35 best battery life laptops Supercomputers Dell HP Intel Tags Share your voice The fastest ever supercomputer is expected to come to the US in 2021 in the form of a new entrant called Frontier, a $600 million machine with Cray and AMD technology.Frontier should be able to perform 1.5 quintillion calculations per second, a level called 1.5 exaflops and enough to claim the performance crown, the US Energy Department announced in May.Since then, Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced it would acquire Cray and consolidate their supercomputer power.Cray is responsible for 39 supercomputers on the list, while HPE has 40. Combined, they would outnumber second-placed maker Inspur, which has 71 supercomputers on the list, but not first-placed Lenovo, which has the majority by far at 173.On Monday, Nvidia also unveiled the DGX SuperPOD supercomputer, which will be the 22nd fastest in the world. It will be used to train the algorithms and neural networks used for autonomous vehicle development. IBM owns the world’s two fastest supercomputers in the world. Matthias Balk/picture alliance via Getty Images China is home to 219 of the world’s supercomputers while the US houses 116, the latest report from Top500 says. But the two highest-powered supercomputers are still Summit and Sierra, owned by IBM in the US.Supercomputers, massive computing machines, are used for power-intensive programs like quantum physics, forecasting global climate change effects, designing engines and aircraft, reconstructing the history of the universe and examining whether old nuclear weapons could still explode.Only petaflop systems made the list for the first time ever, Top500, which ranks the highest-performing computer systems in the world twice a year, said.”The total aggregate performance of all 500 system has now risen to 1.56 Exaflops,” Top500 said.China took the third and fourth most powerful supercomputer spots, with Sunway TaihuLight and Tianhe-2A (Milky Way-2A). They were developed by China’s National Research Center of Parallel Computer Engineering & Technology, and China’s National University of Defense Technology, respectively.Another US supercomputer took out the fifth spot, with Dell’s Frontera in Texas becoming the newest member of the global top 10. Switzerland, Japan and Germany also house supercomputers ranked in the top 10.There are 29 of the top 500 supercomputers in Japan, 19 in France, 18 in the UK, 14 in Germany, 13 in Ireland and Netherlands, eight in Canada and five in Singapore.Intel now provides 96% of all supercomputers with processors, Top 500 said.In terms of “green” supercomputers, Japan’s Shoubu system B was ranked the most power efficient. 7:56 Now playing: Watch this: 1 Computers Sci-Tech Comment We landed on the moon with NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine 37 Photos
A Syrian government forces soldier walks over the rubble of buildings in the former rebel-held town of Zamalka in Eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on Wednesday. Photo: AFPUS President Donald Trump warned Wednesday that “missiles will be coming” in response to an alleged chemical attack in Syria, as the UN chief urged world powers to stop a face-off with Russia from spiraling out of control.With punitive US military action seemingly imminent, Russia scrambled to deflect blame from its ally Bashar al-Assad and, according to a monitor group, Syrian forces evacuated key defense buildings in Damascus.Trump’s warlike tweets came in response to a warning from Russia’s ambassador to Beirut, who took to a television network run by the armed group Hezbollah to declare that any US missiles would be shot down “as well as the sources they were fired from.”If the US action follows the pattern of a previous punitive strike on Syria last year, it will begin with a salvo of cruise missiles fired from American warships in the Mediterranean, as Trump implied when he tweeted they would be “nice, new and ‘smart.’”Defense Secretary Jim Mattis as well as CIA director Mike Pompeo huddled at the White House on Wednesday to discuss options and game out the situation.“The president’s national security team met today. That meeting was chaired by the vice president to discuss a number of options,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.With the UN Security Council failing thus far to find a diplomatic solution, Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned Wednesday time was running out.“Today, I called the Ambassadors of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council to reiterate my deep concern about the risks of the current impasse and stressed the need to avoid the situation spiraling out of control,” he said, referring to the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain.Moscow and Washington have so far vetoed each other’s motions to set up an international investigation into chemical weapons use.Opponents of unilateral US action called an emergency closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council for later Thursday.Meanwhile, Moscow said the formerly rebel-held district of Eastern Ghouta-including Douma, the target of Saturday’s attack-had been “totally stabilized” and would soon be patrolled by Russian military police.But the Russian army continued to deny their side’s latest victory came after Assad launched a chemical attack on the last rebel-held pocket of the enclave in the Damascus suburbs, instead accusing the White Helmets civil defense organization of staging the massacre.Trump’s spokeswoman dismissed this idea, and pointedly refused to acknowledge that concern about the risks of a direct confrontation with Russia would hold the US military back.