I worked on the RAW project as an undergrad and started work on a shared memory network for it. The interconnect is actually controlled as part of the instruction set just like the processors. Back then it was only 16 cores on a chip. The way I setup the shared memory network was to use the edge processors to act as the controllers for the off chip memory they were connected to. The other processors would send requests for reads and writes to the appropriate edge processor. I'm sure that their current method is significantly different than what I designed.
Each processor had some cache and there was also a special messaging network used to get to off chip non-shared RAM.
A = it is a bomb B = it looks like a bomb #2 is A -> B And it is true that if A -> B then not B -> not A so given #2 you can conclude that if it does not look like a bomb it is not a bomb
If you are uninformed then do not check any of the boxes, but at least show up. If you do not show up at the poles then from a politician's view point you do not count. Even if they want to, they cannot spend time watching out for you because they need to spend all their time pleasing the people that do show up. Especially if you are young you should at least show up just to show that politicians should not ignore our age group (since the ballots are not associated with your name they will not know that you did not actually vote for anyone).
There are three reasons why this will not have a big impact on wireless devices.
First - other than the digital parts of the device usually BJTs are used which have a leaky base as it is so improving the MOSFETs will not do anything for the BJT parts of the circuit.
Second - even if you make the whole device with MOSFETs the real power consumption is in parts like the transmitter and receiver which have orders of magnitude more current going through them than the leakage current.
Third - most wireless devices do not use cutting edge speed digital parts. So it would be a while before they would use processes with extreme leakage currents anyway.
I do not mean to take away from this accomplishment - it is very interesting and will help reduce power consumption in many applications, but wireless is not where I would expect the big gains.
I had Wilczek as a recitation instructor first semester freshman year at MIT. It was his first term at MIT too so it started off a bit odd - he tried teaching Einstein summation notation the first day, but after that he was great. He had over the summer solved every problem in the text book himself - so if you ever wanted to do some practice problems he would let you check the answers. It also meant that he never stumbled through the problems (but I am sure he would have been fine without the solutions). He was also very availble and willing to help - I spent several hours in his office getting one on one help studying for tests.
Of course at the time I thought he was just some goofy new guy, which was probably good or else I might have been more intimidated.
I was actually in Peter Hagelstein's quantum and satistical physics class last semester and on the last day he talked about his research. He said that what happened was that when the inital results came out there was a huge amount of public attention, but then they were not able to reproduce the experiments. The physics comunity did not want all of the public attention (and money) going to something that did not look like it was going to work so a large section of the physics community came out and trashed the idea. So it may still partially be the DoE's fault, but the physics community itself is also largely to blame.
Well, usually... Kirkoff's voltage and current laws actually come from an approximation. When you say that the frequency is low enough that you have electric fields and those electric fields produce magnetic fields, but the electric fields from the magnetic fields (that are from the original electric fields) are small enough to be ignored (curl of E = 0 instead of dB/dt). This is the electroquasistatic approximation.
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that Kansas is the home of Sprint. I'm not sure how this impacts the situation, but it is probably a factor.
I am supprised no one has mentioned it yet but London's Underground has a similar system. I do not know what they use to impliment it but they have screens telling you how long it will be until the couple of trains arrive and their end point.
This is compleately possible. They teach this in 8.03 (a basic waves class). As the article said the trick is that no energy/information can be sent faster than the speed of light. The part at the end about transmitting at near the speed of light is just basic wave guides.
Anyone else bothered by the talk of a.09 micron process at the bottom of the article? I may have my numbers wrong but I thought that.1 microns was as small as it gets before quantum tunneling and other effects take over.
For about 4 or 5 hundred years now science has been using mathmatics as a tool. While pure mathmatics is a very respectable subject, scientists view it as something that they can use to describe complex phenominon. In addition, throughout history scientist have needed higher and higher power mathmatics (Newton and calculus - Gauss and his theroms - Laplace and his techniques...)
So today CS is also a reputable field on its own, but for scientists it is a tool just like mathmatics. And the analogy continues that as scientists need higher and higher power CS they create it and asks computer scientists for help with it.
Thus, saying that science is just computer science is no different than the old saying that biology is just chemistry and chemistry is just physics and physics is just math and math is just boring, so what's the point.
In addition to the fact that there are thousands of other ways to cheat than a wireless device (such as just looking at someone else's paper as many college examins are not givin in idea conditions), THERE ARE ALREADY DEVICES THAT CAN DO THIS.
While all of the following solutions use IR instead of radio, they work almost as well:
The IR port on a palm pilot,
The IR port on fancy HP calculators (allowed on most tests),
A secreat sender (kinda stupid, but usually assumed to be harmless by most teachers).
