Slashdot Mirror


'Breakthrough' LI-RAM Material Can Store Data With Light (ctvnews.ca)

A Vancouver researcher has patented a new material that uses light instead of electricity to store data. An anonymous reader writes: LI-RAM -- that's light induced magnetoresistive random-access memory -- promises supercomputer speeds for your cellphones and laptops, according to Natia Frank, the materials scientist at the University of Victoria who developed the new material as part of an international effort to reduce the heat and power consumption of modern processors. She envisions a world of LI-RAM mobile devices which are faster, thinner, and able to hold much more data -- all while consuming less power and producing less heat.

And best of all, they'd last twice as long on a single charge (while producing almost no heat), according to a report on CTV News, which describes this as "a breakthrough material" that will not only make smartphones faster and more durable, but also more energy-efficient. The University of Victoria calculates that's 10% of the world's electricity is consumed by "information communications technology," so LI-RAM phones could conceivably cut that figure in half.

They also report that the researcher is "working with international electronics manufacturers to optimize and commercialize the technology, and says it could be available on the market in the next 10 years."

104 comments

  1. So, the opposite of a dark sucker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because we all know there's no such thing as "light".

  2. 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory XKCD is obligatory :D

    1. Re:10 years by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently it wasn'tt obligatory enough for you to make a proper link

    2. Re:10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, will be late then. In 10 years with nuclear fusion and wireless energy transmission we won't need to be stingy anymore, isn't it?

    3. Re: 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the flying cars and teleportation systems will take a lot of energy. I know fusion provides a lot, but will it be enough to power these?

    4. Re:10 years by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Bah, will be late then. In 10 years with nuclear fusion and wireless energy transmission we won't need to be stingy anymore, isn't it?

      10 years? We'll have hit the singularity by then and transcended.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re: 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More like hit the singularity and be extinct lol

    6. Re: 10 years by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Why? Consider there are numerous forms of life on this planet... it is evident that the more intelligent species can coexist with the lesser.

      There is no reason to presume that the singularity would represent humanity's extinction.

    7. Re: 10 years by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      How many other groups of Homo (like neanderthals) are left? Perhaps there can only be one intelligent species due to competition.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    8. Re: 10 years by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Perhaps... but I think it is unlikely that singularity level AI and humans would be competing for the same sorts of things, so I don' t think that would apply.

  3. Nah by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe it's because I'm turning 50 this year, but I simply don't believe it.

    At a certain point I suspect "fantastic claim" fatigue has to set in, where you've heard so many promising concepts but watched the huge majority founder on realities of cost, industrial scaling, or unforseen complications.

    The fact that they say it might make it to the market in ten years means it's barely more than a tenuous idea right now, and frankly probably not even worth reporting on. The hyperbolic claims by the inventor make it even less credible, while the nonsensical reporting (implying that such devices would actually run only in light) is idiotic.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of the hype is coming from the ctv analyst.. I would suggest using the error reporting feature on tfa

    2. Re:Nah by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The stupid summary leaps to the absurd conclusion that mobiles represent 100% of the power consumption made by ALL IT equipment. I'm pretty sure it's actually more like 1%; perhaps less.

    3. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI and lithium ion battery breakthroughs.... just around the corner! Only several more decades! Get excited!

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4. Re:Nah by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the technology news/pr machine. I think we've had "breakthroughs" like this for ages, but what we didn't have for most of the time was a relentless, hype-oriented technology "press" that made us aware of them, and also spun them up into the next big thing. They were what they were, quiet little advancements that might or might not ever see the light of the day.

    5. Re:Nah by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because I'm turning 50 this year, but I simply don't believe it.

      At a certain point I suspect "fantastic claim" fatigue has to set in, where you've heard so many promising concepts but watched the huge majority founder on realities of cost, industrial scaling, or unforseen complications.

      The fact that they say it might make it to the market in ten years means it's barely more than a tenuous idea right now, and frankly probably not even worth reporting on. The hyperbolic claims by the inventor make it even less credible, while the nonsensical reporting (implying that such devices would actually run only in light) is idiotic.

