Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Supercomputing China IT Politics Technology

Does Being First Still Matter In America? 247

dcblogs writes At the supercomputing conference, SC14, this week, a U.S. Dept. of Energy offical said the government has set a goal of 2023 as its delivery date for an exascale system. It may be taking a risky path with that amount of lead time because of increasing international competition. There was a time when the U.S. didn't settle for second place. President John F. Kennedy delivered his famous "we choose to go to the moon" speech in 1962, and seven years later a man walked on the moon. The U.S. exascale goal is nine years away. China, Europe and Japan all have major exascale efforts, and the government has already dropped on supercomputing. The European forecast of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was so far ahead of U.S. models in predicting the storm's path that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was called before Congress to explain how it happened. It was told by a U.S. official that NOAA wasn't keeping up in computational capability. It's still not keeping up. Cliff Mass, a professor of meteorology at the University of Washington, wrote on his blog last month that the U.S. is "rapidly falling behind leading weather prediction centers around the world" because it has yet to catch up in computational capability to Europe. That criticism followed the $128 million recent purchase a Cray supercomputer by the U.K.'s Met Office, its meteorological agency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Being First Still Matter In America?

Comments Filter:
  • Booyah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @03:49PM (#48429189) Journal

    First post!

    • It seems it does matter, at least for Tablizer.

    • Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gameboyhippo ( 827141 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @04:14PM (#48429437) Journal

      This is the first time the "first post" post is somewhat related to the article. Well done, Tablizer.

    • First post doesn't mean much on /. these days. A few weeks ago I got FP twice in one day without even trying. i.e. not slavishly refreshing the page or running scripts to watch for new articles.

  • Half the story... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday November 20, 2014 @03:55PM (#48429251) Homepage

    From TFS:

    There was a time when the U.S. didn't settle for second place. President John F. Kennedy delivered his famous "we choose to go to the moon" speech in 1962, and seven years later a man walked on the moon.

    We only walked on the moon seven years later because we'd already been developing the parts - for as much as six years in the case of the F1 engine. And because President Kennedy died in 1963 (before he could completely back away from the commitment), allowing LBJ to push for funding as a monument.
     
    Not to mention we couldn't really end up in second place - because we were essentially the only runner in the race. The Soviets were years late in starting because they didn't believe we'd actually even stick with it. And even when they did enter the race, it was a half hearted effort with little political support.

    • And because President Kennedy died in 1963 (before he could completely back away from the commitment)...

      Do you have any evidence that he intended to do that, or are you just looking for an excuse to blame everything on LBJ and Nixon?
      • Re:Half the story... (Score:5, Informative)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday November 20, 2014 @06:04PM (#48430265) Homepage

        And because President Kennedy died in 1963 (before he could completely back away from the commitment)...

        Do you have any evidence that he intended to do that, or are you just looking for an excuse to blame everything on LBJ and Nixon?

        It's fairly well known among space historians, though like much of the factual matters surrounding the space program it's practically unknown by the fanboys. Anyhow, a tape containing a discussion between Kennedy and Webb was released a few years back where Kennedy voices his doubts [huffingtonpost.com]. In 1963 he proposed a joint mission with the Soviets [nasa.gov], which has also long been interpreted as a backing away from his original commitment. The Space Review also has a two [thespacereview.com] part [thespacereview.com] story shedding some light on the issue.

        And no, I blame nothing on Nixon - after the Congressional budget cuts of '65-'67, Apollo was already essentially cancelled. Nixon inherited a program already running short of funds and operating mostly on momentum and force a habit - and Congress disinclined to change that. He didn't kill Apollo, he just stood by while a patient already in a deep coma and dependent on machines for every bodily function simply slipped away.

    • Your alleged only runner in the race is completely false. Good grief man, read some history. Start with the "first" milestones here [wikipedia.org]. The Soviets were ahead of us in many areas, but we decided to take risks that pushed us ahead. It was a gamble that paid off, but a close run. Here is an excerpt.

