f



I don't work for IBM and I don't make promises I can't deliver on

I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they 
have on the Internet now.

I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/13/2011 4:24:17 AM
comp.arch 7611 articles. 0 followers. carchreader (32) is leader. Post Follow

31 Replies
1935 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 34

On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they
> have on the Internet now.
>
> I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract.
>
> Robert.

I don't work for IBM (anymore) either.  If you are talking about the 
death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver. 
They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on 
the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial guess.

And I guess Ben chose not to print some more to pay for it.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/25/2011 3:17:00 AM
On Aug 24, 11:17=A0pm, Del Cecchi <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they
> > have on the Internet now.
>
> > I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract.
>
> > Robert.
>
> I don't work for IBM (anymore) either. =A0If you are talking about the
> death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver.
> They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on
> the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial guess=
..
>
> And I guess Ben chose not to print some more to pay for it.

What took you so long?

Anyone who knows about Blue Waters and has/had any interest in it must
be as disgusted as I am at the IBM ads currently running on the web.

Those ads feature bright and sometimes not-so-bright people saying
incredibly smug things.  "We were selected to work on a Top Secret
project."  WOW.  Some smug remark about a long story that would make
me angry no matter who made it.  Stuff like that.

How about an IBM ad featuring the role that Hollerith cards played in
the the roundups of the Third Reich?  How about the ACTUAL history of
computing, where IBM jumped late onto the bandwagon like an elephant
jumping onto a child's red wagon?

It's true that almost every ambitious technical project ever
undertaken by anyone has cost some integer multiple of what was
originally estimated.  Can't blame that on IBM.  For constantly
throwing its weight around in a business where it doesn't even belong--
for that I blame IBM.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/25/2011 4:50:28 PM
On Aug 25, 12:50=A0pm, Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:17=A0pm, Del Cecchi <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > > I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what th=
ey
> > > have on the Internet now.
>
> > > I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract.
>
> > > Robert.
>
> > I don't work for IBM (anymore) either. =A0If you are talking about the
> > death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver.
> > They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on
> > the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial gue=
ss.
>
> > And I guess Ben chose not to print some more to pay for it.
>
> What took you so long?
>
> Anyone who knows about Blue Waters and has/had any interest in it must
> be as disgusted as I am at the IBM ads currently running on the web.
>
> Those ads feature bright and sometimes not-so-bright people saying
> incredibly smug things. =A0"We were selected to work on a Top Secret
> project." =A0WOW. =A0Some smug remark about a long story that would make
> me angry no matter who made it. =A0Stuff like that.
>
> How about an IBM ad featuring the role that Hollerith cards played in
> the the roundups of the Third Reich? =A0How about the ACTUAL history of
> computing, where IBM jumped late onto the bandwagon like an elephant
> jumping onto a child's red wagon?
>
> It's true that almost every ambitious technical project ever
> undertaken by anyone has cost some integer multiple of what was
> originally estimated. =A0Can't blame that on IBM. =A0For constantly
> throwing its weight around in a business where it doesn't even belong--
> for that I blame IBM.
>

And before you tell me that IBM and the Third Reich was a long time
ago, take a gander at this:

http://ce399fascism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/new-orwellian-ibm-ad-eerie-hom=
age-to-hollerith-punch-cards-and-the-third-reich/

Robert.


0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/25/2011 4:58:08 PM
On 8/25/2011 11:58 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Aug 25, 12:50 pm, Robert Myers<rbmyers...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:17 pm, Del Cecchi<delcec...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>>> I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they
>>>> have on the Internet now.
>>
>>>> I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract.
>>
>>>> Robert.
>>
>>> I don't work for IBM (anymore) either.  If you are talking about the
>>> death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver.
>>> They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on
>>> the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial guess.
>>
>>> And I guess Ben chose not to print some more to pay for it.
>>
>> What took you so long?
>>
>> Anyone who knows about Blue Waters and has/had any interest in it must
>> be as disgusted as I am at the IBM ads currently running on the web.
>>
>> Those ads feature bright and sometimes not-so-bright people saying
>> incredibly smug things.  "We were selected to work on a Top Secret
>> project."  WOW.  Some smug remark about a long story that would make
>> me angry no matter who made it.  Stuff like that.
>>
>> How about an IBM ad featuring the role that Hollerith cards played in
>> the the roundups of the Third Reich?  How about the ACTUAL history of
>> computing, where IBM jumped late onto the bandwagon like an elephant
>> jumping onto a child's red wagon?
>>
>> It's true that almost every ambitious technical project ever
>> undertaken by anyone has cost some integer multiple of what was
>> originally estimated.  Can't blame that on IBM.  For constantly
>> throwing its weight around in a business where it doesn't even belong--
>> for that I blame IBM.
>>
>
> And before you tell me that IBM and the Third Reich was a long time
> ago, take a gander at this:
>
> http://ce399fascism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/new-orwellian-ibm-ad-eerie-homage-to-hollerith-punch-cards-and-the-third-reich/
>
> Robert.
>
>

Whatever.

I was on vacation on a lake in northern Minnesota, one of the great 
advantages of being retired.  My mind was occupied with the outdoors, 
fishing, and grandchildren.

When I saw that Blue Waters got abandoned I was disappointed, for sure.

If you want to castigate IBM for stuff that happened before WW2, go 
ahead.  What's next, ripping them for helping put the Japanese in 
internment camps?

Why do you say that IBM "doesn't belong" in some, presumably 
supercomputer, business?

Heck, the government just dumped 800 Billion dollars, plus in an 
ineffectual stimulus program. Blue Waters was a real "shovel ready" 
project that could have been funded with a tiny part of it but wasn't.

You have your villains and I have mine.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/26/2011 1:09:47 PM
On 8/26/2011 9:09 AM, Del Cecchi wrote:

> Whatever.
>
> I was on vacation on a lake in northern Minnesota, one of the great
> advantages of being retired. My mind was occupied with the outdoors,
> fishing, and grandchildren.
>
> When I saw that Blue Waters got abandoned I was disappointed, for sure.
>
> If you want to castigate IBM for stuff that happened before WW2, go
> ahead. What's next, ripping them for helping put the Japanese in
> internment camps?
>
> Why do you say that IBM "doesn't belong" in some, presumably
> supercomputer, business?
>
> Heck, the government just dumped 800 Billion dollars, plus in an
> ineffectual stimulus program. Blue Waters was a real "shovel ready"
> project that could have been funded with a tiny part of it but wasn't.
>
> You have your villains and I have mine.

Let me say, Del, that I'm glad you're enjoying your retirement.

As to why IBM doesn't belong in the supercomputer business

Matthew 6:24  �No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either 
hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise 
the other. You cannot serve science and greedy vicious bastards. (New 
Revised Standard Version, slightly edited).

As to which villain belongs to whom, you clearly haven't had the 
opportunity to enjoy seeing me being beaten up by a mob of liberal 
Obama-worshipers.

As to the reference to the smell of Hollerith cards, it isn't, as the 
last link I provided shows, old news.  If IBM wants to dig into the 
past, so can I.  IBM is the company that served the Third Reich, the 
Department of Homeland Security, Wall Street, and the Bomb Labs.  It 
cannot also serve disinterested science.

