Most Powerful Computer in Canada - for a Day 254
An anonymous reader writes "On Nov. 4, 18 Canadian universities and will create the most powerful computer in Canada for a day to solve an important computational chemistry question in one day -- a task that would normally take six years to complete." Here is more information on the temporary supercomputer available at the project's home page and at UofG's News.
Westley Crusher (Score:3, Funny)
There goes Will Wheaton, showing off again. That bastard. I thought Picard got rid of that young twerp once and for all.
Re:Westley Crusher (Score:2, Funny)
Fantasy and Reality.. (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, Canada, its ego buoyed by its success in the computing arena, declares war on the rest of the world, citing the rest of the worlds "blatant inferiority".
Re:Fantasy and Reality.. (Score:2)
hmmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah (Score:1)
Dup (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dup (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dup (Score:4, Funny)
Beer Cooled Supercomputer (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidentally, on Nov 4, Canadian Universities will create the world's first beer-cooled supercomputer, "Drunk Blue".
When asked why beer, the researchers involved explained that it was both plentiful and "what else would you use Blue for?".
The new /. effect.. (Score:2)
Okay, you're an illiterate moron.
The first test has commenced... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The first test has commenced... (Score:1)
Re:The first test has commenced... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The first test has commenced... (Score:2)
Well, it seems the slashdot effect comes in many flavors. In this case it might a pretty forceful one, as the subject matter is probably of interest to many. Here is [openchallenge.org] an analysis of data gathered from another case - which was quite easy to handle actually.
hey wait a sec! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hey wait a sec! (Score:1)
Re:hey wait a sec! (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, someone beat me to it. I guess I'll just have to go with:
All your computers are belong to Canada.
But that's just so last year...
ChemEx(TM) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ChemEx(TM) (Score:2)
Shopulda built it first. (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
If the anonymous submitter happens to be from one of the 18 universities, I don't have much hope for this.
Unless they're trying to analyze the sentence structure of All Your Base.
Edmonton Controller (Score:2, Funny)
It's not only Canada's most powerful supercomputer, it's the only one controlled from space.
Re:Edmonton Controller (Score:2)
It's running out of a former military base UNDERNEATH hudsons bay... the entrance of the 500 mile tunnel to the base is somewhere in the canadian shield.
Strange that they let some university types in there...
Re:Edmonton Controller (Score:1)
As this will asked anyway, from the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
First, we had to keep CISS-1 simple enough for us to manage. Second, the computational chemistry application has significant resource requirements (e.g., large memory, significant disk space, etc.). Third, we are not interested in "cycle stealing" for CISS-1; the machines that we use will be dedicated to the task at hand. The rest of the FAQ is here [ualberta.ca].
*** and now to the commercials, for the final time, here is an analysis of the Slashdot effect [openchallenge.org].
Re:As this will asked anyway, from the FAQ (Score:1)
Re:As this will asked anyway, from the FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, security (and data/result integrity) is probably one of the main reasons why they want it to be run in a trusted enviroment. Otherwise it seems that this would be a good case for a massively distributed solution (although apparently the application required big amounts of memory, and maybe bandwidth). But the dataintegrity in non-trusted network probably makes it impossible. I don't know if anyone has come up with a good solution to overcome the dataintegrity problems - other than performing occasional checks (running the same task on multiple machines) to find the forged results. In a non-trusted environment, you might soon find a big percent of the cpu cycles used just for dataintegrity checks.
Re:As this will asked anyway, from the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and imagine the case of the distributed crypto-crack efforts such as those run by distributed.net [distributed.net] and by us too for the rc5-56 challenge (the cyberian.org [cyberian.org] effort). Imagine, that someone fakes the results for just the keyspace, which contained the correct key - and that this forged result passes the controls. Now, as result the progress counter might reach 100% and you still did not find the correct key. The only solution would be to calculate the whole keyspace again. I mean, even if you check the integrity - calculate same task for 10 times for example - still, it is possible that the forge gets through. Ofcourse, there is a number of counter actions to make the forging harder but still, I think the key problem is still unanswered. Or, if someone has some good fresh pointers about this subject, please post them here :)
Re:As this will asked anyway, from the FAQ (Score:2)
Yes, but if the chances of winning that piece of cash gets close to the same as winning in national lotto, then there will be a significant number of nerds who value more higher the probability of getting their name shown in prime time (in a top position in the statistics) by cheating.
