Hmm, I dunno, the N-P-17 did go pretty well, but thanks to the legal angle you wouldn't want it known that you'd got one and was breaking it in. The latest version doesn't need quite the same level of training as the N-P-17, the heuristics must be a lot better.
No, I'm not denying that the end of Moore's law is inevitable given current production techniques and circuit technology, rather I'm saying that there will be new developments which will allow us to continue using the same basic model of circuitry without going to a radically different architecture, such as quantum computing.
See this article for an example of a component which rather than being hampered by quantum effects, instead relies on them to work. There are other similar efforts underway, I think IBM are working on similar projects, and I think that by the time Moore's law ends we'll have the basis for a new kind of electronic circuit based on the same general principles, but different component architectures.
True, but that's all assuming that the basic technology behind circuitry remains pretty much the same in the future, whereas I'm more of the belief that new techniques will have to be developed to replace the standard components - resistors, capacitors, diodes etc. Unless we do get some new techniques then we will eventually hit the quantum barrier, but probably still later than expected.
Indeed, the quantum effects that will eventually kill current circuit design are the most likely candidates for producing new ones:)
This technology will probably have limited use in producing circuits that are ever finer, as this takes you well into the realm of unpredictable quantum effects, where circuits can no longer be guaranteed to behave in a predictable way.
I'm going to have to disagree with that last statement. Sure, at the scales we're talking about here quantum effects come into play, but they're hardly unpredictable. Unless we're talking about individual quantum processes, the outcome of which is indeed probabalistic then we can statistically predict what will happen with a large number of quantum processes, which is what will be taking place at this level.
So I doubt that quantum mechanics will really form that much of a barrier to the size of circuitry. It'll require a new methodology and new techniques to be sure, but it's hardly like it'll be impossible to make some analog of electronic circuits at very small scales.
Text mode Quake! See how many people you can kill on the train to work! Knot your fingers trying to hit all the commands on a phone the size of a postage stamp... Or maybe not:)
The death of intellectual property? Please, don't make me laugh. I haven't read the article but I doubt it's saying anything worth the time it'd take me to read it.
The net is not going to really change anything fundamental long-term, it'll just change the arena that it's done in and the tools that'll be used. At the moment the net is just going through a transitional phase where people, companies and governments are still trying to determine what it is and what should be done about or with it. Sooner or later, and it'll probably be sooner, the way the net will integrate into people's lives will become apparent and it'll be business as usual.
All the current rampant law-breaking and theivery is serving to do is get the net regulated faster than it would have been anyway. And it's giving both corporations and governments a great excuse for flexing their muscles in the international, rather than national, arenas. Instead of being able to pass laws in their own jurisdictions, the net is giving countries like the US an opportunity to push it's laws, and hence itself, into other countries. Truly, a globalists dream - the American hegemony extending itself into every country in the world.
No, intellectual property won't die thanks to the net. Unfortunately, I doubt the same could be said about freedom.
This sort of thing just goes to show why the whole concept of a public utility is severely outdated and needs to be replaced. Government interventionalism worked back in the days of building an infrastructure, but it invariably fails when it comes to maintaining and expanding a service.
Privatised utilities can offer a far superior service to consumers given the competition built into the free market socioeconomic model, and the privatisation of utilities in countries like the UK has been an unqualified success for both consumers and utilities, allowing people to choose exaclty who offers the best deals on their gas, electricity and so on.
What America needs is to have more privitised utilities - look at the success we've had with our health service, it is the envy of the world with the best equipped hospitals to be found anywhere. Surely it is obvious that this success could be used elsewhere, such as in an ailing electrical market.
Of course, the only real danger here is that the Government will attempt to privatise the industry whilst remaining in control of it through legislation and "industry watchdogs", stifling the benefits that privitisation should bring. As I'm sure all libertarians out there would agree, that would not be a good thing at all for anyone.
Is for someone to do this, but instead of launching a DDoS attack, to set up people's firewalls to prevent this from happening again. Possibly the only good use of 0wning someone's box...
I believe that my existence is nothing but a random but inevitable event (the universe being so huge, the existence of life is pretty much inevitable, I'd have thought). I believe that when I die I will just die. Simple as that. Once you come to terms with these two rational premises, religion and god (irrational) are redundant.
Aah, so you believe that the ethics that comes from being a decent Christian are "redundant"? Indeed, by the tone of your post it seems that you believe that humanity has "evolved" past such abstract and obviously useless concepts.
Now your attitude is typical of the atheistic zealot, someone who for some reason cannot abide the thought of their being any kind of religious truth. Instead of accepting that other viewpoints may be just as valid as your scientific paradigm, you instantly flame away at someone who expresses the fact that they believe in a higher power, something your precious "scientists" cannot rule out.
Please, next time think before you post such flamebait. Unless you are the one trying to troll?
Your mocking tone is understandable, you, like many others have been brainwashed by the atheistic cult that controls education, and their empty lies have been fed to you for many years. However, surely even you can see the truth of what I am saying?
Can we have a copy of your score sheet on the inchfan please? That way we can all know how to live up to your 31337 trolling criteria, and you can post those Score 10 out of 10 trolls you've done. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I dunno, the N-P-17 did go pretty well, but thanks to the legal angle you wouldn't want it known that you'd got one and was breaking it in. The latest version doesn't need quite the same level of training as the N-P-17, the heuristics must be a lot better.