And, manifestly, it doesn't.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/26/2011 5:45:18 PM
Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> writes:
> Matthew 6:24  No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either
> hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise
> the other. You cannot serve science and greedy vicious bastards. (New
> Revised Standard Version, slightly edited).

a couple days ago on tv business news ... inbetween segments on the FED
"secret activities" (both FOIA litigation and dodd-frank forcing release
of tens of thousands of pages) ... there was interview with two experts
on technology companies ... somewhere along the way the interviewer made
statement about emulating "IBM". One of the interviewees said that IBM
is exactly wrong company to emulate ...  that while IBM does technology
engineering ... look at is financials, it does much more "financial"
engineering.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
0
lynn13 (400)
8/26/2011 6:19:52 PM
On 8/26/2011 12:45 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On 8/26/2011 9:09 AM, Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>> Whatever.
>>
>> I was on vacation on a lake in northern Minnesota, one of the great
>> advantages of being retired. My mind was occupied with the outdoors,
>> fishing, and grandchildren.
>>
>> When I saw that Blue Waters got abandoned I was disappointed, for sure.
>>
>> If you want to castigate IBM for stuff that happened before WW2, go
>> ahead. What's next, ripping them for helping put the Japanese in
>> internment camps?
>>
>> Why do you say that IBM "doesn't belong" in some, presumably
>> supercomputer, business?
>>
>> Heck, the government just dumped 800 Billion dollars, plus in an
>> ineffectual stimulus program. Blue Waters was a real "shovel ready"
>> project that could have been funded with a tiny part of it but wasn't.
>>
>> You have your villains and I have mine.
>
> Let me say, Del, that I'm glad you're enjoying your retirement.
>
> As to why IBM doesn't belong in the supercomputer business
>
> Matthew 6:24 �No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate
> the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the
> other. You cannot serve science and greedy vicious bastards. (New
> Revised Standard Version, slightly edited).
>
> As to which villain belongs to whom, you clearly haven't had the
> opportunity to enjoy seeing me being beaten up by a mob of liberal
> Obama-worshipers.
>
> As to the reference to the smell of Hollerith cards, it isn't, as the
> last link I provided shows, old news. If IBM wants to dig into the past,
> so can I. IBM is the company that served the Third Reich, the Department
> of Homeland Security, Wall Street, and the Bomb Labs. It cannot also
> serve disinterested science.
>
> And, manifestly, it doesn't.
>
> Robert.

Uh, IBM pretty much never "served science" except to a minor extent in 
Research Division.

Apparently Blue Waters turned out to be way way more expensive to build 
than IBM had anticipated so they cut their losses.  Or perhaps there was 
some hidden flaw that meant it wouldn't work properly as anticipated and 
so they cut their losses.  Maybe some day I will have a couple beers 
with the right guy and hear the story.  Or maybe not.

In either case, business decision.

I suppose when ford shows a model T you rant about Henry's racism and 
antisemitism?

And, I missed you getting attacked by the liberal mob...  Where was it?

Have fun ranting about BG/Q

All that software stuff is outside of my expertise.




0
delcecchi (122)
8/27/2011 12:07:54 AM
On 8/26/2011 8:07 PM, Del Cecchi wrote:
> On 8/26/2011 12:45 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

>>
>> Let me say, Del, that I'm glad you're enjoying your retirement.
>>
>> As to why IBM doesn't belong in the supercomputer business
>>
>> Matthew 6:24 �No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate
>> the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the
>> other. You cannot serve science and greedy vicious bastards. (New
>> Revised Standard Version, slightly edited).
>>
>> As to which villain belongs to whom, you clearly haven't had the
>> opportunity to enjoy seeing me being beaten up by a mob of liberal
>> Obama-worshipers.
>>
>> As to the reference to the smell of Hollerith cards, it isn't, as the
>> last link I provided shows, old news. If IBM wants to dig into the past,
>> so can I. IBM is the company that served the Third Reich, the Department
>> of Homeland Security, Wall Street, and the Bomb Labs. It cannot also
>> serve disinterested science.
>>
>> And, manifestly, it doesn't.
>>
>> Robert.
>
> Uh, IBM pretty much never "served science" except to a minor extent in
> Research Division.
>
That's *my* point.  Could they possibly add something to that effect to 
their self-congratulatory advertising?  A mild disclaimer, even?

> Apparently Blue Waters turned out to be way way more expensive to build
> than IBM had anticipated so they cut their losses. Or perhaps there was
> some hidden flaw that meant it wouldn't work properly as anticipated and
> so they cut their losses. Maybe some day I will have a couple beers with
> the right guy and hear the story. Or maybe not.
>
> In either case, business decision.
>
> I suppose when ford shows a model T you rant about Henry's racism and
> antisemitism?
>
Mr. Ford never used racism and antisemitism to sell his products and to 
make a profit.  The same cannot be said for IBM, which went to great 
lengths to make sure it got its cut.  And... it's still in the business 
of profiting from identifying undesirables.  If you get "AAAA" printed 
on your ticket and miss your flight because of it, you can thank your 
former employer in part.


> And, I missed you getting attacked by the liberal mob... Where was it?
>
Most of my Facebook friends are lefties.  Some of them feel very 
protective of any boob that happens to be OUR boob.

> Have fun ranting about BG/Q
>
> All that software stuff is outside of my expertise.
>

I have my own narrow window.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/27/2011 1:04:43 AM
On 25/08/2011 17:58, Robert Myers wrote:

> And before you tell me that IBM and the Third Reich was a long time
> ago, take a gander at this:
>
> http://ce399fascism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/new-orwellian-ibm-ad-eerie-homage-to-hollerith-punch-cards-and-the-third-reich/
>
> Robert.
>
>

Let us not forget, but it *was* a was a long time ago. In terms of
humans rights record, no country's hands are clean. If you want to get
angry, there's more than enough ammo every day of the week.

Nothing can be taken out of historical context. In the late 20's and 30's,
stuff like eugenics was considered respectable science in many countries
and only became unacceptable after the excesses and brutality of the
third reich. Difficult to believe as it may be, some countries (eg:
Sweden) were still doing eugenics research as late as the 1960's and
in some cases, sterilising the mentally subnormal. All that in so called
civilised western "democracies".

It's a complex world and there are subjects that are so loaded that
no-none wants to have to deal with or even discuss them. Perhaps
that's why politicians were invented :-)...

Regards,

Chris


0
meru (441)
8/29/2011 2:35:46 PM
On 8/29/2011 10:35 AM, ChrisQ wrote:
> On 25/08/2011 17:58, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> And before you tell me that IBM and the Third Reich was a long time
>> ago, take a gander at this:
>>
>> http://ce399fascism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/new-orwellian-ibm-ad-eerie-homage-to-hollerith-punch-cards-and-the-third-reich/
>>
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>>
>
> Let us not forget, but it *was* a was a long time ago. In terms of
> humans rights record, no country's hands are clean. If you want to get
> angry, there's more than enough ammo every day of the week.
>
> Nothing can be taken out of historical context. In the late 20's and 30's,
> stuff like eugenics was considered respectable science in many countries
> and only became unacceptable after the excesses and brutality of the
> third reich. Difficult to believe as it may be, some countries (eg:
> Sweden) were still doing eugenics research as late as the 1960's and
> in some cases, sterilising the mentally subnormal. All that in so called
> civilised western "democracies".
>
> It's a complex world and there are subjects that are so loaded that
> no-none wants to have to deal with or even discuss them. Perhaps
> that's why politicians were invented :-)...
>

So I should just shut up while IBM carries out its God-given mission of 
supporting bomb-builders and fascist snoops.  If it bites the hand that 
even makes high technology possible (science), who's to know?

The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who 
are still making money off it.  Similarly, history old and new shows 
that IBM chooses its priorities strictly based on the bottom line.  If 
you can bring yourself to admire that sort of morality, that's your 
business.  I don't.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/29/2011 8:21:12 PM
In article <j3isiu$vhs$1@dont-email.me>,
Del Cecchi  <delcecchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
>> are still making money off it.
>
>I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of 
>course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go 
>along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all 
>the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions 
>from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.