      Came here to post exactly this, I don't even have anything to add. Well done!

    6. Re:Nah by Cytotoxic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah.... 5 years out for a tech claim means "we have a bit of experimental data that shows something might work. (Please fund me)".

      10 years out in the tech world means "this is wild speculation and might never even become a technical demonstration. (Please fund my startup)"

    7. Re:Nah by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Amen

    8. Re:Nah by WalrusSlayer · · Score: 2

      Can't add much more, other than it's interesting that nowadays the headlines are made by talking about how much these currently-in-the-vaporware-stage technologies will affect phones. Ten years ago it would have been all about how much better the PC's and laptops would get.

    9. Re:Nah by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Science/Technology journalists frequently turn the hype up to 11 just like sports commentators.
      It may be a bit hard for you to notice since so much tech has a 20 year lead time or more from journal article to product but a lot of the stuff we take for granted now was once those "fantastic claims". If you'd shown me white LEDs and the lithium batteries of today in 1980 they would have looked like "fantastic claims" to me.

    10. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things they never mention: what material are such things made of, and what is their cost? On silicon, the costs have been driven down to the lowest imaginable, but that's not likely to be true about any new materials involved - unless it's something like graphene.

    11. Re:Nah by swell · · Score: 2

      "The fact that they say it might make it to the market in ten years means it's barely more than a tenuous idea right now ..."

      Yeah, and those dang 'horseless carriages' are another waste of time. What a stupid idea! Noisy stinky unreliable contraption that can't go faster than a mule.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    12. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the real culprit is proprietism. Things don't see the "light of day" because some greedy fuckwad wants to own it. So many great inventions get snuffed by someone trying to enforce false scarcity on the world for a profit.

    13. Re:Nah by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you tell em! AI is never going to amount to anything, and batteries haven't changed in decades!

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pull out my phone with a 3200 mAh battery the size of a couple-millimeter-thick business card and tell Google Photos to search through my thousands of unlabeled photos to show me just those that contain pictures of an arbitrary object.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    14. Re:Nah by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      ...to show me just those that contain pictures of an arbitrary object.

      You don't need very advanced AI to show pictures of arbitrary objects, though.

    15. Re:Nah by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      You fell into the common myth that because cell phones are small, everything must be possible. Image recognition is not AI either.

    16. Re: Nah by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but the person gave two examples, both of which *have* undergone major advances and made their way into our everyday lives. And if neural nets (what drives the image recognition) aren't from AI research then what are they from?

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    17. Re:Nah by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Image recognition is not AI either.

      Correct, AI is that whatever is not yet possible.

    18. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why old people don't make change and young people do. Young people don't realize how stupid they're being until bam! Li-RAM actually works.

      It's ok - circle of life and all. Let the young people go for it. Some of it will work.

    19. Re:Nah by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah.... 5 years out for a tech claim means "we have a bit of experimental data that shows something might work. (Please fund me)".

      10 years out in the tech world means "this is wild speculation and might never even become a technical demonstration. (Please fund my startup)"

      So, what's your solution? For all of the whining and moaning, and hand wringing, it seems that the answer for so many slashdotters is "Jeezuz NO! not another change! Not a breakthrough! Stop reporting on stuff!"

      I can always see who works in science/tech - and some times who shouldn't be - by these posts.

      Technology does not spring forth fully formed and beautiful, like Venus from the sea. Stuff takes time. In my field, it typically takes 20 years to develop a concept into a finished product. A few I've worked on were 50+ years from someone's concept to end development. Just depends on how far ahead of the curve the ideas go.

      It isn't to say that there isn't bullshit. I recall a super radio antenna design from Rutgers that was claimed to be so efficient that the 100 watts pumped into it caused the antenna to melt. Parse that for a bit, and see if you can't come to a completely different conclusion.

      Which is all to say, if we have a good reason to believe that a story is bogus, like in the above instance, an antenna melting is the very antithesis of efficient - by all means point it out.