Slashdot Mirror
I worked on the RAW project as an undergrad and started work on a shared memory network for it. The interconnect is actually controlled as part of the instruction set just like the processors. Back then it was only 16 cores on a chip. The way I setup the shared memory network was to use the edge processors to act as the controllers for the off chip memory they were connected to. The other processors would send requests for reads and writes to the appropriate edge processor. I'm sure that their current method is significantly different than what I designed.
m l
Each processor had some cache and there was also a special messaging network used to get to off chip non-shared RAM.
If you really want to get into the details:
http://cag-www.lcs.mit.edu/raw/documents/index.ht
A = it is a bomb
B = it looks like a bomb
#2 is A -> B
And it is true that if A -> B then not B -> not A
so given #2 you can conclude that if it does not look like a bomb it is not a bomb
If you are uninformed then do not check any of the boxes, but at least show up. If you do not show up at the poles then from a politician's view point you do not count. Even if they want to, they cannot spend time watching out for you because they need to spend all their time pleasing the people that do show up. Especially if you are young you should at least show up just to show that politicians should not ignore our age group (since the ballots are not associated with your name they will not know that you did not actually vote for anyone).
There are three reasons why this will not have a big impact on wireless devices.
First - other than the digital parts of the device usually BJTs are used which have a leaky base as it is so improving the MOSFETs will not do anything for the BJT parts of the circuit.
Second - even if you make the whole device with MOSFETs the real power consumption is in parts like the transmitter and receiver which have orders of magnitude more current going through them than the leakage current.
Third - most wireless devices do not use cutting edge speed digital parts. So it would be a while before they would use processes with extreme leakage currents anyway.
I do not mean to take away from this accomplishment - it is very interesting and will help reduce power consumption in many applications, but wireless is not where I would expect the big gains.
I had Wilczek as a recitation instructor first semester freshman year at MIT. It was his first term at MIT too so it started off a bit odd - he tried teaching Einstein summation notation the first day, but after that he was great. He had over the summer solved every problem in the text book himself - so if you ever wanted to do some practice problems he would let you check the answers. It also meant that he never stumbled through the problems (but I am sure he would have been fine without the solutions). He was also very availble and willing to help - I spent several hours in his office getting one on one help studying for tests.
Of course at the time I thought he was just some goofy new guy, which was probably good or else I might have been more intimidated.
I was actually in Peter Hagelstein's quantum and satistical physics class last semester and on the last day he talked about his research. He said that what happened was that when the inital results came out there was a huge amount of public attention, but then they were not able to reproduce the experiments. The physics comunity did not want all of the public attention (and money) going to something that did not look like it was going to work so a large section of the physics community came out and trashed the idea. So it may still partially be the DoE's fault, but the physics community itself is also largely to blame.
Well, usually...
Kirkoff's voltage and current laws actually come from an approximation. When you say that the frequency is low enough that you have electric fields and those electric fields produce magnetic fields, but the electric fields from the magnetic fields (that are from the original electric fields) are small enough to be ignored (curl of E = 0 instead of dB/dt). This is the electroquasistatic approximation.
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that Kansas is the home of Sprint. I'm not sure how this impacts the situation, but it is probably a factor.
I am supprised no one has mentioned it yet but London's Underground has a similar system. I do not know what they use to impliment it but they have screens telling you how long it will be until the couple of trains arrive and their end point.
This is compleately possible. They teach this in 8.03 (a basic waves class). As the article said the trick is that no energy/information can be sent faster than the speed of light. The part at the end about transmitting at near the speed of light is just basic wave guides.
That's funny but when you tell it skip the one (one is not prime - have you watched Billy Madison one too many times?)
Anyone else bothered by the talk of a .09 micron process at the bottom of the article? I may have my numbers wrong but I thought that .1 microns was as small as it gets before quantum tunneling and other effects take over.
For about 4 or 5 hundred years now science has been using mathmatics as a tool. While pure mathmatics is a very respectable subject, scientists view it as something that they can use to describe complex phenominon. In addition, throughout history scientist have needed higher and higher power mathmatics (Newton and calculus - Gauss and his theroms - Laplace and his techniques...) So today CS is also a reputable field on its own, but for scientists it is a tool just like mathmatics. And the analogy continues that as scientists need higher and higher power CS they create it and asks computer scientists for help with it. Thus, saying that science is just computer science is no different than the old saying that biology is just chemistry and chemistry is just physics and physics is just math and math is just boring, so what's the point.
In addition to the fact that there are thousands of other ways to cheat than a wireless device (such as just looking at someone else's paper as many college examins are not givin in idea conditions), THERE ARE ALREADY DEVICES THAT CAN DO THIS. While all of the following solutions use IR instead of radio, they work almost as well: The IR port on a palm pilot, The IR port on fancy HP calculators (allowed on most tests), A secreat sender (kinda stupid, but usually assumed to be harmless by most teachers).