Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Unveils the 'World's Smallest Computer' (mashable.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the future-is-here dept.

On the first day of IBM Think 2018, the company's flagship conference, IBM has unveiled what it claims is the world's smallest computer. It's smaller than a grain of salt and features the computer power of the x86 chip from 1990. Mashable first spotted this gem: The computer will cost less than ten cents to manufacture, and will also pack "several hundred thousand transistors," according to the company. These will allow it to "monitor, analyze, communicate, and even act on data." It works with blockchain. Specifically, this computer will be a data source for blockchain applications. It's intended to help track the shipment of goods and detect theft, fraud, and non-compliance. It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given. According to IBM, this is only the beginning. "Within the next five years, cryptographic anchors -- such as ink dots or tiny computers smaller than a grain of salt -- will be embedded in everyday objects and devices," says IBM head of research Arvind Krishna. If he's correct, we'll see way more of these tiny systems in objects and devices in the years to come. It's not clear yet when this thing will be released -- IBM researchers are currently testing its first prototype.

92 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Ultra SoC by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    So they added some memory to an existing SoC?

    It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given

    So it's a bunch of integer calculators. uint8 or uint16. Like the old FPU less machines of yester year.

    1. Re:Ultra SoC by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      How the hell is sorting even an "AI task"?
      Also, blockchain. Still? Seriously?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Ultra SoC by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i was about to say, since when is "sorting" considered AI? if so let me update my resume to add 20+ years experience in "AI" - although give IBM's current approach to workforce........

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You guys keep moving the goalposts. As soon as we make a breakthrough in AI you come around and claim "that isn't AI". Next you are going to tell me that Siri isn't AI!

    4. Re:Ultra SoC by nashv · · Score: 1

      Well, you could have AI based sorting. Like sorting first on some heuristic parameter that isn't actually the parameter to be eventually sorted by.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    5. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As soon as we make a breakthrough in AI

      Yeah, as soon as that happens, let us know will you?

    6. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      It happened already. Jobs for Chess and Go Masters disappeared overnight.

    7. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Good idea. Why sort of the parameter to be eventually sorted on, when you can sort by something completely different first?

    8. Re:Ultra SoC by nashv · · Score: 1

      Because the AI might be able to sort out certain things faster/to get clusters that may/may not be worth further sorting.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    9. Re:Ultra SoC by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Of COURSE Siri isn't AI - I asked Alexa and she confirmed it!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Ultra SoC by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      Or is "sorting" the word you give some C-level exec when trying to explain classification problems that don't depend on per-defined equivalence relationships? You can bet IBM is addressing the executives and not the technical people.

    11. Re: Ultra SoC by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Touche; one of your better posts. Those are outlier, however; for machine logic to even begin to handle virtually any of the wide range of tasks that people perform constantly, there need to be massive revolutionary improvements in addition to the evolutionary changes we've seen so far. Our current 'computing models' aren't the way to go about implementing it, either; eventually, digital tools will probably enable far more efficient analog processor designs but until then, 'AI' will remain marketing horseshit spewed forth for the pleasure of Wall Street and the fear of everyone else.

    12. Re:Ultra SoC by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Siri isn't AI,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    13. Re:Ultra SoC by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I can think of one example, block-sorting file compression as used by bzip2. If you are making a tarball of several files, it will presumably help to have files with similar content next to each other in the archive. (The block-sorting process would rearrange them later to some extent, but I believe that compression will be a bit better if they are already close, particularly if the input data is much bigger than the sorting window.)

      So you first sort by some measure that only approximates sorting by content. That is, you sort by filename first. It's a guess that similar filenames will have similar content. That could be completely wrong, of course, but the heuristic tends to work in practice.

      (This applies to most forms of compressed archive, even if the compression algorithm doesn't involve sorting, but here you have an example of where it's worth sorting by some approximate key before sorting again.)

      Another example may be bulk insertion into a relational database table, where inserting rows in sorted order is fastest, but you may not have the memory to sort them on the client. If you could sort them by something that tends to correlate to the final ordering, you will typically get some speedup in practice.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    14. Re:Ultra SoC by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We should build a matching MIDI violin for it!

      Also, this , if you want something really small and power-efficient.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Ultra SoC by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      IBM (actually its corporate predecessors) probably called it that when they had Hollerith's machine sorting census punch cards. Must have seemed a marvel of technology then, and it was.

    16. Re:Ultra SoC by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      So they added some memory to an existing SoC?

      "Why, the fax-machine is nothin' but a waffle-iron with a 'phone attached!"

    17. Re:Ultra SoC by Joosy · · Score: 2

      Well, the 486-DX33 had a power dissipation of 2.5 Watts, which is a lot to radiate off something smaller than a grain of salt.

      Not to mention the fact that this sucker probably only has a VGA connector.

      --
      I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
  2. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blockchain and AI in one press release? I Best Buy some IBM stock.

    1. Re:Wow by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      They have to find something to prop up the part of the business trying to sell their own SCM. A lot of companies are dumping ClearCase and Jazz SCM and moving to git.

      Although it seems like we'll never be free of DOORS.

  3. Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Computers once filled an entire room. Now they are smaller than a grain of salt and more powerful. This means that all things are now possible. AI and trips to Mars. Quantum Computing. We just need to sit back and wait for it all to happen.

    1. Re:Breakthrough by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Said no one ever, except a certain straw stuffed fellow on his way to Oz.

      BTW, can you clarify which ones you think are impossible and which ones you think are possible without faster computers?

    2. Re:Breakthrough by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but an incremental change that does not have much of a bearing on AI, trips to Mars and quantum computing. I.e. there are obstacles in the way to those goals that this particular innovation will contribute very, very little, maybe even nothing, to overcome. Finally, the required breakthroughs will not happen if we just sit back and wait.

    3. Re:Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I think all things are possible. When I was growing up computers only had 64k of memory. Now they have GB and can fit on my wrist. Also, I can talk to my cellphone and it will tell me the weather in a woman's voice. Truly the future is NOW.

    4. Re:Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      But it does AI sorting and Blockchain. And is the size of a grain of salt. Did you not read the article?

    5. Re:Breakthrough by mikael · · Score: 2

      Imagine being able to covertly send a message to someone simply by writing some data into a pile of smart-dust and let it blow around by the global wind currents such as the jet stream. Might take a few days but that's quicker than most international postal services.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Breakthrough by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Right, but dropping your usual comedy A+ "lets go live on mars, just kidding, I fooled you, space nutters suck!" routine, what do you actually believe won't be helped by faster, smaller computers? Do you think true AI isn't possible, or just the time frame is wrong? (Which it always is) Just curious because you always pop up in these types of discussions, so you obviously care enough to post.

    7. Re:Breakthrough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      ... and it will tell me the weather in a woman's voice.

      With the same unfortunate lack of accuracy that the dumpy guy on the TV green screen gave us.

      Progress of a sort, I suppose.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Breakthrough by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Where's my flying car?

      Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    9. Re: Breakthrough by mikael · · Score: 1

      The satellite communication could be intercepted if it were broadcast. Just like those numbers radio stations.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. Buzzwords! by saccade.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just an x86 microcontroller, but we'll throw in exciting buzzwords like AI, blockchain and cryptographic anchors to see if our stock goes up. Since when is "sorting" a "basic AI task"?

    1. Re:Buzzwords! by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since 2015 every computer algorithm was reclassified as AI. It was to cover up the fact that AI really hasn't made any progress in the last 40 years.

    2. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such small ambitions and thought.

      Do you realize that even at a 1990s level of computational power and with the diminutive size of the full package that this is within the realm of being powered by your existing metabolism or a micro thermoelectric generator?

      Outside of the ultra sci-fi here. Imagine having direct and instant access to that kind of power, an extension of your mind. You'd not even know or feel these in your body.

      At some point. A tiny device like this will take over for damaged control systems in a human body.

      Steps like this are how we get to such tech

    3. Re:Buzzwords! by nnull · · Score: 1

      Just like the cloud.

    4. Re:Buzzwords! by caviare · · Score: 1

      That's because you are classifying everything that has made progress in the last 40 years as not AI.

  5. This is truly a nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Within the next five years, cryptographic anchors -- such as ink dots or tiny computers smaller than a grain of salt -- will be embedded in everyday objects and devices,"

    How can anyone read this without getting chills on their backs? The current situation is already a living nightmare of surveillance, but this... makes it impossible to keep existing in this world.