      But back to the idea that if there is a time period before deployment of 5 or 10 years, that it is bogus, well, you are applying a metric to technology that is just plain wrong.

      A good hint is battery tech. They aren't inventing new elements, and we know what combinations will produce what. For a log time we've known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Breakthroughs aren't often breakthroughs. The concepts and lab results very often need years of technological advancements in manufacturing processes to catch up. In the meantime, getting pissed or completely pessimistic about it is kinda a get off my lawn reaction.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:Nah by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, what's your solution? For all of the whining and moaning, and hand wringing, it seems that the answer for so many slashdotters is "Jeezuz NO! not another change! Not a breakthrough! Stop reporting on stuff!"

      My proposal would be to stop reporting on stuff that is 100% fluff, and 0% technical details.

    21. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to be that all of your photos are of arbitrary objects.

    22. Re: Nah by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Neural nets are a failed concept from the AI from the 1960s. They are just algorithms and have nothing to do with neurons or even mimic real intelligence. They are a dead end. Just because we have seen advances in certain areas doesn't mean that those advances will continue, or applies to other fields. It is entirely possible that we will never have AI at all.

    23. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's bread and butter is reporting every claim no matter how ridiculous.

    24. Re:Nah by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      No, AI is something resembling intelligence. Computer programs are not intelligent.

    25. Re: Nah by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      A "failed concept" that has resulted in numerous breakthroughs, such as beating a Go grandmaster with a fraction of the expected computing power.

      And I imagine all further AI research will continue to be dismissed by you as "just algorithms" up to and including the day it finally produces an artificial True Scotsman.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    26. Re: Nah by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Neural nets perform well when the input data is large enough to be statistically valid. I suspect that the reason we've seen recent advances in the, otherwise well understood, area of neural nets is cheap commodity hardware has made it trivial to build faster cluster computers with *large nerdy number* of RAM.

      I wouldn't be surprised to learn that building massive networks of inter-connected neural nets is the next stage.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    27. Re:Nah by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that they mention "smartphones and laptops" as if they're the only computers in existence is a hint that they don't realize that these two groups pale in comparison to desktop computers and servers in terms of power consumption.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    28. Re: Nah by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, dead end, which is why they keep becoming better and better at various tasks, to the point that they're now entering our everyday lives? Because surely that's the very definition of a dead-end.

        Does anyone remember how terrible voice recognition used to be 1-2 decades ago? Because I sure do. The concept that you could have things like Siri, Google Now, devices like Alexa, etc get it right the vast majority of the time would have been laughable. Neural nets used to be too bad to use in these tasks at all. When Google made their first neural-net based voice recognition system (rather than the algorithmic matching ones from before) it got a 25% error rate. Now it's down to 8%. They're cropping up everywhere - most recently Skype's real-time translation service. Which is starting out a bit imperfect, and I guarantee you, once the neural nets get better with time, people will promptly forget how they didn't used to be as good as they'll have become, just like happens with everything else neural nets do.

      On the image side, it's not just about image recognition (say, Google Photos). Facial recognition has gone from fringe to dangerously accurate. In my last job (medical imaging) we used neural nets to segment the brain. Which I find to be a rather amusing concept, artificial neural networks studying biological neural networks ;) They started off rather poor at the job, but by the time I left they were doing a better job at it than humans. Neural nets are also better lipreaders than humans. Really, the number of fields they've been expanding into in the past decade, and the progress over the past decade, is really staggering. One "hard AI" task after the next, they're getting better than humans. Remember this XKCD comic from just a few years ago? You can now download software to do just that sort of thing. It's not just about computing power advances, either; the learning algorithms themselves have been advancing by leaps and bounds recently.

      Now, if you don't mean neural networks when you say AI, then what the heck do you mean when you say AI?

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    29. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described Facebook, right?

    30. Re: Nah by Immerman · · Score: 1

      An awful lot of profitable technology employs that "dead end".

