The article is a fabulous piece of work - mixing solid scientific calculations with just plain idiotic assumptions.
First, let's just pretend that humans are going to go for another route than carrying a portable nuke in their laps.
And, the other big issue, you can't predict inventions.
That said, let's throw a few inventions that exist today that offer alternatives that make this technological path highly unlikely.
Reversable switches. They're there, they half the processing speeed, and they have a net heat of zero. Combine that with the work done on 3D crystals, and you could stick the equivalent of all the current chips in the world inside a marble. With no heat issues. might not be the ultimate computer, but a heck of sight better than today's.
Quantum technology is coming along nicely. The limiting factor is the surrounding hardware, not the chip.
Which, of course, brings up the next point - interface design. Xybernaut et al are doing wonderful things in the world of wearable computers. Even skipping the issue of implantables (which are, to a very limited degree, already a reality), things are just going to get smaller. Personal HUDs, total connectivity via some radio band, and probably runs off your body's energy.
I found the article to be grossly irresponsible, the kind of tripe created by a reporter asking clueless questions. The subject deserves better treatement than that.
Cause when you're fixing a problem on-screen, it's a real pain to keep swapping. I glance around my workstation and see 30 or 40 custom pages stuck up, a dozen of which I use daily. On my desk top I have four sheets showing for just my current project.
I do read FAQs, Howtos, and Readmes. I also have 11 apps open: My Excel sheet runs 3 pages each for seven tabs; Generally three or four panels per Unix window (4); And customized mainframe session currently running six windows. All running on a monitor that couldn't display all those simultaneously in anything other than 1 pixel/character.
Sometimes, you have to whack people over the head to make them recognize what _should_ be obvious. Books (and paper) have some serious advantages over computers. Easily transportable, modifiable , lower power requirements, and can display more info simultaneously.
One comment that sorta goes along with along with the whole dual-processor theme: MS-Windows(x) has never been particularly good at utilizing multi-CPU archticture (OK, to be accurate, is basically sucks). As MS-Windows(x) market share starts to fall (rather inevitable) to Linux (and maybe BeOS;-), this is going to become even more important.
I also suspect that, from a cost standpoint, it will be far more effective to run a set of dual (or quad) last-months-processors than one SOTA Mhz monstrosity.
I will even go out on a limb so far as to say seperate processors are inevitable (Go Amiga!). The current architecture on Intel's and AMD's products attempts to bring some RISC-like properties to what is becoming an mind-numbingly complex CISC. This is the reason Sparcs et al hold the high end (just, and falling).
Of course, as a software type myself, it really requires code written to take advantage of the architecture, and currently most (common programs) are designed for the standard one-CPU x86 machine. OTOH, there are a number of UNIX progs for which this is standard. Only time will tell which approach will win...
1/ It is a crime to fake/disguise/whatever the originating address
2/ All spam must have "ADV:" as the first three characters of the subject line.
Both ideas have been tossed around for a while, nationally and internationally. Pity it had to be a US state doing this, rather than the federal US gov'mint, but anyway, it's done. Now to see how the enforcement of it works...
I wouldn't be surprised to see plenty of places (i.e. every SysAdmin/ISP/node) just not forwarding the ADV: junk. Trivial exercise. And 99.999% of the net community would support them. 'Rights' to free speech, et al, are not really infringed by requiring these scum-sucking !$$#$$ to stick four characters at the beginning of their spiels. My gawd, AOL might actually run at something approaching normal speeds!
Me, I have some serious questions about the validity of animal testing, too. The book talks about how some problems simply aren't solvable on computers: similarly, there are some chemicals that have proven harmless on animals, and fatal to humans, and some chemicals that are fatal to the animals, and perfectly OK for humans to use.
I'm not 100% against animal testing, and I'd rather things were tested on some rabbit before it gets to human testing, but, at the same time, most of the animal testing industry needs several hob-nailed boots to the head to correct it.
It might cheer you up to know the US has, AFAIK, dropped it's work on racially tailored viruses. The field was very promising, however, there were a few big negatives: the cost, the fact the US is one of the most ethnically mixed countries on the face of the planet, and the political cost if it ever got out (You're working on a plague to wipe out Blacks? Expecting and invasion from Uganda, or just being funded by the KKK?!?!)
Regrettably, there are both countries and people out there who actually kinda prefer the one-race kinda thing (although race, among humans, is kind of a bogus concept: species is usually defined as non-interfertility). I know of one 'incident' where a white South African type was dispatched back home when someone clued into the possible ramifications of his work on curing sickle-cell anemia... whether or not he was actually working on a real cure, the fear of what he might do will prevent that kind of research for years to come.
Re:Biotech and Biowarfare Equipment
on
Living Terrors
·
· Score: 1
Uh, you don't even need to go down to the local farm co-op. I could, if so motivated, create a mutated form of the flu using nothing more than a UV bulb, a few bowls: to ensure something really ugly, I'd probably grab a couple of dozen of the most common anti-biotics/virals out there, and do some selection for the most virulent strain(s) possible. Takes about six months to guarantee something suitably far from the current crop that people wouldn't have too many suitable anti-bodies. Now, with a garage set-up like that, I can't guarantee the lethality (which will almost certainly go up, but still be in the low double digits based on previous experiments), only the increased contagion (climbing to over 90%).
