It's in the same space as flash, perhaps closer to XPoint, but doesn't really have the investment of either to bring it to market in quantity and then doesn't have the economies of scale to make it competitive. Last I heard, the biggest chips were 64MB. It's hard to compete with flash because of the incredibly high volumes of flash that can be used to amortise R&D costs. Last I heard, HP was hoping that flash would run into a wall in scalability and they'd get more investment for alternatives in the same space, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Intel has not revealed the mechanism of X-Point. It could be a special variant of flash storage (like Samsung also just announced).
64 MB sounds about right. The ones I know are ferroelectric RAM (Fe-RAM), another nonvolatile type of memory technology. RAMtron is the company who makes it, and yes, it is for specific-case niche markets like "high temperature operation" for engines and such. RAMtron was bought-out by a larger player a couple of years ago.
There is a solution to RAMtron's scaling problem (the polycrystalline active layer should be monocrystalline), but they didn't have the resources to do due diligence and check it back then. Nor the cash to license the IP. Maybe now their new owners do...
And immediately, 100 million programmers skills were rendered obsolete
With RAM == Storage, there will indeed be a paradigm shift. There will be plenty of more work for the programmers to do, such as implementing admin-space cron jobs to 'refresh' the NVRAM at 3:00 every Saturday. . . or something like that.
Also, Hardware Designers are in for a treat as well.
The whole paradigm will shift when we reach that stage. We (researchers) have been working on the physical realization of a CMOS-integrable memristor for about 20 years, so it's about time.
The biggest barrier was the CMOS industy's reluctance to allow any new chemical elements into their well-controlled processes. Well, with high-k gate oxide they let in a new element (it's in your computer) to stretch Moore's Law. That barrier has fallen, and the time is ripe.
No. The capacitor is not changed by the charge in it. Hence the capacitor itself does not have state. Given the same situation, it will always behave the same, no matter its history. (This is for an ideal capacitor of course.)
A capacitor is non-Markovian.
A memresistor is fundamentally different. Depending on its history, it will behave differently in the same situation. Here the device itself is changed, and hence the device has a state.
A memristor is Markovian. To what degree is what matters (in application).
Hysteresis, imprint, and the useful number of cycles (10^12 minimum) are also important. The potential to 'reset' a NV-RAM's bits, refreshing them to a predictably imprinted state would be useful. Indeed, it would probably be part of the implementation, perhaps as one of those 3:00 am cron jobs.
Except that a memresistor is not really a passive component as it has state. And there is no "missing" passive component either. I don't know why this obvious BS is being repeated and repeated all over the place. A great success for marketing nonsense, a great loss for actual truth in engineering.
The actual article was sensationalistic. All they did was implement a hybrid memristor (assumed, TL;DR) incorporated with a transistor. So they combined two of the four basic circuit components into one with two leads. Big deal --- Ancillary circuitry will be needed to send "write" currents sometimes, and "read" voltages other times. Those must be put somewhere on the die.
Call the memristor a passive component if you want. The fact is, though, that a memristor can be "set" to a certain resistance, meaning that this device has many, many possible states. . . as long as signal-read is by decade or so for ON/OFF voltage (or 10%-ON/OFF, etc.).
The paper's use of "monolayer" of amorphous MoS2 is a nonsense term, especially when they call it polycrystalline. Their ON/OFF was a measly 10x. There are materials with 10^5 ON/OFF ratios, at least in the bulk.
I need to get to campus to read this article. The Abstract sounds like many Nature Abstracts to unexciting work. You make it sound big to get it into Nature, and word-smith like crazy. But from the looks and smell of this abstract, I will be disappointed when reading the article.
Did they rule out an interfacial charge-trapping scenario as the mechanism of their charge storage? In a single monolayer, it would have nowhere else to go.
Yea I found this summary pretty sensational. I've heard the term you used, "memristors," and how HP was working on them a few years back. I might have understood the concept wrong though. Typically memory is where you store data and registers are units on the processor that act on that data (add, subtract, bitshift, or more complex instructions).
As I understood it, memristors would allow instructions to operate directly on memory without having to load or store. If you had enough memristors to load your program into them, you'd effectively run everything incredibly fast in place. However this would change the entire way we write programs and compilers.
You'd probably no longer have a stack, the purpose of a program counter would change entirely, and you'd start to get into the very gritty details of immutability and self modifying code. ..
Zero boot-up time! Zero program-loading time! Everything resident in storage is de facto resident in memory, if your Memristor storage is equal to your RAM in size, and are one and the same, then you can do general computing at closer to L3 to L1 cache speeds! Vroom!
Oh, this would open huge new security holes now, wouldn't it? Hmmn.
