I have actually tried that before, but I've found it to be a bit dangerous. Web Browsers often regenerate the HTML content based on their DOM tree. As a result, they often lose any tags or attributes that they don't recognize. It shouldn't be a problem in IE or Mozilla, but it's probably not the safest scheme.:-)
Ah! A perfect learning example. This, my good Slashdotters, is an example of a troll. Trolls almost always post as AC, and pretend to know their head from their ass when they are really looking to make people mad. Let's pick this one apart, shall we?
FFS. You aren't creating a "tag", you are creating an element. You'd think the function name "createElement" would be a hint.
This is a perfect example of nit-picking, while being completely wrong. "Element" is a generic term for all objects that can be in the document structure. "Tag" is a more specific type of element. Thus the two are interchangable in this situation. But Mr. Troll would rather pick at nits because he can make people mad. Isn't that right Mr. Trolly-wolly?
Your onclick attachment is stupid as well. It overwrites any existing onclick handler, which means you can't use that code in any generic page.
Again, Mr. Trolly-Wolly doesn't know what he's talking about, but professes that he does. He is intentionally confusing a document-level click handler with an element level click handler. For the record, the element level click handler does not replace the document level handler. Document level handlers are BAAAAAD, and should only be used in specific circumstances.
And since we're creating the tag element from scratch, we don't have to worry about any prior events being attached.
That and your "who needs to handle non-CSS user-agents" comment really shows how little your comment is worth.
And again, Mr. Trolly doesn't actually understand this issue, but he feels that he must use it to anger people into submission. If Mr. Troll was a little more educated, he'd know that all non-CSS compliant browsers are deprecated and can no longer be used if one wishes to follow the "standards". CSS is particularly important to small devices and screen readers, which are supposed to use CSS hints for small-screen or aural rendering.
That's it for this edition of "Make the Trolls Look Stupid!" Join us next time when we show you how to get your pet troll to do tricks!
My primary goal is to make it accessible, easily degradable, cross browser compatible, and easy to use all in one go.
And you've suceeded. Congrats.:-)
As for adding onClick events, I tried element.onclick and never actually got anywhere- probably because I am not much of a JavaScripter.
It's a bit tricky, but not as hard as you might think. The "onclick" *mus* be in lower case. I can't count how many times this has bitten people in the rear.
Also, when you're doing JavaScript, always use Mozilla/FireFox for development. Typing "javascript:" will bring up one of the most useful debugging tools at your disposal. Often when something seems wrong, your initial guess to the problem is likely wrong. The JS Debugger will tell you what the issue *really* is.:-)
Here's a working example with the "onclick" handler:
Which ones, those Checkbox and Radio controls that won't work if javascript is *disabled*?
KillerRobot said that he "hasn't seen non-Flash controls styled like this before."
I pointed him to examples of said styled controls.
An example of the DOM Walking techniques he's using are the annoying adverts like on this page. If your browser has JavaScript disabled, the links won't appear. But with JavaScript enabled, the links are automatically created from text extracted from the page.
My point is that this scheme has been known for awhile, but most developers don't bother with such attempts at backward compatibility. If your application is going to replace the standard controls with DHTML ones, then it's probably too complex to work without JavaScript and CSS anyway.
There's nothing really new here, but it is a nice tutorial on gracefully degrading functionality.:-)
As far as I know, this IS new. I've certainly never seen checkboxes and radio buttons (non-Flash) styled like this before
Try again. I (and many others) have been doing checkboxes, radio buttons, and even select dropdowns in pure CSS and JavaScript for awhile. I actually have an internally deployed application that does this, and I checked out several existing JS Libraries before writing my own. Go here for some good examples.
I try to keep up with that kind of thing.
Obviously not as well as you think.
I'm not that well versed in ECMAScript or the DOM but are your suggestions accessible like what he's created? In that they would be able to be manipulated with tab and the space bar?
