For an application yes, but for vpn no (or atleast it's not a good idea). [blah blah blah overhead, blah blah blah performance, blah blah blah bad]
OK! For performance reasons, you should not try to tunnel anything over anything. You should use direct gigabit ethernet between all points that want to communicate with each other (at least)! And you should always use UDP!
But in reality, VPNs and tunnelling VPNs over TPC/IP and tunnelling TCP over SSH works really well. And it's secure. Are you going to get top performance? Nope. Is UDP a good idea when possible? Yup (see also vtun.sf.net). Is it always possible, or (gasp) convenient? Nope.
I run NFS over VTUN over SSH. Is it fast? nope (actually, if I'm local (airport), the performance is OK). Does it work? Yup. Is it convenient? Hell, yes.
Yeah, iTunes over VPN over ssh isn't going to be a great performer, but it will work just fine. Really, tunnelling directly over ssh is probably the way to go, but if you really want performance, sync your home library with work and play locally...
Rant off: Kynde makes a good point - you can improve performance of VPNs by using UDP. But remember:
Make it work.
Make it work well.
Make it work fast.
If you never even hit #2, you still have something that works.
The power companies, colluding with the marketers themeselves, PURPOSEFULLY manipulated the energy market in california to raise prices [chron.com]. the rolling blackouts were the 'shot across the bow' of regulation-advocates; "we'll shut your damn power off it you dont pay" extortion.
Yeah, there's a shock - private companies with the reins pulled off go crazy. California was stupid in HOW it deregulated. If they'd simply allowed 5% cost increases for the next 10 years, then removed all regulation, things would have gone MUCH better. We'd all have seen 5% increases annually until it became obvious that someone could do it cheaper, then the prices would have stabilized. As it was, we told companies with a "natural monopoly" in a business where the entry is REALLY EXPENSIVE that they could do whatever they wanted. dum dum dum.
Why is this on-topic?
It really isn't.
because someday, in the future, computing-as-utility will become as necessary as electricity is today... want to get a job? have to have computing-ability. Want to pay your bills? have to have computing-ability. want to get a loan? have to have computing-ability. want to vote? have to have computing-ability.. without accepting that WHEN THIS HAPPENS, that regulation of the industry in the public interest becomes necessary... unless you want the future-monied-kings to shut down your house/town/state.
BS. I don't need power to get a job, pay bills, get a loan, or vote. For all those functionalities know, I don't have power.
I DO need to be able to read, write, and (in some cases) use a computer, but that's just fine.
Actually, for some of those you pretty much have to have a phone. If you're willing to "suffer" with a corded phone, all you need is a jack. So you could have some of a point there...
In the early days of the Internet, commercial sites wanted to get funding. Sooo, some bright light thought to put a little banner at the top of each page. Then people started ignoring them... Little ads that flash brightly... Little ads that play music... Pop up ads... Ads that fly over your screen like an annoying bug... Ads that you have to wait for the whole giant thing to load before you can click through to an article or other page you want.
I have not noticed that, much. I don't use sites that use click-through; maybe you shouldn't, either. The rest of the crap I block, which the advertisers don't seem to care about all that much - most folks just don't care and can't be bothered.
I don't think that ads getting more intrusive is something that happened because people blocked the ads; I think it happened because people ignored them - as in they were not effective. Click-thru will go away, too - just as soon as sites are ignored for using it and advertisers find out it doesn't work, either.
Oh, and the alternative, the networks dying, isn't exactly "just fine" either, because then that TiVo you bought doesn't do you much good, if nothing's on TV to watch, is it?:)
Funny, HBO seems to keep on running. It can be done - and in some cases it is done. The points are: 1. There will probably never be enough folks who bother with the tech for marketers to really care. 2. If that unlikely thing DOES happen, we may move to pay-per-view or some similar model. People will find a way to pay for TV.
This is not some mysterious, dark magic. It's just capitalism.
Funny, I seem to remember Toms Hardware being rabidly AMD fanboyish about 1.5 years ago when AMD still had the fastest processor. I'm not saying they aren't biased fanboys, what I'm saying is they're fairweather fans.
Isn't that the definition of a good reviewer? Fans of the current top of the line stuff - damn their history?
To keep it on-topic, I also seem to remember ATI doing the exact same thing nVidia is now doing with quake "optimization" for the 8500 cards... Do a google search for "quake quack"
Funny how capitalism works. If enough folks skipped ads (not bloody likely), shows/networks would find another way to get funding. Or they would die. Either way is just fine.