    1. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      this... makes it impossible to keep existing in this world.

      Okay. Be sure to fill out your organ donor card before you stop existing in this world. That way you can help at least a few other people on your way out.

    2. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FAIL. If you really wanted to pwn the dude, you'd be ramming your dick in his ASS. Don't you know anything about expressing dominance?

    3. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      He also seems to know absolutely nothing about teeth.

  6. Privacy by should_be_linear · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Drop hundreds of billions of these from airplane over city, they will connect into encrypted wireless net, and you have "street view", but streaming live from everywhere, even from interiors of houses. If you think your privacy is violated by Facebook, hold on for this!

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Privacy by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome. We could call it "Smart Dust". Oh yeah, people were talking about that 20 years ago.

    2. Re:Privacy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      More like 60 years ago, seems you do not read much Stanislaw Lem.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Privacy by nonBORG · · Score: 1

      or maybe you would just make a mess. Great words from marketing but think about power supplies, IO and even a purpose otherwise they are pollution and nothing else.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    4. Re:Privacy by nasch · · Score: 1

      Unless there are cameras smaller than a grain of salt too, I'm not worried about that yet.

  7. And so we come to - by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Does it run Linux?

    2. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
    Building a Beowulf Cluster in just 13 steps

    How many cluster nodes per cm^3?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Beowulf Cluster Recipe by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    1/2 tsp processors
    Add Linux distro to taste

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Beowulf Cluster Recipe by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beowu... oh, never mind.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  9. Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Now the TSA will want to download data from my underwear along with my laptop and phone.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      Your laptop and phone download data from your underwear?

      Man I'm out of date, I ain't got any of this good shit.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    2. Re:Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Now the TSA will want to download data from my underwear along with my laptop and phone.

      Your laptop and phone download data from your underwear?

      No, his laptop and phone are in his underwear.

  10. Words fail me... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    see sig.

  11. Re:Wow FTFY by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blockchain and AI in one press release? I Best Buy some IBM CRYPTOstock.

  12. How do you communicate with it? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    If I'm reading it right, it has some kind of LED attached and a micro solar panel. Like it can flash or something and run from power from the sun?

    I didn't get the impression you can plug anything in to it like a keyboard or even connect wirelessly, unless the article is missing something?

    1. Re:How do you communicate with it? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Well it needs to actually go on a "motherboard" first, which is about the size of a computer chip. No, I am not kidding. But trust me, it is really revolutionary. Or will be. At some point.

    2. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it needs a motherboard. Look at the diagram:
      * PV power source, right there on the chip. So you don't need to plug into external power.
      * Static RAM data storage, right there on the chip. So you don't need a hard drive or anything like that.
      * LED communications and photo-detector, so you have input/output there.
      * x100,000 transistor processing unit. So there's your CPU.

      So you don't need a motherboard. It's entirely self-contained.

    3. Re:How do you communicate with it? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No. It needs a motherboard. It even shows it in the picture. As usual, this is BS. IBM was pushing "Smart Dust" 20 years ago with the same idea. No one wants it.

    4. Re:How do you communicate with it? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      10Base5 Ethernet.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The picture of a chip sitting on a finger in the article is 64 motherboards.
      Each motherboard is 1x1mm, which includes the CPU, SRAM, a PV cell for power and an LED/photodiode for I/O.
      Smaller than a relatively big grain of salt.

      I'm a little confused about the power of the thing though. They say it's similar performance to a CPU from 1990, which would be a 486.
      Except the 486 had over 1 million transistors, this has 100,000. That's more on par with a 286 from the early 80's

    6. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      A fast 486 back in those days was 33 MHz; perhaps this runs at 330 MHz, and thus makes up for less transistor count with brute speed of execution?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:How do you communicate with it? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Except the 486 had over 1 million transistors, this has 100,000. That's more on par with a 286 from the early 80's

      Number of transistors is not the only factor determining the performance of a CPU. The switching speed of a transistor is a determining factor as well, and the process size that is fabbed nowadays is in the few tens of nm in size (10-16 nm), while it was about 500 nm in mid 1990s. This implies much lower capacitances and therefore, much higher switching speed.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's also a CPU powered by a PV panel that only covers a fraction of a 1x1mm chip, so it's not going to be running that fast.

