Cray Nanny bump
1 posted on
11/19/2009 6:27:41 AM PST by
BGHater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: buckrodgers
32 posted on
11/19/2009 5:55:20 PM PST by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: BGHater
Just imagine the size of a computer that we will need to understand women.
33 posted on
11/19/2009 6:56:22 PM PST by
killermosquito
(Buffalo (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
To: neverdem; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Note: this topic is from November 19, 2009. Thanks BGHater. Related to this new one:
34 posted on
08/31/2010 3:15:16 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
To: BGHater
There is a race to make supercomputers as powerful as possible to solve some of the world's most important problems, including climate change, the need for ultra-long-life batteries for cars, operating fusion reactors with plasma that reaches 150 million degrees Celsius and creating bio-fuels from weeds and not corn.
...and why people were stupid enough to vote in Obama and his minions.
37 posted on
09/02/2010 5:48:31 PM PDT by
aruanan
To: BGHater
The Jaguar uses 7 megawatts of power or 7 million watts. An exascale system that used CPU processing cores alone might take 2 gigawatts or two billion watts, says Dave Turek, IBM vice president of deep computing. "That's roughly the size of medium-sized nuclear power plant. That's an untenable proposition for the future," he said.
Why? If the government's going to build the thing, then just take out of mothballs one of the nuclear reactors that have been shut down or not allowed to start up and proceed. It's not as though it's being used for anything else now.
38 posted on
09/02/2010 5:52:34 PM PDT by
aruanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson