I don't think the Google exec is listening to himself. If I am concerned with the security and privacy of my data then where it is stored and who has access to it are going to be pretty close to the top of the list of thing to be concerned about. Google still might be an ok place for it, but exec's saying things like this make me more than a little uneasy.
That can't be what was patented because the Toyota Prius with that kind of drive has been on the market far longer than 2006. If only Series 3 Prius's are affected I am really having a hard time figuring out what is involved. The summing gearbox has been a selling point of the Prius for 10 years now or so.
The fact that it is so recent a patent makes me think the article isn't real accurate.
That billion dollar price includes the communication system between the aerostats radar and the targeting radar of other systems like anti-aircraft missile systems. So it is a very misleading number. I would guess the "blimp" or really aerostat part is less than 5% of the total cost. This is really an integrated detector system that happens to use a blimp as one of its inputs.
Right on - Neilson's customers really aren't the broadcasters or the producers. It is the advertisers. If the people paying have to rely on the broadcasters for figures without absolute transparency, well they won't pay. That is the card Neilson is playing here. They are independent and conservative in their estimates of audience. I bet they have real good models that track their current methodology to actual sales for major advertisers.
Who cares about average use? The cost is driven by the PEAK use. That is why the average use for HBA's is almost nothing, but you are paying double the money or more because of the 8 hours a month you need to smoke. And woe betide the Architect who suggest postponing a business meeting for 48 hour every month so he can save $20 million a year. Seriously.
Of course. This has nothing to do with dams or tidal power or anything like that. This is about estuaries and deltas. Think about installations in the Nile, or Amazon deltas. Wherever rivers run into the sea actually. That is where you find fresh and salt water together. It could be a limited but useful augment in some coastal areas. If the fresh water is running into the ocean anyhow we can use "concentration potential" to get some power at the end of the cycle. Ultimately this is solar power which came from evaporation which created the freshwater in the first place. It is an interesting idea. The devil will be in the construction details which will determine whether this is scalable.
People have looked at Wind right side up, upside down, back and forth and have raised issues that make anti-nuke people look sane. The problem with Wind is that it is a real threat to coal, so there is a lot of paid for flack. Especially if combined with NG and/or Nuclear with utility level Solar for peaking in the right areas. Given good distribution we know we can use wind turbines to over 30% electric power because it is being done right now in various European grids. The issue will really be capital cost and marginal cost. The scary thing for the coal folks is that there is no ongoing resource cost and as wind turbines get out of the 20 year capital payoff period they are going to be the cheapest marginal cost electricity.
Wind Power right now is close to 3% of U.S. electrical production and doubling again in 3 or 4 years. (And that is ignoring Picken's "plan" which was partially a front to own gas and water transport rights) Over half of all new power plant license requests in 2008 were for wind power. Nobody is calling for Plains to Coast power lines except for coal companies so they can criticize them. Intermediate level regional interconnects are what most propose now and they will be another up front capital cost item that will cause greatly reduced cost in 20 years or so. The better the regional interconnects the less variable the wind power is, and the cheaper the balancing cost.
Of course as Wind Power grows there are starting to be boondoggles and all the other BS things that go along with big time capital enterprises. Wind is the first "alternative" power that will have to deal with those issues and that is actually a sign of maturity to me. It becomes more like any other big business. We really are on the wave for wind as long as it isn't shut down by coal interests.
How much do you think it will cost to fully instrument an experimental Turbine in the field, then tear it down and build a different one? Now, how much for the equipment to stress the turbine at various loads, to manufacture wind speed conditions that mimic many different places around the country, and different loadings, look at various types of network interconnects... We might as well build a testbed location to do this. It might cost 40 or 50 million even eh?
No, The beams are microwave beams with a little more power density than the midday sun. If you walked into them you would not likely know they were there for a while.
They are not the water heating microwaves either, they are the tuned so as not to interact with water or atmosphere kind. You might induce a current in an aluminum shell airplane, but I would guess static forces with air flow might build up even more charge.
Yes you can simulate a neuron, but the point is that this chip is not doing that. What they are calling the equivalent of a neuron here is at least an order of magnitude (likely more than one) simpler than a real neuron. That is why these comparisons where they say 1/10th the brain are vastly off base. Plus the effects of the glial cells on processing is showing that they have more importance than previously thought. Since we don't really understand the brain in any great detail, all these comparisons tend to make me wince. They almost always equate very simple circuits (relatively) to neurons. It is a red flag for hype really.