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Informative)
"The Canadian Navy began the Second World War with half a dozen vessels and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian Soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the War with the World's 3rd largest Navy and the fourth largest Air Force. The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had in previous times.......In film, Hollywood abandoned the notion of a separate Canadian identity"
Re:In Other News... (Score:2, Offtopic)
I *wish* we could actually help out some of the places that really need help right now. But we can't even keep a thousand guys in Afghanistan for a year, let alone buy those guys some appropriate camouflage fatigues in a timely fashion. And don't get me started on the Sea King or its replacements....
For a country with some of the best individual soldiers in the world, we've been treating our military like absolute crap for far too long for it not to show
But I guess that's okay as long as our PM gets his new jets.... @@!%%$!!
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if I agree with that. Real conflict still generally build up over time. Even for the Iraq situation the US took quite a few months (a year?) to build up its forces surrounding Iraq before it began the offensive.
The constant criticism of the Canadian military, and calls for multi-billion dollar budget increases, might have some of its roots in the arms industry- An industry that wants to make us believe that we need loads of high tech equipment to sit rotting in warehouses, ready for multi-billion dollar upgrades 5 years down the road. Military equipment comes at a cost to social programs, healthcare, etc, or alternately higher taxes. Our individual soldiers are paid quite well (I was surprized when a friend recently joined to see the pay rates), have fantastic personal equipment and good bases.
While we hear constant cries about the "dangerous new world", the reality is that the classic militarism of yesteryear is a bygone thing: The US has nominated itself, and achieved by default, global policeman. Though this role is costly to her, it was a self-pursued role, and comes with a healthy bonus of being able to promote and pursue her own self-interests. Of course, simpleton morons like Pat Buchanan [thestar.com] would try to cast such a role not as a self-serving role, but as a role which we should all send a cheque in the mail.
I *wish* we could actually help out some of the places that really need help right now. But we can't even keep a thousand guys in Afghanistan for a year, let alone buy those guys some appropriate camouflage fatigues in a timely fashion. And don't get me started on the Sea King or its replacements....
I think the camouflage issue was more of a political red herring: There isn't an armed forces on the planet, except perhaps the US, that has camo for every possible battlefield situation. The Afghan conflict came up just as a prior batch was destroyed and the new batch was on order. It happens. Personally I think, given the nature of the military, that some of the elite teams showed true military gumption and they quite literally made their own, creating some of the best camo possible. The Sea King is indeed an unfortunate reality, but again compared with the acquisition of a fleet of modern subs, missile frigates, and cormorant helicopters, it's amazing how much attention the Sea King garners. Again, take a close look at the $ vested interests who are looking at lining up at the trough.
We are a relatively small country, and the simple reality is that our military will always pale aside the US', just as the military of every other NATO countries does. I'm perfectly fine with that. We went into Afghanistan with troops that were perfect for the non-conventional modern warfare (i.e. snipers), did a great job, and got out after the situation had pretty much settled. Actually the causative factor for us leaving Afghanistan was probably the death of 4 soldiers by friendly fire: Given that the conflict was pretty much resolved, such a needless loss couldn't be repeated.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
I do believe that the gulf war has to go down in the history books as one of the most quickly resolved major conflicts in history (not I said major conflicts, I'm sure there are tons of conflicts that were settled in a day)
as for canucks, in my house we make fun all the time of the canadian military and their tank but I never fail to remember that in every conflict the US has played a part the canadians were right there with us.
also, there were movies made about canada's part in ww2 I've seen them.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
I'm curious what background you speak from....
I ask because it takes more than having a pile of brasshats in Ottawa at NDHQ to make us ready to deploy a worthwhile force. Failing procurement and training programs ensure that our vehicles are worn out (Sea King, Leopard, Iltis, F-18) and that our troops don't spend enough time training in primary skills. THESE losses alone are enough to say that six months is not enough lead time to deal with the situation (pardon me for being annoyed, but we had MONTHS to wind up for Afghanistan too and we couldn't even get the right camouflage.... so don't expect me to believe we can mass mobilize or even moderately mobilize in any useful way in short order given our current state of affairs).
