Slashdot Mirror

derekmead writes "It's frustrating to drop $7 on a pint of beer in New York City, as it turns out, Americans have the cheapest beer on Earth. International bank UBS gathered data about the median wages and average retail prices of a 500mL (pint) beer in 150 countries. Those data were compiled to figure out how many minutes of work it takes the average worker of a country to earn enough money to buy a beer. It's funny that UBS analysts are spending time looking at beer, but considering that beer is beloved and nigh essential everywhere, it offers an interesting comparison between commodities and wages. For example, India tops the least, with the median worker having to work nearly an hour to afford a pint thanks to extremely low wages. In the U.S. however, where wages are relatively high and the cost of the average beer is quite low (thanks to those super-massive macrobreweries out there), it takes the median worker about five minutes of labor to afford a retail (store-, not bar-bought) pint. That's the shortest amount of time in the world, which means that, relatively speaking, beer is cheaper here than anywhere else." OK, UBS: Now please repeat the research with coffee.

Shortly after 9 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, Republican candidate Mitt Romney officially announced (via phone app) his selection of 42-year-old Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as running mate for the 2012 U.S. presidential race. Ryan's selection was announced by the Romney campaign to various media outlets earlier this morning. Ryan is considered popular among a wide range of Republican voters, being a budget hawk who favors less liberal laws concerning abortion. Ryan's lauded popularity among Tea Party voters is mixed; some reports describe him as a Tea Party favorite, others as a far-right imposter.

wrekkuh writes "The Economist has printed an interesting look at the concerns and speculations of the fast-growing Chinese telecom giant Huawei, and its spread into western markets. Of particular concern is Huawei's state funding, and the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, who once served as an engineer in the People's Liberation Army (PLA). However, another article from The Economist goes into greater detail about the steps Huawei has taken to mitigate some of these concerns in England — including co-operating with the GCHQ in Britain, the UK's signals-intelligence agency, to ensure equipment built by Huawei is not back-doored."

Trepidity writes "United States Navy Admiral and Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert stirred a controversy by questioning much of the thinking underlying current U.S. defense technology. He argues that stealth technology is unlikely to retain its usefulness much into the future, and so focus should switch towards standoff weapons. In addition, he criticizes the focus on expensive all-in-one platforms such as the F-35 fighter, arguing for a payload-centric, flexible approach he compares to trucks rather than luxury cars."

whoever57 writes "A study of music from the '50 to the present using the Million Song Dataset has concluded that modern music has less variation than older music and songs today are, on average, 9dB louder than 50 years ago. Almost all music uses just 10 chords, but the way these are used together has changed, leading to fewer types of transitions being used. Variation in timbre has also reduced over the past decades."

Rambo Tribble writes "The Economist is reporting on two research teams, one at Harvard and another at the University of Hong Kong, who have developed software to detect what posts to Chinese social media get censored. 'The team has built up a database comprising more than 11m posts that were made on 1,382 Chinese internet forums. Perhaps their most surprising result is that posts critical of the government are not rigorously censored. On the other hand, posts that have the purpose of getting people to assemble, potentially in protest, are swept from the internet within a matter of hours.' Chinese censors may soon have to deal with an unprecedented transparency of their actions."

TheNextCorner sends this quote from ReadWriteWeb: "Open source software has been a key player in all kinds of disruptive technologies — from the Web to big data. Now the nascent and growing open source hardware movement is helping to power its own disruptive revolution. ... As 3D printing, powered by Arduino and other open source technologies, becomes more prevalent, economies of scale become much less of a problem. A 3D printer can print a few devices — or thousands — without significant retooling, pushing upfront costs to near-zero. This is what The Economist calls the 'Third Industrial Revolution,' where devices and things can be made in smaller, cleaner factories with far less overhead and — significantly — less labor."

OverTheGeicoE writes "Former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley has been in the news in recent months, talking about how the Transportation Security Administration is broken and how it can be fixed. Some of his TSA criticisms in the popular press seem to make sense. This seemed strange to me. Just last March he was defending TSA in a debate with Bruce Schneier in The Economist. Then, the very next month, he's criticizing his former agency as if he was on the other side of that debate to begin with. Why? I felt like I was missing something, so I decided to read his book to find out more about his position. The title of the book is Permanent Emergency: Inside the TSA and the Fight for the Future of American Security, and it is co-written by Nathan Means." Keep reading for the rest of OverTheGeicoE's review. Permanent Emergency: Inside the TSA and the Fight for the Future of American Security author Kip Hawley and Nathan Means pages 260 publisher Palgrave Macmillan rating 6 reviewer OverTheGeicoE ISBN 978-0-230-12095-2 summary An inside look at TSA from its former leader. The book is partly a memoir of Hawley's involvement with TSA, which predates his appointment as its administrator. Hawley helped architect the TSA shortly after it was first authorized. He left government service once that was finished, but came back again in 2005, appointed by President George W. Bush to become TSA's third administrator in four years. He stuck with the job until the exact moment Barack Obama was sworn in as President in January of 2009. If you're looking for insight into TSA's most controversial policies, the extensive use of body scanning and pat down searches, you won't find that in this book. Those policies were put in place by Hawley's successor almost two years later. The phrase 'body scan' is used exactly once.

The book breaks from the memoir style at times and changes to that of an action-suspense thriller. It is interwoven with segments of prose similar to a Tom Clancy novel. In these segments we learn about the life, and possibly the ultimate death, of an Al Qaeda operative who goes by multiple names throughout the course of the book. Raised in Austria, we follow the terrorist through training with Al Qaeda in Pakistan and his connection with various airline-related terrorist plots against the United States. Under Administrator Hawley, TSA uses all its intelligence resources to track his moves and act to thwart the terrorist's nefarious schemes.

The Clancyesque sections are a severe weakness of the book, bordering on laughable at times. For example, there's a description of a Casio watch that reminded me of a Dave Barry parody of Tom Clancy. The action-suspense writing style also tends to over-dramatize and exaggerate TSA's actual accomplishments. The intelligence sources TSA uses all belong to conventional intelligence agencies, both US and foreign. The event leading to the most dramatic moments of the book, the disruption of a liquid bomb plot, was the work of British intelligence and law enforcement in the UK. The authors describe in great, suspenseful detail that while the British are rounding up actual Al Qaeda cell members, TSA in the US is waging war against an entire phase of matter, one that covers about 70% of Earth's surface. Thanks to their determined efforts, TSA was able to ban liquids from carry on luggage literally overnight. However, in this and all other terrorist plots covered in this book, the authors never offer any evidence that TSA's use of its borrowed intelligence ever allowed TSA to disrupt any specific, credible, and imminent threat. So, if you like the idea of a Tom Clancy book where the Jack Ryan character agonizes over intel a lot but never actually does anything of provable value with it, this may be the book for you.

Although the writing style was problematic at times, it didn't totally undermine the value of the book. It helped me understand why mainstream media is so accepting of TSA. During Hawley's tenure, TSA made strong, successful efforts to woo the press, including interviews with CBS' 60 Minutes and appearances on Oprah. The good relationship established during Hawley's administration apparently continues to this day, despite the dramatic changes in operations imposed by his successor. The book also gives an amusing mini-bio of TSA's 'Blogger Bob' Burns, who has been called 'the Tokyo Rose of the modern age' for his defenses of TSA under John Pistole.

I've often wondered why TSA seems so unresponsive to the American public, and this book offered me a plausible explanation. Hawley seems to view TSA almost exclusively as a weapon in the US war against Al Qaeda. When TSA implements policies that seem crazy or ineffective to the rest of us, it doesn't use outside opinions to judge the effectiveness of its policies. Instead it uses information gathered from the intelligence community unavailable to outsiders. A policy change is considered effective if Al Qaeda reacts in a desirable way. For example, if a TSA operation deploys VIPR teams at public transportation centers and suspected Al Qaeda operatives leave the US afterwards, the operation is considered successful.

This book also helped me better understand Hawley's recent press comments. It sounds as if Hawley is saying that TSA's most controversial policies can be terminated if intelligence shows Al Qaeda to be on the decline. Now that he is outside TSA, Hawley seems to see what the American public does, and sees a reason to change security. If intelligence shows an increase of Al Qaeda activity, security can be raised again as needed.