Yes.  According to the people involved in the negotiations, the
warlords were not prepared to relinquish power until the emperor
stepped in following the bombs.  They had little doubt that, unless
the warlords were discredited and removed, there would be another
war a decade or two later.

>And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.

Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
a direct result of that policy.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
8/30/2011 2:34:38 PM
On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
snip
>
> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
> are still making money off it.
snip

>
> Robert.

I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of 
course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go 
along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all 
the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions 
from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.

And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/30/2011 2:37:41 PM
In article <j3j1ni$6o5$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Fuld  <SFuld@Alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Yes.  According to
>
>add the words "some of: here.  There were others who thought 
>differently.  Of course, we will never know, but I sympathize with those 
>who felt we were losing troops every day and we shouldn't take a chance 
>and wait.

Actually involved in the negotiations?  Yes, I know about the troop
argument, as well as the estimated 3 million Japanese civilian deaths
expected in an invasion, but I was talking about the the discrediting
of the warlords and demilitarisation, which were more serious.

>>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>>
>> Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
>> was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
>> create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
>> documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
>> a direct result of that policy.
>
>I think you are misinterpreting what Del meant.  Stalin was preparing to 
>attack Japan in 1945.  In fact, they declared war on Japan just before 
>we dropped the first atomic bomb.  We were worried about allowing Japan 
                                                                 the USSR?
>to extend their influence into Asia and wanted to preclude that.  I 
>think you are talking about the development of the hydrogen bomb, which 
>was later, but after the "iron curtain".

No, I wasn't, but that was a later aspect.  However, you can't expect
me to share your enthusiasm for the expansion of the USA hegemony,
living as I do in a satrapy of it :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
8/30/2011 3:50:25 PM
On 8/30/2011 7:34 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<j3isiu$vhs$1@dont-email.me>,
> Del Cecchi<delcecchi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
>>> are still making money off it.
>>
>> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
>> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go
>> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
>> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
>>from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>
> Yes.  According to

add the words "some of: here.  There were others who thought 
differently.  Of course, we will never know, but I sympathize with those 
who felt we were losing troops every day and we shouldn't take a chance 
and wait.

The historians have gone back and forth on this, but current thinking 
seems to favor the decision to drop the bomb.  I actually took an 
extension course about this several years ago.  One of the books we used 
was quite good - I wish I could find it here to give you the reference.  :-(


> the people involved in the negotiations, the
> warlords were not prepared to relinquish power until the emperor
> stepped in following the bombs.  They had little doubt that, unless
> the warlords were discredited and removed, there would be another
> war a decade or two later.
>
>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>
> Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
> was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
> create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
> documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
> a direct result of that policy.

I think you are misinterpreting what Del meant.  Stalin was preparing to 
attack Japan in 1945.  In fact, they declared war on Japan just before 
we dropped the first atomic bomb.  We were worried about allowing Japan 
to extend their influence into Asia and wanted to preclude that.  I 
think you are talking about the development of the hydrogen bomb, which 
was later, but after the "iron curtain".



-- 
  - Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
0
SFuld (88)
8/30/2011 4:05:42 PM
On 8/30/2011 9:34 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<j3isiu$vhs$1@dont-email.me>,
> Del Cecchi<delcecchi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
>>> are still making money off it.
>>
>> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
>> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go
>> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
>> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
>>from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>
> Yes.  According to the people involved in the negotiations, the
> warlords were not prepared to relinquish power until the emperor
> stepped in following the bombs.  They had little doubt that, unless
> the warlords were discredited and removed, there would be another
> war a decade or two later.
>
>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>
> Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
> was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
> create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
> documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
> a direct result of that policy.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Atom bomb developed during ww2.  Threat of which kept Stalin from taking 
rest of Europe.  H-bomb in 50's just frosting on cake.  Troops in 
Germany all these years were trigger to guarantee US involvement if 
invasion came.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/30/2011 4:30:33 PM
On 8/30/2011 10:50 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<j3j1ni$6o5$1@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Fuld<SFuld@Alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes.  According to
>>
>> add the words "some of: here.  There were others who thought
>> differently.  Of course, we will never know, but I sympathize with those
>> who felt we were losing troops every day and we shouldn't take a chance
>> and wait.
>
> Actually involved in the negotiations?  Yes, I know about the troop
> argument, as well as the estimated 3 million Japanese civilian deaths
> expected in an invasion, but I was talking about the the discrediting
> of the warlords and demilitarisation, which were more serious.
>
>>>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>>>
>>> Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
>>> was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
>>> create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
>>> documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
>>> a direct result of that policy.
>>
>> I think you are misinterpreting what Del meant.  Stalin was preparing to
>> attack Japan in 1945.  In fact, they declared war on Japan just before
>> we dropped the first atomic bomb.  We were worried about allowing Japan
>                                                                   the USSR?
>> to extend their influence into Asia and wanted to preclude that.  I
>> think you are talking about the development of the hydrogen bomb, which
>> was later, but after the "iron curtain".
>
> No, I wasn't, but that was a later aspect.  However, you can't expect
> me to share your enthusiasm for the expansion of the USA hegemony,
> living as I do in a satrapy of it :-(
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Yeah, I'm not so enthusiastic about all of those US tax dollars spend 
subsidizing the defense of Europe and UK from Soviets.  What else 
stopped you guys from ending up like Hungary or Latvia or the Kulaks? 
Stalin and his followers and successors were willing to kill millions of 
their own people.

But, no good deed goes unpunished.  I never did understand why the US 
got into WW 1.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/30/2011 4:35:10 PM
In article <j3j36i$ck0$1@dont-email.me>,
Del Cecchi  <delcecchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Atom bomb developed during ww2.  Threat of which kept Stalin from taking 
>rest of Europe.  H-bomb in 50's just frosting on cake.  Troops in 
>Germany all these years were trigger to guarantee US involvement if 
>invasion came.

Er, there never was any evidence that he had either the intent or
the USSR the capability.  On the other hand, there WAS evidence
that the USA was threatening the USSR's very existence, which is
what caused the cold war.

Yes, I know that the hoi polloi in the West was told that he had
such an intent and capability, but the now available documents show
that the USA and UK governments knew that they were lying.  I was
a little shaken when I discovered just how much they had been
doing so - and the sources that informed me were ones closely
involved with the USA's UK's anti-USSR activities, so not exactly
left-wing!



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
8/30/2011 4:38:24 PM
On Aug 30, 10:37=A0am, Del Cecchi <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> snip
>
> > The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
> > are still making money off it.
>
> snip
>
>
> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it. =A0And no, I don't go
> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
> from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>
> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.

I made no comment about history or military strategy.  I made a
comment about the feelings of people with whom I have been personally
acquainted.

The story that you can't undiscover something once you have discovered
it is as old as the oral tradition that precedes the writing down of
the book of Genesis, which means that the regret is older than anyone
can even estimate.

Something else you can't undiscover is the World-Wide Web.  Whether
the currently powerless or the currently powerful regret it more
remains to be seen.

Most of the people who comment on the wisdom of having developed the
atomic bomb never have had and never would have the opportunity to
make a personal decision as to whether to cooperate or not in a way
that might have made a noticeable difference, because they never have
had and never will have had the competence required.

Robert.