---
Jon E. Erikson
No, I'm not denying that the end of Moore's law is inevitable given current production techniques and circuit technology, rather I'm saying that there will be new developments which will allow us to continue using the same basic model of circuitry without going to a radically different architecture, such as quantum computing.
See this article for an example of a component which rather than being hampered by quantum effects, instead relies on them to work. There are other similar efforts underway, I think IBM are working on similar projects, and I think that by the time Moore's law ends we'll have the basis for a new kind of electronic circuit based on the same general principles, but different component architectures.
---
Jon E. Erikson
True, but that's all assuming that the basic technology behind circuitry remains pretty much the same in the future, whereas I'm more of the belief that new techniques will have to be developed to replace the standard components - resistors, capacitors, diodes etc. Unless we do get some new techniques then we will eventually hit the quantum barrier, but probably still later than expected.
Indeed, the quantum effects that will eventually kill current circuit design are the most likely candidates for producing new ones :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
This technology will probably have limited use in producing circuits that are ever finer, as this takes you well into the realm of unpredictable quantum effects, where circuits can no longer be guaranteed to behave in a predictable way.
I'm going to have to disagree with that last statement. Sure, at the scales we're talking about here quantum effects come into play, but they're hardly unpredictable. Unless we're talking about individual quantum processes, the outcome of which is indeed probabalistic then we can statistically predict what will happen with a large number of quantum processes, which is what will be taking place at this level.
So I doubt that quantum mechanics will really form that much of a barrier to the size of circuitry. It'll require a new methodology and new techniques to be sure, but it's hardly like it'll be impossible to make some analog of electronic circuits at very small scales.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Text mode Quake! See how many people you can kill on the train to work! Knot your fingers trying to hit all the commands on a phone the size of a postage stamp... Or maybe not :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
The death of intellectual property? Please, don't make me laugh. I haven't read the article but I doubt it's saying anything worth the time it'd take me to read it.
The net is not going to really change anything fundamental long-term, it'll just change the arena that it's done in and the tools that'll be used. At the moment the net is just going through a transitional phase where people, companies and governments are still trying to determine what it is and what should be done about or with it. Sooner or later, and it'll probably be sooner, the way the net will integrate into people's lives will become apparent and it'll be business as usual.
All the current rampant law-breaking and theivery is serving to do is get the net regulated faster than it would have been anyway. And it's giving both corporations and governments a great excuse for flexing their muscles in the international, rather than national, arenas. Instead of being able to pass laws in their own jurisdictions, the net is giving countries like the US an opportunity to push it's laws, and hence itself, into other countries. Truly, a globalists dream - the American hegemony extending itself into every country in the world.
No, intellectual property won't die thanks to the net. Unfortunately, I doubt the same could be said about freedom.
---
Jon E. Erikson
This sort of thing just goes to show why the whole concept of a public utility is severely outdated and needs to be replaced. Government interventionalism worked back in the days of building an infrastructure, but it invariably fails when it comes to maintaining and expanding a service.
Privatised utilities can offer a far superior service to consumers given the competition built into the free market socioeconomic model, and the privatisation of utilities in countries like the UK has been an unqualified success for both consumers and utilities, allowing people to choose exaclty who offers the best deals on their gas, electricity and so on.
What America needs is to have more privitised utilities - look at the success we've had with our health service, it is the envy of the world with the best equipped hospitals to be found anywhere. Surely it is obvious that this success could be used elsewhere, such as in an ailing electrical market.
Of course, the only real danger here is that the Government will attempt to privatise the industry whilst remaining in control of it through legislation and "industry watchdogs", stifling the benefits that privitisation should bring. As I'm sure all libertarians out there would agree, that would not be a good thing at all for anyone.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Is for someone to do this, but instead of launching a DDoS attack, to set up people's firewalls to prevent this from happening again. Possibly the only good use of 0wning someone's box...
---
Jon E. Erikson
I believe that my existence is nothing but a random but inevitable event (the universe being so huge, the existence of life is pretty much inevitable, I'd have thought). I believe that when I die I will just die. Simple as that. Once you come to terms with these two rational premises, religion and god (irrational) are redundant.
Aah, so you believe that the ethics that comes from being a decent Christian are "redundant"? Indeed, by the tone of your post it seems that you believe that humanity has "evolved" past such abstract and obviously useless concepts.
Now your attitude is typical of the atheistic zealot, someone who for some reason cannot abide the thought of their being any kind of religious truth. Instead of accepting that other viewpoints may be just as valid as your scientific paradigm, you instantly flame away at someone who expresses the fact that they believe in a higher power, something your precious "scientists" cannot rule out.
Please, next time think before you post such flamebait. Unless you are the one trying to troll?
---
Jon E. Erikson
Your mocking tone is understandable, you, like many others have been brainwashed by the atheistic cult that controls education, and their empty lies have been fed to you for many years. However, surely even you can see the truth of what I am saying?
---
Jon E. Erikson
Can we have a copy of your score sheet on the inchfan please? That way we can all know how to live up to your 31337 trolling criteria, and you can post those Score 10 out of 10 trolls you've done. Thanks.
---
Jon E. Erikson