I agree. Look at Bon Iver's "Woods". They take the autotune, well the vocoder really, and with Justin Vernon's voice make an instrument to give a different kind of sound space. You can like it or hate it, but it certainly isn't "inauthentic". As a group who has in the past regularly walked into the audience with acoustic instruments to finish their concerts and gave a capella versions of their songs in Paris alleys, I don't think they care what people call it. They want to experiment with sound and the vocoder/autotuner is another way to do that.
There will be two key things that determine how much work the transition will be, (in my experience).
1. How much VB is used mainly in Excel. 2. How are your workflows set up? Do they depend on other MS things that don't work with anything else?
All the other stuff is no harder than moving from an older version of MS Office to a newer. I have found it is worth looking at the little apps that people built in Excel, and spending the time on the transition seeing whether they can't be refactored to use Base, since everyone will have it, or moved over to the Starbasic stuff. (Or will it work with small changes in Novell's version?)
In transition you will need to give an overabundance of help right away to the heavy duty users, and engage them even before hand. In a small situation even have them help in looking at the little hand built apps. Plus you will find out usually about a month later when people actually really use the little odd things when they get to documents and and reports that they only look at quarterly, or monthly. Be prepared for that. Try really hard to separate the grumbling that will come simply because of change, and real issues that hurt someone's job.
No bigger at all. As long as you swing them the same speed. Weight != momentum. The momentum of the hammer head will be the same. The swing effort will be different though, your force more and you will have to figure out ways to brace yourself or jam your feet better. You will move around more and have worse footing due to the decreased friction. If you ever have actually broken rocks (concrete myself) with a hammer, you know it is in the timing of your swing anyway. You could use a more massive hammer on the moon with good bracing, but I am guessing the timing would be tougher. You would get off balance when swinging just the same as with that mass on earth.
Yes I agree - this paper is not about "Most Published Papers" in Science. It is about published papers in the area of therapy effectiveness. Especially those where we do not have a good model. Thus of course about half should be wrong I would guess, as established by later studies. This is statistics in action. When you are looking for high correlations and selecting for the positive, you will will get false ones. As long as this paper's authors could find LATER PUBLISHED RESEARCH showing this stuff was wrong, that is the scientific method. In fact if, say, 98 and 4/100's of papers were shown to be right later, I would smell something in the woodpile.
The meat of the article is the bias about reporting negative results. This is not a secret.
In regard to something like climate research, really it doesn't apply. but if you take the premise, it would generally bolster the 1000's (+) of papers over the years that show consistent effects and generally put more shadow on the couple showing otherwise. It would mean the papers the doubters bring up are wrong with even more percentage, since these are the papers with no validated mechanisms and generally many defects which immediately get pointed out. That is we would expect some wrong or null correlations to pop-up, given this paper and shouldn't put much support to isolated work that is not buttoned down to the max.
Ah... no - The Oort cloud estimated mass is greater than the Earth. About 50 times Earth as I recall, but that is much less than Jupiter even. Not more massive than the Sun.
The player was a PRO 8 Dan not an amateur. These are not comparable. a pro 1 Dan is about equivalent to an amateur 7-dan or more is what I have heard. That is why the human player thought the computer player was about a 2 to 4 Dan amateur level. This is amazingly good compared to the past. All of the people ripping on using "Monte-Carlo" methods and such - too bad, suddenly someone has found a realistic approach to computational Go. This means instead of the 100 years people were saying 5 years ago it will maybe take 10 years to get to pro level computer Go. This is a huge thing in this problem space. They are not really brute forcing at all but have come up with a slick parallel algorithm.
When that great American publisher the Holtzbrinck group bought them the target audience and style changed and it no longer was the SA of the Gerard Piel era. Oh wait Holtzbrinck is German... and turned down the quality. Yep, it must be that American education system.
I thought this was a joke at first. One thing to think about is that the biggest data collector of them all, the Large Hadron Collider, which fits the frame given perfectly - delivering terabytes of data in huge data sets is just the opposite of the described scenario. Models are crucial to actually picking what data is actually recorded. In fact a large part of how good the LHC data will be will be in using models to select what events to capture. The way the data is captured is of course also based on long effort and knowledge from previous detectors. This isn't just randomly, or even generically selectively gathering data and then analyzing it. This is targeted data gathering based on complex scientific theories. There have been shouting matches at what to tag for collection based on what people think is important for a given theory - and these will happen again.
