And The World’s Fastest Supercomputer in 2012 Is… – Technology Review

Some of the systems that are in the works represent more than merely incremental improvement on existing systems.

The University of Illinois’ National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) will begin to take delivery of one such system in the first half of 2011, ramping up its massive scientific data crunching in the Fall of 2011, says Thom Dunning, director of NCSA. In 2012, the system, called Blue Waters, will be complete and the entire computer will be supporting a full range of scientific research.

Blue Waters will be unique in a number of ways. The first is that it will use the latest IBM Power chip, the Power 7. Even more essential to its performance will be the supercomputer’s new interconnect, which is the ultra fast network that allows all of the processor cores of the computer to communicate with one another. This interconnect has significantly higher bandwidth and lower latency than previous interconnects, such as the Infiniband interconnect that is standard on many other supercomputers.

Blue Waters will also be unusually compact – each 39 inch wide, 6 foot deep cabinet has only 3 racks. (A set three racks, called a building block, is approximately 10 feet wide and 6 feet deep.)

via And The World’s Fastest Supercomputer in 2012 Is… – Technology Review.

Federal Pilot Program Curbs E-Discovery Fights | National Law Journal

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...
Image via Wikipedia

The results of the first phase of a closely watched federal court pilot program on electronic discovery show that having a set of fair-play rules at the outset of a case helps quell pretrial brawls between parties.

The goal of the program, launched in May 2009 and spearheaded by James Holderman, chief judge of the Northern District of Illinois, was to find ways to reduce the massive costs and burdens of electronic discovery. Chairing the program is Magistrate Judge Jan Nolan, also of the Northern District of Illinois.

The first-phase of the 7th Circuit‘s pilot program indicated that when judges and attorneys had a set of specific principles to guide electronic discovery, it improved the process — or, at least, didn’t make it worse.

“It was very encouraging,” said Holderman.

The first phase of the program involved 13 district court judges overseeing 93 civil cases and 285 attorneys between October 2009 and March 2010. The program required the judges and attorneys to follow a set of principles, drafted by the program’s committee members, during electronic discovery. Those principles called for:

• parties to recognize that cooperation with opposing counsel does not compromise zealous advocacy;

• parties to resolve electronic discovery disputes early, without court intervention;

• parties to make electronic discovery demands proportionate to the particulars of the case;

• parties to meet before an initial status conference with the judge to discuss discovery;

• when a dispute arose, each party to select a liaison attorney to deal with discovery and to attend hearings;

• parties to refrain from making overly broad preservation requests;

• parties to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information;

• judges and attorneys to know the civil procedure rules pertaining to electronically stored information.

The participating judges and attorneys were sent a survey asking them to evaluate the program. All of the 13 judges and 133 of the attorneys responded.

About 90 percent of the judges thought that the principles increased or greatly increased the attorneys' familiarity with their clients’ technology relating to electronic discovery. All the judges agreed or strongly agreed that the use of discovery liaisons increased the efficiency of the discovery process.

About 43 percent of the attorneys said that the principles increased or greatly increased the fairness of the discovery process. About 55 percent said the principles had no effect on the fairness, and fewer than 3 percent said it made the process less fair. About 61 percent said that the principles had no effect on their ability to resolve discovery disputes without court involvement.

Asked whether the principles affected their ability to zealously represent their clients, 74 percent said the principles had no effect while 22 percent said that the principles increased their ability to zealously represent their clients. About 4 percent indicated a negative effect.

via Law.com – Federal Pilot Program Curbs E-Discovery Fights.

A Bad Day for Tort Reform, Georgia High Court Strikes Med-Mal Caps – Law Blog – WSJ

In the annals of the tort-reform movement, Monday, March 22, 2010 will probably not go down as one to be celebrated.

For starters, on Monday the world awakened to the reality of a new huge piece of legislation — the health care bill. And it’s a health-care bill without significant movement on medical-malpractice reform.

But the movement suffered another blow on Monday when the Supreme Court of Georgia struck down the state’s caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases. The vote was 7-0. Click here for the opinion, here for the story, from the Fulton County Daily Report.

Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein, in writing for the court, emphasized the separation of powers, that the state’s legislature had encroached on judges’ and juries’ turf. “The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury,” she wrote.

The ruling follows a similar decision made last month in Illinois, in which the state’s Supreme Court held unconstitutional the state statute that placed caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Click here for a writeup on the Illinois case from Illinois-Kent law professor Ralph Brill.

via A Bad Day for Tort Reform, Georgia High Court Strikes Med-Mal Caps – Law Blog – WSJ.