Yes. To obtain the tabbing, you'd still need to wrap the checkbox in an anchor, but this can be generated on the fly. He uses an "OnKeyPress" to capture the spacebar events, so that can easily be replaced with
As I said, he hasn't done anything *new* here. His invention is really just a tutorial on how to be backward compatible while still providing fancy new DHTML controls. Such DOM walking schemes are in common usage today (ever see those pages that suddenly pop up hotlinks over key words while you're viewing them?), but the industry has begun to move away from concerning themselves with Netscape 4 era browsers.
Of course, if you need a checkbox, most sites still use plain old checkboxes. The only reason to replace them is if you need a web app on the level of GMail, in which case a lot more things are likely to break than just the DHTMLS checkboxes.
These checkboxes don't work. This is obviously another sign of just how borked slashcode really is...
Really? They worked fine for me. Well, except for that little issue with the mark lagging behind the checkbox. Everytime I scroll the browser, I have to wipe off the existing mark, pull out my magic marker, and recheck the box! Someone should tell Taco that this is a really annoying bug. But you guys can see my answer, right?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that webdesigners who insist their audience should have javascript switched on are annoying. Quit it, already.
I was actually referring to the CSS in specific, but even a lack of JavaScript is a big issue. There have been several times that I've written a DHTML application to improve the user interface. The non-Javascript alternatives are simply too clunky and hard to use. So yes, when they're in my site I expect them to have JavaScript turned on.
That being said, I would only tend to deploy such JavaScript tricks in cases where I'm deploying an actual web application and not just a public information site. DHTML on new.com.com.com would be bad, but on sites that I work on (which you've never heard of because you're not our direct customer) the application is for a specific sub-set of users.
Yes, actually. While I'm none to keen on the idea of supporting old browsers in DHTML/AJAX/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it-this-week applications, his solution is designed to allow for normal checkboxes to show in browsers that lack JavaScript. As a result, the normal "text" checkboxes would show in Lynx. At least until Lynx gets full JavaScript and DOM support. Then you have problems.;-)
In reading TFA, it seems that the author hasn't done anything actually new. He's just inserting styled DIV tags with click handlers attached to them. His primary concern (and what he believes he's invented) is a method to be backward compatible with browers that have JavaScript turned off, and/or browsers that lack CSS support. (You actually want to support those guys?)
His solution is very similar to what mine would be. I'd just walk the DOM looking for checkboxes, then replace them with some inline element creation code. His solution is to get a list of all links, then find any with a special class. He then goes on to replace the contents of the links via the innerHTML property. Clunky, but it does work.
To the author: You can achieve your goal much more easily by attaching the className to the checkbox directly. Use getElementsByTagName to get a list of INPUT tags, then loop through those. When you find one you want to replace, use the
document.createElement()
function to build the replacement tag on the fly. You can then use
A heat pipe and a large radiator does passively via convenction what the stirling engine does forcefully for the extra 9W.
Not so. A heat pipe is passive because it merely equalizes the temperature. A Stirling engine can continue pumping heat far below the ambient temperature. As I said, right into cryogenics range.
The overall cooling effect is still limited by the heat transfer ability of the hot side, which is always some kind of radiator.
'Tis true. But the hot side can easily be enhanced with fancier metals, and larger surface areas. Basically, you could use the entire side of the computer case to cool your centimeter square microprocessor.
A thin client DOESN'T have any of the ordinary components. No CPU or RAM to speak of.
Umm... yes it does. A thin client needs a CPU to function, and memory to feed that CPU with. The difference between a "thin" client vs. a "thick" client is that the "thin" client has very cheap hardware. i.e. You might find an ARM processor and 16 megs of ram. Such a device should cost $50-$100 in bulk.
No HDD.
Correct. Although they usually have flash memory for the basic OS they run.
No expansion bays.
Correct.
Quite possibly no peripheral drives, either
More or less correct. More sophisticated Thin Clients might have USB device support or some such for printers, USB keys, and the like.
Getting to anything orbit (as opposed to suborbital) is a huge task. Getting a huge, man-rated craft to orbit is a Herculean one.