This understanding of how TSA works is also confusing. What we're actually seeing from TSA is an expansion of their activities in recent years, with no meaningful or significant easing of its invasive passenger screening being proposed. Could that mean Al Qaeda is actually on the rise in some way not obvious to the general public? If not, Hawley's successor is a real bungler, and I would expect Hawley to call him that when given a chance. Instead, Hawley specifically refuses to second guess his successor at the end of his book, leaving me puzzled about how the US war against Al Qaeda is actually going.

Permanent Emergency is an interesting book. It certainly has flaws. The writing style is inconsistent and often unsatisfying. It is not entirely factually correct in many of its stories; TSA classifies a lot of information, and the authors admit to changing or concealing details for that and other reasons. The book does not attempt to tackle the most controversial aspects of today's TSA policies. Still, the book gives insight into how TSA was formed, what problems it was designed to address, and how it operates. TSA is so new, there are few sources of this type to examine right now, so any firsthand account is useful. I recommend this book to anyone concerned by TSA's operations, as it helps us understand how TSA became what it is now.

You can purchase Permanent Emergency: Inside the TSA and the Fight for the Future of American Security from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

First time accepted submitter funge writes "The Economist has an article on Work and play: The gamification of hiring about a start-up that lets you play games to show off your talents to prospective employers. From the article: 'The rules of Happy Hour are deceptively simple. You are a bartender. Your challenge is to tell what sort of drink each of a swelling mob of customers wants by the expressions on their faces. Then you must make and serve each drink and wash each used glass, all within a short period of time. Play this video game well and you might win a tantalizing prize: a job in the real world.'"

An anonymous reader writes "A man with one clock knows what time it is, goes the old saw, a man with two is never sure. Imagine the confusion, then, experienced by a doctor with dozens. Julian Goldman is an anaesthetist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. After beginning to administer blood-thinning medication during an urgent neurological procedure in 2005, Mr Goldman noticed that the EMR had recorded him checking the level of clotting 22 minutes earlier. As a result, four hospitals in the northeast had their medical devices checked, and found that on average they were off by 24 minutes. The easy solution that devices could have used since 1985? NTP."

Hugh Pickens writes "Steve Blank, a professor at Berkeley and Stanford and serial entrepreneur from Silicon Valley, says that the the Facebook IPO is the beginning of the end for Silicon Valley as we know it. "Silicon Valley historically would invest in science, and technology, and, you know, actual silicon," says Blank. "If you were a good venture capitalist you could make $100 million." But there's a new pattern emerging created by two big ideas that will lead to the demise of Silicon Valley as we know it. The first is putting computer devices, mobile and tablet especially, in the hands of billions of people and the second is that we are moving all the social needs that we used to do face-to-face onto the computer and this trend has just begun. "If you think Facebook is the end, ask MySpace. Art, entertainment, everything you can imagine in life is moving to computers. Companies like Facebook for the first time can get total markets approaching the entire population." That's great for Facebook but it means Silicon Valley is screwed as a place for investing in advanced science. "If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?" concludes Blank. "The headline for me here is that Facebook's success has the unintended consequence of leading to the demise of Silicon Valley as a place where investors take big risks on advanced science and tech that helps the world. The golden age of Silicon valley is over and we're dancing on its grave.""

00_NOP writes "The One Laptop Per Child project has disappointed in Peru, reports the Economist, apparently because in general teachers did not make creative use of the technology. As in other cases the computers seem to have been regarded as ends in themselves rather than tools to help change the ways kids are taught. Quite disappointing for those of us looking for Linux-Global-Domination but not really much of a surprise given the experience in richer countries either."

Fluffeh writes "A nice summary at TechDirt brings word that Bruce Schneier has been debating Kip Hawley, former boss of the TSA, over at the Economist. Bruce has been providing facts, analysis and some amazing statistics throughout the debate, and it makes for very educational reading. Because of the format, the former TSA administrator is compelled to respond. Quoting: 'He wants us to trust that a 400-ml bottle of liquid is dangerous, but transferring it to four 100-ml bottles magically makes it safe. He wants us to trust that the butter knives given to first-class passengers are nevertheless too dangerous to be taken through a security checkpoint. He wants us to trust that there's a reason to confiscate a cupcake (Las Vegas), a 3-inch plastic toy gun (London Gatwick), a purse with an embroidered gun on it (Norfolk, VA), a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it (London Heathrow) and a plastic lightsaber that's really a flashlight with a long cone on top (Dallas/Fort Worth).""

GlobalEcho writes "Researchers have created a second version of the Raven robotic surgeon, with open-source control code. 'UW researchers also created software to work with the Robot Operating System, a popular open-source robotics code, so labs can easily connect the Raven to other devices and share ideas.' Unfortunately for them, according to The Economist, 'there is [a] legal problem. Intuitive Surgical, the company behind the da Vinci [robot], holds patents that could make launching a commercial competitor tricky — at least in the immediate future."

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Iran is an earthquake zone, so its engineers have developed some of the toughest building materials in the world. Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) could also be used to protect hidden nuclear installations from the artificial equivalent of small earthquakes, namely bunker-busting bombs. UHPC is based—like its quotidian cousins—on sand and cement. In addition, though, it is doped with powdered quartz (the pure stuff, rather than the tainted variety that makes up most sand) and various reinforcing metals and fibers. UHPC can withstand more compression than other forms of concrete. UHPC is also more flexible and durable than conventional concrete. It can therefore be used to make lighter and more slender structures. All of which is fine and dandy for safer dams and better sewers, which threaten no one. But UHPC's potential military applications are more intriguing—and for many, more worrying. Deep bunkers can be tackled in other ways. America's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has looked at what is known in the jargon as functional defeat, in other words bombing their entrances shut or destroying their electrical systems with electromagnetic pulses. They are also working on active penetrators—bombs which can tunnel through hundreds of meters of earth, rock and concrete. Development work is also under way on esoteric devices such as robot snakes, carrying warheads, which can infiltrate via air ducts and cable runs."

First time accepted submitter elloGov writes "The north African desert scorpion, Androctonus australis, is a hardy creature. Most animals that live in deserts dig burrows to protect themselves from the sand-laden wind. Not Androctonus; it usually toughs things out at the surface. Yet when the sand whips by at speeds that would strip paint away from steel, the scorpion is able to scurry off without apparent damage thanks to the unique structure of its carapace. Dr Han Zhiwu of Jilin University and colleagues have found that surface irregularities based on the scorpion's exoskeleton could substantially minimize atmospheric dust damage to aircraft."

An anonymous reader writes "Jimbo Wales has suggested that English Wikipedia restrict its services for a period to protest against the anti-piracy SOPA bill in the United States. This follows a similar action by the Italian Wikipedia last month." Reader fiannaFailMan points out another bit of Wikipedia news: they've taken the wraps off a prototype for a new visual editor. A sandbox is available to try out. The Wikimedia Foundation hopes easier, more intuitive editing will shore up waning contributor numbers.

New submitter squideatingdough writes "On InfoWorld, Robert X. Cringely covers a recent case of a blogger accused of libel and defamation. The federal judge ruled that journalists warrant more protection from libel suits than bloggers, but it is obvious from the article that bloggers' rights can vary by state, depending on the 'shield laws' in force." Reader blindseer adds a link to this AP article on the case, and asks "If the government can define who is part of the press, and therefore gets First Amendment protections, then where does that place the freedom of the press?" The slippery slope is a steep one; even some relatively open societies require licensure for journalists (visiting ones included) with predictable results. (And the Labour Party would like to see a similar system in the UK.)

PolygamousRanchKid writes "In late 1965, President Lyndon Johnson stood in the modest gymnasium of what had once been the tiny teaching college he attended and announced a program to promote education. Almost a half-century later these modest steps have metastasized into a huge, federally guaranteed student-loan industry. On October 25th the Obama administration added indebted students to the list of banks, car companies, homeowners, solar manufacturers and others that have benefited from a federal handout. In response to students burying their obligations in court during the 1970s, anti-default provisions were imposed to make it almost impossible to shed student loans in bankruptcy. There are increasingly loud calls for reform of the system, with demands that range from a full-fledged bail-out of borrowers to a phased curtailment of government lending. The changes announced this week are designed to ease the pressure on struggling graduates. Borrowers who qualify will get payment relief, not debt relief. The administration says these changes will have no cost to taxpayers."