    9. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's still claimed to be an x86 processor though. The 100k transistor 286 had a much smaller instruction set and was only 16 bit
      The first proper "x86" was the 386, which came in at 275,000 transistors.

      It would have to be a *very* fast, very simple processor emulating x86 to be as fast as a 33MHz 486 and only require 100k transistors.
      and still run on half a bee's dick of power from a tiny PV panel.

    10. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's still claimed to be an x86 processor though. The 100k transistor 286 had a much smaller instruction set and was only 16 bit The first proper "x86" was the 386, which came in at 275,000 transistors.

      Hmmm, x86 processors started with the 8086. It refers to a fundamental architecture and instruction set. I think your arbitrary declaration of 386 as the first "proper" x86 is misguided.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:How do you communicate with it? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Even so, an x86 from 1990 was a 486 with a million transistors.

      An 8086 does about 0.1 mips per mhz, while a 486 does around 0.6. You'd need to run an 8086 at 300MHz is compete with a 50MHz 486. Probably much faster if you're using 32bit math. Even faster again to compete with the memory bandwidth difference.

    13. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The 386 was still in heavy use in 1990; the 486 had just been released. I would wager there were at least 10X the number of 386 PCs in use in 1990 as there were 486 PCs. The 386 had around 275K transistors (fits with this story), and would do about 11 MIPS at 33 MHz, so if you clock that up to 300 MHz you're around 100 MIPS. Not too shabby!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. So I read the article... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know, I know, we don't read the article. And this one was crap too. Buzzword noise.

    But the block diagram was included, at least, and that's fascinating. Unlike Intel and their little chip, IBM has actually thought about the practicality of using the thing. It comes with an integrated solar cell and an integrated photo-diode communications array for both transmission and receipt of data. It also includes some SRAM. No mention of how many bytes, no mention of data throughput from the array, no mention of actual power consumption (and accompanying heat dissipation).

    All coverage appears to be essentially content-free crap designed to pump IBM's stock price.

    Maybe somebody can figure out what to do with it. It's going to be difficult since all I/O requires line of sight.

    1. Re:So I read the article... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Mesh computing, sprinkle the magic dust around the Oceania embassy and enjoy the spying goodness

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  14. So what? GPUs. Bored now! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Big deal. Don't modern GPUs have thousands of processor cores? For that matter, aren't there microcontrollers that have been on the market for years now that are a complete SoC, with peripherals like ethernet, wifi, and bluetooth?

    1. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Did those microcontrollers do AI sorting and blockchain? Nope. Those things just come with a boring data sheet. This one does blockchain. Imagine what it can do!

    2. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A modern GPU is the size of a small book and draws some 100W of power.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      What we have currently is incorrectly named "AI"; Neal Stephenson has a better term for it: "pseudo-intelligence".

      You forgot to end your comment with "</sarcasm>"

  15. But.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..will it run Crysis?

  16. Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse salt by Eloking · · Score: 2, Informative

    The headline said "IBM has created a computer smaller than a grain of salt" but they compare it to Kosher Salt (Or another variety with the grain size if bigger).

    If you want to use an headline like this at least make sure it's smaller than the most popular type of salt. I mean, I've worked in a salt mine where I could find salt rock bigger than your house.

    --
    Elok
  17. Useful for nanotech? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great, now can we attach batteries and motors to a small swarm of these and program them to harvest plaque from artery walls?

    Please?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Useful for nanotech? by bgrahambo · · Score: 1

      It's more likely a swarm of these will harvest your liver as they pass through your neighborhood, depositing it to the highest bidder. Make sure you bid high to get that sucker back! Or just bid on your neighbor's liver; he hasn't filtered cheap liquor each night like you have

  18. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by waveclaw · · Score: 1

    A biohacker can't inject a rock bigger than my house into his junk and claim to be 'thinking with the other head' while doing his taxes on his dick-puter. Via the wikfi.