The constant criticism of the Canadian military, and calls for multi-billion dollar budget increases, might have some of its roots in the arms industry-
Or from anyone who comprehends how hobbled our military now is. Or from anyone who comprehends the role of an active and sufficient military in maintaining foreign policy impact.
An industry that wants to make us believe that we need loads of high tech equipment to sit rotting in warehouses, ready for multi-billion dollar upgrades 5 years down the road.
As opposed to those who think that our guys regularly being killed by bad equipment (specifically of the flying or not really variety) is acceptable? I'm not talking about billions of dollars of stockpiled cruise missiles. I'm talking about subs that don't leak, rescue and military choppers that don't fall out of the sky from metal fatigue, camouflage of the right colour, night vision gear in appropriate volumes, vaccines that aren't tainted for the troops, enough logistics capacity to deploy to trouble spots even one battalion and supporting elements and maintain them there, etcetera etcetera. No wazoo high tech anywehre in sight.
Military equipment comes at a cost to social programs, healthcare, etc, or alternately higher taxes. Our individual soldiers are paid quite well (I was surprized when a friend recently joined to see the pay rates), have fantastic personal equipment and good bases.
Yeah, right. And can't be deployed to a trouble spot without sticking out there thumbs.... and can't stay there long without foreign logistics support... and can't stay there as a force because of a lack of combat soldiers.... and can't keep the subs at sea because they are falling apart... and can't keep the planes and choppers in the air due to fatigue and age of the airframes.....
I think the camouflage issue was more of a political red herring: There isn't an armed forces on the planet, except perhaps the US, that has camo for every possible battlefield situation.
Possibly true.
The Afghan conflict came up just as a prior batch was destroyed and the new batch was on order. It happens.
No, they had plenty of warning they were going. They had yet to procure the batch of desert camo (which arrived AFTER their return more than six months later). They asked the US "Could you provide us with enough camo?". The US said "send us the sizes, we'll ship you what you need in 7-10 days for the same cost or less than what you'd pay for the homegrown stuff". Guess what? We didn't care enough for our soldiers to spend the money. What was the official reason from NDHQ? Morale problems caused by wearing foreign uniforms.
Let me say that again: Morale problems. BS! BS! BS! Every infanteer I've talked to (and it has been quite a few) has said "if it made me harder to see or be seen or maybe be hit, I'd gladly take camo from anyone...".
Personally I think, given the nature of the military, that some of the elite teams showed true military gumption and they quite literally made their own, creating some of the best camo possible.
A further example of your lack of clear thought. They effectively (by using paint) damaged their existing uniforms (in green) if I'm not sorely mistaken. So the net effect is that we're down some green uniforms, which we have to replace anyway, and our troops didn't enjoy the benefit of having real camouflage but had to build their own (PS - all infanteers generally add their own camouflage anyway.... that isn't an *elite* decision....). So our net financial benefit? Nil. And maybe it would have helped keep some of our troops a bit safer if we'd got them desert camouflage a bit earlier.
Our troops coped. That's because they are good. Our troops coped up until the point where our overstretched forces couldn't support them and they needed to rotate home to get a rest. Then they didn't cope and we bailed out. It isn't the troops I blame for that.
The Sea King is indeed an unfortunate reality, but again compared with the acquisition of a fleet of modern subs, missile frigates, and cormorant helicopters,
Which have proven to be problematic too. When did we acquire modern subs? Refit after refit has failed to get them out and operating? Why? The Australians turned them down as broken, used-up and not cost effective. We tried to make due and my prediction is we'll end up paying more and having less operational time than if we bought some new ones.
it's amazing how much attention the Sea King garners.
Gee, when Sea Kings and Gryphons fall out of the sky from metal fatigue, when the other countries come to see us for how to keep overlong serving C-130's in the air with bandaids, when the CF-18s start experiencing serious stress issues due to age, and when our old equipment is KILLING OUR SOLDIERS at an alarming rate, but our PM can go buy himself new jets at the drop of a hat.... no, that doesn't merit ANY attention, does it?
We are a relatively small country, and the simple reality is that our military will always pale aside the US',
We were a smaller country 50 years ago and we had the third or fourth largest military in the world, especially naval.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
Apparently it doesn't disturb you our soldiers are dying because of antiquated equipment. And apparently it doesn't distrub you that at one point we had 5-10K men deployed on NATO/UN missions, and now the number is in the hundreds? Gee, I wonder if the people we were helping but aren't anymore and the trouble spots we are leaving to someone else are just fine with that?