RedEaredSlider writes "Fish in the Hudson River and the harbor in New Bedford, Mass., have evolved resistance to PCBs. In the Hudson, a species of tomcod has evolved a way for a very specific protein to simply not bind to PCBs, nearly eliminating the toxicity. In New Bedford, the Atlantic killifish has proteins that bind to the toxin (just as they do in mammals) but the fish aren't affected despite high levels of PCBs in their cells. Why the killifish survive is a mystery."

Hugh Pickens writes "Studies comparing identical twins with non-identical twins have helped to establish the heritability of many aspects of behavior. Recent work suggests that about one third of the variation in people's happiness is heritable. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve has taken the study a step further, picking a popular suspect — the gene that encodes the serotonin-transporter protein, a molecule that shuffles a brain messenger called serotonin through cell membranes — and examined how variants of the 5-HTT gene affect levels of happiness. The serotonin-transporter gene comes in two functional variants—long and short and people have two versions (known as alleles) of each gene, one from each parent. After examining genetic data from more than 2,500 participants in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, De Neve found that people with one long allele were 8% more likely than those with none to describe themselves as very satisfied with life and those with two long alleles were 17% more likely of describing themselves as very satisfied. Interestingly enough, there is a notable variation across races with Asian Americans in the sample having on average 0.69 long genes, white Americans with 1.12, and black Americans with 1.47. 'It has long been suspected that this gene plays a role in mental health but this is the first study to show that it is instrumental in shaping our individual happiness levels (PDF),' writes De Neve. 'This finding helps to explain why we each have a unique baseline level of happiness and why some people tend to be naturally happier than others, and that's in no small part due to our individual genetic make-up.'"

A couple weeks ago, you asked questions of Stanford professor Jonathan Koomey about what has been dubbed Koomey's Law — the idea that the energy efficiency of computing doubles every 1.5 years. Read on for Professor Koomey's answers to the questions you raised. What makes this a non-trivial extension?
by Anonymous

What makes your law a non-trivial extension of Moore's Law, which states that the transistor count would double every 18 months due to an increase in density? E&M theory states that if you cut a wire's length in half, it's resistance cuts in half. Granted density in this case is a 2 dimensional expansion and wire resistance is a 1 dimensional formula, but what makes this different from what a freshman in college can infer from an R = (resistivity * length)/cross sectional area?

Jonathan Koomey: First, it’s important to note that we assessed these trends empirically, using measured power data for each computer system in our dataset, and it’s often valuable to confirm with actual measurements what theory implies. Just because the result sounds intuitive to you after the fact doesn’t mean that it isn’t valuable to confirm with real data that the trends actually exist. And of course we discuss in the paper the driving forces behind the reductions in power use per logical switch (and they involve more than just reductions in I squared R losses in the wires). I’ve pasted below two relevant paragraphs from the article:

For vacuum tube computers, both computational speed and reliability issues encouraged computer designers to reduce power use. Heat reduces reliability, which was a major issue for tube-based computers. In addition, increasing computation speeds went hand in hand with technological changes (like reduced capacitive loading, lower currents, and smaller tubes) that also reduced power use. And the economics of operating a tube-based computer led to pressure to reduce power use, although this issue was probably a secondary one in the early days of electronic computing.

For transistorized and microprocessor based computers, the driving factor for power reductions was (and is) the push to reduce the physical dimensions of transistors, which reduces the cost per transistor. In order to accomplish this goal, power used per transistor also must be reduced; otherwise the power densities on the silicon rapidly become unmanageable. Per transistor power use is directly proportional to the length of the transistor between source and drain, the ratio of transistor length to mean free path of the electrons, and the total number of electrons in the operating transistor, as Feynman (2001) pointed out. Shrinking transistor size therefore resulted in improved speed, reduced cost, and reduced power use per transistor (see also Bohr (2007) and Carver Mead’s thinking in the late 1960s, as summarized in Brock (2006, pp. 98-100)).

In addition, the fact that the trends have now been confirmed empirically means that people can get on with considering the implications of these trends, which I think are under-appreciated. The idea that we’ll be able to use ever more efficient computing technology in distributed applications will revolutionize data collection, communications, and control of processes, and people are only now starting to think about what may become possible.

As one of many examples showing the potential of ultra low power computing, consider the wireless no-battery sensors created by Joshua R. Smith of Intel and the University of Washington (coverage in the NY Times and the Economist). These sensors scavenge energy from stray television and radio signals, and they use so little power (60 microwatts in this example) that they don’t need any other power source. Stray light, motion, or heat can also be converted to meet slightly higher power needs, perhaps measured in milliwatts. The contours of this exciting design space are only beginning to be explored, and they are enabled by the trends identified in our paper.

I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of a shift in industry focus from raw performance to power efficiency for mobile devices. Some of the best engineers will be drawn to the problems of ultra low power computing in the same way as they’ve were drawn to high performance computing (HPC) in the past (no doubt terrific technologists will also continue to focus on HPC, but anytime a new hot area opens up there’s a migration of talent to that new topic).

Finally, I would add that the truly unexpected result was that the trend in computational efficiency extends for a longer period than Moore’s law, all the way back to Eniac in 1946. So these trends in computational efficiency are an inherent characteristic of computers that use electrons for switching, and are not limited to the microprocessor era. I, for one, did not expect that.

Your Take on Futurists?
by eldavojohn

What is your take on the interpretation of Futurists -- like Raymond Kurzweil -- in regards to extrapolating these 'laws' out to extreme distances?

JK: The physicist Neils Bohr once famously said “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” It’s important to be careful in making long-term extrapolations, even if some technological trend has continued for some time. I think it’s fair to say that Moore’s law (and the trends in computational efficiency we identify) have more years to run, given how far we are from theoretical limits, but exactly when we’ll hit a real roadblock it will take someone more brash than me to say. I discuss the theoretical limit based on Feynman’s calculations below, and we will eventually reach that, but there may be ways to sidestep those limits. We’ll have to see how clever we can be!

Lets work this backwards ...
by PPH

... and see where the Babbage Engine fits on the curve.

JK: Since the Babbage engine never operated, I’m not sure how we could do this. I believe that some parts of the engine have been created using modern machining practices, but I don’t think anyone has ever made one in complete form. If someone has, I’d be interested to measure its electricity use and estimate its performance (of course, it was designed before the era of electricity). Nordhaus (2007) reports that

Early calculators were “dumb” machines that essentially relied on incrementation of digits. An important step in the development of modern computers was mechanical representation of logical steps. The first commercially practical information-processing machine was the Jacquard loom, developed in 1804. This machine used interchangeable punched cards that controlled the weaving and allowed a large variety of patterns to be produced automatically. This invention was part of the inspiration of Charles Babbage, who developed one of the great precursor inventions in computation. He designed two major conceptual breakthroughs, the “Difference Engine” and the “Analytical Engine.” The latter sketched the first programmable digital computer. Neither of the Babbage machines was constructed during his lifetime. An attempt in the 1990s by the British Museum to build the simpler Difference Engine using early-nineteenth-century technologies failed to perform its designed tasks. (reference: Swade, Doron. The Difference Engine. New York: Viking Press, 2000.)

Nordhaus, William D. 2007. "Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing." The Journal of Economic History. vol. 67, no. 1. March. pp. 128-159. [http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/recent_stuff.html]

Nordhaus does attempt to estimate the speed of computation possible by hand calculations as well as abacuses, to compare to more automatic methods.

Infinity w/ reversible computing?
by DriedClexler

This one doesn't seem to have fundamental physical limits, so long as we eventually transition to reversible computing, in which the computer does not use up useful energy because every process it uses is fully reversible (i.e. the original state could be inferred).

All the limits on computation (except regarding storage) that you hear about (e.g. Landauer limit) are on irreversible computing, which is how current architecture works. It is the irreversibility of an operation that causes it to increase entropy.

Could the whole process be bypassed by the near-infinite efficiency of reversible computers?

JK:Here’s the flip answer: Only if you can afford to wait infinitely long for your answer.

