaper reporting on G-20 ag stuff about July of this year. I think the Larouche analysis, and reasonably the Chinese analysis, is that this is to put pressure on sovereign nations to NOT hoard food if the world goes into famine. And since in the G-20 context, all G-20 knew how to do a few months ago, was to encourage speculation everywhere, this all holds together. As best as I can see, that is almost all they still know. The additional thing some of them know is that bill has come due. And the US taxpayer is the only source of liquidity to prop up the speculators, largely in this case, big investment banks, for another month or two.

Comment Re:The end of the golden age of oil and coal and g (Score 1) 272

As it happens I am old enough to remember Ike beating Stevenson and the introduction of the Atoms for Peace program. I think we should take care if we try to conclude the subsidies were focused on *developing* nuclear power, per se. The geopolitical issues were the real drivers and I am not thinking precisely of the threat posed by Stalin. Now I did look at your link. The part that really amused me was the proposal to assess nuclear plants for protection against terrorist threats and avoiding nuclear proliferation. This is all so familiar. Post the Kennedy assassination, these sort of policy issues, applied indirectly, made nuclear non-economic, and now you want to put the nails directly into the body of the industry. I guess I could comment on terrorist threats and non-proliferation, but ...

Comment Re:And it will come to nothing. (Score 1) 944

current stuff, as I define current

Birmingham 63
Leipzig October 89
US August 2009
Arab Spring 2011
global October 2011

More than memories. I bet that thought upsets you.

Anyway, the policy options being offered by our betters are bailouts, austerity, and police states. But these ideas are bankrupt and even "they" know it. Look at the results of the last G-20 meeting. These wonder ideas are just reflexes of Empire.

On the other hand, in part, HR 1489. (glass-steagall)

Slashdot Top Deals

To err is human, to moo bovine.

Working...