Supercomputer capable of running entire Internet

Spend_day · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:21

Longbow said:
It says it's capable of hosting the entire Internet from the point of server load, but it's not going too, so I don't know why some of you are talking about nuclear strikes taking the Internet out.

It is possible though that a single computer may be put in control of the internet one day. realistically this computer will probably end up being the world biggest calculator

i think you took the nuclear strike thing a bit seriously i assumed it was *place devastating event here* comment showing that something bad happens bye bye internet

Sic · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:24

Hostile17 said:
Would also get rid of certain illegal areas of the Internet that everyone can do without.

yeah, getting rid of things that break the law are definitely worth it for a potential loss of freedom of speech

D.P. · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:26

It seems you have all misunderstood what was presented. IBM suggest a common computer platform and OS that is still distributed around the world and has all the advantages of the current Internet framework but better cohernece. IT would be faster, more stable, easier to develop for, less buggy, more secure. Supposedly.

There would be 16 thousand rack computers, these will be libverly distributed around the world.

Hostile_18 · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:28

Sic said:
yeah, getting rid of things that break the law are definitely worth it for a potential loss of freedom of speech

Pedophilia, Online Fraud, Terrorist networks, Piracy, hate sites etc would this not be worth destroying if we lost a little freedom? Besides who says we can't have an internet based constitution that is built upon interests of individuals rather than governments etc.

Tomsk · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:34

By the time they finish building it, it won't be enough.

Sic · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:36

Hostile17 said:
Pedophilia, Online Fraud, Terrorist networks, Piracy, hate sites etc would this not be worth destroying if we lost a little freedom? Besides who says we can't have an internet based constitution that is built upon interests of individuals rather than governments etc.

Not for me, no it wouldn't.

If you get rid of online paedophilia, you're not going to get rid of paedophilia
If you get rid of online fraud, you're not going to get rid of fraud
If you get rid of online terrorist networks, you're not going to get rid of terrorist networks
If you get rid of online piracy, you're not going to get rid of piracy
If you get rid of hate sites, you're not going to get rid of hate

The internet can merely act as a vessel for the deplorable habits that people choose to indulge in - should the people who generally conduct themselves well have to pay freedom for those who don't? Not in my book.

Spend_day · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:37

Hostile17 said:
Pedophilia, Online Fraud, Terrorist networks, Piracy, hate sites etc would this not be worth destroying if we lost a little freedom? Besides who says we can't have an internet based constitution that is built upon interests of individuals rather than governments etc.

you forget governments rarely do things in the interest of the people

Sic · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:38

Spend_day said:
you forget governments rarely do things in the interest of the people

people don't forget that, they just don't realise it.

Makunouchi · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:39

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Hostile17 said:
Don't know If I agree with the above!

Well the above has already been proved true has it not?

In this country we have given up certain liberties since 9/11 in the hopes if gaining security.

And have we? Have the terrorist attacks stopped? We have lost both and deserve neither, seems spot on to me.

Tony Williams · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:41

Pffft, my p3 would pwn that at chess.

Hostile_18 · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:43

Sic said:
Not for me, no it wouldn't.

If you get rid of online paedophilia, you're not going to get rid of paedophilia
If you get rid of online fraud, you're not going to get rid of fraud
If you get rid of online terrorist networks, you're not going to get rid of terrorist networks
If you get rid of online piracy, you're not going to get rid of piracy
If you get rid of hate sites, you're not going to get rid of hate

They would each be dealt a massive blow that would substantially reduce them considerably.

Sic said:
The internet can merely act as a vessel for the deplorable habits that people choose to indulge in - should the people who generally conduct themselves well have to pay freedom for those who don't? Not in my book.

Yes but the people who do conduct themselves well get affected by the people who carry out such acts and in many cases ruin lives. Would having a bit extra freedom compensate for this? In my opinion no. If well regulated by an impartial body I could see the ability to do a lot of good and make the world a substantially better place to be in

.