Here’s the more serious answer: in principle, reversible computing could have a revolutionary impact, if we could figure out how to do it, and some folks are working on this. But I haven’t seen any near term applications of such devices—if you know of any, please let me know.

Multicore or System on a Chip Speed bumps?
by eldavojohn

A lot of consumer grade machines have begun focusing on multicore chips with a lower frequency to provide the same or better perceived computing performance than a high frequency single core chip. What happens when a technology like this subverts our craving for higher transistor density? Can you argue that your "law" is immune to researchers focusing on some hot new technology like a thousand core processor or a beefed up system on a chip in order to improve end user experience over pure algorithm crunching speed?

JK: First, I would call it (like Moore implied in his own papers) an empirical observation rather than a law.

But in any case, I don’t think that the transition to multicore has “subverted our craving for higher transistor density,” we’re just using the transistors in a different way. The density of chips (measured in components per square centimeter or equivalent metric) will continue to increase, it’s just that the scaling of clock speeds that drove performance increases for so long is no longer possible (mainly because of high leakage currents inside the chip). So that means we need to make many cores and then modify software to capture that performance.

At the end of the day, WHAT you choose to do with the computing power is unrelated to the trends we identify, but I would argue the focus of device and software design is inevitably moving towards enhancing the end-user experience because these trends in efficiency are allowing ever more mobile devices to serve people’s immediate needs in an ever more personal way.

How will this affect programmers?
by Anonymous

When we eventually hit the physical limits of atoms, will programmers eventually stop their autistic quest for more and more layers, more and more complexity and more and more languages to move a number from one address to another?

How will programmers affect this?
by skids

While sarcastic, the above question is an important one: as computing power has increased, the tendency of coders to just ride over badly coded underlayers rather than redesign them competently and efficiently has increased. Why bother cutting out bloat that causes an 80% penalty on system efficiency when you can just use a more efficient chipset to get the same result?

So my question is whether you have put any thought into similarly quantifying the opposing software bloat factor, and what he sees the total balance of system works out to.

JK: Software bloat is a real issue, and I agree with your analysis that the ever-improving hardware picture has allowed poor coding practices to continue. But with the shift to multicore, there’s been at least some burden on programmers to change their ways—they have to modify their code to take advantage of multicore performance, so their skills are actually needed to capture increased performance (which is new, or at least a throwback to the early days of computing, when the programmers had so few hardware resources to work with that they had to be extremely parsimonious in their coding).

In the paper, we write:

Whether performance per CPU can grow for many years more at the historical pace is an ongoing subject of debate in the computer industry (Bohr 2007), but near-term improvements are already “in the pipeline”. Continuing the historical trends in performance (or surpassing them) is at this juncture dependent on significant new innovation comparable in scale to the shift from single core to multi-core computing. Such innovation will also require substantial changes in software design (Asanovíc et al. 2006), which is a relatively new development for the IT industry and it is another reason why whole system redesign is so critical to success.

This really doesn’t address the serious issue you raise about bloatware, which I think is a generic problem that other people more skilled in software design than me can address much better than I can. It’s hard to quantify it because it is so situation specific, but someone at a university somewhere may have tried to do this—I just don’t know.

Applied to Other Kinds of Computing?
by Anonymous

How well does Koomey's Law fit other kinds of computing? For instance, has the energy efficiency of cell phone microprocessors followed the same trend as desktop computers and servers? What about embedded systems like routers and car engine controllers, or specialized hardware like game consoles?

JK: These are all excellent questions (which we raise in the article) and I’m actively seeking data, but I don’t have anything new to report on this yet. I’m also interested in trends in data transmission power efficiencies, because that’s a key limitation on these mobile devices. And I’m digging around for battery capacity data over time as well.

Moral/Ethical
by vlm

Here is the list of moral / ethical arguments about the path we're on, as seen in your law. You saw the path clearly enough to define a time based law. Are there any issues I'm not seeing on our current path?

1) Lower energy consumption at point of use
2) Higher energy consumption at manufacturing point
3) faster cpu = bigger programs = more bugs = lower quality of life
4) faster cpu = stronger DRM possibilities
5) Better processing * battery life = better medical devices
6) Better processing * battery life = better 1984 style totalitarian devices
7) Lower energy consumption = less air conditioning demand = decreasing average latitude of data centers = population shifts or whatever or something?
8) More money required for both hw and sw development = good for big corps and bad for the little guy

JK: Hmmm, I’m not quite sure where you are going with this. There are pluses and minuses to all technological innovations, but I’m pretty sure the benefits will outweigh the costs in this case (as long as we put proper restraints on how collected data can be accessed by the authorities).

Batter Capacity vs. Processor Speed
by vlm

Have you run into a law relating battery capacity (either per Kg or L) vs processor speed over time? I bet there is some kind of interesting curve for mobile devices. Or, maybe not — that’s why I'm asking a guy with previous success at data analysis in a closely related field...

JK: Great questions. I haven’t seen any quantitative regularity in how battery power densities vary over time, but am actively looking for data. I hope to have something to report about that (along with the other trends I’m investigating, as I describe above). If you know of any good data sources, please let me know.

Queen of Hearts
by Anonymous

What do you think about the following observation: that every X years the amount of computing operations we use to perform basic calculations doubles (by virtue of doing those calculations with more complex software, slower languages...), so when you factor in Moore's law (and your own), the amount of useful calculations we do with computers remain more or less constant.

JK: This is related to the bloatware question above. I haven’t seen any quantitative estimates of the real cost from bloatware, but computing is becoming more widely distributed throughout the society, and it’s hard to believe that will the proliferation of more and more mobile devices and all the chips now incorporated in embedded systems that we’re doing less useful computing work than in the past. Some folks have tried to quantify total computational work being done, but it’s hard to do: Hilbert, Martin, and Priscila López. 2011. "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information." Science. vol. 332, no. 6025. April 1. pp. 60-65

Feynman Quote
by yakolev

Mr. Koomey, if we take your numbers from the attached article, which may not have been quoted correctly

Feynman indicated that there was approximately 100 billion times efficiency improvement possible, and 40,000 times improvement has happened so far.

If we take Feynman's number at face value, this means that if computing efficiency improvements continue at the current rate (doubling every 18 months,) we will reach the theoretical maximum in 2043.

Based on that, do you believe that we will see a dramatic reduction in efficiency improvements in the next 10-20 years as we approach the theoretical limit, or do you think Feynman was conservative in his estimate?

JK: Your math is correct, as is the quotation of those numbers. If computing efficiency doubles every 1.5 years, it will take 21.3 doublings before we reach the theoretical limits identified by Feynman, which means will hit that limit in 32 years (i.e. in 2043).

Here’s what Feynman had to say in the book I cited:

Of course there is a limitation, the practical limitation anyway, that the bits must be of the size of an atom and a transistor 3 or 4 atoms; the quantum mechanical gate I used has 3 atoms. (I would not try to write my bits on to nuclei, I’ll wait till the technological development reaches the atoms before I need to go any further!) That leads us just with (a) the limitations in size to the size of atoms, (b) the energy requirements depending on the time as worked out by Bennett, (c) and the feature that I did not mention concerning the speed of light; we can’t send the signals any faster than the speed of light. Those are the only physical limitations that I know on computers.

If we make an atomic size computer, somehow, it would mean that the dimension, the linear dimension is a thousand to ten thousands times smaller than those very tiny chips that we have now. It means that the volume of the computer is 100 billionth, 1011 of the present volume, because the transistor is that much smaller 1011 , than the transistors that we make today. The energy requirement for a single switch is also about eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the energy required to switch the transistor today, and the time to make the transitions will be at least ten thousands times faster per step of calculation. So there is plenty of room for improvement in the computer and I leave you, practical people who work on computers, this as an aim to get to. (Feynman, Richard P. 2001. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. London, UK: Penguin Books.)

So the calculation Feynman did was based on a transistor using just three atoms. In theory, one could use individual nuclei (as Feynman suggests) or there may be another as yet totally unknown way to crack this nut. But using Feynman’s calculation as the ultimate limit, in about three decades (and probably before that) we’re going to hit some kind of limit using our current methods.