      First animals returned safely from orbit August 1960 USSR Sputnik 5
      First simultaneous flight of crewed spacecraft. Andriyan Nikolayev and Pavel Popovich August 1962 USSR Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
      First woman in space. Valentina Tereshkova June 1963 USSR Vostok 6
      Longest crewed solo orbital flight. Valery Bykovsky June 1963 USSR Vostok 5

      Your other statements about JFK backing away is just as wrong, at least in terms of the race to the Moon. Are you confusing US involvement in Vietnam with the Space Race or something? You sure don't seem to hav

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      And why had we been developing the engines in the first place?

      The "We Choose to Go to the Moon" speech was given, if I recall correctly, in September of 1962. This almost a year and a half after Alan Shepherd went into space on Mercury-Redstone 3, and some four years after the Mercury program had been conceived under President Eisenhower. The purpose was to rally people around a goal that had already consumed almost 2 billion dollars and would consume well over a hundred billion dollars (in today's terms

  • Budget (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @03:59PM (#48429311)
    Simply put the US population (or at least the portion that politicians pay attention to) seem unwilling to fund being first.
    • Simply put the US population (or at least the portion that politicians pay attention to) seem unwilling to fund being first.

      As likely much of the US population believes they are first in everything, regardless of the reality. Why invest when the perception is already there?

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @04:01PM (#48429331)
    As father told me many times, the San Francisco Bay Bridge could never be built today.
  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20, 2014 @04:09PM (#48429393)

    Being first still matters a lot. Just not in the metrics you admire.

    External debt? USA#1 at $17E+12 and growing fast. Corporate tax rate? Number one baby. Rate of medical cost growth? We go that. Education cost growth? Ditto. Firearms per capita? We own the whole right hand side of that histogram. Because we lack a 50% peasant population to drop the average (like China) we're still far ahead in per capita carbon production. We're the largest oil producer on Earth as well.

    So yeah, #1 still matters.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @04:17PM (#48429465) Homepage

    Does the National Weather Service need that computing power all the time, or could they buy it during major hurricanes from cloud services?

    • by bigpat ( 158134 )

      I think the answer is yes they do need a pretty constant level of computer power, since you want as much lead time on extreme weather events. But maybe it would be more cost effective to buy the computing time from a cloud provider. The NWS question is a bit different than the question of having the fastest supercomputer, since the linked article from Cliff Mass talks about NWS needing 20-30 petaflops of computer power which is basically the equivalent of the largest supercomputer the US already has:

      "My

    • Does the National Weather Service need that computing power all the time, or could they buy it during major hurricanes from cloud services?

      Duh. It's the national weather service of course they use clouds.

  • I just love quotes like the following;

    The European forecast of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was so far ahead of U.S. models in predicting the storm's path that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was called before Congress to explain how it happened.

    According to this [politico.com] NOAA predicted the landfall four days ahead while the European system predicted it seven days ahead. While a longer warning is nice the real question is whether or not the three extra days are necessary. If they are not necessary then the NOAA computers are fine and we don't need expensive new computers. If it is, new computers need to be speced and purchased. Even then the speced computer may not be the fastest in the world.

    It is not a question of be

  • We live in a delusional bubble and sooner or later that bubble will burst. We were very good but to stay the best takes effort and money. Both of which we traded for political demigods and cheap trinket and oil from authoritarian regimes around the world to live our obese Wal-Mart fueled lives.

    We want to be the best, but where will the brain and money that are needed for such endeavor come from? Certainly not from the flag lapel wearing politicians that caters to the money worshiping financial and le

  • Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There was a time when the US had the tallest buildings, the longest bridges, the biggest dams, etc. What happened is the wealth in the US is now concentrated in "soft" areas like finance, retailing, entertainment, etc. Even more harmful is the concentration of wealth in a few individuals who are mainly concerned with their own amusements. Think of the Walton or Ziff children who, unlike their parents, have neither the interest nor the capability to contribute to economic growth. The record prices of art,

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @05:07PM (#48429893)

    One of the things that drove the race for the moon was us losing the space race with the Soviet Union. Having that big a Cold War enemy was a huge boost in one respect (mandates to educate the population and advance science) and a huge detractor in another (who-knows-how-many trillions of dollars wasted on a nuclear arms race that neither side actually needed to participate in.)