Edit: I obviously realize how careful we must be to give our freedoms away though and so the framework of how it could be regulated would have to be set up with lots of thought about possibility of the power being misused.

Hostile_18 · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:45

Makunouchi said:
In this country we have given up certain liberties since 9/11 in the hopes if gaining security.

And have we? Have the terrorist attacks stopped? We have lost both and deserve neither, seems spot on to me.

Well we don't know what would have happened had we not being involved, left unchecked it could have been far worse. I think in the long run the world will be a safer place because of the War on Terrorism.

LoadsaMoney · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:46

Hostile17 said:
Pedophilia, Online Fraud, Terrorist networks, Piracy, hate sites etc would this not be worth destroying if we lost a little freedom? Besides who says we can't have an internet based constitution that is built upon interests of individuals rather than governments etc.

What with scooters. :confused:

GeX · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:46

it was no different before the internet was mainstream, you just didn't hear about it. so yeah, if ignorance is your bag - it will change things, but if you live in the real world it won't make a jot of difference.

dustiestrat · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:46

Hostile17 said:
Pedophilia, Online Fraud, Terrorist networks, Piracy, hate sites etc would this not be worth destroying if we lost a little freedom? Besides who says we can't have an internet based constitution that is built upon interests of individuals rather than governments etc.

i can see *** you saying but you could also look at it in another way. if the internet didnt have the above crime running through it where would the authoritys look? the police can use the internet to hunt down pedo's and other such criminals by following there online tracks. unlike before the internet where it would be harder to track down these people.

Sic · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:48

Hostile17 said:
They would each be dealt a massive blow that would substantially reduce them considerably.

There was a quote posted before that you totally disagreed with. I, on the other hand, completely agree with it so I think we're fundamentally in disagreement here!

Hostile17 said:
Yes but the people who do conduct themselves well get affected by the people who carry out such acts and in many cases ruin lives. Would having a bit extra freedom compensate for this? In my opinion no. If well regulated by an impartial body I could see the ability to do a lot of good and make the world a substantially better place to be in .

Power corrupts. What you're talking about seems to be inherently communistic (ie. one centralised body making decisions/censoring whilst the population carry on blissfully unaware) and you're making cases for the bad parts of communism!

Hostile17 said:
Edit: I obviously realize how careful we must be to give our freedoms away though and so the framework of how it could be regulated would have to be set up with lots of thought about possibility of the power being misused.

and now you're talking about giving freedom away! we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one

Hostile_18 · 25 Feb 2008 at 12:53

Sic said:
Power corrupts. What you're talking about seems to be inherently communistic (ie. one centralised body making decisions/censoring whilst the population carry on blissfully unaware) and you're making cases for the bad parts of communism!

I think that as a people (rather than a country) theres certain values that 99% of us hold to and this is what I would agree to amend our freedoms on.

I do see your point of view though and I agree how this kind of power could be abused if handled incorrectly.

and now you're talking about giving freedom away! we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one

I think a little less freedom could under certain circumstances could do a lot of good.

I Don't think we are going to agree either lol

Stretch · 25 Feb 2008 at 13:11

Hostile17 said:
Would also get rid of certain illegal areas of the Internet that everyone can do without.

Speak for yourself

lookitsjonno · 25 Feb 2008 at 13:51

how do they define "the internet" though - just web pages, or every row of every database of every companies database that's accessible online?

really can't see why they are bothering.

Burnsy2023 · 25 Feb 2008 at 14:35

jonno.co.uk said:
or every row of every database of every companies database that's accessible online?

That's an Extranet, which is arguably part of the internet.

Although it may have the capability to do what IBM suggest, it never actually would.

The very definition of the Internet is a web of interconnected computers. So having just one ... well ... it would no longer be the Internet.

Just having one server and multiple international clients would still be an Internet. Internet's don't have to have a mesh topology necessarily.

Burnsy