But even given that, we’ve got at least another decade of improvements (that’s what my friends at Intel tell me) and probably more. Every decade means a factor of 100 improvement in the power efficiency of computing (doubling every 1.5 years) but there are also vast improvements we can make in our software as well as our implementation of power savings in the standby power of these devices (which turns out to be a much bigger power drain than the active power, given that almost all computers have very low average utilization). Hitting these limits may actually force the software designers to get more efficient (we’ll see!). And we’re just at the beginning of using the technologies enabled by these trends to accomplish human goals, so I’m hopeful we’ll be clever and figure out loads of important applications that will become possible with a factor of 100 or 1000 improvements in efficiency over the next 15 years.

Haven`t we already fallen behind?
by Anonymous

The Pentium M (which is powering the computer that I`m using to type this) came out eight years ago. Let`s call it 7.5 and make our "Koomey factor" 2^5=32. The ULV chip ran at 1.1GHz and ate 6.4W, and we can add on the power of the 855PM northbridge which would make the total 8.2W. I don`t see any products on the market that are anywhere close to a 32x improvement on performance per watt. Do you?

JK: Our focus is on system power, not chip power alone. And you need to calculate what your current system is capable of in computations per kWh (which you can calculate from performance per watt) so you can compare to our numbers. But I’ll wager that the current crop of laptops (or the new Mac Mini) will blow away your old machine in terms of computations per kWh at maximum performance (which is what we measure).

A couple weeks ago, you asked questions of Stanford professor Jonathan Koomey about what has been dubbed Koomey's Law — the idea that the energy efficiency of computing doubles every 1.5 years. Read on for Professor Koomey's answers to the questions you raised. What makes this a non-trivial extension?
by Anonymous

What makes your law a non-trivial extension of Moore's Law, which states that the transistor count would double every 18 months due to an increase in density? E&M theory states that if you cut a wire's length in half, it's resistance cuts in half. Granted density in this case is a 2 dimensional expansion and wire resistance is a 1 dimensional formula, but what makes this different from what a freshman in college can infer from an R = (resistivity * length)/cross sectional area?

Jonathan Koomey: First, it’s important to note that we assessed these trends empirically, using measured power data for each computer system in our dataset, and it’s often valuable to confirm with actual measurements what theory implies. Just because the result sounds intuitive to you after the fact doesn’t mean that it isn’t valuable to confirm with real data that the trends actually exist. And of course we discuss in the paper the driving forces behind the reductions in power use per logical switch (and they involve more than just reductions in I squared R losses in the wires). I’ve pasted below two relevant paragraphs from the article:

For vacuum tube computers, both computational speed and reliability issues encouraged computer designers to reduce power use. Heat reduces reliability, which was a major issue for tube-based computers. In addition, increasing computation speeds went hand in hand with technological changes (like reduced capacitive loading, lower currents, and smaller tubes) that also reduced power use. And the economics of operating a tube-based computer led to pressure to reduce power use, although this issue was probably a secondary one in the early days of electronic computing.

For transistorized and microprocessor based computers, the driving factor for power reductions was (and is) the push to reduce the physical dimensions of transistors, which reduces the cost per transistor. In order to accomplish this goal, power used per transistor also must be reduced; otherwise the power densities on the silicon rapidly become unmanageable. Per transistor power use is directly proportional to the length of the transistor between source and drain, the ratio of transistor length to mean free path of the electrons, and the total number of electrons in the operating transistor, as Feynman (2001) pointed out. Shrinking transistor size therefore resulted in improved speed, reduced cost, and reduced power use per transistor (see also Bohr (2007) and Carver Mead’s thinking in the late 1960s, as summarized in Brock (2006, pp. 98-100)).

In addition, the fact that the trends have now been confirmed empirically means that people can get on with considering the implications of these trends, which I think are under-appreciated. The idea that we’ll be able to use ever more efficient computing technology in distributed applications will revolutionize data collection, communications, and control of processes, and people are only now starting to think about what may become possible.

As one of many examples showing the potential of ultra low power computing, consider the wireless no-battery sensors created by Joshua R. Smith of Intel and the University of Washington (coverage in the NY Times and the Economist). These sensors scavenge energy from stray television and radio signals, and they use so little power (60 microwatts in this example) that they don’t need any other power source. Stray light, motion, or heat can also be converted to meet slightly higher power needs, perhaps measured in milliwatts. The contours of this exciting design space are only beginning to be explored, and they are enabled by the trends identified in our paper.

I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of a shift in industry focus from raw performance to power efficiency for mobile devices. Some of the best engineers will be drawn to the problems of ultra low power computing in the same way as they’ve were drawn to high performance computing (HPC) in the past (no doubt terrific technologists will also continue to focus on HPC, but anytime a new hot area opens up there’s a migration of talent to that new topic).

Finally, I would add that the truly unexpected result was that the trend in computational efficiency extends for a longer period than Moore’s law, all the way back to Eniac in 1946. So these trends in computational efficiency are an inherent characteristic of computers that use electrons for switching, and are not limited to the microprocessor era. I, for one, did not expect that.

Your Take on Futurists?
by eldavojohn

What is your take on the interpretation of Futurists -- like Raymond Kurzweil -- in regards to extrapolating these 'laws' out to extreme distances?

JK: The physicist Neils Bohr once famously said “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” It’s important to be careful in making long-term extrapolations, even if some technological trend has continued for some time. I think it’s fair to say that Moore’s law (and the trends in computational efficiency we identify) have more years to run, given how far we are from theoretical limits, but exactly when we’ll hit a real roadblock it will take someone more brash than me to say. I discuss the theoretical limit based on Feynman’s calculations below, and we will eventually reach that, but there may be ways to sidestep those limits. We’ll have to see how clever we can be!

Lets work this backwards ...
by PPH

... and see where the Babbage Engine fits on the curve.

JK: Since the Babbage engine never operated, I’m not sure how we could do this. I believe that some parts of the engine have been created using modern machining practices, but I don’t think anyone has ever made one in complete form. If someone has, I’d be interested to measure its electricity use and estimate its performance (of course, it was designed before the era of electricity). Nordhaus (2007) reports that

Early calculators were “dumb” machines that essentially relied on incrementation of digits. An important step in the development of modern computers was mechanical representation of logical steps. The first commercially practical information-processing machine was the Jacquard loom, developed in 1804. This machine used interchangeable punched cards that controlled the weaving and allowed a large variety of patterns to be produced automatically. This invention was part of the inspiration of Charles Babbage, who developed one of the great precursor inventions in computation. He designed two major conceptual breakthroughs, the “Difference Engine” and the “Analytical Engine.” The latter sketched the first programmable digital computer. Neither of the Babbage machines was constructed during his lifetime. An attempt in the 1990s by the British Museum to build the simpler Difference Engine using early-nineteenth-century technologies failed to perform its designed tasks. (reference: Swade, Doron. The Difference Engine. New York: Viking Press, 2000.)

Nordhaus, William D. 2007. "Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing." The Journal of Economic History. vol. 67, no. 1. March. pp. 128-159. [http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/recent_stuff.html]

Nordhaus does attempt to estimate the speed of computation possible by hand calculations as well as abacuses, to compare to more automatic methods.

Infinity w/ reversible computing?
by DriedClexler

This one doesn't seem to have fundamental physical limits, so long as we eventually transition to reversible computing, in which the computer does not use up useful energy because every process it uses is fully reversible (i.e. the original state could be inferred).

All the limits on computation (except regarding storage) that you hear about (e.g. Landauer limit) are on irreversible computing, which is how current architecture works. It is the irreversibility of an operation that causes it to increase entropy.

Could the whole process be bypassed by the near-infinite efficiency of reversible computers?

JK:Here’s the flip answer: Only if you can afford to wait infinitely long for your answer.

Here’s the more serious answer: in principle, reversible computing could have a revolutionary impact, if we could figure out how to do it, and some folks are working on this. But I haven’t seen any near term applications of such devices—if you know of any, please let me know.

Multicore or System on a Chip Speed bumps?
by eldavojohn

A lot of consumer grade machines have begun focusing on multicore chips with a lower frequency to provide the same or better perceived computing performance than a high frequency single core chip. What happens when a technology like this subverts our craving for higher transistor density? Can you argue that your "law" is immune to researchers focusing on some hot new technology like a thousand core processor or a beefed up system on a chip in order to improve end user experience over pure algorithm crunching speed?