We went into Afghanistan with troops that were perfect for the non-conventional modern warfare (i.e. snipers), did a great job, and got out after the situation had pretty much settled.
Yes assassinations of senior government ministers and continuing gun battles and insurgent actions tell me things have really calmed down. How could I not have seen that?
And speaking of our snipers: Why has our government blocked them getting decorated by the US for doing a good job?
Actually the causative factor for us leaving Afghanistan was probably the death of 4 soldiers by friendly fire: Given that the conflict was pretty much resolved, such a needless loss couldn't be repeated.
You obviously know a pretty freakin slim amount about military operations. Such casualties may have been avoidable in a perfect world. But military operations always entail risk, even in the safest circumstances. And people are human and screw up. But the screw up there may well have been from the poor training our senior officers have in large excercises (was our last Brigade level excercise in 1987?). They don't get a chance to deal with large unit ops enough to be 100% proficient. Oh, and throw in a NG Air unit pushed to make readiness (again, overstressed, this time on the US side because they are doing stuff other folks used to help out with all by themselves now).
God save us from people like you who live in their comfortable little country and don't care much about our soldiers or the people we send them out to help.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
Not sure if I agree with that. Real conflict still generally build up over time. Even for the Iraq situation the US took quite a few months (a year?) to build up its forces surrounding Iraq before it began the offensive.
No it doesn't!! You think you're going to be able to predict the next war far enough in advance, *and* get political buy in from everybody to quadruple the military budget and somehow magically get 3 more batallions of recruits recruited and trained in time? What are you NUTS? Just where the hell do you get the EXPERIENCE and HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE to second guess every single military historian and experienced military leader the western world has?
The constant criticism of the Canadian military, and calls for multi-billion dollar budget increases, might have some of its roots in the arms industry- An industry that wants to make us believe that we need loads of high tech equipment to sit rotting in warehouses.... Our individual soldiers are paid quite well (I was surprized when a friend recently joined to see the pay rates), have fantastic personal equipment and good bases.
The calls are only constant because there is CONSTANTLY something so decrepid that at all times there is at least one thing that needs emergency attention!!! That's NOT a good standard operating procedure! Waiting until a military system becomes a hazard and a deathtrap for 10 years is not the right way to figure out that it's time to upgrade.
You can't use the stupid politician's intransigence and political hot potato handling of the chopper program to argue that we don't really need flyable choppers on the decks of our ships.
Rotting in warehouses??? WTF? The buying programs have been cut to the bone, we don't have a single system that isn't unavailable for extended periods of time because we don't have enough of them! That includes our "big new modern navy", which is right on the razors edge of being too small to participate.
Our individual soldiers are NOT paid quite well, and only have fantastic personal equipment because we finally managed to convince the government to buy them new equipment, the same equipment people like you rallied against as being "un-needed" and "arms-industry sales tactics"!
it was a self-pursued role,
NO IT WASN'T! The Americans would LOVE to not have to pay for it all by themselves. If you don't think fighting people like Sadam Hussein, Al-Qaida, North Korea, or a future unstable China (think ahead stupid) is worth anything, come out and say it!
You don't want to spend money on the Military, but you keep pointing out our "fabulous equipment", which is entirely a result of us HAVING SPENT money on the military despite the prior opposition of people like you. WTF?
We are a relatively small country, and the simple reality is that our military will always pale aside the US'
That is the stupidest most useless comment ever. Taken to it's non-logical extereme, we might as well not pay ANY ATTENTION what so ever to JUST HOW SMALL we are, PROPORTIONALLY, compared to ANYBODY! Why? Why should we spend 2 times less per person to keep the world free than the Finnish or Belgians!??
Actually the causative factor for us leaving Afghanistan was probably the death of 4 soldiers by friendly fire
NO IT WASN'T. You're pulling this stuff out of your ASS!!!
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
He said, "Sea Kings".
I said, "You're Brave."
he said, "Everybody says that."
Just thought that was kind of funny.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
Did you know there's approximately similar numbers of people in New York City and in Canada? (that is, somewhere in the 25 million to 30 million range). Doesn't it say more about the safety of New York City if you need an 'army' of cops to police it?