As our collection abilities rise exponentially, the the storage and analysis abilities are not exponentially growing, even though they are increasing at a fast rate! I would argue exactly the opposite of what this article said. We are going to be more and more dependent on our current scientific theories to even be able to choose appropriately the rich data that new sensors and techniques will let us collect. That is we are more and more dependent on our scientific theories when we get data not less. Did we even know to get methylation data when sequencing a genome. How about some other "ylation". Without background theory and experience we wouldn't even know some of that stuff was there to collect!
So can this be adapted with some work to control real limbs of quadraplegics and paraplegics? Seems like something that could be done with some kind of muscle or nerve stimulation. One could imagine a direct stimulation of nerves in the arm based on this kind of signals. A person could actually "teach" the system to get some kind of use of limbs - even if there is no feeling.
Uhm... It does apply to Apple. they aren't a monopoly. I can buy a song at Amazon right now and load it on my iPod. So is that not a 3rd party "iTunes" Store? I can buy EMI songs on iTunes right now and load and play it on a Zune. Apple obviously controls the hardware IT MAKES, but I don't see lock in anywhere except with the DRM that the CEO of Apple is on record that he would like to get rid of. That is mandated in contracts with producers.
If Apple is a Monopoly with its DRM then all DRM is a monopoly. I would like to agree with this, but by definition, it isn't.
Re:...still own LP's - which which were compressed
on
The Death of High Fidelity
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I just laugh at the LP's were better crowd when reading how guys like Phil Ramone were compressing the hell out music to FIT IT IN THE LP's LIMITS back then. When CD's came out he (producer of Sinatra, Streisand. Simon, Billy Joel, Ray Charles, etc etc) couldn't believe how much better the digital format was. Didn't have to compensate for needle momentum on inside tracks any more, true dynamic range and so on. Read about it in his "Making Records" book. The sound was different for LP's and we could if we want reproduce that digitally, but we don't.
Ah... I would have to disagree. Have you looked at the current fleet of modern GA planes? They are mainly composite construction now. Structurally the "average" GA airplane today is almost nothing like it was 40 years ago. Avionics of course are absolutely new with weather and GPS. Aerodynamic designs are based on wing plans from the 80's or early 90's usually now. In back country craft the landing gear designs and/or materials are very new.
What you said about old designs is like saying cars are the way they were 50 years ago... There are a lot of old planes flying yet and the industry almost died about 20 years ago, but technology revived it, and GA is probably the least stagnant of all of aviation in terms of introducing new tech.
"If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work." That BS, what you are asking for is something we can't even do reliably in 2-dimensions on the ground, and might be worse than nothing if people stop using their eyes and looking for the millions of current "UAV"s that are currently out there - geese, etc. that could destroy your plane.
Its ok for planes to fly without a radio because they are in airspace and conditions where they can safely do so. What do you care then?
To get a TB/s - 10 Terabits/s (1/10th or less of what they claim) implies you have gates that operate at better than 0.1 pico-second reflex times (that is, off-on-off). I am only talking the receive buffer. I can see what you could do with all the new cores now - make them into a parallel IO where each takes a time slice of a microsecond or so, that is, a megabyte of data, oh wait, we can't do cache writes that fast currently. Looking at the article and tech I see a bunch of lambda's and a lot of parallelism and nowhere near the speeds given for a long time, and totally different IO channel tech. On the other hand, I can see types of this tech being used at lower speeds all over. The high speed they give is really a red herring.
Absolutely he is ignorant. Consider what Phil Ramone - legendary producer of Sinatra, Ray Charles, Paul Simon, Streisand, not to mention the producer of the first commercial CD released by CBS/Sony: Billy Joel's "52nd Street" (along with the original vinyl version), has to say about the quality of vinyl albums vs. CD's in his book "Making Records":
Going from LP to CD was like going from Black and White TV to Color... When we cut records thirty years ago, they sounded good in the control room, but it was hard to channel that sound onto an LP. Session tapes underwent a lot of tweaking during their transposition to vinyl, and the compromising to compensate for vinyls deficiencies began in the mixing phase and ended in mastering. When mastering a tape for LP you had to cut back the bass, crank up the mid-range and high end and use compression to make it sound pleasing... The last track on an album was the most problematic... with the CD groove physiology is no longer a factor but since digital recordings high resolution can magnify a mix's flaws mastering becomes even more critical...