The funny thing is how much better the remix is. Not that it's good, but it is SO much better. Makes me wonder how the original actors felt, playing with their own styrofoam sabers...
I think java resource sharing is slated for 1.5 (aka Tiger) as part of a system named the Isolation API.
You may be right - I don't know. All I know is that Apple has rolled this, but I don't need to know ANY API - it just works. I hope that SUN does roll the changes as part of this, and that it also just works. Looks like the isolation stuff would/could share more resources.
Whatever. Personally, I think SUN bites. I hope that IBM buys them, guts them, and totally opensources Java. I don't give a shit if M$ embraces and extends it - I certainly don't thnk they'll bother at this point, since they have J# (or whatever they're calling it).
OK, it's morning and I felt the need to rant. I'm done, now.
There was about a decade when I wouldn't touch a mac. And I have no regrets at all about that. From 86-98, or so. In 88 the NeXT came out, and MacOS was stuck in single user, no protected memory, no multitasking. What a piece of crap. I had absolutely no respect for the platform. I saw the NeXT glossies and was totally in love. I mean... Unix, Display Postscript, OOP; it was the only platform to own.
But I'm biased, as you can see from my resume' at my website.
OK. I've been called on the carpet, so it's time to get my facts straight:
From http://www.apple.com/java/ Apple developed an innovative new technology that allows Java code to be shared across multiple applications. This reduces the amount of memory that Java applications normally use. And it fits right into Sun?s Hot Spot VM, allowing Mac OS X to remain compatible with standard Java. In addition, Apple has given this implementation to Sun so the company can deploy it on other platforms. Just one example of how Apple supports standards and shares ideas to benefit all.
You're right in that I can't find any evidence that SUN has rolled this. My hope would still be that this is will be Java Myth of the future. For now it just sucks not to be an Apple user.
has poor start up time, and requires an absolutely massive amount of memory. That, and garbage collection makes almost-real time ("soft" real time I believe is the technical term) UIs more difficult than they should be.
Oh, good, another one to shoot down. While I don't have any numbers at all, I know that Apple 'fixed' this problem to an extent by making parts of java shared, just like any shlibs. This alleviates the 14 apps, 14 bags of shit problem to some extent.
Apple then returned the changes to SUN, who rolled them into 1.4.x.
I used ASK (http://a-s-k.sf.net/) for a while. It blocked virtually 100% of my spam (it is VERY rare for a spammer to have a valid email address and have them respond to a challenge). It also blocked a lot of valid automated email that I wanted to get. Airline confirmations, advertising/announcements that I had signed up for. That kind of thing.
Now I use tess.sf.net (baysian(sp)). I don't get false positives ever, and I nail about 90% of my spam (and getting better).
For the curious - I receive about 550/week and only see about 50. I'm very promiscuos(sp again - sigh) with my email address...
From windowmaker.org homepage: "Window Maker is an X11 window manager originally designed to provide integration support for the GNUstep Desktop Environment. In every way possible, it reproduces the elegant look and feel of the NEXTSTEP[tm] user interface. It is fast, feature rich, easy to configure, and easy to use. It is also free software, with contributions being made by programmers from around the world."
So it sounds like it's a copy of the old NeXTSTEP workspace. Yeah, detachable menus (miss that). The dock looks really dressed up... But the idea is the same.
Funny you should say that, since the OS X dev tools are basically updated versions of NextStep.
Not really.
Oh, come on.
Mac OS X is derived from OpenStep, not NeXTSTEP. Most of OS X is derived from OpenStep, not just the development tools.
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say that Cocoa is derived from OpenStep, and OSX is derived from NeXTSTEP + OpenStep + FreeBSD.
NeXTSTEP != OpenStep.
True.
OpenStep was a rewrite of NeXT's OS done a while back.
Mostly false. The OS rewrite failed. OpenStep was a rewrite of the appkit APIs. NeXT wanted to rev the OS, but the demand didn't justify it.
The idea was to standardize, clean up, and open up the Objective-C API, making it something that other vendors could port/run on other platforms, removing some OS-specific stuff out of the NeXTSTEP API.
The idea was to license it and make more money:-). It ended up not working so well (well, the money part didn't work so well - the APIs kick ass)...
GNUstep and OpenStep for Solaris and OpenStep for Windows are the fruits of this.