There was a good lecture here in Minneapolis a few years back, regarding bio terrorism, from the head of the State Health. Seems we've got the #1, A-plus site to distribute it... the MALL OF AMERICA. Huge crowds, national airline hub, zero security.
About the only thing that cheers me up is that most terrorists lack the discipline and/or brains to learn how (effectively and safely... not much point to it if you kill yourself along the way). Witness the general lack of success with bombs. People like McVeigh are the dangerous types - they have the training and brains to do things right. Imagine someone like him - in motivation and US Military training - but this time in the bio-warfare department.
Slashdot Mirror
First, let's just pretend that humans are going to go for another route than carrying a portable nuke in their laps.
And, the other big issue, you can't predict inventions.
That said, let's throw a few inventions that exist today that offer alternatives that make this technological path highly unlikely.
Reversable switches. They're there, they half the processing speeed, and they have a net heat of zero. Combine that with the work done on 3D crystals, and you could stick the equivalent of all the current chips in the world inside a marble. With no heat issues. might not be the ultimate computer, but a heck of sight better than today's.
Quantum technology is coming along nicely. The limiting factor is the surrounding hardware, not the chip.
Which, of course, brings up the next point - interface design. Xybernaut et al are doing wonderful things in the world of wearable computers. Even skipping the issue of implantables (which are, to a very limited degree, already a reality), things are just going to get smaller. Personal HUDs, total connectivity via some radio band, and probably runs off your body's energy.
I found the article to be grossly irresponsible, the kind of tripe created by a reporter asking clueless questions. The subject deserves better treatement than that.
Cause when you're fixing a problem on-screen, it's a real pain to keep swapping. I glance around my workstation and see 30 or 40 custom pages stuck up, a dozen of which I use daily. On my desk top I have four sheets showing for just my current project.
I do read FAQs, Howtos, and Readmes. I also have 11 apps open: My Excel sheet runs 3 pages each for seven tabs; Generally three or four panels per Unix window (4); And customized mainframe session currently running six windows. All running on a monitor that couldn't display all those simultaneously in anything other than 1 pixel/character.
Sometimes, you have to whack people over the head to make them recognize what _should_ be obvious. Books (and paper) have some serious advantages over computers. Easily transportable, modifiable , lower power requirements, and can display more info simultaneously.
I also suspect that, from a cost standpoint, it will be far more effective to run a set of dual (or quad) last-months-processors than one SOTA Mhz monstrosity.
I will even go out on a limb so far as to say seperate processors are inevitable (Go Amiga!). The current architecture on Intel's and AMD's products attempts to bring some RISC-like properties to what is becoming an mind-numbingly complex CISC. This is the reason Sparcs et al hold the high end (just, and falling).
Of course, as a software type myself, it really requires code written to take advantage of the architecture, and currently most (common programs) are designed for the standard one-CPU x86 machine. OTOH, there are a number of UNIX progs for which this is standard. Only time will tell which approach will win ...
1/ It is a crime to fake/disguise/whatever the originating address
2/ All spam must have "ADV:" as the first three characters of the subject line.
Both ideas have been tossed around for a while, nationally and internationally. Pity it had to be a US state doing this, rather than the federal US gov'mint, but anyway, it's done. Now to see how the enforcement of it works... I wouldn't be surprised to see plenty of places (i.e. every SysAdmin/ISP/node) just not forwarding the ADV: junk. Trivial exercise. And 99.999% of the net community would support them. 'Rights' to free speech, et al, are not really infringed by requiring these scum-sucking !$$#$$ to stick four characters at the beginning of their spiels. My gawd, AOL might actually run at something approaching normal speeds!
I'm not 100% against animal testing, and I'd rather things were tested on some rabbit before it gets to human testing, but, at the same time, most of the animal testing industry needs several hob-nailed boots to the head to correct it.
Regrettably, there are both countries and people out there who actually kinda prefer the one-race kinda thing (although race, among humans, is kind of a bogus concept: species is usually defined as non-interfertility). I know of one 'incident' where a white South African type was dispatched back home when someone clued into the possible ramifications of his work on curing sickle-cell anemia ... whether or not he was actually working on a real cure, the fear of what he might do will prevent that kind of research for years to come.
There was a good lecture here in Minneapolis a few years back, regarding bio terrorism, from the head of the State Health. Seems we've got the #1, A-plus site to distribute it ... the MALL OF AMERICA. Huge crowds, national airline hub, zero security.
About the only thing that cheers me up is that most terrorists lack the discipline and/or brains to learn how (effectively and safely ... not much point to it if you kill yourself along the way). Witness the general lack of success with bombs. People like McVeigh are the dangerous types - they have the training and brains to do things right. Imagine someone like him - in motivation and US Military training - but this time in the bio-warfare department.