When Bush was campaigning against health care in the U.S., he loved to say that there were more MRI's in New York than in Canada. Was he really making any point, if there are more people in New York State than in Canada? Even if he meant New York City, you can't compare an urban environment to an entire country, both rural and urban.
How's that for perspective, buddy?
However, I agree with your last point, that in future conflicts, brute force should take a back seat to surgical strike type operations and elite forces.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
Be Afraid... Be Very Afraid... Eh.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
Overall, Canada was the fourth-largest military power on the planet at the end of the war. Then, it did the completely unprecedented and unilaterally disarmed.
Canada also became an enormous factory during WWII and produced a lot of equipment for all allies and may have saved the allies from falling while the Americans continued to sit on their hands. Canada was also home of the largest flight-training program for the allies.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
We Canadians do appear to neglect our military, but look at it this way. The only country we border is the US, which is a tad unlikely to invade us. Any other country would have to cross one of three oceans. A lot of us are just not worried about military matters. The national budget reflects this. We've got more important things to fund.
Also, our taxes are no higher than US taxes. What's wrong with social programs? I know I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards someone's chemotherapy or student loan instead of defence industry kickbacks.
On the bright side, the underequipped nature of the military can lead to humourous advertising campaigns, such as Greco Pizza's "More Subs Than The Canadian Navy!" tagline.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
The biggest problem with social programs is that you can't cut them and shunt the money over to military applications when you need to. Too many people are depending on those social programs.
Re:In Other News... (Score:2)
What does GWB have to do with running Canada? A socialist country?
Interresting, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interresting, (Score:2)
Offtopic, the Peak (the school "newspaper" of SFU for those who don't know) wouldn't publish anything unless it portrayed the injustice of students / homeless / leftwingers etc being beaten down repeatedly by "the man", so I don't know why they would publish this.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For One Day? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For One Day? (Score:1)
RTFA. This is a temporary cluster.
goof comments aside, this is cool (Score:2)
Dcobbler
Cobbling together your digital environment: www.digitalcobbler.com
Interesting, but why only a day? (Score:1)
I know why (Score:1)
UNB Represent! :) (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh Canada... (Score:1)
CANADA! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CANADA! (Score:2)
First the alarming lead in Zamboni technology, now this!!
Actually, the Zamboni was invented by the son of an Italian immigrant here in the good old USA [zamboni.com]. In Southern California, surprisingly enough.
(Yeah, yeah, offtopic, but the story's a dup anyways, and all good nerds should know more about Zambonis.)
Re:CANADA! (Score:2)
http://www.cipmetalworking.com/FAB/fab_mar_02/f
Unnecessary (Score:1)
{offtopic?}
Huh? (Score:2)
IT'S RUNNING NOW!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IT'S RUNNING NOW!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IT'S RUNNING NOW!! (Score:2)
is not French
That's why he said "French-Canadian" :=)
Vive l'Acadie! (Score:2)
I swear, if any French or English professors ever visited Bathurst, they'd have a heart attack during their first conversation...
Re:IT'S RUNNING NOW!! (Score:2)
Yep, that's much much closer to it.
Better expressed as : Ben gadon, c'est presque la bonne afaire.
Wait for IBM (Score:2)
Ah, the memories (Score:5, Funny)
Shared resources (Score:2)
If CISS-1 is a short-term vision, then we hope that CISS will become a long-term vision. Canada Foundation for Innovation requires that the computing sites share 20% of their resources. One can envision CISS being a monthly event where, for example, 3 days a month are set aside for large-scale national computations. This would be unique in the world, and a tremendous opportunity for Canadian scientists.
This is pretty cool.. I wonder if they plan on including p2p clients in the future?
Wait just a gosh-darn minute here (Score:5, Interesting)
So they've got 2000 processors working on this problem. Probably about as much horsepower as 1000 recent CPUs, or 250 U of rackspace. About 7 racks full of 1U systems with 4 Athlons in 'em. A million dollars would easily cover that, and if you stick it in northern Canada, you get cold clean air for free so the ongoing costs would be much less as well.