“The intelligence provided certainly paints a different picture,” she said. “The president holds Syria and Russia responsible for this chemical weapons attack.”But while the Russian president’s lieutenants continued to up the ante with threats and allegations, Vladimir Putin himself adopted a more statesmanlike tone, in remarks to new ambassadors presenting their credentials at the Kremlin.“The situation in the world is becoming more and more chaotic but all the same we hope that common sense will finally prevail and international relations will take a constructive path,” he said.Trump’s tweets were more belligerent-he told Russia “You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”-and declared that US relations with Russia have plunged to a historic low.But he notably also said there was “no reason for this,” reiterated his hope for talks with Putin to halt a new arms race, and blamed his domestic political opponents for poisoning ties.Assad’s Damascus regime, which has long accused Washington of supporting its armed opponents in the country’s bloody seven-year-old civil war, hit back at Trump’s “reckless escalation.”OPCW to deployTrump and other Western leaders have vowed a quick and forceful response to Saturday’s alleged gas attack, which rescue workers say killed more than 40 people.British Prime Minister Theresa May has called an emergency cabinet meeting for Thursday, while French President Emmanuel Macron is to decide on a response in the coming days, having insisted he does “not want an escalation” and that any response would focus on Syria’s chemical capabilities, not on allies of the regime.As it looked to head off the threat of Western strikes, Syria said it had invited the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which has blamed the regime for previous attacks, to visit the site.The OPCW said it would “shortly” deploy a fact-finding team to Douma for an investigation, but US officials said they were working from their own information and would not necessarily hold back.Damascus agreed to hand over its chemical arsenal in 2013, narrowly avoiding American and French air strikes in retaliation for a suspected sarin attack.That incident, which killed hundreds, also took place in Eastern Ghouta.
Attend this free webinar and learn how you can maximize efficiency while getting the most critical things done right. 6 min read Free Webinar | Sept 5: Tips and Tools for Making Progress Toward Important Goals Register Now » Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. April 18, 2017 My husband and I have a running joke where we have our Amazon Echo “compete” with our iPhones to see who does a better (i.e., more human-like) job of interacting with us. While there’s no clear winner, Siri seems to have the edge for casual conversation, but Alexa can sing.I’ve noticed something else, too. We don’t usually thank Siri or Alexa the way we would a clerk at a supermarket or an employee at an information kiosk, even though they’re providing us with identical services. And why would we? Siri and Alexa aren’t people; they’re anthropomorphized computer programs. They don’t care if we thank them, because they don’t have feelings.At least, we’re pretty sure they don’t.Related: Good, Bad & Ugly! Artificial Intelligence for Humans is All of This & More.Science fiction novels have long delighted readers by grappling with futuristic challenges like the possibility of artificial intelligence so difficult to distinguish from human beings that people naturally ask, “should these sophisticated computer programs be considered human? Should ‘they’ be granted human rights?” These are interesting philosophical questions, to be sure, but equally important, and more immediately pressing, is the question of what human-like artificial intelligence means for the rights of those whose humanity is not a philosophical question.If artificial intelligence affects the way we do business, the way we obtain information, and even the way we converse and think about the world, then do we need to evaluate our existing definition(s) of human rights as well?What are “human rights”?Of course, what constitutes a human right is far from universally agreed. It goes without saying that not all countries guarantee the same rights to their citizens and nationals. Likewise, political support for the existing scope of rights within each country waxes and wanes, both directly and inversely, with those countries’ respective economic fortunes and shifting cultural mores.Historically, technological improvements and economic prosperity — as measured by