      Just because there's no evidence that we're actually any closer to true artificial consciousness, doesn't mean AI research hasn't developed some truly astounding applications of limited domain "intelligence". And we're still only scratching the surface of "neural" networks specifically - they failed to do much of interest in the 60s in large part because they are *very* badly suited to emulation in software and require enormous processing power to simulate even relatively simple networks. Tody we have dedicated hardware designed specifically to implement neural networks in hardware - still only small ones of a few million neurons, not even on par with a mouse brain, even before you consider how much more sophisticated real neurons are, but they're enabling some really interesting things nonetheless.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:Nah by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Nice goal-post moving. Define "intelligence". Keep in mind it may have nothing whatsoever to do with conscious thought.

      Perhaps the biggest thing we've learned from AI research is how many "intelligent" skills and behaviors can actually be performed by machines without any apparent shred of human-like intelligence - like say being able to completely trounce Grandmaster Go players at one of the most subtle and complicated games ever created, one that is essentially impervious to the sort of brute-force analysis that makes it so easy to write an unbeatable chess-playing program.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re: Nah by Entrope · · Score: 1

      The old saying is wrong. In reality, extraordinary claims require hyperbolic press releases.

    33. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they spent $100 million to beat people in Go. Color me impressed. Basically using a bunch of decision trees.

    34. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummmm

      Attempts to develop rechargeable lithium batteries followed in the 1980s but the endeavor failed because of instabilities in the metallic lithium used as anode ...

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery

    35. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "storing" light seems like one of those bullshit things. It's one of those things where in theory you can have a box of mirrors, but any attempt to measure that it works, results in it not working because the measuring drains off the stored light.

      There is obviously something else at play, and I think it's just the interconnects that are light. The entire phrase "light induced magnetoresistive random-access memory (LI-RAM)" sounds like they just used micron-sized fiber optics but the actual bits are stored like M-RAM. So it might be something like

      CPU Optical Serial multiplexer optical DDR bus (demultiplexer) on-chip MRAM based cells.

      So obviously it just saves power by using different materials and using optics over the part that would typically get warm. I question the reliability of this, but it couldn't be any less reliable than spinning rust cylinders.

    36. Re:Nah by Solandri · · Score: 2

      We've known for about 3 decades now that light-based computing doesn't have thermal problems caused by current leakage, and thus compared to electron-based computing has higher theoretical capacity as we approach quantum limits. The problem is we didn't figure this out until we were a few decades down the road of electron-based computing. So optical computing has always been several orders of magnitude behind electronic computing in terms of density (capacity), speed, and cost.

      Basically we went down the wrong path for making computers. And switching to the right path will make most of the R&D we've done on electronic transistors obsolete, while new R&D will need to be done to bring optical computing up to the same level as electronic computing. So mere breakthroughs in optical computing aren't enough. We need multiple breakthroughs and multiple decades worth of sustained R&D just to bring its performance up to the level of current electronic computing, before it can finally exceed the capability of electronic computing. So even if this is a huge breakthrough, outside of a few very specialized fields (e.g. ones sensitive to EMF interference) it's not going to result in a superior end-product for several decades.

    37. Re: Nah by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, actually not. That's how they make chess software, and it's effective for such a simple game, but Go has a fan-out on the order of 400 possible moves per turn, decision trees techniques never delivered anything much beyond a mediocre amateur.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    38. Re:Nah by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Computer programs are not intelligent.

      Which is why computer programs have already reached the human level.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    39. Re: Nah by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Now, if you don't mean neural networks when you say AI, then what the heck do you mean when you say AI?

      I don't know about the person you are replying to, but I get really annoyed that when scientists say "AI" they usually mean weak AI, and when newspapers hear it they usually think strong AI. We're not anywhere close to solving the strong AI problem, but some of the algorithms we've come up with along the way are really, really cool.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those things decades agos didn't have access to a massive number of servers that could just take the voice sample and convert it to results.

    41. Re:Nah by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Old people should believe in this more than ever. Everything old is new again. That means that using light for stored memory is already patented by IBM. I wonder if this technology achieves greater memory density per cubic foot than those old boxes of punch cards.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    42. Re: Nah by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      98 was reached in eighties. 98.2 at round 2000

    43. Re: Nah by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      So they spent $100 million to beat people in Go. Color me impressed.