JK: First, I would call it (like Moore implied in his own papers) an empirical observation rather than a law.

But in any case, I don’t think that the transition to multicore has “subverted our craving for higher transistor density,” we’re just using the transistors in a different way. The density of chips (measured in components per square centimeter or equivalent metric) will continue to increase, it’s just that the scaling of clock speeds that drove performance increases for so long is no longer possible (mainly because of high leakage currents inside the chip). So that means we need to make many cores and then modify software to capture that performance.

At the end of the day, WHAT you choose to do with the computing power is unrelated to the trends we identify, but I would argue the focus of device and software design is inevitably moving towards enhancing the end-user experience because these trends in efficiency are allowing ever more mobile devices to serve people’s immediate needs in an ever more personal way.

How will this affect programmers?
by Anonymous

When we eventually hit the physical limits of atoms, will programmers eventually stop their autistic quest for more and more layers, more and more complexity and more and more languages to move a number from one address to another?

How will programmers affect this?
by skids

While sarcastic, the above question is an important one: as computing power has increased, the tendency of coders to just ride over badly coded underlayers rather than redesign them competently and efficiently has increased. Why bother cutting out bloat that causes an 80% penalty on system efficiency when you can just use a more efficient chipset to get the same result?

So my question is whether you have put any thought into similarly quantifying the opposing software bloat factor, and what he sees the total balance of system works out to.

JK: Software bloat is a real issue, and I agree with your analysis that the ever-improving hardware picture has allowed poor coding practices to continue. But with the shift to multicore, there’s been at least some burden on programmers to change their ways—they have to modify their code to take advantage of multicore performance, so their skills are actually needed to capture increased performance (which is new, or at least a throwback to the early days of computing, when the programmers had so few hardware resources to work with that they had to be extremely parsimonious in their coding).

In the paper, we write:

Whether performance per CPU can grow for many years more at the historical pace is an ongoing subject of debate in the computer industry (Bohr 2007), but near-term improvements are already “in the pipeline”. Continuing the historical trends in performance (or surpassing them) is at this juncture dependent on significant new innovation comparable in scale to the shift from single core to multi-core computing. Such innovation will also require substantial changes in software design (Asanovíc et al. 2006), which is a relatively new development for the IT industry and it is another reason why whole system redesign is so critical to success.

This really doesn’t address the serious issue you raise about bloatware, which I think is a generic problem that other people more skilled in software design than me can address much better than I can. It’s hard to quantify it because it is so situation specific, but someone at a university somewhere may have tried to do this—I just don’t know.

Applied to Other Kinds of Computing?
by Anonymous

How well does Koomey's Law fit other kinds of computing? For instance, has the energy efficiency of cell phone microprocessors followed the same trend as desktop computers and servers? What about embedded systems like routers and car engine controllers, or specialized hardware like game consoles?

JK: These are all excellent questions (which we raise in the article) and I’m actively seeking data, but I don’t have anything new to report on this yet. I’m also interested in trends in data transmission power efficiencies, because that’s a key limitation on these mobile devices. And I’m digging around for battery capacity data over time as well.

Moral/Ethical
by vlm

Here is the list of moral / ethical arguments about the path we're on, as seen in your law. You saw the path clearly enough to define a time based law. Are there any issues I'm not seeing on our current path?

1) Lower energy consumption at point of use
2) Higher energy consumption at manufacturing point
3) faster cpu = bigger programs = more bugs = lower quality of life
4) faster cpu = stronger DRM possibilities
5) Better processing * battery life = better medical devices
6) Better processing * battery life = better 1984 style totalitarian devices
7) Lower energy consumption = less air conditioning demand = decreasing average latitude of data centers = population shifts or whatever or something?
8) More money required for both hw and sw development = good for big corps and bad for the little guy

JK: Hmmm, I’m not quite sure where you are going with this. There are pluses and minuses to all technological innovations, but I’m pretty sure the benefits will outweigh the costs in this case (as long as we put proper restraints on how collected data can be accessed by the authorities).

Batter Capacity vs. Processor Speed
by vlm

Have you run into a law relating battery capacity (either per Kg or L) vs processor speed over time? I bet there is some kind of interesting curve for mobile devices. Or, maybe not — that’s why I'm asking a guy with previous success at data analysis in a closely related field...

JK: Great questions. I haven’t seen any quantitative regularity in how battery power densities vary over time, but am actively looking for data. I hope to have something to report about that (along with the other trends I’m investigating, as I describe above). If you know of any good data sources, please let me know.

Queen of Hearts
by Anonymous

What do you think about the following observation: that every X years the amount of computing operations we use to perform basic calculations doubles (by virtue of doing those calculations with more complex software, slower languages...), so when you factor in Moore's law (and your own), the amount of useful calculations we do with computers remain more or less constant.

JK: This is related to the bloatware question above. I haven’t seen any quantitative estimates of the real cost from bloatware, but computing is becoming more widely distributed throughout the society, and it’s hard to believe that will the proliferation of more and more mobile devices and all the chips now incorporated in embedded systems that we’re doing less useful computing work than in the past. Some folks have tried to quantify total computational work being done, but it’s hard to do: Hilbert, Martin, and Priscila López. 2011. "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information." Science. vol. 332, no. 6025. April 1. pp. 60-65

Feynman Quote
by yakolev

Mr. Koomey, if we take your numbers from the attached article, which may not have been quoted correctly

Feynman indicated that there was approximately 100 billion times efficiency improvement possible, and 40,000 times improvement has happened so far.

If we take Feynman's number at face value, this means that if computing efficiency improvements continue at the current rate (doubling every 18 months,) we will reach the theoretical maximum in 2043.

Based on that, do you believe that we will see a dramatic reduction in efficiency improvements in the next 10-20 years as we approach the theoretical limit, or do you think Feynman was conservative in his estimate?

JK: Your math is correct, as is the quotation of those numbers. If computing efficiency doubles every 1.5 years, it will take 21.3 doublings before we reach the theoretical limits identified by Feynman, which means will hit that limit in 32 years (i.e. in 2043).

Here’s what Feynman had to say in the book I cited:

Of course there is a limitation, the practical limitation anyway, that the bits must be of the size of an atom and a transistor 3 or 4 atoms; the quantum mechanical gate I used has 3 atoms. (I would not try to write my bits on to nuclei, I’ll wait till the technological development reaches the atoms before I need to go any further!) That leads us just with (a) the limitations in size to the size of atoms, (b) the energy requirements depending on the time as worked out by Bennett, (c) and the feature that I did not mention concerning the speed of light; we can’t send the signals any faster than the speed of light. Those are the only physical limitations that I know on computers.

If we make an atomic size computer, somehow, it would mean that the dimension, the linear dimension is a thousand to ten thousands times smaller than those very tiny chips that we have now. It means that the volume of the computer is 100 billionth, 1011 of the present volume, because the transistor is that much smaller 1011 , than the transistors that we make today. The energy requirement for a single switch is also about eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the energy required to switch the transistor today, and the time to make the transitions will be at least ten thousands times faster per step of calculation. So there is plenty of room for improvement in the computer and I leave you, practical people who work on computers, this as an aim to get to. (Feynman, Richard P. 2001. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. London, UK: Penguin Books.)

So the calculation Feynman did was based on a transistor using just three atoms. In theory, one could use individual nuclei (as Feynman suggests) or there may be another as yet totally unknown way to crack this nut. But using Feynman’s calculation as the ultimate limit, in about three decades (and probably before that) we’re going to hit some kind of limit using our current methods.

But even given that, we’ve got at least another decade of improvements (that’s what my friends at Intel tell me) and probably more. Every decade means a factor of 100 improvement in the power efficiency of computing (doubling every 1.5 years) but there are also vast improvements we can make in our software as well as our implementation of power savings in the standby power of these devices (which turns out to be a much bigger power drain than the active power, given that almost all computers have very low average utilization). Hitting these limits may actually force the software designers to get more efficient (we’ll see!). And we’re just at the beginning of using the technologies enabled by these trends to accomplish human goals, so I’m hopeful we’ll be clever and figure out loads of important applications that will become possible with a factor of 100 or 1000 improvements in efficiency over the next 15 years.