Arguably it's the "huge" part that's the problem. For some unfathomable reason, the US decided to man rate a cargo-carrying super-booster. So thousands of little details that would have otherwise not mattered, *do* matter.
The Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering. But if we're going to man rate the darn thing, let's at least fly it with loads full of people instead of space station parts. Put a passenger module into the cargo bay, and you could lift (and bring back!) a good 50 people at a time! Leave the cargo to the Delta-V's, Energias, Protons, Titans and Atlases of the world.
But for tonight and tomorrow, I wish every person who's working on the Shuttle or will be flying on the Shuttle, goodluck and Godspeed.
Haha, the great thing about space is that there aren't any choke points.
Try studying orbital mechanics sometime, then repeat that for us.
You can't just fly around any direction you like in space. Your path is determined by the bodies of which you're orbiting. Chose one orbit and you'll get there faster, again at the cost of fuel. Chose another orbit and you'll get there slower but with more fuel. Chose the wrong orbit, and you won't get there at all.
When the predictions of "space can't be militarized" were made, powerful computers did not yet exist. No one considered that every possible orbit could be computed in real time with a gizmo that can fit in your pocket.
But, really, all of those fan and water and air-conditioning based cooling options are just really good ways to make your office or computer area really friggin' loud.
You didn't read the article, did you? Stirling Coolers (and I assume Pulse Tube Coolers) make very little noise due to the need for minimal friction. No air is actually moved by the engine (although there is a Helium working fluid sealed inside the engine) so there's no blowing noise, either. The largest concern is vibration, but such vibrations would be no more than existing fans.
And hey, how can you not like something that can make instant liquid nitrogen? (Look at the frost on the right end of this picture) I think I'll get one of these and start producing my own rocket fuel.;-)
I spent plenty of time with thermistors on the ambient air around components and even on the components themselves. Open case was always 5-10 deg C cooler.
If that's happening, I'd start by checking the case design. Many users have very dense cases with large bundles of wires inside. All these wires can obstruct the airflow and prevent the system from properly cooling. This is one of the reasons why I always purchase as large of a case as I possibly can. Full size towers are pretty hard to come by these days, but good Mid-Towers make for a nice compromise.
I don't know if it's a sign of a good case or not, but the last one I chose had an array of holes for dissapating extra heat while maintaining the airflow. You'd be surprised how cold my case is, despite the fact that it's in 5 year old stock condition.
It goes to show how widespread a bad joke has become when the opening line to the Wikipedia article on Cryogenics is:
Cryogenics is the study of very low temperatures or the production of the same, and is often confused with cryobiology, the study of the effect of low temperatures on organisms, or the study of cryopreservation. Likewise, cryonics is the nascent study of the cryopreservation of the human body. Unlike cryogenics, cryonics is not an established science and is viewed with skepticism by most scientists and doctors today.
That may not be as good of an idea as you think. Cases todays are designed like wind-tunnels with the air moving from the front to the back. As the air passes over areas, it draws away the heat and is exhausted out the back.
When the case is off the PC, the wind tunnel effect is lost and most of the air is left standing. As a result, your ability to cool your system is actually reduced. This can lead to overheating and ultimately, failure.
If you value your computer, you'll get a nice large case with properly installed fans.
And for the serious overclockers, we have low powered cryogenics coming down the pipeline. It turns out that Intel is considering the possibility of using Pulse Tube Coolers for the next generation of thermal management. (Hey Intel, you think that over 100 watts might be just a *smidge* much for a processor?)
While there's something to be said for this step being rather extreme, it might lead to the development of cryogenic computers. These futuristic processors could utilize super-conducting transistors and wires to improve performance and eliminate waste heat.
Kind of a weird thought, but there you have it.:-)
Personally, I'd like to see Stirling or Pulse Tube Coolers replacing existing phase-change air conditioners. In the name of "energy efficiency", you can't buy a decent apartment AC and are forced to deal with putting one in every room. Stirling engines could provide better cooling for less energy! Now if we could just get the buggers mass produced to bring down the cost...
