Comments:US energy department reveals world's fastest computer

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Simulate this

And it will be used to simulate blowing shit up. Hmmm. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

but can it run linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.246.52 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but it can assist in the US' goal of world domination. Anonymous101 :) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it will simulate the aging of a nuclear weapon, so that they can figure out how many and when will become a "duds" -- but as in horeshoes and handgrenades (and atom bombs), a miss is as good as a mile WurmWoode (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it runs Red Hat Enterprise. The real question, how much energy does it take to run the thing, and will we have to worry about something like this! --TUFKAAP (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this really the best use?

Surely this computer could have been used to find a way to end poverty or something, instead of finding a way to kill people. Anonymous101 :) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good way to end poverty. --SVTCobra 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It has, the mitigation of the poverty of unemployed IT techies, who have been otherwise outsourced to Asia.WurmWoode (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Future purpose

Once the technology is proven, and AMD implements the "poor" man's version, or before then, is there any indication from Los Alamos or IBM as to purposing it to Global Warming analysis -- surely it can do a better job than Al Gore? Or timeshares with other supercomputer university/commercial projects?WurmWoode (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute waste of money. 100 million tax dollars for what? There must be something I'm missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.21.115 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ooh nice,i bet we can play gta4 in it with no lags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.24.76 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Progress!

So in the past 50 years we've gone from 2 rectangles bouncing a little square from one side to the other, to being able to talk directly to a lifelike-quality digitalized version of someone that's sitting on the other end of the world (think... Mass Multiple Online Role Playing Games) while blasting monsters with realistically-looking high-tech rocket launchers.

And yet when it comes to fighting poverty, what have we accomplished? When it comes to third world development, what good have we done? When it comes to protecting our natural environment, have we done ANY good at all?

Progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.149 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "good 1"

good 1