    Honestly, I expect facebook to come out with Jewelry that lets you rate the reputation of your meal with this. Then you'll finally be living in one of the Black Mirror episodes. The Nosedive episode, not the San Junipero episode (where the civilization ends by everyone become uploads living life in a retirement village that looks like American TV from the 60s, 70s and 80s until the first major power outage.)

    Can one fit a bluetooth adapter and some of that motion power tech? If your can get dental implants with this thing you'd have a Beowulf cluster of teeth powered by blab. With Bluteeth(tm), you could move your datacenter into the sales people's mouths and never pay a power bill again. Rent might be a big pricey if they demand a commission on their oral real estate. But then you could actually get something done in a meeting like serve web pages through your molars as you chew on the free donuts.

    --

    "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
  19. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Eloking · · Score: 1

    This comment, among others, makes me laugh. It's not the most common coarseness of salt? Why is a theme of this comment section that slashdotters, technologists, want to deny the legitimacy of technological advancement?

    If you look for this pattern on here, you'll start to see it everywhere.

    AC because I don't want a bunch of people telling me how Moore's Law is broken, daggamit.

    Let's be clear,

    It's an amazing technological advancements, there's no denying it. But I can't stand sensationalism.

    They could have said ""IBM has created a computer smaller than a pea" and it would have been equally impressive.

    --
    Elok
  20. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by EETech1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe you meant Morton's law.

  21. It can also do basic AI tasks ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given.
    Ah ha ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  22. "The computer power of the x86 chip from 1990" by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

    I'm having trouble understanding this analogy. Can someone explain the equivalent processing power in Librarians of Congress per Svedberg?

    1. Re:"The computer power of the x86 chip from 1990" by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They had machines running in terms of Megahertz instead of Giga hertz like today. I used to sell them. I used to run real Unix, Free BSD Unix on them and they had little memory, usually 4 Megabytes. I used to set up answering services, etc complete with a lan, database and such and it was all reasonable speed. With any luck they're talking about something like a 486-33. I used to sell those boards like hot cakes. Case at a time. Memory used to be a bitch because they were millipede like and I remember my fingers used to just about bleed inserting them into their sockets. 4 Megabytes and if I remember right, it was 36 chips to get it. Better than what we used to have to do when we had 4K chips. We'd have a whole tray and it would be like 64K.

  23. Next in the news: environmental disaster... by printman · · Score: 1

    I can only imagine what billions of these things will so to the environment. We already have to worry about frigging sparkles killing wildlife and now we’ll have animals dying from investing these things...

    --
    I print, therefore I am.
    1. Re: Next in the news: environmental disaster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better than all the bears investing in the stork market like a bull in a China shop.

    2. Re:Next in the news: environmental disaster... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, these can pass through and be shit out like a small rock. are you going to worry about creatures eating rocks?

  24. Missing feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No 3.5 mm headphone jack? Then forget it.

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Headw1nd · · Score: 1
    If the item is so incredible, so revolutionary, then why lie about it? It's larger than a grain of salt, but not by much. The average grain of salt is cuboidal and .3 mm a side. Just say the damn thing is 1mm square and give specs.

    People here react badly to overhyped stats because we're inundated with them and frankly sick of having to sort out what's real and what was dreamed up by someone in sales.

  27. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by nasch · · Score: 1

    It makes people feel superior to crap on the achievements of others.

  28. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by nasch · · Score: 1

    Five stars, would mod funny

  29. Rock Salt by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Ya, exactly what I was thinking, varies with the size of salt...

    They specifically say grain, which is obviously untrue, or at least misleading as people think of a grain of table salt. That isn't even course sea salt, or even kosher salt. The picture looks like "Rock Salt" of a particularly lumpy variety. Most of the stuff I use on my driveway is finer than that stuff. I mean "Salt" can come in just about any dimensions you want, but I am not sure I would call it a "grain". We just bout a Salt Lamp for a friends housewarming gift and that "grain" probably weighed 40-50lb...

    Given all that, I'm not sure why they even used the grain of salt analogy at all given it's size. Sure it is small, but it isn't that much smaller than a lot of embedded chips.

  30. Re:I'm waiting for the smallest camera... by AlejandroTejadaC · · Score: 1

    A camera like this? https://www.pcmag.com/article2...