Haven`t we already fallen behind?
by Anonymous

The Pentium M (which is powering the computer that I`m using to type this) came out eight years ago. Let`s call it 7.5 and make our "Koomey factor" 2^5=32. The ULV chip ran at 1.1GHz and ate 6.4W, and we can add on the power of the 855PM northbridge which would make the total 8.2W. I don`t see any products on the market that are anywhere close to a 32x improvement on performance per watt. Do you?

JK: Our focus is on system power, not chip power alone. And you need to calculate what your current system is capable of in computations per kWh (which you can calculate from performance per watt) so you can compare to our numbers. But I’ll wager that the current crop of laptops (or the new Mac Mini) will blow away your old machine in terms of computations per kWh at maximum performance (which is what we measure).

PolygamousRanchKid writes with this quote from an article in the Economist: "The directors of Yahoo! were 'so spooked by being cast as the worst board in the country' that they fired Carol Bartz as chief executive 'to show that they're not the doofuses that they are.' That was Ms Bartz's typically blunt verdict, offered to Fortune after she was dismissed with a phone call by the internet firm's chairman, Roy Bostock, on September 6th. She would say that. Yet Ms Bartz's criticisms of the board have been sympathetically received. Firing a chief executive by phone smacks of hasty, panicky decision-making. And Yahoo!'s board already had a poor reputation, having turned down an offer from Microsoft that valued the firm at several times what it is worth today. It is not just Yahoo!'s board that is feeling the heat. The directors of HP, another stumbling Silicon Valley giant, have been accused of serial ineptitude spanning the appointment and dismissal of Carly Fiorina as chief executive, the firing of her successor, Mark Hurd, and the selection of his replacement, Léo Apotheker. ... There is growing demand for boards to undergo a formal evaluation process, to assess both the performance of each individual board member and how they work together as a group. The European Union is considering new regulations that would require an independent evaluation of the board every three years."

Hitting the front page for the first time, rippeltippel writes "The Economist recently published an article about HP quitting the tablet market. Nothing new I said, until I read 'the announcement showed that the firm had finally seen the light about the tablet market — namely, that there is no such thing.' But are the games closed with the iPad as a clear winner? Possibly not: 'hackers have embraced the Nook, "rooting" its underlying Linux software ... so it can run many more applications from Google's online app store and elsewhere.' A review on Amazon's Kindle tablet page reads: 'They've cracked it — this is the future.' Can it possibly be read as 'Crackable tablets are the future of tablets?'" Smartphone vendors seem to have gotten the message: users want to control the software on their phones. It is a shame that Palm/HP, who were one of the only vendors open from the start, more or less lost the game. Unfortunately it seems that tablet and ebook reader vendors have yet to get the message.

PHPNerd writes "You might expect that science, particularly American science, would be color-blind. Though fewer people from some of the country's ethnic minorities are scientists than the proportions of those minorities in the population suggest should be the case, once someone has got bench space in a laboratory, he might reasonably expect to be treated on merit and nothing else. Unfortunately, a study just published in Science suggests that is not true. The study looked at the pattern of research grants awarded by the NIH and found that race matters a lot. Moreover, Asian and Hispanic scientists do just as well as white ones. Black scientists, however, fare badly."

An anonymous reader writes in with an opinion piece in the Economist about the the effects of patent trolling on the US economy. The author argues that the U.S. patent regime is causing the U.S. essentially to harm itself. Things have gotten so bad that paying for protection is par for the course.

The Hub writes "The Economist writes a thoughtful article about the next generation of HDTVs and how they will provide resolutions beyond 1080p. The drive for higher resolution is driven in part by the demands of 3D content. Also, some see streaming higher resolution content to the home as a way to make up for declining DVD sales. This would mean the studios would have to better embrace services such as Netflix or stream directly to the consumer. Mind you, picture quality is driven by more than the number of pixels."

Old Wolf writes "A New Zealand evolutionary psychologist, Quentin Atkinson, has created a scientific sensation by claiming to have discovered the mother of all mother tongues. 'Dr Atkinson took 504 languages and plotted the number of phonemes in each (corrected for recent population growth, when significant) against the distance between the place where the language is spoken and 2,500 putative points of origin, scattered across the world (abstract). The relationship that emerges suggests the actual point of origin is in central or southern Africa, and that all modern languages do, indeed, have a common root." Reader NotSanguine points out another study which challenges the idea that the brain is more important to the structure of language than cultural evolution.

ecesar writes "The Economist is reporting on a recent paper published in the Public Library of Science, which suggests there might be at least one other, previously hidden, domain of life (besides eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). Using DNA sequence data generated directly from environmental samples, the authors found sequences not yet seen in any cultured organism."

An anonymous reader points out a short article at The Economist, which says "Savvy techies are finding ways to circumvent politically motivated shutdowns of the internet. Various groups around the world are using creative means like multi-directional mobile phone antennae and even microwave ovens to transmit internet traffic accross international borders."

An AC writes "Mathematicians invented a new method to can and bottle stout beers like Guinness while still getting that satisfying head. From the article: '... a crack group of mathematicians from the University of Limerick, led by William Lee, has modeled bubble formation in stout beers in detail. Their work suggests that lining the rims of cans and bottles with a material similar to an ordinary coffee filter would be a simpler, cheaper alternative to the widget. The team’s calculations show that a copious number of bubbles would form from air trapped inside the hollow fibers making up this lining. They have just submitted their work for publication in Physical Review E and are hoping that industry will soon begin testing their proposal.'"

hessian writes "As technology advances, the rewards to cleverness increase. Computers have hugely increased the availability of information, raising the demand for those sharp enough to make sense of it. In 1991 the average wage for a male American worker with a bachelor's degree was 2.5 times that of a high-school drop-out; now the ratio is 3. Cognitive skills are at a premium, and they are unevenly distributed."

doperative writes "Much conventional wisdom about programs written by volunteers is wrong. The authors took money for research from Microsoft, long the archenemy of the open-source movement — although they assure readers that the funds came with no strings attached. Free programs are not always cheaper. To be sure, the upfront cost of proprietary software is higher (although open-source programs are not always free). But companies that use such programs spend more on such things as learning to use them and making them work with other software"

An anonymous reader writes "Hungary is set to regulate the media, including web-published content, under a new law applicable today. The law requires all the media to provide a 'balanced view' and must not go against 'public morality,' and places all publications under the control of a new regulating body, whose top members have all been nominated by Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Orban, whose strong ways have been compared to Putin's, has been tightening his grip over Hungary. 'In the seven months since Orban came to power with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, he has implemented retroactive taxes in violation of the constitution, curbed the Constitutional Court's power, effectively nationalized private pension funds and put ruling-party allies in charge of at least four independent institutions, including the audit office.' Citizens sentenced in application of the new law can still challenge it at the European Court of Human Rights — see you in a few years."

A number of readers are sending in links related to Anonymous, the Internet phenomenon — don't call them a group — behind the controversial DDoS attacks on commercial entities that fail to support WikiLeaks. The best insight into Anonymous comes from the Economist's Babbage blogger, who hung out in one of their IRC channels. Reader nk497 points out that UK users looking to join Anonymous's DDoS army should be aware they could face a jail term of up to two years; simply downloading the LOIC software used in the DDoSing could suffice to earn a conviction. One 16-year-old has been arrested in The Netherlands and is charged with participating in the DDoS. Reader ancientribe sends in coverage of a claim by one security outfit that several existing criminal botnets have joined forces with Anonymous's Operation: Payback. And reader Stoobalou notes a Thinq.co.uk story on a manifesto of sorts that purports to come from "ANON OPS," even though Anonymous disclaims any central spokesperson or entity (press release here, PDF).

explosivejared writes "The Economist has a story on the increasing scientific productivity of countries like China, India, and Brazil relative to the field's old guards in America, Europe, and Japan. Scientific productivity in this sense includes percent of GDP spent on R&D and the overall numbers of researchers, scholarly articles, and patents that a country produces. The article notes increasing levels of international collaboration on scholarly scientific articles in leading journals. From the article: '[M]ore than 35% of articles in leading journals are now the product of international collaboration. That is up from 25% 15 years ago — something the old regime and the new alike can celebrate.'" Note that the "old guard" are still firmly in the lead on these measures of scientific prowess, but the growth rate is higher in the newcomer states.

conel writes "The Economist has a knowledgeable mainstream take on the restrictions publishers are forcing on e-books. From the article: 'They wish you to engage in two separate hallucinations. First, that their limited license to read a work on a device or within software of their choosing is equivalent to the purchase of a physical item. Second, that the vast majority of e-books are persistent objects rather than disposable culture. ... Just as with music, DRM will be cracked. As more people possess portable reading devices, the demand and availability for pirated content will also rise. (Many popular e-books can now be found easily on file-sharing sites, something that was not the case even a few months ago, as Adrian Hon recently pointed out.)"