0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/30/2011 5:26:59 PM
On 8/30/2011 8:50 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<j3j1ni$6o5$1@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Fuld<SFuld@Alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes.  According to
>>
>> add the words "some of: here.  There were others who thought
>> differently.  Of course, we will never know, but I sympathize with those
>> who felt we were losing troops every day and we shouldn't take a chance
>> and wait.
>
> Actually involved in the negotiations?  Yes, I know about the troop
> argument, as well as the estimated 3 million Japanese civilian deaths
> expected in an invasion, but I was talking about the the discrediting
> of the warlords and demilitarisation, which were more serious.

I found the book that I referred to in the part of my post that you 
snipped.  It is

Prompt & Utter Destruction
Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan.

It is a well balanced account (for example, it debunks the 3 million 
estimate) and makes use of then newly available materials.

http://www.amazon.com/Prompt-Utter-Destruction-Truman-Against/dp/080785607X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314724207&sr=8-1



>>>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>>>
>>> Actually, that IS revisionism.  Stalin died in 1953, and the bomb
>>> was developed and deployed thereafter (CERTAINLY after 1958) to
>>> create a bogeyman by frightening the USSR.  Recently released
>>> documents indicate that the development of the "Iron Curtain" was
>>> a direct result of that policy.
>>
>> I think you are misinterpreting what Del meant.  Stalin was preparing to
>> attack Japan in 1945.  In fact, they declared war on Japan just before
>> we dropped the first atomic bomb.  We were worried about allowing Japan
>                                                                   the USSR?

Yes, sorry for the typo.

>> to extend their influence into Asia and wanted to preclude that.  I
>> think you are talking about the development of the hydrogen bomb, which
>> was later, but after the "iron curtain".
>
> No, I wasn't, but that was a later aspect.

Then I don't understand.  Why were you talking about 1953 and 1958 when 
talking about the decision to drop the atomic bomb (in 1945)?


> However, you can't expect
> me to share your enthusiasm for the expansion of the USA hegemony,
> living as I do in a satrapy of it :-(

I do enjoy your use of a version of our almost common language that is 
so different from mine. Especially your idiomatic expressions.  But I 
did have to look up satrapy.   :-)

Were just mad when Tony Blair apologized to President Bush about the 
burn marks and bullet holes in the White House from your invasion?  :-)

To be serious for a minute.  We ended our occupation of Japan (and 
Germany) about half a century before the USSR allowed countries in its 
sphere of influence (not to mention the ones it outright annexed) to go 
their own way.  I suspect people in both groups of countries would 
prefer the US to the USSR.

But this is all way off topic.




>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.


-- 
  - Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
0
SFuld (88)
8/30/2011 6:21:39 PM
On Aug 30, 12:26=A0pm, Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:37=A0am, Del Cecchi <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
> > > are still making money off it.
>
> > snip
>
> > I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
> > course one's father was scheduled to be part of it. =A0And no, I don't =
go
> > along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
> > the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
> > from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>
> > And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>
> I made no comment about history or military strategy. =A0I made a
> comment about the feelings of people with whom I have been personally
> acquainted.
>
> The story that you can't undiscover something once you have discovered
> it is as old as the oral tradition that precedes the writing down of
> the book of Genesis, which means that the regret is older than anyone
> can even estimate.
>
> Something else you can't undiscover is the World-Wide Web. =A0Whether
> the currently powerless or the currently powerful regret it more
> remains to be seen.
>
> Most of the people who comment on the wisdom of having developed the
> atomic bomb never have had and never would have the opportunity to
> make a personal decision as to whether to cooperate or not in a way
> that might have made a noticeable difference, because they never have
> had and never will have had the competence required.
>
> Robert.

I guess that I misinterpreted your statement to be more general than
you now are saying it is.  And of course academic physicists are not
especially qualified to comment on the necessity of actions in the
course of war.   If one looks at the action during the Pacific
campaign of WW2, one could easily come to the conclusion that invading
the Japanese Home Islands would be a bloody affair indeed.  Perhaps it
is true that the Japanese were just about to give up without an
invasion, but I am skeptical.  There certainly is no evidence from
their behavior in the time leading up to the bombings.

But, to coin a phrase, there are those who find it difficult to
believe that others want to kill them for reasons of their own or die
trying even in the face of actual events.
0
delcecchi (122)
8/31/2011 2:35:06 AM
On 8/30/2011 10:35 PM, del wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:26 pm, Robert Myers<rbmyers...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 10:37 am, Del Cecchi<delcec...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>>> snip
>>
>>>> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
>>>> are still making money off it.
>>
>>> snip
>>
>>> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
>>> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go
>>> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
>>> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
>>> from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>>
>>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>>
>> I made no comment about history or military strategy.  I made a
>> comment about the feelings of people with whom I have been personally
>> acquainted.
>>
>> The story that you can't undiscover something once you have discovered
>> it is as old as the oral tradition that precedes the writing down of
>> the book of Genesis, which means that the regret is older than anyone
>> can even estimate.
>>
>> Something else you can't undiscover is the World-Wide Web.  Whether
>> the currently powerless or the currently powerful regret it more
>> remains to be seen.
>>
>> Most of the people who comment on the wisdom of having developed the
>> atomic bomb never have had and never would have the opportunity to
>> make a personal decision as to whether to cooperate or not in a way
>> that might have made a noticeable difference, because they never have
>> had and never will have had the competence required.
>>
>> Robert.
>
> I guess that I misinterpreted your statement to be more general than
> you now are saying it is.  And of course academic physicists are not
> especially qualified to comment on the necessity of actions in the
> course of war.   If one looks at the action during the Pacific
> campaign of WW2, one could easily come to the conclusion that invading
> the Japanese Home Islands would be a bloody affair indeed.  Perhaps it
> is true that the Japanese were just about to give up without an
> invasion, but I am skeptical.  There certainly is no evidence from
> their behavior in the time leading up to the bombings.
>
> But, to coin a phrase, there are those who find it difficult to
> believe that others want to kill them for reasons of their own or die
> trying even in the face of actual events.

Abraham Lincoln famously wrote a letter to General Meade excoriating him 
for his failure to finish off the Confederate army while it was still 
trapped north of the Potomac after the Confederates had been 
disastrously enfeebled at Gettysburg.  Lincoln wrote his letter out in 
his own neat longhand and never sent it.  What a wise man.  What would 
have been the point?  Instead, he simply put the command of Union forces 
in someone else's hands.  What's done is done.

Too bad we can't send a stop work notice to the bomb labs and forbid IBM 
from promising to build any more computers.  Forget the cleanup effort, 
even.  Just put a barbed wire fence around the whole mess and forget it. 
  Let the SSBN's continue to patrol the seas and leave the Irans of this 
world to guess whether the warheads still work.  We don't know any 
better than they do.

I note in today's Wall Street Journal that Intel has started a separate 
entity to contract with the Federal government.  Maybe they've been 
reading my posts.

Robert.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/31/2011 3:01:10 AM
Del Cecchi <delcecchi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> snip
> >
> > The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
> > are still making money off it.
> snip
> 
> >
> > Robert.
> 
> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of 
> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go
> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
> from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.

In case you ever want to correct them point them to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall 

and

http://home.roadrunner.com/~casualties/

> 
> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.


-- 
Bill Clodius
los the lost and net the pet to email
0
8/31/2011 3:38:58 AM
On 8/30/2011 11:38 PM, William Clodius wrote:
> Del Cecchi<delcecchi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/2011 3:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>> The physicists I know who don't regret the atom bomb are the ones who
>>> are still making money off it.
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Robert.
>>
>> I guess that not having to invade Japan was worth nothing, unless of
>> course one's father was scheduled to be part of it.  And no, I don't go
>> along with the historic revisionism that says it was un-necessary, all
>> the Japanese needed was a few more weeks and a couple minor concessions
>> from us and they would have surrendered peacefully.
>
> In case you ever want to correct them point them to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
>
> and
>
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~casualties/
>
>>
>> And keeping Stalin at bay in Europe was worth something too, I guess.
>
>

If you don't read what I post, why should I read what you post?