      IBM spent $100 million to beat Kasparov in Chess. Now you can beat Kasparov with your smartphone. Same will happen with Go, as both hardware and software get improved.

    44. Re: Nah by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      when newspapers hear it they usually think strong AI

      You shouldn't read newspapers.

    45. Re:Nah by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So, what's your solution? For all of the whining and moaning, and hand wringing, it seems that the answer for so many slashdotters is "Jeezuz NO! not another change! Not a breakthrough! Stop reporting on stuff!"

      My proposal would be to stop reporting on stuff that is 100% fluff, and 0% technical details.

      This link might give you little more details - http://www.thehindu.com/sci-te...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    46. Re:Nah by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      AI should be expanded to "Achievable Imminently."

    47. Re:Nah by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      I agree, Slashdot used to be the place to report these things and then have an intelligent discussion about the ideas. Once and awhile we get one of those, but most of the time it's just a 'your crazy, get out of here' reaction.

      Maybe all of this is not true, but I'm sure some of it is and it's an area that we should put money into more research.

    48. Re:Nah by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree, Slashdot used to be the place to report these things and then have an intelligent discussion about the ideas. Once and awhile we get one of those, but most of the time it's just a 'your crazy, get out of here' reaction.

      Maybe all of this is not true, but I'm sure some of it is and it's an area that we should put money into more research.

      I do have questions. The presumed power use, has me skeptical. But remembering the old school UV-PROMS, it's no doubt that light can be harnessed to mess with. But follow up and discussion is awesome.

      The concept that so many slashdotters that they do not want to even read it, and want it actively suppressed, allows us understanding of how reactionary humans through the ages, have severe problems when encountering truth that does not locksep with their worldview.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    49. Re:Nah by shameless · · Score: 1

      I have taken to calling this "Popular Science Fatigue". It's where you read about some wonderful breakthrough technology in Popular Science or some other mass-market source and then it disappears never to be seen again.

  4. Um.... huh? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    which describes this as "a breakthrough material" that will not only make smartphones faster and more durable, but also more energy-efficient. The University of Victoria calculates that's 10% of the world's electricity is consumed by "information communications technology," so LI-RAM phones could conceivably cut that figure in half.

    Um, 10% of the world's electricity is not consumed by phones. And even if they actually meant all computing and networking equipment combined, how is a RAM advancement supposed to cut all power consumed by computers, switches, etc in half?

    Remember Samsung’s burning phones? That won’t be an issue with the LI-RAM because the light system could produce almost no heat.

    Facepalm.

    --
    Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  5. Hypety Hype Hype! by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hypeady Doo-Dah Hypeady Day.
    My oh my I got a press release today.

    Plenty of B.S. coming your way.
    Hypeady Doo-Dah Hypeday Day!

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  6. Love how "supercomputer" gets thrown around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, cellphones today already have supercomputer speeds. They have the FLOP power of late 90s supercomputers. Wow!

  7. So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blinded By Science

  8. Way overhyped by the media by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I did a very quick search on the internet looking for Light induced RAM and Light induced magnetoresistance and only found one article that predates the slashdot article and the one it links to. (Ok, I'm procrastinating from doing other stuff).

    http://www.uvic.ca/home/about/...

    This university published article is just as short on details and has no links to any published research. It's also a bit laughable: "new material allows computer chips to exist at a molecular level" which means what exactly? Computer chips currently don't exist at the molecular level? Anyway, don't mean to give their communications department a hard time, I just want more solid info.

    It's clear that some of the claims from the hyped article that slashdot cites are ridiculous (at least the university release doesn't make those claims). The journalists, lacking any background in science probably called up some "experts" and said (out of context) "if you had a material that could do such and such" what would be the advantages. So, these experts, whether or not they actually know anything, just started making things up like it'll cut down on energy consumption (true but not a huge amount) and that it would prevent fires like the Samsung smart phone (probably not because the modest power savings from this RAM would not allow the battery to be designed differently which was the cause of the fires).