Algorithmnast writes "The Economist has a short article on using big, slow-moving airships to move large objects without the need to dismantle them. The company mentioned, Skylifter, refers to the lifting ship as an 'aerial crane,' not a Thor weapon. It could easily help move research labs to new parts of the Antarctic, or allow a Solar Tower to be inserted into an area that's difficult to drive to, such as a mesa in New Mexico."

grcumb writes "The Economist magazine is running a brief profile of Digicel, a 'minnow' in the wireless telecoms market that has distinguished itself by setting up shop in some of the most unlikely (and dangerous) markets in the world, including Haiti and Papua New Guinea, whose capital, Port Moresby, has one of the highest murder rates in the world."

theodp writes "Network analysis uses data about your social network interactions to make assumptions and predictions about your behavior. The Economist notes the upside for companies looking to sell products. But don't forget about the downside, warns Adrian Chen, of living in a world where network analysis is used by financial firms to determine risky borrowers by looking at social ties, or by Internet businesses to determine which customers are more equal than others (nice to see Microsoft's back on the forefront of some tech!). So, did Mom envision Social Network Analytics when she gave you that you-are-the-company-you-keep lecture?"

An anonymous reader writes "From optimizing truck delivery routes to inspiring nerve-cell-based cognition models, ant intelligence has arrived. From the Economist: 'In 1992 Dr. Dorigo and his group began developing Ant Colony Optimisation (ACO), an algorithm that looks for solutions to a problem by simulating a group of ants wandering over an area and laying down pheromones. ACO proved good at solving travelling-salesman-type problems. Since then it has grown into a whole family of algorithms, which have been applied to many practical questions. ... Ant-like algorithms have also been applied to the problem of routing information through communication networks. Dr. Dorigo and Gianni Di Caro, another researcher at IDSIA, have developed AntNet, a routing protocol in which packets of information hop from node to node, leaving a trace that signals the "quality" of their trip as they do so. Other packets sniff the trails thus created and choose accordingly. In computer simulations and tests on small-scale networks, AntNet has been shown to outperform existing routing protocols."

Sri.Theo writes in with news of Dell's humbling settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The core of the complaint is that Dell took secret payments from Intel to keep AMD's chips out of Dell's machines. The SEC calls it "accounting irregularities" — Dell was dipping into this secret slush fund to bolster its results, quarter by quarter. At one point the payments from Intel made up 76% of Dell's quarterly operating income. "For years, Dell's seemingly magical power to squeeze efficiencies out of its supply chain and drive down costs made it a darling of the financial markets. Now it appears that the magic was at least partly the result of a huge financial illusion. ... According to the commission, Dell would have missed analysts' earnings expectations in every quarter between 2002 and 2006 were it not for accounting shenanigans. ... (Intel is expected to settle a long-running anti-trust case that has highlighted these payments in the next couple of weeks.) ... Michael Dell... and Kevin Rollins, a former boss of the company, agreed to each pay a $4m penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations."

Nicola Hahn writes "The inevitable occurred this week as The Economist broached the topic of cyberwar with a couple of articles in its July 3rd issue. The first article concludes that 'countries should agree on more modest accords, or even just informal "rules of the road" that would raise the political cost of cyber-attacks.' It also makes vague references to 'greater co-operation between governments and the private sector.' When attribution is a lost cause (and it is), international treaties are meaningless because there's no way to determine if a participant has broken them. The second recommendation is even more alarming because it's using a loaded phrase that, in the past couple of years, has been wielded by those who advocate Orwellian solutions. The other article is a morass of conflicting messages. It presumes to focus on cyberwar, yet the bulk of the material deals with cybercrime and run-of-the-mill espionage. Then there's also the standard ploy of hypothetical scenarios: depicting how we might be attacked and what the potential outcome of these attacks could be. The author concludes with the ominous warning that terrorists 'prefer the gory theatre of suicide-bombings to the anonymity of computer sabotage — for now.' What's truly disturbing is that The Economist never goes beyond a superficial analysis of the topic to examine what's driving all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (PDF), a subject dealt with in this Lockdown 2010 white paper."

Nicola Hahn writes "The inevitable occurred this week as The Economist broached the topic of cyberwar with a couple of articles in its July 3rd issue. The first article concludes that 'countries should agree on more modest accords, or even just informal "rules of the road" that would raise the political cost of cyber-attacks.' It also makes vague references to 'greater co-operation between governments and the private sector.' When attribution is a lost cause (and it is), international treaties are meaningless because there's no way to determine if a participant has broken them. The second recommendation is even more alarming because it's using a loaded phrase that, in the past couple of years, has been wielded by those who advocate Orwellian solutions. The other article is a morass of conflicting messages. It presumes to focus on cyberwar, yet the bulk of the material deals with cybercrime and run-of-the-mill espionage. Then there's also the standard ploy of hypothetical scenarios: depicting how we might be attacked and what the potential outcome of these attacks could be. The author concludes with the ominous warning that terrorists 'prefer the gory theatre of suicide-bombings to the anonymity of computer sabotage — for now.' What's truly disturbing is that The Economist never goes beyond a superficial analysis of the topic to examine what's driving all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (PDF), a subject dealt with in this Lockdown 2010 white paper."

An anonymous reader writes, "The Economist's Gulliver reports on a story in Nature that questions the current airport security regimen," excerpting: "Over the past four years, some 3,000 officers in America's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have been specially trained to spot potential terrorists at airports. The programme, known as SPOT, for Screening Passengers by Observation Technique, is intended to allow airport security officers to use tiny facial cues to identify people who are acting suspiciously. The British government is currently launching a new screening regime modelled on the Americans' SPOT. There's just one problem with all this: there's no evidence that SPOT is actually effective. The whole thing is mostly based on pseudoscience, Sharon Weinberger reports in Nature." Happily, Nature's original article is available in full, rather than paywalled.

Socguy writes "With the announcement earlier this week that a team of researchers has created the first artificial life, The Economist has been pondering the implications of what this brave new frontier means when the power to build living organisms filters through to anyone with a laptop. Traditional methods of restricting and regulating dangerous technology have more or less worked so far, but The Economist thinks that this time may be different. They are calling for an open system where the 'good guys' can see and counter any dangerous organisms that are released, accidentally or otherwise."

Rambo Tribble writes "As this story in the Economist notes, Apple's policies regarding international sales are often confusing and outdated. Apparently, Apple either hasn't been aware of political and social changes in the world over the last 20 years, or doesn't wish to acknowledge them." Soulskill rightly notes that at least some of the complained-about policies boil down to Apple's adherence to local copyright and licensing laws.

lxmota writes "The Economist says that long copyright terms are hindering creativity, and that shortening them is the way to go: 'Largely thanks to the entertainment industry's lawyers and lobbyists, copyright's scope and duration have vastly increased. In America, copyright holders get 95 years' protection as a result of an extension granted in 1998, derided by critics as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." They are now calling for even greater protection, and there have been efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe. Such arguments should be resisted: it is time to tip the balance back.'"

Deep Penguin sends in a piece that appeared in The Economist a couple of weeks back about a developing technology to "print" body parts for transplant. "A US and an Australian company have developed the $200,000 machine, which works by depositing stem cells and a 'sugar-based hydrogel' scaffolding material. (The stem cells are harvested from a transplant patient's own fat and bone marrow, to avoid rejection down the line.) The companies are Organovo, from San Diego, specializing in regenerative medicine, and Invetech, an engineering and automation firm in Melbourne, Australia. The initial targets are skin, muscle, and 'short stretches of blood vessels,' which they hope to have available for human implantation within five years. Down the line, they expect the technology could even print directly into the body, bypassing the in-vitro portion of the current process."