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/31/2011 3:54:25 AM
On Aug 30, 12:38=A0pm, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <j3j36i$ck...@dont-email.me>,
> Del Cecchi =A0<delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Atom bomb developed during ww2. =A0Threat of which kept Stalin from taki=
ng
> >rest of Europe. =A0H-bomb in 50's just frosting on cake. =A0Troops in
> >Germany all these years were trigger to guarantee US involvement if
> >invasion came.
>
> Er, there never was any evidence that he had either the intent or
> the USSR the capability. =A0On the other hand, there WAS evidence
> that the USA was threatening the USSR's very existence, which is
> what caused the cold war.
>
> Yes, I know that the hoi polloi in the West was told that he had
> such an intent and capability, but the now available documents show
> that the USA and UK governments knew that they were lying. =A0I was
> a little shaken when I discovered just how much they had been
> doing so - and the sources that informed me were ones closely
> involved with the USA's UK's anti-USSR activities, so not exactly
> left-wing!
>

I'm not sure what the "real" attitude was, but I'm pretty sure that
the man in the White House in the eighties didn't have the
intellectual equipment to have a meaningful real attitude.

Some of the paranoia on the US side, at least, was quite real.  A US
military officer was shot to death while trying to take pictures of
Soviet tank armor, something we were very worried about.  I don't know
anything classified, but I do know that a lot of effort went into the
problem.

There were less than apocalyptic possibilities that could have
severely shaken the world order.  An example would have been Soviet
naval forces successfully threatening a US SSBN.  The Soviets on
several occasions had nuclear weapons deployed in the sixties with the
clear intent to use them, if necessary.  Only dire warnings from the
US stopped the actual US of tactical nuclear weapons in the
confrontation between Israel and Egypt.

US paranoia is, in many ways, probably a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If
I were the rest of the world, I'd feel threatened.  Hell, I'm a
citizen and I feel threatened.

Robert.

0
rbmyersusa (542)
8/31/2011 8:15:58 PM
Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

> <snip>
> If you don't read what I post, why should I read what you post?
> 
> Robert.

Robert

I don't post for one person to read, I have email for that,  If you
don't want to read what I write, you have kill files readily available.
While I follow this group regularly, it is outside my main areas of
expertise, so my post are generally rare and on side issues of main
discussions, often, as in this case, being off topic. While off topic
the frequency and length of my posts genrally makes for quick reading,
so I don't waste much of a reader's time.

While I find many of your more technical posts interesting, I find the
ad hominem nature of your posts in this thread (as exemplified by its
title) and many other threads boring and counter productive. Reading
posts where the main content is blind speculation about the evil reasons
someone the author doesn't like did something is a waste of my time. If
you believe I should read what you write, write what I find interesting.

-- 
Bill Clodius
los the lost and net the pet to email
0
9/1/2011 3:46:41 AM
On Aug 31, 11:46=A0pm, wclod...@lost-alamos.pet (William Clodius) wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > If you don't read what I post, why should I read what you post?
>
> > Robert.
>
> Robert
>
> I don't post for one person to read, I have email for that, =A0If you
> don't want to read what I write, you have kill files readily available.
> While I follow this group regularly, it is outside my main areas of
> expertise, so my post are generally rare and on side issues of main
> discussions, often, as in this case, being off topic. While off topic
> the frequency and length of my posts genrally makes for quick reading,
> so I don't waste much of a reader's time.
>
> While I find many of your more technical posts interesting, I find the
> ad hominem nature of your posts in this thread (as exemplified by its
> title) and many other threads boring and counter productive. Reading
> posts where the main content is blind speculation about the evil reasons
> someone the author doesn't like did something is a waste of my time. If
> you believe I should read what you write, write what I find interesting.
>

I have no idea what you find interesting, and I don't really very much
care.

I've somewhat abused this forum for what I regard as defensible
reasons.  When I came here, the national labs and their friends used
this forum to advertise how many processors they had just hooked
together and how many whatever flops it could do.  We even had a
discussion of a moronic Beowulf cluster built with Apple servers.

We also had electrical engineers who know nothing about computational
physics making claims that they didn't understand and couldn't defend.

The computers the US has gotten in the habit of buying have some
important limitations, and there are people who read this forum who
understand what I'm concerned about and what can and cannot be done
about it and why.  I've used this forum to discuss those limitations.
Now just about everyone who can understand anything at all admits that
the Top500 list is essentially meaningless, if not deliberate
deception.

Since it's nearly impossible to use the entire machine for most
problems, advertising gigantic performance numbers that will almost
never be reached in practice can't be a good thing if you are trying
to inform the public.  If you really just want to aggregate a lot of
smaller machines, while saying that you have the most powerful
computer in the world, you are doing approximately the same thing as
selling Corinthian Leather.

Blue Waters was different, and while I'm sure that Del is sincere in
his explanation of what happened, I don't see any reason why I
shouldn't see what happened as a simple bait and switch.  Once again,
the good machine available to academic users won't be built, but we'll
have yet another monstrosity  behind the barbed wire at LLNL.

I thought I was done with this topic.  I've said what I have to say,
and I can identify reports that people are supposed to read that say
essentially the same things I've been saying.  The only reason I came
back to this topic at all was IBM's appalling behavior with respect to
Blue Waters.  Now I can see the future, and I realize that, with
existing technology and likely budgetary constraints, HPC is unlikely
ever to be what I thought it would be.  There isn't even a roadmap.

Were it not for LLNL, IBM might never would have sold a single Blue
Gene.  That wouldn't have been good news for Del and others here, but
it would have been good news for computational physics.  IBM has
killed off a machine it couldn't make a profit on and continues to
push an architecture with appalling limitations.

This whole episode makes Thomas Watson's famous demeaning and
inaccurate remark about the future of automatic computation much more
clear.  When he said the world needed no more than five computers, it
was because he wanted the world to continue using the punch card
machines that contributed so nicely to IBM's bottom line.  If he'd
been selling computers instead of punch card machines, he would have
predicted, accurately, that punch cards were a dead end.

Same old IBM, same old Robert Myers.  Frankly, I'm just as happy to be
me, whether I annoy you or not.

Robert.
0
rbmyersusa (542)
9/1/2011 6:40:35 PM
On 8/30/2011 11:50 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>
> No, I wasn't, but that was a later aspect.  However, you can't expect
> me to share your enthusiasm for the expansion of the USA hegemony,
> living as I do in a satrapy of it :-(
>

Whatever happened to "They had all the money, but we had all the brains?"

And when PM Thatcher said to George the Elder, "Don't go all wobbly on 
me now George," who, exactly, was the satrap and who the overlord?

The UK just doesn't like seeing itself in the mirror.  We got most of 
our delusions from you.

Robert.