What I'm getting at is that I'm not real impressed, either with the article or with the project. If they spent more than 3 weeks organizing this, it would have been faster to just have one uni run the simulation in-house.
errr, How? (Score:2)
Re:Read more carefully (Score:2)
Which part don't you understand? The article says that the problem would take 3-6 years using one of the installations. Using 20 such installations can provide a maximum of 20 times the computational horsepower. Probably less depending on how parallel the problem is. So how are they planning on getting a 1000 times + speedup?
Of course, you know what the final output will be? (Score:2, Funny)
(/me ducks)
...a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
A group of some kind could be created to provide access / approval of proposed usages etc etc and it would create a new massive-computation resource... of some kind... just a thought.
Slashdot 10/23/02; Seti@Home much faster (Score:2)
According to Seti@Home, Canada has 213307 machines working on SETI problems, which have contributed 71519 machine-years. The academic project has about 1% this many machines. Some of them may be faster than the average SETI machine. My article also commented about Canada's place on top500.org.
The American Version (Score:2, Funny)
Awwwwww crap... (Score:2)
Not a GRID computer? (Score:2)
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:2, Interesting)
The crack made that fired this guy off isn't exactly what I call Canada bashing. It's our brand of humor we like to call sarcasm.
Why is it that a faction of the population seems to dislike the US so much?
Americans don't create beer commercials that express an annoyance or hatred for Canadians. (Molson [www.iam.ca]) We don't produce shows that attempt to depict the American population as ignorant fools. (Talking to Americans [radio.cbc.ca])
Most Americans love Canadian culture. We love Canadian sports [nhl.com]. We love Canadian comedians and entertainers. I don't know why there seems to be a hatred that isn't reciprocated.
Having seen both sides of the coin, I'd have to say that America bashing is far more prevalent and mainstream here in Canada. (Per capita of course)
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:3, Insightful)
mad props to Canada. all the time.
we kid because we love.
I mean really Canada is just about the only place on Earth an American can visit without fear of being blown up, kidnapped, or er.. blown up.
lived in Canada for a month. best people on Earth. talk funny though. and you folks do say "eh" alot. don't deny it. you do. I heard "eh" roughly 40 times in one 10 minute conversation.
it just sounds funny. love you anyway.
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Most powerful computer in Canada" (Score:2)
HHOS.
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think it takes a supercomputer to predict the weather in Canada
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
I don't think it takes a supercomputer to predict the weather in Canada.
Yeah, yeah. This is only funny to those who don't live in Canada, of course.
If you live in Newfoundland, for instance, you'll know that no supercomputer in the world could ever have a hope of predicting the weather for the text fifteen minutes. I once visited for a week, and I saw sunny, cloudy, windy, calm, cold, warm, not to mention rain, snow, and even hail.
Now if you'd said Vancouver, on the other hand...
int main() { printf("rain\n"); }
:-)
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:5, Funny)
That would be.... let's see
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
I am sure that was made practical by the fact that Canada is the first country in the world to have ambient temperature superconductivity materials in all of their communications and power distribution systems.
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
I am sure that was made practical by the fact that Canada is the first country in the world to have ambient temperature superconductivity materials in all of their communications and power distribution systems.
That's right, this is the superior technology we're going to use in our grand scheme of conquest! First, we take back Alaska. Then, the rest of the U.S. Then, the world!
MUAAA HAA HAA HA HA HAHAHA!
Ha Ha Hahahaha!
Ho Ho Hohoho.
Heh. Heh.
Whoooooo.
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
And Alaska was part of Canada exactly when?
Seward's folly (Score:2)
Alaska wasn't actually a province, Canada lost out when the failed to buy it from the Russians, who sold it in 1867 (though it didn't become a state until 1959).
Look up "Seward's Folly" on google for more info.
It's always seemed somewhat odd having a American state attached on the northwestern borders, far from the rest of the US, but this page [virginia.edu] seems to cover most of the details
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
It would take a hell of alot more than one actually. There's a saying, "if you don't like the weather in Canada, wait 5 minutes".
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
Re:Computing in Canada (Score:2)
Re:Would this chemisty problem be.... (Score:1)
Re:Would this chemisty problem be.... (Score:1)
Re:Would this chemisty problem be.... (Score:2)
Check out beeradvocate.com for some high quality US brew.
Re:This could go all wrong... (Score:2)
Re:Very poor troll. (Score:2)