I blame Carley for this concept seeing the light of day. If she hadn't left the company so abruptly, such innovation technology would have been soundly buried, the employees sacked, and the tech developed by a competitor. Instead, HP is producing equipment based on this!
It used to be that you could count on HP to produce absolutely nothing of interest and sap up every failing tech company on the market. What is the world coming to?
Part of knowing a trade is knowing when to violate the rules of that trade. e.g. In programming there are often contests to pack as much of game in 2-4K as possible. The people who are *really* good at programming break the right rules to get things small, while the people who are just ok at programming make a mess all in the name of "saving space".
It's the same thing with writing. You're taught certain rules to cover the majority of situations. Becoming good at writing means knowing when to break those rules to better communicate with the reader.
The fools! All they needed was a built-in clock divider. They could have been delivering 128-GHz processors years ago.
There are *so* many things wrong with that joke. For one, I wouldn't be surprised if most motherboards today use a clock multiplier so that they don't need such expensive oscillators. Significantly increasing the multiplier would only serve to destablize the signal, resulting in a very poor wave after you divide it. The other problem is that the CPU is measured by the clock rate it actually runs at, not the rate of the crystal. Sorry.:-)
If you don't think SPARC is a poorly designed processor you need to wake up from your trendy x86 bashing and smell some benchmarks done in the last 5 years.
Do you actually know what you're talking about? Benchmarks have nothing to do with the validity of a design. In fact, they prove absolutely nothing since the SPARC is targetted at a very different market than the x86.
Put this in your head and think about it: A CPU is but a single component in a much larger system.
When you figure out how that relates to the x86 and SPARC architectures, let us know.
Slashdot Mirror
I have actually tried that before, but I've found it to be a bit dangerous. Web Browsers often regenerate the HTML content based on their DOM tree. As a result, they often lose any tags or attributes that they don't recognize. It shouldn't be a problem in IE or Mozilla, but it's probably not the safest scheme. :-)
Ah! A perfect learning example. This, my good Slashdotters, is an example of a troll. Trolls almost always post as AC, and pretend to know their head from their ass when they are really looking to make people mad. Let's pick this one apart, shall we?
FFS. You aren't creating a "tag", you are creating an element. You'd think the function name "createElement" would be a hint.
This is a perfect example of nit-picking, while being completely wrong. "Element" is a generic term for all objects that can be in the document structure. "Tag" is a more specific type of element. Thus the two are interchangable in this situation. But Mr. Troll would rather pick at nits because he can make people mad. Isn't that right Mr. Trolly-wolly?
Your onclick attachment is stupid as well. It overwrites any existing onclick handler, which means you can't use that code in any generic page.
Again, Mr. Trolly-Wolly doesn't know what he's talking about, but professes that he does. He is intentionally confusing a document-level click handler with an element level click handler. For the record, the element level click handler does not replace the document level handler. Document level handlers are BAAAAAD, and should only be used in specific circumstances.
And since we're creating the tag element from scratch, we don't have to worry about any prior events being attached.
That and your "who needs to handle non-CSS user-agents" comment really shows how little your comment is worth.
And again, Mr. Trolly doesn't actually understand this issue, but he feels that he must use it to anger people into submission. If Mr. Troll was a little more educated, he'd know that all non-CSS compliant browsers are deprecated and can no longer be used if one wishes to follow the "standards". CSS is particularly important to small devices and screen readers, which are supposed to use CSS hints for small-screen or aural rendering.
That's it for this edition of "Make the Trolls Look Stupid!" Join us next time when we show you how to get your pet troll to do tricks!
My primary goal is to make it accessible, easily degradable, cross browser compatible, and easy to use all in one go.
And you've suceeded. Congrats.
As for adding onClick events, I tried element.onclick and never actually got anywhere- probably because I am not much of a JavaScripter.