0
rbmyersusa (542)
9/1/2011 8:41:02 PM
On 9/1/2011 1:40 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:46 pm, wclod...@lost-alamos.pet (William Clodius) wrote:
>> Robert Myers<rbmyers...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> If you don't read what I post, why should I read what you post?
>>
>>> Robert.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> I don't post for one person to read, I have email for that,  If you
>> don't want to read what I write, you have kill files readily available.
>> While I follow this group regularly, it is outside my main areas of
>> expertise, so my post are generally rare and on side issues of main
>> discussions, often, as in this case, being off topic. While off topic
>> the frequency and length of my posts genrally makes for quick reading,
>> so I don't waste much of a reader's time.
>>
>> While I find many of your more technical posts interesting, I find the
>> ad hominem nature of your posts in this thread (as exemplified by its
>> title) and many other threads boring and counter productive. Reading
>> posts where the main content is blind speculation about the evil reasons
>> someone the author doesn't like did something is a waste of my time. If
>> you believe I should read what you write, write what I find interesting.
>>
>
> I have no idea what you find interesting, and I don't really very much
> care.
>
> I've somewhat abused this forum for what I regard as defensible
> reasons.  When I came here, the national labs and their friends used
> this forum to advertise how many processors they had just hooked
> together and how many whatever flops it could do.  We even had a
> discussion of a moronic Beowulf cluster built with Apple servers.
>
> We also had electrical engineers who know nothing about computational
> physics making claims that they didn't understand and couldn't defend.
>
> The computers the US has gotten in the habit of buying have some
> important limitations, and there are people who read this forum who
> understand what I'm concerned about and what can and cannot be done
> about it and why.  I've used this forum to discuss those limitations.
> Now just about everyone who can understand anything at all admits that
> the Top500 list is essentially meaningless, if not deliberate
> deception.
>
> Since it's nearly impossible to use the entire machine for most
> problems, advertising gigantic performance numbers that will almost
> never be reached in practice can't be a good thing if you are trying
> to inform the public.  If you really just want to aggregate a lot of
> smaller machines, while saying that you have the most powerful
> computer in the world, you are doing approximately the same thing as
> selling Corinthian Leather.
>
> Blue Waters was different, and while I'm sure that Del is sincere in
> his explanation of what happened, I don't see any reason why I
> shouldn't see what happened as a simple bait and switch.  Once again,
> the good machine available to academic users won't be built, but we'll
> have yet another monstrosity  behind the barbed wire at LLNL.
>
> I thought I was done with this topic.  I've said what I have to say,
> and I can identify reports that people are supposed to read that say
> essentially the same things I've been saying.  The only reason I came
> back to this topic at all was IBM's appalling behavior with respect to
> Blue Waters.  Now I can see the future, and I realize that, with
> existing technology and likely budgetary constraints, HPC is unlikely
> ever to be what I thought it would be.  There isn't even a roadmap.
>
> Were it not for LLNL, IBM might never would have sold a single Blue
> Gene.  That wouldn't have been good news for Del and others here, but
> it would have been good news for computational physics.  IBM has
> killed off a machine it couldn't make a profit on and continues to
> push an architecture with appalling limitations.
>
> This whole episode makes Thomas Watson's famous demeaning and
> inaccurate remark about the future of automatic computation much more
> clear.  When he said the world needed no more than five computers, it
> was because he wanted the world to continue using the punch card
> machines that contributed so nicely to IBM's bottom line.  If he'd
> been selling computers instead of punch card machines, he would have
> predicted, accurately, that punch cards were a dead end.
>
> Same old IBM, same old Robert Myers.  Frankly, I'm just as happy to be
> me, whether I annoy you or not.
>
> Robert.


If they hadn't sold any Blue Genes it wouldn't have affected me directly 
since whatever contribution I made was long over by then.

I am an Electrical Engineer and know zip, nada about computational 
physics.  Don't pretend to either.

I thought blue waters would be a heck of a machine.  I don't believe 
that it was a deliberate bait and switch but, knowing a little of the 
folks involved, rather that it was proposed in a fit of excessive 
optimism over the costs involved.   There certainly is precedent in IBM 
of that.

Once I was told that the way to get ahead is to dig a great big hole and 
get down in the bottom and proclaim the difficulty, then get out.  Of 
course, if you didn't get out someone would fill in the hole.

So I chalk this one up to excessive optimism and poor cost estimation 
that unfortunately didn't get bailed out by the people with the money.

Hey, if someone on high had coughed up some fraction of what the feds 
just lost on a solar panel company from california we would have a heck 
of a supercomputer instead of nothing.
0
delcecchi (122)
9/1/2011 10:10:37 PM
On 31/08/2011 21:15, Robert Myers wrote:

> Some of the paranoia on the US side, at least, was quite real.  A US
> military officer was shot to death while trying to take pictures of
> Soviet tank armor, something we were very worried about.  I don't know
> anything classified, but I do know that a lot of effort went into the
> problem.
>
> There were less than apocalyptic possibilities that could have
> severely shaken the world order.  An example would have been Soviet
> naval forces successfully threatening a US SSBN.  The Soviets on
> several occasions had nuclear weapons deployed in the sixties with the
> clear intent to use them, if necessary.  Only dire warnings from the
> US stopped the actual US of tactical nuclear weapons in the
> confrontation between Israel and Egypt.
>

Compared with the massive expansion of the us and europe's
military / industrial complex post ww2, the Russian's efforts
always looked like playing catch up.  Perhaps this was initially
due in the us to paranoia and the scar / loss of innocence after
Pearl Harbor, but that and the politics of fear were exploited
big time to justify the expansion and frighten the population into
subservience.  All through the fifties and well into the 60's /
70's.  (Note:  No internet) Real good for big business and fascist
control, but never good for democracy.

Much more recently, we've heard the justification for the (2nd)
Iraq invasion, where the uk public were essentially told a pack of
lies.  Never mind the 100k's body count, they are not real humans
like us, old chap.  They come under the heading of "collateral
damage" and unavoidable if we are to bring democracy to the
unwashed.  A crusade or what ?. Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord
etc ad nauseum. It seems that every so often, we need to have a nice
little war, preferably far away from home, against an
underdeveloped country (I was going to say defenceless, but it
seems we miscalculated :-(.  It's good for the weapons business,
employment, keeps our military in a state of battle hardened
readyness and makes a good test bed for all the fancy new
weaponry. Added to which, we can rob them later while rebuilding
the country and stealing their natural resources.

As for Russian readyness to go nuclear, i'm sure it's the last
thing they would have wanted, having suffered so much in ww2.  Why
all the effort on this side if we weren't planning just the same
and irresponsibly driving the game with far superior technology
and resources ?.

Mass electronic communication / internet has changed the world in
such a way that governments can't get away with it anymore to the
same degree, though they still try.  In some small way, we might
all have contributed to that.  If you want to get angry about
anything, forget ibm.  A bit part player compared with the
"defence" industry and the creepy spook underworld.  At least, ibm
do serious r&d and thus contribute something to humanity.


> Hell, I'm a > citizen and I feel threatened.
>
> Robert.
>

That's because you don't trust your government to do the right and
ethical thing and also that you have no control over any of it. You
did ask about shutting up. Well, never shut up, as the voices of dissent
are the only route to progress and change.

This is seriously off topic of course, but controversy does invite a
response...