" question your numbers. Using current launch capabilities your figure is way too low. Personally, I'm not too interested in NY to LA. I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit."
Ahh... No that is not true. Anywhere to anywhere even halfway around the world is always very much easier than going to orbit. In fact just going all the way around once and land at your start site is easier than a stable orbit. Suborbital NYC to Sydney is in the same ballpark in efficiency as flying there.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the Google exec is listening to himself. If I am concerned with the security and privacy of my data then where it is stored and who has access to it are going to be pretty close to the top of the list of thing to be concerned about. Google still might be an ok place for it, but exec's saying things like this make me more than a little uneasy.
That can't be what was patented because the Toyota Prius with that kind of drive has been on the market far longer than 2006.
If only Series 3 Prius's are affected I am really having a hard time figuring out what is involved. The summing gearbox has been a selling point of the Prius for 10 years now or so.
The fact that it is so recent a patent makes me think the article isn't real accurate.
That billion dollar price includes the communication system between the aerostats radar and the targeting radar of other systems like anti-aircraft missile systems. So it is a very misleading number. I would guess the "blimp" or really aerostat part is less than 5% of the total cost. This is really an integrated detector system that happens to use a blimp as one of its inputs.
Right on - Neilson's customers really aren't the broadcasters or the producers. It is the advertisers. If the people paying have to rely on the broadcasters for figures without absolute transparency, well they won't pay. That is the card Neilson is playing here. They are independent and conservative in their estimates of audience. I bet they have real good models that track their current methodology to actual sales for major advertisers.
Who cares about average use? The cost is driven by the PEAK use. That is why the average use for HBA's is almost nothing, but you are paying double the money or more because of the 8 hours a month you need to smoke. And woe betide the Architect who suggest postponing a business meeting for 48 hour every month so he can save $20 million a year. Seriously.
Of course. This has nothing to do with dams or tidal power or anything like that. This is about estuaries and deltas. Think about installations in the Nile, or Amazon deltas. Wherever rivers run into the sea actually. That is where you find fresh and salt water together. It could be a limited but useful augment in some coastal areas. If the fresh water is running into the ocean anyhow we can use "concentration potential" to get some power at the end of the cycle. Ultimately this is solar power which came from evaporation which created the freshwater in the first place. It is an interesting idea. The devil will be in the construction details which will determine whether this is scalable.
People have looked at Wind right side up, upside down, back and forth and have raised issues that make anti-nuke people look sane. The problem with Wind is that it is a real threat to coal, so there is a lot of paid for flack. Especially if combined with NG and/or Nuclear with utility level Solar for peaking in the right areas. Given good distribution we know we can use wind turbines to over 30% electric power because it is being done right now in various European grids. The issue will really be capital cost and marginal cost. The scary thing for the coal folks is that there is no ongoing resource cost and as wind turbines get out of the 20 year capital payoff period they are going to be the cheapest marginal cost electricity.
Wind Power right now is close to 3% of U.S. electrical production and doubling again in 3 or 4 years. (And that is ignoring Picken's "plan" which was partially a front to own gas and water transport rights) Over half of all new power plant license requests in 2008 were for wind power. Nobody is calling for Plains to Coast power lines except for coal companies so they can criticize them. Intermediate level regional interconnects are what most propose now and they will be another up front capital cost item that will cause greatly reduced cost in 20 years or so. The better the regional interconnects the less variable the wind power is, and the cheaper the balancing cost.
Of course as Wind Power grows there are starting to be boondoggles and all the other BS things that go along with big time capital enterprises. Wind is the first "alternative" power that will have to deal with those issues and that is actually a sign of maturity to me. It becomes more like any other big business. We really are on the wave for wind as long as it isn't shut down by coal interests.
How much do you think it will cost to fully instrument an experimental Turbine in the field, then tear it down and build a different one? Now, how much for the equipment to stress the turbine at various loads, to manufacture wind speed conditions that mimic many different places around the country, and different loadings, look at various types of network interconnects... We might as well build a testbed location to do this. It might cost 40 or 50 million even eh?
No, The beams are microwave beams with a little more power density than the midday sun. If you walked into them you would not likely know they were there for a while.
They are not the water heating microwaves either, they are the tuned so as not to interact with water or atmosphere kind. You might induce a current in an aluminum shell airplane, but I would guess static forces with air flow might build up even more charge.
