• Supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britian's worst polluters.
    45 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bobbo666;17001314]Hmm, I always hear this, but how true is it really? The one time I went to London for a week, it rained once, for about 10 minutes. The rest of the time it was sunny and warm . . .[/QUOTE] Well London isn't part of England. London has it's own weather.
Now that really is ironic: a machine used to predict climate change, that is in fact contributing TO climate change. It wouldn't be a problem if it were nuclear-powered. Sure there's the risk of meltdown, but at least the land's still there, not beneath the waves.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17001277] 15,000,000/ 100,000= 150 Apparently the "standard pc" only has 150 mb RAM. .[/QUOTE] because ram equals processing power [QUOTE=ryandaniels;17001277] Throwing out a large number attached to a measurement no one is familiar with...[/QUOTE] uhh I think everyone is familiar with tonnes. [QUOTE=Bobbo666;17001314]Hmm, I always hear this, but how true is it really? The one time I went to London for a week, it rained once, for about 10 minutes. The rest of the time it was sunny and warm . . .[/QUOTE] It rains on average one in every three days. Different parts of england (for example, london) have their own weather for complicated geographical reasons I'm not really sure about.
[QUOTE=Smirnoff Joe;17001391]It wouldn't be a problem if it were nuclear-powered. Sure there's the risk of meltdown, but at least the land's still there, not beneath the waves.[/QUOTE] ^ Doesn't know what nuclear power involves ^
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17001277]This article is embarrassingly sensational with numbers. 15 terabytes, asshole. I'm surprised they resisted the urge to say "15 quadrillion bytes" [/quote] Big deal! [quote] :sigh: Throwing out a large number attached to a measurement no one is familiar with... [/quote] Alot of people are familiar with tonnes idiot. [quote] 15,000,000/ 100,000= 150 Apparently the "standard pc" only has 150 mb RAM. [/quote] Because, as already said, having more memory doesn't mean it's more powerful. [quote] Hey, how about you repeat yourself some more? God I hate these kinds of journalists. [/quote] Get the fuck over it.
[QUOTE=compwhizii;17001734]^ Doesn't know what nuclear power involves ^[/QUOTE] It involves sticking "rods" into "holes" which are wet, and then put them in and out again till the rod has emitted its juice. (This is also the case with a lot of other power sources.)
[quote]because ram equals processing power[/quote] Alright, you got me, although they didn't specify in which way it was more powerful, which is also an asshole thing to do. [quote]uhh I think everyone is familiar with tonnes.[/quote] Not the point, I'm saying that people have no idea how much C02 is a lot. So they read this and it says *large number* tonnes of C02, and they are fooled into believing that the worlds about to end from all the C02 it's outputting. Admit it, this is sensational writing. And not in a good way. I'm not disagreeing with what the article is saying, I'm disagreeing with how it's said. [editline]09:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=LooperNor;17001753]Big deal! Alot of people are familiar with tonnes idiot. Because, as already said, having more memory doesn't mean it's more powerful. Get the fuck over it.[/QUOTE] Why are you people getting so defensive?
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17001855]Alright, you got me, although they didn't specify in which way it was more powerful, which is also an asshole thing to do. Not the point, I'm saying that people have no idea how much C02 is a lot. So they read this and it says *large number* tonnes of C02, and they are fooled into believing that the worlds about to end from all the C02 it's outputting. Admit it, this is sensational writing. And not in a good way. I'm not disagreeing with what the article is saying, I'm disagreeing with how it's said.[/QUOTE] They're stating facts. It actually emits more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If someone wished to, they could go and look this up to find averages or compare it to other buildings. They didn't specify in which way it's more powerful because there is only one measurement - calculations per second. They even mention this 2 sentences later. Sure it's the daily mail, but this article isn't sensationalist or even wrong.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;17001920]They're stating facts. It actually emits more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If someone wished to, they could go and look this up to find averages or compare it to other buildings. They didn't specify in which way it's more powerful because there is only one measurement - calculations per second. They even mention this 2 sentences later. Sure it's the daily mail, but this article isn't sensationalist or even wrong.[/QUOTE] They aren't stating facts at all, they are choosing facts that sound important and people aren't likely to understand, or making them sound important. And "powerful" can mean absolutely anything. Heck, I could say a car is as powerful as 10 trains and then not explain that I meant in terms of x and y.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17002012]They aren't stating facts at all, they are choosing facts that sound important and people aren't likely to understand, or making them sound important. And "powerful" can mean absolutely anything. Heck, I could say a car is as powerful as 10 trains and then not explain that I meant in terms of x and y.[/QUOTE] [quote] The supercomputer - more powerful than 100,000 standard PCs - was installed in the Met Office's new £80 million headquarters in May. It processes information from satellite images and was hailed as capable of predicting disastrous weather events that were previously unforeseeable such as the infamous hurricane of 1987. The IBM machine has a peak performance of 1 'Petaflop' - 1,000 billion calculations per second - which it will not reach until 2011. [/quote] So it can do 1000 billion calculations per second, which is 100,000 times more powerful than a standard PC. How is this even remotely challenging to understand?
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;17002047]So it can do 1000 billion calculations per second, which is 100,000 times more powerful than a standard PC. How is this even remotely challenging to understand?[/QUOTE] The fact that you have to restate it like that shows that it isn't clear at all. They did not say "which is"; it was two completely different lines separated by another line. But now we arguing tiny details and that only makes the dissenting party (me) look bad, so I'm gonna go ahead a do something else, good day.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17002151]The fact that you have to restate it like that shows that it isn't clear at all. They did not say "which is"; it was two completely different lines separated by another line. But now we arguing tiny details and that only makes the dissenting party (me) look bad, so I'm gonna go ahead a do something else, good day.[/QUOTE] I had to restate it because you're obviously too dense to understand the very simple to digest facts in the article. Obviously this argument makes you look bad, because you're wrong!
:D
it's worth 12k tonnes of CO2 a year to be able to play GTA4 at max settings
[QUOTE=jordguitar;17000182]But 15 GIGS of ram for a super computer? Seriously that must be a typo.[/QUOTE] They said "15 million megabytes of memory" in the article. That is about 15 terabytes. Now, since this is a news article, then they are aiming towards computer illiterate people who think [I]memory[/I] is hard drive space and not RAM.
15 million megabytes of memory? Pff that's nothing. :downs:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.