    I think the times are different now:
    - Education isn't seen as a guarantee of a decent job anymore, so fewer people are spending the money and effort on it.
    - Decent jobs are no longer guaranteed either, so people are more concerned with day to day survival than long-term planning.
    - We don't have a huge boogeyman like the USSR ready to wipe us out the second we let up the pressure...the closest thing now is China, and they're our biggest trade partners.
    - Media is more fragmented. You can argue either side of this point, but the world was a lot simpler when there were only 3 TV networks, a much longer news cycle and newspapers of record that did real journalism. Now no one can make any sort of controversial move without 200 news analysts jumping all over it and putting forth their opinion as fact.
    - People don't trust large institutions or governments, who are often the only entities big or powerful enough to mandate huge changes or push science forward. (Example: AT&T funding Bell Labs with phone company revenues leading to breakthrough inventions, or the US funding Apollo and other NASA programs.)

    I think that some of these factors make it impossible to be "first" in key areas, simply because no one is willing to stick their neck out and invest the time, effort or resources.

  • Yes, the US sucks. It has always sucked. It will continue to suck long into the future, until it eventually just goes away.

    Every thread on /. quickly devolves into how the US does worse than everywhere else.
    We could have a discussion about starvation in North Korea, and how people are boiling grass and bark for 'soup', and some of you geniuses would proudly proclaim that the quality of bark from US trees has less nutritional value. And garner mod points for it.

    This 'used' to be a place for semi-rational
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Yes, the US sucks.

      We suck better than anyone else. We can sit back and bask in our own glory.

    • by dave420 ( 699308 )
      You seem to be confusing people criticizing actual flaws of the US with people simply criticizing everything about the US. As someone else posted, you do indeed sound butthurt. If people don't highlight these flaws, nothing will be fixed. I understand you've gone through your entire life being told that the US is the most awesomest thing in the world, but you (and those like you) are actively hurting the US by attempting to stifle just criticism.
    • There is a massive gap between "not 1st in absolutely everything" and "worse than everywhere else".

  • No.

    What we need to do is our best. Unless it involves some winner-take-all competition (like the Cold War was. Maybe.) we need to stop looking over our shoulder. Or lamentng the fact that we've been passed. Who cares if Europe is better at hurricane forecasting? Can they use that against us? I doubt it. We need to be as good at that as makes sense economically. We can't save every mobile home, damn the cost.

  • Too often these things just look like dick measuring contests. A childish waste of time. I don't really care if the chinese have the fastest machine so long as our systems are able to keep up with our needs.

    • Too often these things just look like dick measuring contests. A childish waste of time. I don't really care if the chinese have the fastest machine so long as our systems are able to keep up with our needs.

      Damn right, Who cares? You USans are good at some things, top in some, bad in others, crap at a few. Much like the rest of the world.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again - the world owes you a debt for getting humans on the moon.

      (On the other side of the coin... never understood why you folks have so many guns...)

  • That's where US R&D dollars have gone. Camelot!

  • by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @06:39PM (#48430455)
    if we want to stay ahead, it's time to build something revolutionary, not just something that's 10% faster than whatever someone else has.
  • You're still first for billions of dollars spent on warfare.

    You're still first in number of people incarcerated per capita.

    You still lead in the number of gun-related murders per capita.

    And you still lead the world in thousands of dollars per capita spent on healthcare.

  • “We lead the world in only 3 categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    (Skip to 3:20 for the part I'm talking about.)

  • No wait...

    Nope! [youtube.com]

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • We're #2 in obesity too. The Mexicans have beaten us. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

  • Bond: Are these pictures live?
    M: Unlike the American government, we prefer not to get our bad news from CNN.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...