Yes you can simulate a neuron, but the point is that this chip is not doing that. What they are calling the equivalent of a neuron here is at least an order of magnitude (likely more than one) simpler than a real neuron. That is why these comparisons where they say 1/10th the brain are vastly off base. Plus the effects of the glial cells on processing is showing that they have more importance than previously thought. Since we don't really understand the brain in any great detail, all these comparisons tend to make me wince. They almost always equate very simple circuits (relatively) to neurons. It is a red flag for hype really.
I agree. Look at Bon Iver's "Woods". They take the autotune, well the vocoder really, and with Justin Vernon's voice make an instrument to give a different kind of sound space. You can like it or hate it, but it certainly isn't "inauthentic". As a group who has in the past regularly walked into the audience with acoustic instruments to finish their concerts and gave a capella versions of their songs in Paris alleys, I don't think they care what people call it. They want to experiment with sound and the vocoder/autotuner is another way to do that.
There will be two key things that determine how much work the transition will be, (in my experience).
1. How much VB is used mainly in Excel.
2. How are your workflows set up? Do they depend on other MS things that don't work with anything else?
All the other stuff is no harder than moving from an older version of MS Office to a newer. I have found it is worth looking at the little apps that people built in Excel, and spending the time on the transition seeing whether they can't be refactored to use Base, since everyone will have it, or moved over to the Starbasic stuff. (Or will it work with small changes in Novell's version?)
In transition you will need to give an overabundance of help right away to the heavy duty users, and engage them even before hand. In a small situation even have them help in looking at the little hand built apps. Plus you will find out usually about a month later when people actually really use the little odd things when they get to documents and and reports that they only look at quarterly, or monthly. Be prepared for that. Try really hard to separate the grumbling that will come simply because of change, and real issues that hurt someone's job.
No bigger at all. As long as you swing them the same speed. Weight != momentum. The momentum of the hammer head will be the same. The swing effort will be different though, your force more and you will have to figure out ways to brace yourself or jam your feet better. You will move around more and have worse footing due to the decreased friction. If you ever have actually broken rocks (concrete myself) with a hammer, you know it is in the timing of your swing anyway. You could use a more massive hammer on the moon with good bracing, but I am guessing the timing would be tougher. You would get off balance when swinging just the same as with that mass on earth.
Yes I agree - this paper is not about "Most Published Papers" in Science. It is about published papers in the area of therapy effectiveness. Especially those where we do not have a good model. Thus of course about half should be wrong I would guess, as established by later studies. This is statistics in action. When you are looking for high correlations and selecting for the positive, you will will get false ones. As long as this paper's authors could find LATER PUBLISHED RESEARCH showing this stuff was wrong, that is the scientific method. In fact if, say, 98 and 4/100's of papers were shown to be right later, I would smell something in the woodpile.
The meat of the article is the bias about reporting negative results. This is not a secret.
In regard to something like climate research, really it doesn't apply. but if you take the premise, it would generally bolster the 1000's (+) of papers over the years that show consistent effects and generally put more shadow on the couple showing otherwise. It would mean the papers the doubters bring up are wrong with even more percentage, since these are the papers with no validated mechanisms and generally many defects which immediately get pointed out. That is we would expect some wrong or null correlations to pop-up, given this paper and shouldn't put much support to isolated work that is not buttoned down to the max.
Ah... no - The Oort cloud estimated mass is greater than the Earth. About 50 times Earth as I recall, but that is much less than Jupiter even. Not more massive than the Sun.
The player was a PRO 8 Dan not an amateur. These are not comparable. a pro 1 Dan is about equivalent to an amateur 7-dan or more is what I have heard. That is why the human player thought the computer player was about a 2 to 4 Dan amateur level. This is amazingly good compared to the past. All of the people ripping on using "Monte-Carlo" methods and such - too bad, suddenly someone has found a realistic approach to computational Go. This means instead of the 100 years people were saying 5 years ago it will maybe take 10 years to get to pro level computer Go. This is a huge thing in this problem space. They are not really brute forcing at all but have come up with a slick parallel algorithm.
When that great American publisher the Holtzbrinck group bought them the target audience and style changed and it no longer was the SA of the Gerard Piel era. Oh wait Holtzbrinck is German ... and turned down the quality. Yep, it must be that American education system.