Regards,

Chris


0
meru (441)
9/2/2011 9:46:41 PM
On 9/2/2011 4:46 PM, ChrisQ wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 21:15, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Some of the paranoia on the US side, at least, was quite real. A US
>> military officer was shot to death while trying to take pictures of
>> Soviet tank armor, something we were very worried about. I don't know
>> anything classified, but I do know that a lot of effort went into the
>> problem.
>>
>> There were less than apocalyptic possibilities that could have
>> severely shaken the world order. An example would have been Soviet
>> naval forces successfully threatening a US SSBN. The Soviets on
>> several occasions had nuclear weapons deployed in the sixties with the
>> clear intent to use them, if necessary. Only dire warnings from the
>> US stopped the actual US of tactical nuclear weapons in the
>> confrontation between Israel and Egypt.
>>
>
> Compared with the massive expansion of the us and europe's
> military / industrial complex post ww2, the Russian's efforts
> always looked like playing catch up. Perhaps this was initially
> due in the us to paranoia and the scar / loss of innocence after
> Pearl Harbor, but that and the politics of fear were exploited
> big time to justify the expansion and frighten the population into
> subservience. All through the fifties and well into the 60's /
> 70's. (Note: No internet) Real good for big business and fascist
> control, but never good for democracy.
>
> Much more recently, we've heard the justification for the (2nd)
> Iraq invasion, where the uk public were essentially told a pack of
> lies. Never mind the 100k's body count, they are not real humans
> like us, old chap. They come under the heading of "collateral
> damage" and unavoidable if we are to bring democracy to the
> unwashed. A crusade or what ?. Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord
> etc ad nauseum. It seems that every so often, we need to have a nice
> little war, preferably far away from home, against an
> underdeveloped country (I was going to say defenceless, but it
> seems we miscalculated :-(. It's good for the weapons business,
> employment, keeps our military in a state of battle hardened
> readyness and makes a good test bed for all the fancy new
> weaponry. Added to which, we can rob them later while rebuilding
> the country and stealing their natural resources.
>
> As for Russian readyness to go nuclear, i'm sure it's the last
> thing they would have wanted, having suffered so much in ww2. Why
> all the effort on this side if we weren't planning just the same
> and irresponsibly driving the game with far superior technology
> and resources ?.
>
> Mass electronic communication / internet has changed the world in
> such a way that governments can't get away with it anymore to the
> same degree, though they still try. In some small way, we might
> all have contributed to that. If you want to get angry about
> anything, forget ibm. A bit part player compared with the
> "defence" industry and the creepy spook underworld. At least, ibm
> do serious r&d and thus contribute something to humanity.
>
>
>> Hell, I'm a > citizen and I feel threatened.
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>
> That's because you don't trust your government to do the right and
> ethical thing and also that you have no control over any of it. You
> did ask about shutting up. Well, never shut up, as the voices of dissent
> are the only route to progress and change.
>
> This is seriously off topic of course, but controversy does invite a
> response...
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>

We do have the record of what Stalin did to his own people before, 
during, and after WW2.  Millions died.  He took eastern Europe.  He 
blockaded Berlin.  Why is it so hard to find it plausible that he would 
try to take the rest of Germany, Austria, etc?

As for Iraq, I think the real issue is that after what happened in 
Kuwait that the Saudis (and us) were very nervous with Saddam in power. 
  Do you really think it would be preferable to have the former status 
quo, with Saddam ruling and some sort of goofy toothless embargo?


0
delcecchi (122)
9/3/2011 1:19:01 AM
Del Cecchi <delcecchi@gmail.com> wrote:

> As for Iraq, I think the real issue is that after what happened in 
> Kuwait that the Saudis (and us) were very nervous with Saddam in power.
>   Do you really think it would be preferable to have the former status
> quo, with Saddam ruling and some sort of goofy toothless embargo?

It would have been a good deal cheaper. Perhaps an opportunity to topple
Saddam would have come about.

-- 
Mvh./Regards,    Niels J�rgen Kruse,    Vanl�se, Denmark
0
nospam184 (146)
9/3/2011 7:16:33 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

AOL 9.0 don't do it just don't . Don't even think of it.
I had 8.0, and it ran fine. I downloaded 9.0 and that was the end of my computer never having a problem. 3 years and no problems. 1 week with AOL 9.0 and I've had 27 error messages , sign offs and other problems. AOL was no help. They can't even admit it has a problem. So I had to REFORMAT MY HARD DRIVE AND INSTALL ALL MY PROGRAMS AND ALL MY SAVED FILES. Needless to say I no longer have AOL at all. Reformat and get rid of it. ...

Don't keep the .O's but Don't make everytime
I wish to make a executable from the prog1.c or the s.prog1.c files. And don't create the prog1.o files and certainly don't save them. Also, when I remake the module it would ONLY be remade if the s.prog1.c or prog1.c have been modified. I'm having little luck with this. Can anyone put some light on this issue? ...

I sell various items for Amiga on EBAY, if you don't agree don't read and don't break my balls, understand mr. user?
See on this link: http://search.ebay.it/_W0QQsassZmousemikiQQhtZ-1 P.s. not all items are for Amiga, simple don't see others! ...

don't like, so don't waste your time thinking and buy them. You know, if you don't like one thing, it means nothing for you.</p>
<p> I think everyone knows the shoes is apart of our dressing, it can influence our appearance also. Therefore, choose the most suitable shoes for you are very important, than it is obvious that the Nike shoes is the most wonderful shoes for your choice. The Nike Air Max Shoes are new productions that are <a title="Air Force One" href="http://www.nike-airmax-seller.com/">Air Force One</a>pushed out in these years. They are well-sale that so many people affirm them. Here, let Kitty take you to look at some features of the Nike Air Max shoes.</p> <p...

Linux crapware victim: Mepis8 'collapsed'... webcams don't work on Ubuntu 12.04..."Don't tell me to build a kernel..."
"I need my webcam to work with flash on web pages so that I can speak to family members overseas (Kopete and suchlike). I used mepis8 for years and everything was perfect, my webcams (three different makes), printers and anything else I cared to plug in worked from the off. lovely!! Then mepis8 collapsed suddenly and nothing worked. I tried the newer mepis variants and every other linux distro that I came across to solve the problem, but nothing works. I'm now using ubuntu 12.04, because it's not windows I suppose, but it's far from what I need. ...

OS X
after a bit of reading, it looks like I did a veeeeery shtupid thing... (I'm copying my post to this newsgroup, as the alt.sys.mac.newuser-help group didn't look quite as highly-trafficked...) anyways, here's what I did... ----------------------------------- in an effort to help the owner of a nice shiny new eMac 'clean up' their personal folder, I moved a few items... including the Library folder! it appears.... correct me if I'm wrong... that Mac OS X then created a NEW library... so we restarted it, and all the Quicken data, dialup info, (etc.) was gone... so we ...

Databases Don't Work With OSes; OSes Don't Work With Databases -- Windos 2003 "You've Made A Mess" Say Irate Users !?!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=windows+2003+server+problem&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=2&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=7&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ObEBOsECEHA.684%40tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl&rnum=1 Search Result 1 From: Dave Verwer (d.verwer@link-hrsystems.com) Subject: Problem with SQL Server & MSDTC on Windows 2003 (dtctester.exe related) View: Complete Thread (9 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server, microsoft.public.windows.server.general Date: 2004-03-12 08:02:14 PST Hi all I am not su...

What is a difference in 'T t = u' and in 'T t( u )'
Hi, Does anyone can explain me why declarations marked as 1 compile whereas declarations marked as 2 do not compile? The most obvious example is the third one with shared_ptr. It is because of explicite constructor. Am I right? But what about first and second examples? Please notice also that examples second and third are completely different. Constructor calling syntax is right in third but not in second. However assign syntax is right in second example but not in third. #include <boost/assign/list_of.hpp> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> #include <iostream> #include <...

Don't ask, don't tell...
While my son visited me for the day, after we went to the Hawks-Giants game and then to see Harry Potter he was still awake (12 years old) and so I put him in front of my Suse 10.0 machine and let him play Unreal Tournament 2004 in Linux. I let him set up the machine in Control Center first (he's a right hander and I'm a leftie), using KDE Control center, and then had him launch and run UT2004. I did't say anything about this being a Linux machine and I have no idea if he knows what Linux is even. I was about to "give the speech about Linux" and I decided, no, I woul...

don't tell don't ask
I'm still struggling with OO concepts. I've read several books and studied various OO languages, but I don't really feel I have a good grasp of the concepts. I like the sound of the "tell, don't ask" model, where networks of objects are asked to perform the work they are responsible for, rather than asking objects to give you information (like a string) that you do something with. But, I get confused when I try to apply the idea to a program design. The only way I can think of avoiding asking objecs for information is if the program consists of nothing but one objec...

