Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Free tuition at US public Universities?

Off topic... Dude - my DS 11 loved your link! Thanks :-)

What part am I missing? The Chinese supercomputer was more than 2X faster than the US model. When you consider Mao destroyed the universities and killed the intelligentia 40 years ago and China has rebuilt to this capacity, what are they now capable of in the next 10 years?

The development of Tianhe-2 was sponsored by the 863 High Technology Program, initiated by the Chinese Government, the government of Guangdong province, and the government of Guangzhou city.[1] It was built by China's National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) in collaboration with the Chinese IT firm Inspur.[1][5] Inspur manufactured the printed circuit boards and helped with the installation and testing of the system software.[1] The project was originally scheduled for completion in 2015, but was instead declared operational in June 2013.[6] As of June 2013, The Supercomputer has yet to become fully operational. It is expected to reach its full computing capabilities by the end of 2013.[5]

In June 2013, Tianhe-2 topped the TOP500 list of fastest supercomputers in the world. The computer beat out second place finisher Titan by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. Titan, which is housed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, achieved 17.59 petaflops, while Tianhe-2 achieved 33.86 petaflops. Tianhe-2's phenomenal performance returned the title of the world's fastest supercomputer to China after Tianhe-I's debut in November 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers said Tianhe-2's win "symbolizes China's unflinching commitment to the supercomputing arms race".[5] China houses 66 of the top 500 supercomputers, second only to the United States' 252 systems.[3]

Also in June 2013, Tianhe-2 is ranked sixth on the Graph500 list of top supercomputers. In their benchmark, the system tested at 2061 giga-TEPS (traversed edges per second). The top system, IBM Sequoia, tested at 15363 giga-TEPS.[4]

Tianhe-2 will be housed at the National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ) in east campus of Sun Yat-sen University after the completion of the testing procedures.

What you're missing is that said supercomputer is a unique configuration of a whole lot of commercially-available parts (hardware and software) that were not designed by Chinese engineers.

Sure, they needed new circuit boards, but that's the computing equivalent of a car frame. They bought the engines, transmissions, fuel pumps, etc. from other (mostly American) companies, and then designed a new frame that could fit it all.

This project isn't a demonstration of locally superior engineering. Rather, it's a demonstration of what you can accomplish when you treat computing capacity as an "arms race." This project cost nearly $400M. If you had $800M lying around, you could have a machine that's twice as fast.

I think this is all simply a part of a bigger social question, that being, where to draw the line on forced subsidization of other people's needs, wants, ambitions, and goals. There are no easy answers but it's certainly and interesting topic and one that no doubt our children will be debating for their entire lives as well.

But that is the point Dude. They are putting the money in. The Arabs and the Chinese are putting all kinds of money into their R&D and their schools are getting into the top 20 in the world and pushing some American ones out.

And isn't taking all these parts lying around and putting it together in a better way being more creative than the Americans, who are suppose to be these innovators? You sound a little whiny saying they used other type of parts. So they didn't recreate the wheel...they just used it better. And you are saying they used the wheel? Doesn't that sound silly?

The supercomputers in the top 500 list are ranked by their speed in solving dense linear equations in the LINPACK benchmark. Companies like Google and Amazon have created huge in-house data centers to meet their actual needs (and to rent computing power to customers), and this arguably a better use of engineering talent than competing on LINPACK.

This statement says something about you, and nothing about me, because it is impossible for me to sound like anything via text media.


Tianhe-2 does not contain any revolutionary architectural features. It's just bigger. If you build a bigger wheel, have you learned anything?

I will grant you that building a $400M supercomputer does reflect a willingness to invest in R&D, because this computer is a tool that can be used for R&D purposes. But its construction does not reflect a major R&D achievement.

The number one consumer of supercomputing technologies, in terms of capacity and in number of installed systems in the top 500, remains the US.

I am confused.

On the one hand, some people here are arguing against subsidizing "pretty" areas like the liberal arts that can "brainwash feeble-minded people." Hmm. There is also an argument to take "personal responsibility" for your own education, regardless of major --- getting something for free (or for too little) can devalue it in the mind of the recipient! On top of that, China is held up as having the correct focus on higher education (engineering, science!). Students know that they have to study the right subjects so as to optimize their "job prospect [sic]," and they know that.

But... university fees in China are heavily subsidized by the government. People there don't even need loans!! Well, how can their students succeed if they aren't taking "personal responsibility?" Why aren't people there devaluing a university degree?

I am doubly confused because China has a public institution called the Central Academy of Drama. This place is apparently pretty prestigious. Why would such sensible people subsidize something as frivolous as drama and even hold it in high regard? What about job prospect? It makes no sense.

Triply confusing is that the liberal arts and humanities are important in the Chinese university education model. Hmm. Hmm. And then there is this shocking statement:


Why would so many countries (including tech powerhouses China and India) be adding fluffy things like liberal arts to their curricula, when this area is so pointless? Hmm. Hmm. Maybe Ms. Lawrence made up all those references.

Or, maybe...

...something else is going on. Like maybe setting standards and valuing different areas of human endeavor.

Here's a leading argument for more liberal arts education: The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science

What good is science if you can't communicate it to others effectively?

I think that's why most colleges have a liberal arts core requirement in addition to the specialized area of study is it not?