    Unfortunately, the heat (and power) problems are not in the RAM but in the processor (amongst other things) which this technology does not address. In the university article they say that it is part of an effort to reduce the power and heat of processors but does not say this technology does this. Apparently, from the article, it is only suitable for RAM; hence the name LI-RAM. So while it may be faster (good) and not give off much heat (also good) it doesn't live up to the hype in the distorted media interpretations of the university article (which the slashdot submitter then chopped up and republished). This all assumes that they can get this to work at the fantastic performance and density levels of modern RAM all while not introducing new sources of heat and power to make it work (it requires "green light' presumably from a laser).

    Anyway, if you want to waste some time, take a look at the Slashdot link and then look at the university article and you'll see how information can be mangled and hyped up by people who don't have a background in the subject. Of course, since we all like "free" (or ad supported) news, we aren't exactly encouraging accurate journalism :(

    1. Re:Way overhyped by the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this new technology applied to RAM, it would also apply to cache memory. But if you can replace the transistors in RAM memory with light based technology, then why not the entire CPU?

    2. Re:Way overhyped by the media by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      But if you can replace the transistors in RAM memory with light based technology, then why not the entire CPU?

      Because I am way too busy filing a patent for "a method of blending unicorn poo with fairy dust, with the potential to operate on an industrial scale at a lower cost that some existing methods".

      What is your excuse? <Slashpoll required here >

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Way overhyped by the media by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      But if you can replace the transistors in RAM memory with light based technology, then why not the entire CPU?

      Theoretically, you could, and an optical CPU would almost certainly be faster and cooler than an electronic CPU. Unlike what the article says, though, it would definitely not be smaller. There's a lower limit to how small you can make something, and still have light pass through it, and for integrated circuits, we've exceeded that limit by around an order of magnitude.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  9. The UVic prof and article by davecb · · Score: 1

    https://twitter.com/nlfrank1 is her own tweets, http://www.uvic.ca/home/about/... is the press release from the university.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  10. Obligatory xkcd by Nunya666 · · Score: 0
  11. Nauseating marketing language. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder media is losing credibility. It's the ads, stupid!

    To this example:
    > promises supercomputer speeds for your cellphones
    That's what cellphones have been doing all the time. Today's cellphone is the supercomputer of 10-12 years ago. We know that.

    > She envisions a world of LI-RAM mobile devices which are faster,
    Because of RAM? Is RAM speed the bottleneck in a modern smartphone?

    > thinner
    Thickness limit the RAM size?

    > and able to hold much more data
    Wohoo. This has to do with RAM.

    > all while consuming less power
    The main power drain the RAM, these days? Or rather CPU/GPU?

    Look, ad companies: I'd be willing to look at your stuff (on and off) if you didn't insist in insulting me.

    1. Re:Nauseating marketing language. by Junta · · Score: 1

      Actually, strictly speaking today's cellphone is not supercomputer class of 12 years ago, in fact not even really 20 years ago, but that's sane since optimizing for the measures of a supercomputer would have no relevance to anything a person does on a mobile device, and rarely even has relevance for a desktop. If we grossly oversimplify, a 20 year old supercomputer class system is about 10 times as powerful as a modern flagship phone.

      But no amount of super fast memory technology will overcome that, and true that it's hard to imagine memory module width being the limiting facet of phone thinness (and besides, phones already are veering off into the 'uncomfortable for the human hand' territory, they really don't need more help on that, though there's always room for weight reduction).

      On the power usage, any component trimming helps, but the screen is the biggest draw, then the radio, then the cpu/gpu, and ram is right behind that. It is certainly a power draw significantly higher than all but the aforementioned exceptions.

      To further pile on:

      Remember Samsung’s burning phones? That won’t be an issue with the LI-RAM because the light system could produce almost no heat.

      A *RAM* technology is going to change Li-Ion chemistry to not be so volatile???