It's a bit tricky, but not as hard as you might think. The "onclick" *mus* be in lower case. I can't count how many times this has bitten people in the rear.
Also, when you're doing JavaScript, always use Mozilla/FireFox for development. Typing "javascript:" will bring up one of the most useful debugging tools at your disposal. Often when something seems wrong, your initial guess to the problem is likely wrong. The JS Debugger will tell you what the issue *really* is.
Here's a working example with the "onclick" handler:(Watch for Slashcode inserting random spaces above.)
Thanks for your comments!
No problem. If you have questions about advanced JavaScripting, my door is always open: akaimbatman@gmail.com.
Which ones, those Checkbox and Radio controls that won't work if javascript is *disabled*?
:-)
KillerRobot said that he "hasn't seen non-Flash controls styled like this before."
I pointed him to examples of said styled controls.
An example of the DOM Walking techniques he's using are the annoying adverts like on this page. If your browser has JavaScript disabled, the links won't appear. But with JavaScript enabled, the links are automatically created from text extracted from the page.
My point is that this scheme has been known for awhile, but most developers don't bother with such attempts at backward compatibility. If your application is going to replace the standard controls with DHTML ones, then it's probably too complex to work without JavaScript and CSS anyway.
There's nothing really new here, but it is a nice tutorial on gracefully degrading functionality.
Try again. I (and many others) have been doing checkboxes, radio buttons, and even select dropdowns in pure CSS and JavaScript for awhile. I actually have an internally deployed application that does this, and I checked out several existing JS Libraries before writing my own. Go here for some good examples.
I try to keep up with that kind of thing.
Obviously not as well as you think.
I'm not that well versed in ECMAScript or the DOM but are your suggestions accessible like what he's created? In that they would be able to be manipulated with tab and the space bar?
Yes. To obtain the tabbing, you'd still need to wrap the checkbox in an anchor, but this can be generated on the fly. He uses an "OnKeyPress" to capture the spacebar events, so that can easily be replaced with Same results, but it's more dynamic.
As I said, he hasn't done anything *new* here. His invention is really just a tutorial on how to be backward compatible while still providing fancy new DHTML controls. Such DOM walking schemes are in common usage today (ever see those pages that suddenly pop up hotlinks over key words while you're viewing them?), but the industry has begun to move away from concerning themselves with Netscape 4 era browsers.
Of course, if you need a checkbox, most sites still use plain old checkboxes. The only reason to replace them is if you need a web app on the level of GMail, in which case a lot more things are likely to break than just the DHTMLS checkboxes.
These checkboxes don't work. This is obviously another sign of just how borked slashcode really is...
Really? They worked fine for me. Well, except for that little issue with the mark lagging behind the checkbox. Everytime I scroll the browser, I have to wipe off the existing mark, pull out my magic marker, and recheck the box! Someone should tell Taco that this is a really annoying bug. But you guys can see my answer, right?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that webdesigners who insist their audience should have javascript switched on are annoying. Quit it, already.
I was actually referring to the CSS in specific, but even a lack of JavaScript is a big issue. There have been several times that I've written a DHTML application to improve the user interface. The non-Javascript alternatives are simply too clunky and hard to use. So yes, when they're in my site I expect them to have JavaScript turned on.
That being said, I would only tend to deploy such JavaScript tricks in cases where I'm deploying an actual web application and not just a public information site. DHTML on new.com.com.com would be bad, but on sites that I work on (which you've never heard of because you're not our direct customer) the application is for a specific sub-set of users.
Ask a redundant question, get a redundant answer.
Will Lynx render them correctly with ascii-art?
;-)
Yes, actually. While I'm none to keen on the idea of supporting old browsers in DHTML/AJAX/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it-this-week applications, his solution is designed to allow for normal checkboxes to show in browsers that lack JavaScript. As a result, the normal "text" checkboxes would show in Lynx. At least until Lynx gets full JavaScript and DOM support. Then you have problems.