Not to mention PDO (foundation) on a few more OSs.
I think of it this way: NeXTSTEP 0.x-3.3 OpenStep was NS v. 4.0 Rhapsody DR1 was NS v. 5ish OSX 10.x is NS v. 6.x ish
I mean, really. What do you think NSWindow stands for, anyway? How can you say that Cocoa isn't derived from NeXTSTEP?
--When components start getting this small, the chances of having an potential error occur go WAY up. What I'd be interested to see, is what they're doing to protect against stuff like cosmic-ray bit pollution and such.
Why do you say that? Any evidence to back that up?
--After all, if the scale is NANO, one cosmic ray or stray electro/magnetic field can potentially screw up a lot more percentage of memory... Massive redundancy, high speed and constant bit cross-checking would seem to be a reasonable requirement for these chips.
Actually, the article (or related) says that multiple tubes are moved for each bit, which supplies some redundency. But when you get right down to it, let's say you use about 75% of any given chip for parity (Obviously a ridiculous amount - I believe that's a Hamming distance of 11-12 assuming you added the redundancy by the byte (you could correct 30% bit errors in any byte); see also http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/ecc.html) . That's still 250Gb, or 30 GIGABYTES/cm^2.
Let's do a little more reverse math. I'll say we want to have 2GB RAM (tops for most of today's desktops). Let's say we don't bother with error correction at all. You'd need a spec of memory... 1/60 of a cm^2. That's.02cm^2, right? Which is about 1.4mm x 1.4mm. And it's fast. And it's NVRAM. I'm willing to take a hit and add some space for redundency.
--For just one example, look what a few scratches can do to a CDR - or worse, a DVD. If you can't read it (use it reliably XMillion times) it's basically not very useful...
I seldom take my RAM out of my machine and scratch it.
Actually, I said "a day". Considering that this is nvram, ALL memory and (of course) drive energy should drop. So should cooling (no hot drive, no hot RAM).
Apple already ships laptops with 4 (6 if you believe them) hour batteries. If you cut me some slack and figure that a day is a working day - 8 hours - then I'd imagine it'd be no problem. But I'm really guessing here. You're right, of course, about the LCD issue. I guess that is where more than half the juice goes.
Of course, Silicon RAM is to NanoRAM as a kumquat is to a watermelon
No. Silicon RAM is to NanoRAM as Vacuum tubes are to Silicon. They're both there to do the same thing, it's just that nobody bothers with vacuums (except for a very few special purpose - like audiophiles) because they're old and clunky.
The point is that you would have faster, non-volitile RAM that would fit into existing hardware.
No. The point is that you could easily have so much RAM that it would make retrofitting it into a current system look like putting an spoiler on a model-T.
I'd also imagine that this non-volitile RAM uses next to no power, making it a great potential drop-in replacement for laptops and other portable devices.
Good thinking. Oh, and let's not forget you wouldn't need to spin a disk at 1000s of RPM, which uses some energy as well.
Well, maybe not a drop in ram replacement, but how about a solid-state ide/scsi drive? Memory blocks, so to speak...
Look, you're missing the point. This would represent a fundamental change in computing. 1 terabit/cm^2. Imagine having 50 GBytes on your wristwatch.
Half a terabyte on your cell phone.
As many terabytes as you can imagine on a laptop that runs for a day because it doesn't have a HD and all the RAM is NVRAM, and it's 100 times faster than your current system.
Really. Think about it. Who gives a shit if you can upgrade your current machine. Did you see the article recently about AppleII users getting together? You'd look as silly as any of them... (no offense - I've run a IIe emulator within the past 3 months, and it was fun; a lot like it will be amusing to be able to store all of silentbozo's files on my cell phone many times over)
Slashdot Mirror
OK! For performance reasons, you should not try to tunnel anything over anything. You should use direct gigabit ethernet between all points that want to communicate with each other (at least)! And you should always use UDP!
But in reality, VPNs and tunnelling VPNs over TPC/IP and tunnelling TCP over SSH works really well. And it's secure. Are you going to get top performance? Nope. Is UDP a good idea when possible? Yup (see also vtun.sf.net). Is it always possible, or (gasp) convenient? Nope.
I run NFS over VTUN over SSH. Is it fast? nope (actually, if I'm local (airport), the performance is OK). Does it work? Yup. Is it convenient? Hell, yes.
