Supercomputers 'will fit in a sugar cube', IBM says

[6Foot2]

Link: BBC News - Supercomputers 'will fit in a sugar cube', IBM says

 

The most surprising part of this report for me is:

 

Some 2% of the world's total energy is consumed by building and running computer equipment.

[LosOjos]

The most surprising part of this report for me is:

 

That surprises me too; I would have thought it would have been much higher! I suppose it depends what they're classing as a computer system though, nearly everything is run by a computer these days.

[creese]

Why does the BBC think they can put anything in ' ' and get away with it.

 

a) It will not fit in a sugar cube, it could be the size of a sugar cube.

b) Why would anyone want to put a computer in a sugar cube.

 

Ahhhhh, they think we are all to thick to understand 1/2 inch cube (or metric equivalent)

[Brpilot99]

Thats a change for Big Blue .. The then CEO stated back in the 60's that there would never be more than 3 computers in the world ..

[mac_shinobi]

Why does the BBC think they can put anything in ' ' and get away with it.

 

a) It will not fit in a sugar cube, it could be the size of a sugar cube.

b) Why would anyone want to put a computer in a sugar cube.

 

Ahhhhh, they think we are all to thick to understand 1/2 inch cube (or metric equivalent)

 

Nano Technology like in star trek with the nano mites lol

[Duke]

Why does the BBC think they can put anything in ' ' and get away with it.

 

I'm glad this isn't just me... Every time I read their headlines RSS feed in Firefox I imagine someone from the BBC making 'inverted commas' with their fingers while they say it and then giving me a wink as if the headline means something else they're not telling me:

 

Computers of future 'will be size of a sugar cube' - Psst, but sugar cubes in the future are going to be as big as houses!

Paper editor stripped 'for tape' - Well, we say tape, it was really for little fluffy bunny rabbits.

Internet faces 'turbulent times' - Do the BBC know something we don't about turbulent times, are they not actually turbulent?

Domingo 'emotional' over honour - Well was he or wasn't he? Do your research BBC!

 

*sigh* - /end Friday rant

[creese]

Here 'are some' more of todays 'examples':

Burma generals 'sign Aung San Suu Kyi release order'

The government has taken an "enormous gamble" with the UK's defences

The Coventry Blitz 'conspiracy'

Banaz Mahmod 'honour' killing cousins jailed for life

Race bias in cancer 'costing lives'

Teenagers jailed for 'ferocious' Mountain Ash murder

 

If there was a tax on apostrophes..........

[JJonas]

IBM support visit of the future...

 

IBM engineer: ah there is your problem this is not your server it is a sugar cube.

ICT Services manager: quick cancel tea break..

 

 

I guess it beats my cup holder has snapped off my computer can I get a new one

Edited November 12, 2010 by JJonas

[Duke]

(things that annoy Duke)

 

Grah! The BBC are killing BBC English!

 

Anyway, back to the topic - surely supercomputers will still be relatively large, as I assume IBM aren't planning to fit the motherboard, RAM, PSU and storage into the same sugar cube? As far as I gather, all they're doing is stacking the silicon up vertically rather than just scaling it out horizontally, and doing this allows them to improve cooling and so reduce the space usually required for that?

 

IBM apparently claim otherwise:

 

"We currently have built this Aquasar system that's one rack full of processors. We plan that 10 to 15 years from now, we can collapse such a system in to one sugar cube - we're going to have a supercomputer in a sugar cube."

 

Everything that's currently in that rack - chassis, PSU, mobos, CPUs, RAM, cabling and ports into a sugar cube? How many RJ45 sockets can you fit on a sugar cube? Apparently nano-technology has come on faster than I thought...

[sonofsanta]

I'm glad this isn't just me... Every time I read their headlines RSS feed in Firefox I imagine someone from the BBC making 'inverted commas' with their fingers while they say it and then giving me a wink as if the headline means something else they're not telling me:

 

Computers of future 'will be size of a sugar cube' - Psst, but sugar cubes in the future are going to be as big as houses!

Paper editor stripped 'for tape' - Well, we say tape, it was really for little fluffy bunny rabbits.

Internet faces 'turbulent times' - Do the BBC know something we don't about turbulent times, are they not actually turbulent?

Domingo 'emotional' over honour - Well was he or wasn't he? Do your research BBC!

 

*sigh* - /end Friday rant

 

Much as I hate to interrupt a good rant, it looks more like they are using the single inverted comma in place of a speech mark, presumably because the speech mark would interrupt their website's back end code. So each of those inverted comma jobbies is actually just a quote from the person they've spoken to for the article.

 

BBC Science reporting is still rubbish, though. Ben Goldacre's last column in the Grauniad had a fun time mocking them for apparently confirming Cartesian duality when they reported that a certain disease was not in your mind, there was a physical response visible on scans of the brain. Apparently the brain and mind are not the same thing, to the BBC!

[creese]

Much as I hate to interrupt a good rant, it looks more like they are using the single inverted comma in place of a speech mark, presumably because the speech mark would interrupt their website's back end code. So each of those inverted comma jobbies is actually just a quote from the person they've spoken to for the article.

 

We know why they are doing it but it doesn't make it right or good journalism. I'm not qualified to comment on it being good English.

[Duke]

Much as I hate to interrupt a good rant, it looks more like they are using the single inverted comma in place of a speech mark, presumably because the speech mark would interrupt their website's back end code. So each of those inverted comma jobbies is actually just a quote from the person they've spoken to for the article.

 

I don't mind when it's actually a quote, for example:

 

US troops 'OK with gay ban end' - the troops said that, it's an indirect quote, fine.

 

But what about: Burma generals 'sign Aung San Suu Kyi release order'? It's not a quote, it either happened or it didn't. If it did happen then you don't need to quote it, it's just part of the sentence. There's no hidden meaning in it, they're not trying to suggest that part of the headline actually means something else, it's just fact.

 

Burma generals sign Aung San Suu Kyi release order - They did? Well that's good news, I'll carry on with my day.

 

Burma generals 'sign Aung San Suu Kyi release order' - Uh-oh, they signed a release order, wink-wink nudge-nudge! We all know that's code for something terrible!

 

Time to unsubscribe from this thread, enjoy your sugar-flavoured computers and have a nice weekend all!

Edited November 12, 2010 by Duke

[6Foot2]

For all of you who hate it when the BBC do 'this' in their headlines here's another one for you [and this time the news is REALLY big!]

 

Link: BBC News - Singer James Blunt 'stopped World War 3'