Lotus Notes: Don't Pass, Don't Pay! That's our Certification Guarantee.
Study with CertFX, the leader in Lotus, WebSphere and WebSphere Portal Certification practice tests. With CertFX practice tests, all purchases are available for immediate download. You also receive free support, lifetime maintenance and real-time updates with your purchase. CertFX has all Domino 8, WebSphere and WebSphere Portal practice tests available. We are fanatical about updating our content to ensure we provide you with the best, most accurate study materials on the market. Get started on your recertification today by visiting: http://www.dominonews.com/homepage.nsf...

Lotus Notes: Don't Pass, Don't Pay! That's our Certification Guarantee.
Study with CertFX, the leader in Lotus, WebSphere and WebSphere Portal Certification practice tests. With CertFX practice tests, all purchases are available for immediate download. You also receive free support, lifetime maintenance and real-time updates with your purchase. CertFX has all Domino 8, WebSphere and WebSphere Portal practice tests available. We are fanatical about updating our content to ensure we provide you with the best, most accurate study materials on the market. Get started on your recertification today by visiting: http://www.dominonews.com/homepage.nsf...

I don't mind Linux. It's the fan club I can't stand.
Linux: A sheer waste of processing time. On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:42:08 -0500, Ana Thema wrote: > Linux: A sheer waste of processing time. Ana Thema ... a witch in search of batteries... -- Rick <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ana Thema <anathema@gmail.net> wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:42:08 -0500 <o96ou15hrlhepdpdr7pkbefq3ep4e31ve1@ax4.com>: > Linux: A sheer waste of processing time. > Well of course it is; everyone should just use Windows instead. The occasional hangs, glitches, and crashes are more than compensa...

Can't get sound working (don't worry, full of details)
Hi, I'm new to OpenBSD but I'd like to use it as my desktop. One of the two problems which don't let me do that is that I can't get any sound, :P. Well, I read the FAQs and here is the deal: My motherboard is this: SY-P4VGM http://www.soyousa.com/products/proddesc.php?id=273 My chip is supported (VT8233): http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html dmesg output related to my chip: auvia0 at pci0 dev 17 function 5 "VIA VT8233 AC97" rev 0x50: irq 12 ac97: codec id 0x56494161 (VIA Technologies VT1612A) ac97: codec features headphone, 18 bit DAC, 18 bi...

Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
YOUR MONEY Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. By DAMON DARLIN The fears of the direct marketing industry came true. Once a do-not-call list was created, people did register, in droves. The list was created in 2003, not as a way to protect privacy, but to remove a powerful irritant from the lives of Americans. The Federal Trade Commission, which administers the list, says that more than 137 million phone numbers have been placed on the list by people tired of interruptions during dinner or their favorite TV show. The popularity of the do-not-call list unleashed a demand for other opt-out lists. A consumer can now opt out of the standard practice of their banks or loan companies selling their information to others. Other opt-outs stop credit card companies from soliciting consumers or end the flow of junk mail and catalogs. While most of the opt-outs are intended to make life less annoying, they can also have the side effect of protecting personal information that can be misused by identity thieves or unscrupulous merchants. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20money.html?ex=1326949200&en=3efc9e8515a9ea4a&ei=5090 ...

Do this. Don't do that. Can't you read the signs?
The clinical trails SAS programming community is asking for input on this document. http://tinyurl.com/q3gwmy http://www.sascommunity.org/wiki/Good_Programming_Practice_for_Clinical_Trials While I don't disagree with the effort I find this documents to be inadequate. Not that I can do better either, that's where you can help. I have read many documents (sugi papers, etc.) like this over years and have always been unimpressed. They are either too general or too specific or just wrong. I often think they are written by folks that don't use SAS. So, can we "SAS-L" he...

why search engines don't or can't index all parts of a file when it's of large size?
why search engines don't or can't index all parts of a file when it's of large size? entrepreneur schrieb: > why search engines don't or can't index all parts of a file when it's > of large size? A search engine cannot distinguish between files that are stored physically on a webserver and answers that are generated on the fly, like by scripts. It's a simple exercise to generate a cgi script that generates a list of some million random words, even non-stop-words. So the programmers of a search engine must apply different strategies to hand...

I don't see why the pipe program doesn't show up on ps when it 'hangs'
I commented out the waitpid() in the following pipe program.. [cdalten@localhost oakland]$ more pip3.c #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { pid_t pid; char line[BUFSIZ]; int fd[2]; char string[] = "hello world\n"; ssize_t n; if (pipe(fd) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "pipe error\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } if ((pid=fork()) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "fork error\n"); } else if (pid > 0) { close(fd[0]); printf(&qu...

I don't get why '>' doesn't get printed in the following example
When I do a here-document, the '>' character shows up to indicate the start of a newline. [cdalten@localhost ~]$ cat << EOF > My current directory is dir $PWD > EOF My current directory is dir /home/cdalten [cdalten@localhost ~]$ What prevents the '>' characters from showing up in the final output? On Jul 3, 10:35 am, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I do a here-document, the '>' character shows up to indicate the > start of a newline. > > [cdalten@localhost ~]$ cat << EOF> My current directory is dir $PWD > &...

Re: Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
Monty Solomon wrote: > YOUR MONEY > Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. > By DAMON DARLIN > The fears of the direct marketing industry came true. Once a > do-not-call list was created, people did register, in droves. Unfortunately, there are too many exceptions. Non-profit organizations and politicians can still make unwanted soliciting calls and they do so in droves. Past contacts may call as well, and "past contact" is a very loose definition. Some callers simply disregard the law, knowing they'll get away with it. ...

Don't like MSIE6? Don't like MS?
If you so dislike MS, do the minimal thing: advocate another browser on web pages you control. Example: http://masonc.home.netcom.com This is not a troll. Just go do what you're told and shut up. Mason C I will not respond Mason A. Clark wrote: > If you so dislike MS, do the minimal thing: advocate another > browser on web pages you control. > > Example: http://masonc.home.netcom.com > > This is not a troll. Just go do what you're told and shut up. > > Mason C I will not respond I don't advocate ...

Bush: I don't care about anything I don't want
Bush clarifies: If I want, I get and I wanted that man. I usually get everything I want. I wanted a lot of control of oil too, I mean that's what its all about, its that simple. But that's my personal business, mine alone and resistence is futile. I decide, as I am the boss. I am everybody's boss. And you better get it, you two legged multiplying come and go world worms. For whatever its worth (nothing of course), just masochism. Anyway eat shit Bush, I have noting to share with that man. ...

X windows: don't install or don't run?
Reading a number of books and articles about security, it appears that there are many security issues with X windows. If I want to avoid X window-related security holes, is it enough to run my server with X not up (by, say, choosing an appropriate runlevel), or must I not even install X and related packages? TIA Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://...

Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know
Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? On 3/23/2015 9:23 AM, John Gohde wrote: > Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? No, I don't know that. Nobody but you knows that, GodHesDumb. ..Apples don't fall FAR from the tree, don't you know? > > No, I don't know that. Nobody but you knows that LOL - In DooF..uS' case, they surely float up. On 23/03/2015 13:23, John Gohde wrote: > Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? > You might want to carefully read what you wrote unles...

Web resources about - I don't work for IBM and I don't make promises I can't deliver on - comp.arch

Resources last updated: 3/7/2016 11:46:34 PM