Yeah, iTunes over VPN over ssh isn't going to be a great performer, but it will work just fine. Really, tunnelling directly over ssh is probably the way to go, but if you really want performance, sync your home library with work and play locally...
Rant off: Kynde makes a good point - you can improve performance of VPNs by using UDP. But remember:
If you never even hit #2, you still have something that works.
Certainly, or use SSH port forwarding.
Anyone tested to see if this works - especially the ssh tunneling?
Essentially, they already have. That's why they sue, injunct, and threaten companies like replay.
:-)
On the other hand, consumers have more money than producers. If enough consumers decide they want to be able to skip ads, it will happen.
Again, I don't think that's likely. And if it ever does happen, and I decide I want to watch TV again, I'll be instaling Freevo on my XBox
The power companies, colluding with the marketers themeselves, PURPOSEFULLY manipulated the energy market in california to raise prices [chron.com]. the rolling blackouts were the 'shot across the bow' of regulation-advocates; "we'll shut your damn power off it you dont pay" extortion.
Yeah, there's a shock - private companies with the reins pulled off go crazy. California was stupid in HOW it deregulated. If they'd simply allowed 5% cost increases for the next 10 years, then removed all regulation, things would have gone MUCH better. We'd all have seen 5% increases annually until it became obvious that someone could do it cheaper, then the prices would have stabilized. As it was, we told companies with a "natural monopoly" in a business where the entry is REALLY EXPENSIVE that they could do whatever they wanted. dum dum dum.
Why is this on-topic?
It really isn't.
because someday, in the future, computing-as-utility will become as necessary as electricity is today... want to get a job? have to have computing-ability. Want to pay your bills? have to have computing-ability. want to get a loan? have to have computing-ability. want to vote? have to have computing-ability.. without accepting that WHEN THIS HAPPENS, that regulation of the industry in the public interest becomes necessary... unless you want the future-monied-kings to shut down your house/town/state.
BS. I don't need power to get a job, pay bills, get a loan, or vote. For all those functionalities know, I don't have power.
I DO need to be able to read, write, and (in some cases) use a computer, but that's just fine.
Actually, for some of those you pretty much have to have a phone. If you're willing to "suffer" with a corded phone, all you need is a jack. So you could have some of a point there...
No CD - bummer.
What they still don't say is the screen size, resolution, battery life, ports, 802.11, etc.
Makes me wonder.
In the early days of the Internet, commercial sites wanted to get funding. Sooo, some bright light thought to put a little banner at the top of each page. Then people started ignoring them...
:)
Little ads that flash brightly...
Little ads that play music...
Pop up ads...
Ads that fly over your screen like an annoying bug...
Ads that you have to wait for the whole giant thing to load before you can click through to an article or other page you want.
I have not noticed that, much. I don't use sites that use click-through; maybe you shouldn't, either. The rest of the crap I block, which the advertisers don't seem to care about all that much - most folks just don't care and can't be bothered.
I don't think that ads getting more intrusive is something that happened because people blocked the ads; I think it happened because people ignored them - as in they were not effective. Click-thru will go away, too - just as soon as sites are ignored for using it and advertisers find out it doesn't work, either.
Oh, and the alternative, the networks dying, isn't exactly "just fine" either, because then that TiVo you bought doesn't do you much good, if nothing's on TV to watch, is it?
Funny, HBO seems to keep on running. It can be done - and in some cases it is done. The points are:
1. There will probably never be enough folks who bother with the tech for marketers to really care.
2. If that unlikely thing DOES happen, we may move to pay-per-view or some similar model. People will find a way to pay for TV.
This is not some mysterious, dark magic. It's just capitalism.
Funny, I seem to remember Toms Hardware being rabidly AMD fanboyish about 1.5 years ago when AMD still had the fastest processor. I'm not saying they aren't biased fanboys, what I'm saying is they're fairweather fans.
Isn't that the definition of a good reviewer? Fans of the current top of the line stuff - damn their history?
To keep it on-topic, I also seem to remember ATI doing the exact same thing nVidia is now doing with quake "optimization" for the 8500 cards... Do a google search for "quake quack"
Case in point...
Funny how capitalism works. If enough folks skipped ads (not bloody likely), shows/networks would find another way to get funding. Or they would die. Either way is just fine.
Before you make a blanket statement that there can be no harm in scanning certain ports, you need to consider all the ramifications involved.
There can be no harm in scanning any ports. I'm not talking about ping death or DOS. I'm talking about a regular port scan.