      This is a pretty terrible article, which may be doing the original research a great disservice (hard to tell from the poor understanding and hyperbole).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  12. Another Joke from University of Victoria, BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What has the University of Victoria, British Columbia ever done ? If this article announced that the research was being done at U. of Waterloo (as long as we're talking Canada), I might give it more credence.

    Then, the stupid article overhypes the potential and makes the whole thing a joke. U. Victoria, the researcher, and the article author--all jokes.

    This was a miss, EditorDavid.

    1. Re:Another Joke from University of Victoria, BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair most of our societies greatest disruptive technologies came from groups/firms/individuals that were pretty out of the mainstream. Such as Apple/Microsoft with desktop computers, a couple bike builders from Ohio with the first aircraft (and a motorcycle manufacturer with actually successful aircraft), etc. Sorting the gems from the over-hyped garbage of course is the trick, it often takes the free market (maybe with a little encouragement like LED bulbs) to do the sorting.

  13. Tech analyst? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    Remember Samsung’s burning phones? That won’t be an issue with the LI-RAM because the light system could produce almost no heat.

    Wow. Just how easy is it to get a job as a tech analyst at CTV? This seems to be attributed to CTV tech analyst Carmi Levy. Was it her or the author that screwed this up?

    1. Re:Tech analyst? by Junta · · Score: 1

      They are going to replace batteries with RAM, that's how amazingly breakthrough this RAM is.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Tech analyst? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      They are going to replace batteries with RAM, that's how amazingly breakthrough this RAM is.

      Perhaps there will be solar cells within the RAM that provide electricity for the phone. To recharge your phone you just shine a flashlight into the USB port and it traps all the light inside...

      And the greatest part of all- you can charge that flashlight from your phone.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re: Tech analyst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flashlight is the phone. *Mind blown* kaboooooooooom

  14. Indeed, this is not yet more than an idea... by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... which is very very far from any practically working piece of hardware. At least the text of the university itself clearly states this is a "proposed procect":

    "The objective of this research is to explore new classes of compounds that exhibit multifunctional magnetic properties of fundamental importance to high-density storage methods and molecular electronics. The scope of the proposed projects cover a broad range of fundamental topics in chemistry, including organic and inorganic synthesis, structure and bonding, electronic structure, magnetochemistry, photochromism, photophysics, and materials chemistry."

  15. Re:Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they aren't the ones with a tendency to brag about the size of their dicks.

  16. Super computer speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, more marketing copy on slashdot!

  17. Increased efficiency does not reduce consumption by doug141 · · Score: 1

    It increases usage. Jevons Paradox

    As a simple example, do you think bitcoin miners are going to pocket the savings, or expand operations to leverage the savings?

  18. I don't get it by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "devices which are faster, thinner..."

    I guess they will continue to make them thinner until they cut.
    An we'll just use bigger and bigger cases.

  19. Re:Increased efficiency does not reduce consumptio by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    I think the guy/organization in China who effectively owns the Bitcoin network will upgrade just enough to ensure they remains in control, while not owning the network obviously and entirely to reduce the cultist's confidence in it to the point he can't keep extracting wealth from the US.

    It's not about maximizing Bitcoin mining, it's about maximizing net profits and keeping the scam going for as long as possible.

  20. Overstated, but routers use more RAM than CPU by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > how is a RAM advancement supposed to cut all power consumed by computers, switches, etc in half?

    Cutting it in HALF is probably overstating it, but all of those devices use RAM, and would benefit from more efficient RAM.

    Generally, routers (real routers, as opposed to consumer wireless access points) process 99.9% of the packets with RAM tricks, using almost no cpu. The cpu is mostly there to process commands to the router, such as configuration changes, while packets flowing *through* the router are directed by memory tables and a specialized chip.

    1. Re:Overstated, but routers use more RAM than CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because It isn't normal RAM

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable_memory

    2. Re:Overstated, but routers use more RAM than CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be describing L3 switches. Not routers.