I thought this was a joke at first. One thing to think about is that the biggest data collector of them all, the Large Hadron Collider, which fits the frame given perfectly - delivering terabytes of data in huge data sets is just the opposite of the described scenario. Models are crucial to actually picking what data is actually recorded. In fact a large part of how good the LHC data will be will be in using models to select what events to capture. The way the data is captured is of course also based on long effort and knowledge from previous detectors. This isn't just randomly, or even generically selectively gathering data and then analyzing it. This is targeted data gathering based on complex scientific theories. There have been shouting matches at what to tag for collection based on what people think is important for a given theory - and these will happen again.
As our collection abilities rise exponentially, the the storage and analysis abilities are not exponentially growing, even though they are increasing at a fast rate! I would argue exactly the opposite of what this article said. We are going to be more and more dependent on our current scientific theories to even be able to choose appropriately the rich data that new sensors and techniques will let us collect. That is we are more and more dependent on our scientific theories when we get data not less. Did we even know to get methylation data when sequencing a genome. How about some other "ylation". Without background theory and experience we wouldn't even know some of that stuff was there to collect!
So can this be adapted with some work to control real limbs of quadraplegics and paraplegics? Seems like something that could be done with some kind of muscle or nerve stimulation. One could imagine a direct stimulation of nerves in the arm based on this kind of signals. A person could actually "teach" the system to get some kind of use of limbs - even if there is no feeling.
Uhm... It does apply to Apple. they aren't a monopoly. I can buy a song at Amazon right now and load it on my iPod. So is that not a 3rd party "iTunes" Store?
I can buy EMI songs on iTunes right now and load and play it on a Zune. Apple obviously controls the hardware IT MAKES, but I don't see lock in anywhere
except with the DRM that the CEO of Apple is on record that he would like to get rid of. That is mandated in contracts with producers.
If Apple is a Monopoly with its DRM then all DRM is a monopoly. I would like to agree with this, but by definition, it isn't.
I just laugh at the LP's were better crowd when reading how guys like Phil Ramone were compressing the hell out music to FIT IT IN THE LP's LIMITS back then. When CD's came out he (producer of Sinatra, Streisand. Simon, Billy Joel, Ray Charles, etc etc) couldn't believe how much better the digital format was. Didn't have to compensate for needle momentum on inside tracks any more, true dynamic range and so on. Read about it in his "Making Records" book. The sound was different for LP's and we could if we want reproduce that digitally, but we don't.
Ah... I would have to disagree. Have you looked at the current fleet of modern GA planes? They are mainly composite construction now. Structurally the "average" GA airplane today is almost nothing like it was 40 years ago. Avionics of course are absolutely new with weather and GPS. Aerodynamic designs are based on wing plans from the 80's or early 90's usually now. In back country craft the landing gear designs and/or materials are very new.
What you said about old designs is like saying cars are the way they were 50 years ago...
There are a lot of old planes flying yet and the industry almost died about 20 years ago, but technology revived it, and GA is probably the least stagnant of all of aviation in terms of introducing new tech.
"If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work." That BS, what you are asking for is something we can't even do reliably in 2-dimensions on the ground, and might be worse than nothing if people stop using their eyes and looking for the millions of current "UAV"s that are currently out there - geese, etc. that could destroy your plane.
Its ok for planes to fly without a radio because they are in airspace and conditions where they can safely do so. What do you care then?
To get a TB/s - 10 Terabits/s (1/10th or less of what they claim) implies you have gates that operate at better than 0.1 pico-second reflex times (that is, off-on-off). I am only talking the receive buffer. I can see what you could do with all the new cores now - make them into a parallel IO where each takes a time slice of a microsecond or so, that is, a megabyte of data, oh wait, we can't do cache writes that fast currently. Looking at the article and tech I see a bunch of lambda's and a lot of parallelism and nowhere near the speeds given for a long time, and totally different IO channel tech. On the other hand, I can see types of this tech being used at lower speeds all over. The high speed they give is really a red herring.
I'll take the pro's opinion in this case.
" question your numbers. Using current launch capabilities your figure is way too low. Personally, I'm not too interested in NY to LA. I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit."
Ahh... No that is not true. Anywhere to anywhere even halfway around the world is always very much easier than going to orbit. In fact just going all the way around once and land at your start site is easier than a stable orbit. Suborbital NYC to Sydney is in the same ballpark in efficiency as flying there.