It's like knocking on someone's door to see if they're home. No harm, no foul.
Who is going to determine your motive?
Nobody can, and nobody should try.
It is what you do after the scan that matters.
The funny thing is how much better the remix is. Not that it's good, but it is SO much better. Makes me wonder how the original actors felt, playing with their own styrofoam sabers...
Hell, with a max speed of 25mph, the segway would be a real competitor.
I think java resource sharing is slated for 1.5 (aka Tiger) as part of a system named the Isolation API.
You may be right - I don't know. All I know is that Apple has rolled this, but I don't need to know ANY API - it just works. I hope that SUN does roll the changes as part of this, and that it also just works. Looks like the isolation stuff would/could share more resources.
Whatever. Personally, I think SUN bites. I hope that IBM buys them, guts them, and totally opensources Java. I don't give a shit if M$ embraces and extends it - I certainly don't thnk they'll bother at this point, since they have J# (or whatever they're calling it).
OK, it's morning and I felt the need to rant. I'm done, now.
There was about a decade when I wouldn't touch a mac. And I have no regrets at all about that. From 86-98, or so. In 88 the NeXT came out, and MacOS was stuck in single user, no protected memory, no multitasking.
What a piece of crap.
I had absolutely no respect for the platform. I saw the NeXT glossies and was totally in love. I mean... Unix, Display Postscript, OOP; it was the only platform to own.
But I'm biased, as you can see from my resume' at my website.
OK. I've been called on the carpet, so it's time to get my facts straight:
From http://www.apple.com/java/
Apple developed an innovative new technology that allows Java code to be shared across multiple applications. This reduces the amount of memory that Java applications normally use. And it fits right into Sun?s Hot Spot VM, allowing Mac OS X to remain compatible with standard Java. In addition, Apple has given this implementation to Sun so the company can deploy it on other platforms. Just one example of how Apple supports standards and shares ideas to benefit all.
You're right in that I can't find any evidence that SUN has rolled this. My hope would still be that this is will be Java Myth of the future. For now it just sucks not to be an Apple user.
I don't know about Anm's experience on his PB...
has poor start up time, and requires an absolutely massive amount of memory. That, and garbage collection makes almost-real time ("soft" real time I believe is the technical term) UIs more difficult than they should be.
Oh, good, another one to shoot down. While I don't have any numbers at all, I know that Apple 'fixed' this problem to an extent by making parts of java shared, just like any shlibs. This alleviates the 14 apps, 14 bags of shit problem to some extent.
Apple then returned the changes to SUN, who rolled them into 1.4.x.
I wish I had numbers. Sorry.
Am I the only one who can't get it to work? May be my client is busted...
I used ASK (http://a-s-k.sf.net/) for a while. It blocked virtually 100% of my spam (it is VERY rare for a spammer to have a valid email address and have them respond to a challenge).
It also blocked a lot of valid automated email that I wanted to get. Airline confirmations, advertising/announcements that I had signed up for. That kind of thing.
Now I use tess.sf.net (baysian(sp)). I don't get false positives ever, and I nail about 90% of my spam (and getting better).
For the curious - I receive about 550/week and only see about 50. I'm very promiscuos(sp again - sigh) with my email address...
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say that Cocoa is derived from OpenStep, and OSX is derived from NeXTSTEP + OpenStep + FreeBSD.
Oh, crap - I forgot MacOS in the derived from list. But I dissed it for years and years....
My NeXT bias shines through...
NS &/ OS let you detach menus. OSX does not. I miss it.
From windowmaker.org homepage:
"Window Maker is an X11 window manager originally designed to provide integration support for the GNUstep Desktop Environment. In every way possible, it reproduces the elegant look and feel of the NEXTSTEP[tm] user interface. It is fast, feature rich, easy to configure, and easy to use. It is also free software, with contributions being made by programmers from around the world."
So it sounds like it's a copy of the old NeXTSTEP workspace.
Yeah, detachable menus (miss that). The dock looks really dressed up... But the idea is the same.
Funny you should say that, since the OS X dev tools are basically updated versions of NextStep.
:-). It ended up not working so well (well, the money part didn't work so well - the APIs kick ass)...
Not really.
Oh, come on.
Mac OS X is derived from OpenStep, not NeXTSTEP. Most of OS X is derived from OpenStep, not just the development tools.