per capita GDP — have tended to lead to an expanded view of basic human rights. The notion of universal health care as a basic right, for instance, is a relatively modern affectation. It did not exist — and could not have existed — without a robust administrative infrastructure and tax base to support it, and without sufficiently advanced medical technology to assure the population of its effectiveness.Work to live? Live to work?Technological advancement has always, understandably, been met with skepticism, particularly from those whose livelihoods are most likely to be affected by a technological shift. Technology that enhances productivity makes the humans using it more productive, but this is a double-edged sword, as it likewise increases the productivity expectations, and reduces the number of humans required for any given level of productive output. Theoretically, this need does not necessarily lead to job loss, as long as the demand for productive output continues to outpace the technologically abetted output itself.Related: 5 Major Artificial Intelligence Hurdles We’re on Track to Overcome By 2020Do human beings have a right to earn a livelihood? And, if they do, how far does that right extend? How much discomfort is acceptable before the effort required to find gainful employment moves from reasonable to potentially rights-infringing? If technology renders human labor largely obsolete, do humans have a right to a livelihood even if they cannot earn it?Tech industry luminaries such as Tesla CEO Elon Musk have recently endorsed concepts like guaranteed minimum income or universal basic income. A handful of experiments with this concept have been undertaken, announced or proposed in Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Bill Gates recently made headlines with a proposal to impose a “robot tax” — essentially, a tax on automated solutions to account for the social costs of job displacement. While people may differ on the effectiveness or necessity of these and other proposals, it’s clear that discussion on these points will be a part of the broader AI conversation in the years to come.Whose datum is it, anyway?Technology challenges our conception of human rights in other ways, as well. Some of the most fascinating applications of improved artificial intelligence relate to the ability to quickly and efficiently analyze large quantities of data, finding and testing correlations and connections and translating them into usable information. “Big data” has dominated industry headlines in recent years, including speculation that a data analytics solution may have played a role in the 2016 US presidential election.Typically, concerns around access to and use of personal data have centered on personal privacy concerns. Many countries have enacted strict laws prohibiting the collection and sharing of personal data without first providing specific, detailed information about the planned use of such information and obtaining consent. Businesses safeguard their confidential information through an assortment of contractual arrangements and trade secret protection laws.Less legal attention has been paid, however, to the anonymized use of personal or proprietary data — that is, data that has been stripped of identifying information and aggregated alongside other data. This is partly because the question itself is inchoate: who, if anyone, has a right to impose use limitations on aggregated datasets? And on what basis might such limitations be imposed? Some data is relatively easy to obtain, and has traditionally been part of either a formal public record or, at a minimum, thought to be fair game to anyone obtaining them lawfully. This approach essentially mirrors the privacy-rights approach, in that it focuses on data at the point of collection, rather than at the point of use. And yet it is clear that independent ethical concerns do arise from the use, standing alone, of such data.For example, consider the case of an international beauty competition that was “judged” by an AI algorithm. The algorithm was given criteria thought to be unbiased and objective, and yet the selection of winners revealed an unexpected characteristic lurking in the algorithm’s operation — racial bias. As we increasingly rely on data aggregation software not only to provide us with organized information, but to influence or direct actions, we may increasingly find ourselves asking the question — should we have the right to ensure data is used fairly?Related: Artificial Intelligence: A Friend or Foe for Humans?Where do we go from here?Of course, technological innovation likely cannot be halted, and our ability to meaningfully hinder it is questionabl, even leaving aside the matter of whether it is desirable to attempt to do so. Industry groups have already formed to consider the ethical ramifications of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence. And while clear answers are unlikely to emerge any time soon, it will be equally important to ensure that we, collectively as a society, are asking the right questions to ensure that technological innovation equates to genuine progress.