His solution is very similar to what mine would be. I'd just walk the DOM looking for checkboxes, then replace them with some inline element creation code. His solution is to get a list of all links, then find any with a special class. He then goes on to replace the contents of the links via the innerHTML property. Clunky, but it does work.
To the author: You can achieve your goal much more easily by attaching the className to the checkbox directly. Use getElementsByTagName to get a list of INPUT tags, then loop through those. When you find one you want to replace, use the function to build the replacement tag on the fly. You can then use to swap out the tags in a hurry.
Oh, and using an anchor tag for event handling is very 1990's. Try doing something like this instead:Note that you don't actually need the "StyledCheckbox" name, because you would be passing the actual element through to the event handler.
Good luck on your work.
A heat pipe and a large radiator does passively via convenction what the stirling engine does forcefully for the extra 9W.
Not so. A heat pipe is passive because it merely equalizes the temperature. A Stirling engine can continue pumping heat far below the ambient temperature. As I said, right into cryogenics range.
The overall cooling effect is still limited by the heat transfer ability of the hot side, which is always some kind of radiator.
'Tis true. But the hot side can easily be enhanced with fancier metals, and larger surface areas. Basically, you could use the entire side of the computer case to cool your centimeter square microprocessor.
No CPU or RAM to speak of.
:-)
Yes, Georgia, every word in a sentence IS important.
I think you mean "No CPU or RAM worth speaking of."
If it was an honest mistake, though, that's fine by me. Lord knows I make enough of them myself.
A thin client DOESN'T have any of the ordinary components. No CPU or RAM to speak of.
Umm... yes it does. A thin client needs a CPU to function, and memory to feed that CPU with. The difference between a "thin" client vs. a "thick" client is that the "thin" client has very cheap hardware. i.e. You might find an ARM processor and 16 megs of ram. Such a device should cost $50-$100 in bulk.
No HDD.
Correct. Although they usually have flash memory for the basic OS they run.
No expansion bays.
Correct.
Quite possibly no peripheral drives, either
More or less correct. More sophisticated Thin Clients might have USB device support or some such for printers, USB keys, and the like.
Getting to anything orbit (as opposed to suborbital) is a huge task. Getting a huge, man-rated craft to orbit is a Herculean one.
Arguably it's the "huge" part that's the problem. For some unfathomable reason, the US decided to man rate a cargo-carrying super-booster. So thousands of little details that would have otherwise not mattered, *do* matter.
The Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering. But if we're going to man rate the darn thing, let's at least fly it with loads full of people instead of space station parts. Put a passenger module into the cargo bay, and you could lift (and bring back!) a good 50 people at a time! Leave the cargo to the Delta-V's, Energias, Protons, Titans and Atlases of the world.
But for tonight and tomorrow, I wish every person who's working on the Shuttle or will be flying on the Shuttle, goodluck and Godspeed.
Haha, the great thing about space is that there aren't any choke points.
Try studying orbital mechanics sometime, then repeat that for us.
You can't just fly around any direction you like in space. Your path is determined by the bodies of which you're orbiting. Chose one orbit and you'll get there faster, again at the cost of fuel. Chose another orbit and you'll get there slower but with more fuel. Chose the wrong orbit, and you won't get there at all.
When the predictions of "space can't be militarized" were made, powerful computers did not yet exist. No one considered that every possible orbit could be computed in real time with a gizmo that can fit in your pocket.
Say what?
;-)
I think you hit the wrong reply button there.
But, really, all of those fan and water and air-conditioning based cooling options are just really good ways to make your office or computer area really friggin' loud.
;-)
You didn't read the article, did you? Stirling Coolers (and I assume Pulse Tube Coolers) make very little noise due to the need for minimal friction. No air is actually moved by the engine (although there is a Helium working fluid sealed inside the engine) so there's no blowing noise, either. The largest concern is vibration, but such vibrations would be no more than existing fans.
And hey, how can you not like something that can make instant liquid nitrogen? (Look at the frost on the right end of this picture) I think I'll get one of these and start producing my own rocket fuel.