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say that Cocoa is derived from OpenStep, and OSX is derived from NeXTSTEP + OpenStep + FreeBSD.
NeXTSTEP != OpenStep.
True.
OpenStep was a rewrite of NeXT's OS done a while back.
Mostly false. The OS rewrite failed. OpenStep was a rewrite of the appkit APIs. NeXT wanted to rev the OS, but the demand didn't justify it.
The idea was to standardize, clean up, and open up the Objective-C API, making it something that other vendors could port/run on other platforms, removing some OS-specific stuff out of the NeXTSTEP API.
The idea was to license it and make more money
GNUstep and OpenStep for Solaris and OpenStep for Windows are the fruits of this.
Not to mention PDO (foundation) on a few more OSs.
I think of it this way:
NeXTSTEP 0.x-3.3
OpenStep was NS v. 4.0
Rhapsody DR1 was NS v. 5ish
OSX 10.x is NS v. 6.x ish
I mean, really. What do you think NSWindow stands for, anyway? How can you say that Cocoa isn't derived from NeXTSTEP?
--When components start getting this small, the chances of having an potential error occur go WAY up. What I'd be interested to see, is what they're doing to protect against stuff like cosmic-ray bit pollution and such.
) . That's still 250Gb, or 30 GIGABYTES/cm^2.
... 1/60 of a cm^2. That's .02cm^2, right? Which is about 1.4mm x 1.4mm. And it's fast. And it's NVRAM. I'm willing to take a hit and add some space for redundency.
Why do you say that? Any evidence to back that up?
--After all, if the scale is NANO, one cosmic ray or stray electro/magnetic field can potentially screw up a lot more percentage of memory... Massive redundancy, high speed and constant bit cross-checking would seem to be a reasonable requirement for these chips.
Actually, the article (or related) says that multiple tubes are moved for each bit, which supplies some redundency. But when you get right down to it, let's say you use about 75% of any given chip for parity (Obviously a ridiculous amount - I believe that's a Hamming distance of 11-12 assuming you added the redundancy by the byte (you could correct 30% bit errors in any byte); see also http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/ecc.html
Let's do a little more reverse math. I'll say we want to have 2GB RAM (tops for most of today's desktops). Let's say we don't bother with error correction at all. You'd need a spec of memory
--For just one example, look what a few scratches can do to a CDR - or worse, a DVD. If you can't read it (use it reliably XMillion times) it's basically not very useful...
I seldom take my RAM out of my machine and scratch it.
Actually, I said "a day". Considering that this is nvram, ALL memory and (of course) drive energy should drop. So should cooling (no hot drive, no hot RAM).
Apple already ships laptops with 4 (6 if you believe them) hour batteries. If you cut me some slack and figure that a day is a working day - 8 hours - then I'd imagine it'd be no problem. But I'm really guessing here. You're right, of course, about the LCD issue. I guess that is where more than half the juice goes.
Of course, Silicon RAM is to NanoRAM as a kumquat is to a watermelon
No. Silicon RAM is to NanoRAM as Vacuum tubes are to Silicon. They're both there to do the same thing, it's just that nobody bothers with vacuums (except for a very few special purpose - like audiophiles) because they're old and clunky.
The point is that you would have faster, non-volitile RAM that would fit into existing hardware.
No. The point is that you could easily have so much RAM that it would make retrofitting it into a current system look like putting an spoiler on a model-T.
I'd also imagine that this non-volitile RAM uses next to no power, making it a great potential drop-in replacement for laptops and other portable devices.
Good thinking. Oh, and let's not forget you wouldn't need to spin a disk at 1000s of RPM, which uses some energy as well.
This is not an upgrade. It is a change.
Well, maybe not a drop in ram replacement, but how about a solid-state ide/scsi drive? Memory blocks, so to speak...
Look, you're missing the point. This would represent a fundamental change in computing. 1 terabit/cm^2. Imagine having 50 GBytes on your wristwatch.
Half a terabyte on your cell phone.
As many terabytes as you can imagine on a laptop that runs for a day because it doesn't have a HD and all the RAM is NVRAM, and it's 100 times faster than your current system.
Really. Think about it. Who gives a shit if you can upgrade your current machine. Did you see the article recently about AppleII users getting together? You'd look as silly as any of them... (no offense - I've run a IIe emulator within the past 3 months, and it was fun; a lot like it will be amusing to be able to store all of silentbozo's files on my cell phone many times over)