was: Roadrunner Supercomputer

In article
<44b95457-8494-4231-89b4-8ad7057ede4f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Robert Myers  <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 11:10 am, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>> Yes, it is a _lot_ cheaper than running real crash tests, even though
>> you still have to verify the theoretical results before the car will be
>> certified for road use.
	You want to catch potential problems in advance.
	The normal cost of locating an error later in a life cycle holds
	for cars as well as software.
>Cost isn't the real advantage.  You can't instrument an experiment the
>way that you can a simulation.

Some one noted the cost of crash test dummies has gone way up (like 5
orders of magnitude) as we learn more about crashes.  They are no longer
mere mannequins.  They get filled with cameras, accelerators, etc.
The firm which makes them see a bright future.  Car companies don't take
this cost lightly anymore.  A sim has to compete and complement this
advance in instrumentation.

>The disadvantage, of course, is that you have mountains of information
							data, not info
>and sometimes no clue as to what to do with it.  The science, the
>insight, the talent, and everything else worthwhile are in finding
>those clues and not in the petaflops or exabytes.

That's Hamming's Insight.

--