  21. Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just hilarious. Its was developed by a chemist, meaning we're only talking about the actual material rather than anything resembling a working memory element. It needs to be hit with green light which then changes it's magnetic properties. So to use this as RAM you need to somehow integrate a green light source and a magnetic sensing mechanism that are bit accessible......how can they even TALK about power reduction (of 10%?) until a solution for both of those has been at least suggested? Not to mention that they've COMPLETELY missed the concept of how information is stored in this material. It is not STORED using light, it's MODIFIED using light. Just like a CD-R doesn't store data using light, it is modified using light. Even ignoring the misplaced hype, most of the information here is WRONG!

  22. What's the difference between this and... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    ...the tubes found in older electronics? Kind of steampunkish. I didn't think you could have light without electrons.

  23. NOT A GOD DAMN PATENT by hashish16 · · Score: 1

    I am so sick of slashdotters throwing around the word PATENT and not knowing what it is. They filed a god damn PATENT APPLICATION. Get it fucking right next time.

    1. Re:NOT A GOD DAMN PATENT by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Might as well call it applying for a rubber stamp.

  24. Supercomputer speeds by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Uhh, my phone is easily as powerful as a Cray, so.... already there!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. "..in the next 10 years" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    So, in other words, they're trying to sucker some VC's into giving them their money?

    1. Re:"..in the next 10 years" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She already got some funding at least. VCs are not stupid when it's their own cash.

  26. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook. And modern Slashdot, alas.

  27. Light-induced chemical and biological memory by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Light-induced chemical memory: photographic films/papers, typically subject to fading but it can be "fixed" to last decades or longer.

    Light-induced biological read-only memory, very short-term/fades fast if not refreshed: photoreceptors in the eyes

    Light-induced biological read-only memory, fades after a few days or weeks if not refreshed: sunburn/tan-lines

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  28. Standard RAM cells, more address lines by raymorris · · Score: 1

    At the level this research is, storing a bit, CAM is just like bog-standard DRAM. What sets CAM apart is basically more addressing lines. That's external to the memory cells themselves. The other difference of CAM is how the output is interpreted, since you're reading all addresses at once. Again, that's quite external to the individual bit memories.

  29. Planned to be obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which describes this as "a breakthrough material" that will not only make smartphones faster and more durable, but also more energy-efficient.

    This RAM enables us to more rapidly obsolesce your phone so you can throw it in the trash faster!

  30. Routers use ternary CAM to route each packet by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Switches use binary CAM to map MAC addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes. Very similarly, routers use ternary CAM to map ip addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes.

    When processing packets/frames through the device, switches and routers do essentially the same thing - select the outgoing interface by looking up the destination address in a CAM table. The difference between switches and routers is how those CAM tables are built.

  31. Bullshit filter please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The University of Victoria calculates that's 10% of the world's electricity is consumed by "information communications technology," so LI-RAM phones could conceivably cut that figure in half.

    Really? So I spend 10% of my electricity bill charging my phone? Er ... no. Not even close. My phone consumes about 4kWh per year. I mean, yeah, I wish my entire electricity consumption was 40kWh per year; my annual electricity bill would only be £4, instead of over £1,000.

    Obviously the 10% isn't phones, it's servers. LI-RAM phones won't cut server power consumption at all. So no, it is utterly inconceivable that LI-RAM phones can cut global electricity usage by half. No improvement in phone efficiency will ever do anything except give me a longer time between recharges.

  32. Moot. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Indeed. All the "light" hogwash aside, all the proposed benefits are also moot. RAM or memory in general do not consume a great amount of power. Compared to other components, they already consume probably the least amount of power. So should the improvement even be astronomical, in real terms it is moot.

    Depending on your device, your consumers of power are going to be your GPU or your CPU, or on something like your phone, your display, by many orders of magnitude over whatever the memory might be using. While memory does generate some heat, again it isn't anything like the above.

    So while perhaps it might be interesting, and even a breakthrough in a number of ways, it's impact it terms of power consumption and heat generation in most devices will be very small. Even faster, or thinner, you start running into bottlenecks (i,e. RAM is already one of the fastest parts of your device likely), when you start interacting with actual storage, or having to do scheduling and timing with GPU/CPU etc... Cool that it's Canadian at least, hopefully it pans out.