Talk:National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Espionage  
WikiProject icon National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden) is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Espionage and Espionage-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

S1[edit]

The link to the S1 unit says it's been disbanded since 2006. Is something wrong? --AW (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge into National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)

I propose FRA law be merged into National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden). I've recently made an extensive rewrite of the page on FRA law, and I think a merger of that page into this one makes a lot of sense. The reasons are:

  • duplication of content
  • significant overlap (which cannot be avoided)
  • context reasons

The main reason: This page doesn't have a section about the oversight of the FRA, which kind of important. It's mentioned, but not in detail, and simply moving that information from the page on the FRA law to this page would result in significant loss of context on FRA law.

This page is not that big to begin with, and if I remove the duplication of content, it shouldn't become that much larger after a merger. You can compare this page in size and content with other pages on signals intelligence agencies: NSA and GCHQ. If you have an opinion, please post it here. Gavleson (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Some clarification: Obviously, I feel the section "Scope, limits and provisions" is equally important as the one titled "Oversight". Renamed "Legal framework" it very much belongs on this page, IMO. That wouldn't leave much on FRA law... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavleson (talkcontribs) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections, I'm proceeding with the merger as per WP:MERGEPROP for the above stated reasons, and for the fact that "FRA law" is a somewhat crude translation and not an established phrase in English. Discussion closed.Gavleson (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Computer no longer on Top 500? See my edits on the page[edit]

Note nr. 5 in [1]

If you click on "Government Agency" [2] it seems to prove by point (better link to add in article? Or in addition?).

Clicking on the computer [3] you see these numbers: 13,728 102.8 146.4

However the other link [4] regarding it falling down the list, before I updated the the article, gives different number: 17,280 97.5 156.2

It would appear it is a different computer because it "is", that is it seems to be an upgraded one. May this have happened again (second link here, seems to disagree). [While the core number (and peak) is higher as expected, rmax is not. Should that also be higher? Was it miscalculated the first time?] comp.arch (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm actually unsure about this. My theory was they had upgraded it, because I couldn't find the "old" supercomputer on the list. Anyway, the Swedish Wikipedia article still has it listed 126 in 2011 using this source, but there has to be a more recent update... Appreciate the help on this. Gavleson (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)