I spent plenty of time with thermistors on the ambient air around components and even on the components themselves. Open case was always 5-10 deg C cooler.
If that's happening, I'd start by checking the case design. Many users have very dense cases with large bundles of wires inside. All these wires can obstruct the airflow and prevent the system from properly cooling. This is one of the reasons why I always purchase as large of a case as I possibly can. Full size towers are pretty hard to come by these days, but good Mid-Towers make for a nice compromise.
I don't know if it's a sign of a good case or not, but the last one I chose had an array of holes for dissapating extra heat while maintaining the airflow. You'd be surprised how cold my case is, despite the fact that it's in 5 year old stock condition.
It goes to show how widespread a bad joke has become when the opening line to the Wikipedia article on Cryogenics is:
Cryogenics is the study of very low temperatures or the production of the same, and is often confused with cryobiology, the study of the effect of low temperatures on organisms, or the study of cryopreservation. Likewise, cryonics is the nascent study of the cryopreservation of the human body. Unlike cryogenics, cryonics is not an established science and is viewed with skepticism by most scientists and doctors today.
Just leave the case open.
That may not be as good of an idea as you think. Cases todays are designed like wind-tunnels with the air moving from the front to the back. As the air passes over areas, it draws away the heat and is exhausted out the back.
When the case is off the PC, the wind tunnel effect is lost and most of the air is left standing. As a result, your ability to cool your system is actually reduced. This can lead to overheating and ultimately, failure.
If you value your computer, you'll get a nice large case with properly installed fans.
And for the serious overclockers, we have low powered cryogenics coming down the pipeline. It turns out that Intel is considering the possibility of using Pulse Tube Coolers for the next generation of thermal management. (Hey Intel, you think that over 100 watts might be just a *smidge* much for a processor?)
:-)
While there's something to be said for this step being rather extreme, it might lead to the development of cryogenic computers. These futuristic processors could utilize super-conducting transistors and wires to improve performance and eliminate waste heat.
Kind of a weird thought, but there you have it.
Personally, I'd like to see Stirling or Pulse Tube Coolers replacing existing phase-change air conditioners. In the name of "energy efficiency", you can't buy a decent apartment AC and are forced to deal with putting one in every room. Stirling engines could provide better cooling for less energy! Now if we could just get the buggers mass produced to bring down the cost...
I blame Carley for this concept seeing the light of day. If she hadn't left the company so abruptly, such innovation technology would have been soundly buried, the employees sacked, and the tech developed by a competitor. Instead, HP is producing equipment based on this!
It used to be that you could count on HP to produce absolutely nothing of interest and sap up every failing tech company on the market. What is the world coming to?
Part of knowing a trade is knowing when to violate the rules of that trade. e.g. In programming there are often contests to pack as much of game in 2-4K as possible. The people who are *really* good at programming break the right rules to get things small, while the people who are just ok at programming make a mess all in the name of "saving space".
It's the same thing with writing. You're taught certain rules to cover the majority of situations. Becoming good at writing means knowing when to break those rules to better communicate with the reader.
The fools! All they needed was a built-in clock divider. They could have been delivering 128-GHz processors years ago.
:-)
There are *so* many things wrong with that joke. For one, I wouldn't be surprised if most motherboards today use a clock multiplier so that they don't need such expensive oscillators. Significantly increasing the multiplier would only serve to destablize the signal, resulting in a very poor wave after you divide it. The other problem is that the CPU is measured by the clock rate it actually runs at, not the rate of the crystal. Sorry.
If you don't think SPARC is a poorly designed processor you need to wake up from your trendy x86 bashing and smell some benchmarks done in the last 5 years.
Do you actually know what you're talking about? Benchmarks have nothing to do with the validity of a design. In fact, they prove absolutely nothing since the SPARC is targetted at a very different market than the x86.
Put this in your head and think about it: A CPU is but a single component in a much larger system.
When you figure out how that relates to the x86 and SPARC architectures, let us know.