I imagine that there would be some kind of redundancy built-in --- You don't want your code or purchased apps being altered after installation! Pernicious worms/virii hidden away in some dark corner of resident, 'active' memory makes me a little nervous. NOTE that the split between storage and memory is not just a historical artifact --- It's also a security wall.
I read both of those. This is a logic gate, a resistor that looks like a standard logic element transistor. If you want to be less baffled, look into electronics engineering as it applies to both computing, and also the history of how microcomputers were originally designed against the state machine model(s).
CORRECT.
1T1C (or any two-terminal implementation of a non-volatile memory element) is a goal of extreme interest for the big CMOS foundries. Density!
I believe that it is still 2T2C available on the market, but RAMtron is likely to have fixed that a while ago. It was a hot topic in 2000.
Perhaps they're using a new server that runs on memristors.
"Okay, what's two plus two?"
-thinks- "... two."
"What happened to the other two?"
"... I forgot about it." [emphasis mine]
That sounds more like a quantum-computer's q-bit effect. Although, DRAM capacitors do indeed have to be re-written after their state is read, so I guess it applies in your example.
A memristor is a two-terminal device, and can be used in logic in this form, but with the added overhead of combining write-lines w/read-signal lines. . . and the same thing with reading it, ostensibly, is an oopsie could erase the persistent state of the memristor bit. I'm not a circuit designer, so can say nothing about which would have more overhead on the die -- an array of memristors incl. ancillary read/write circuit devices -- vs. an array of memtransistors?
Is this just taking a piece of circuit design and incorporating it into a hybrid circuit-component? The phenomenon relies upon point dislocation alignment under static DC pulse (probably), just like other memristors of this type? If so, then they are reporting a difference without any distinction -- it's 2 devices glommed together into one -- which is not a great feat. Lots of materials exhibit this behavior, and could alternately be used. Just don't bother rushing out to Patent, as memristors are all bottled-up already, except maybe for case-implementations. (Patents can be prophetic.)
Or are they trying to get away from the "1C1T" memristor layout (1 capacitor + 1 transistor) -- the simplest form -- by mating the (amplifying?) transistor output? It would still need three leads -- just like the 1T1C Memristor Layout.
What new thing does this article report, aside from my abstract-only readings' interpretation???
* DISCLAIMER: Why yes, I do work with 2D materials, and with non-volatile memory materials/devices, both in a university environment.
Because in general, the demand is higher for live action movies.
They used to say that about prime-time TV shows and animated series . . . Then came The Simpsons for what, 30 years now? is in the teens of seasons. South Park is thriving in its 20's.
Hell, how many seasons did the original The Flintstones run for? It was a prime-time TV series first!
In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.
It really, really takes me out of the moment.
Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.
Totally! When The Hulk came out many years ago, I was turned-off by Hulk not leaning back when swinging a damned tank around by its main gun-turret.
I suspend disbelief to allow for superheroes in my movie. Now I want those superheroes' foes to follow simple Newtonian laws of momentum and motion when tossed around. If THAT PART doesn't look real, then the CGI money has been wasted.
Hell, even non-CGI can ruin it. In Mission Impossible (#1 w/T. Cruise), he jumps a motorcycle in a chase scene. OK -- I am suspending disbelief in that a human can make such unplanned maneuvers successfully. That's it. Then Tom's motorcycle follows a LINEAR PATH through the air, it being on a wire, which completely destroyed any action-excitement of the scene because it didn't 'look real'.
Mod up insightful. This is precisely why you'll see more CGI "extras"... you don't have to pay them, just render them. If you're rendering the scene, what's a few generic models?
It'd be fun to see if anyone can break down the actual cost to drop in a model versus a human.
--#
Well, someone has to model realistic movements, otherwise the CGI will look way-off. A guy in one of those ping-pong-ball suits, I mean. Motion must be captured.
A lone actor or a pair? Workable. A crowd? No. They are all reacting to each other around them, which changes their movements. So, unless for far-off shots like in Titanic, using real humans for a small crowd is still cheaper. Extras are often unpaid, too. . .
Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.
Some actor in a "male-model-saves-people-in-spare-time"-type of series, in the late 1980's or early 1990's, was goofing around on set with one. He held it to his temple and fired -- not thinking about the wadding in the barrel (or simply the air pressure wave of a shot) -- and killed himself right there on set, totally by (stupid) accident.
John Eric Hexam? Last name was Hexam or Hexham for sure.
but the mention of having observed something previously unrecognized by others despite your effort, and yet when you join the answer just pops out.
You mean like trivially ending poverty, guaranteeing Social Security's solvency, causing taxes to go down over time, putting a permanent end to the phenomena of poor inner cities and collapsed rural towns, preventing and rapidly-recovering recession, and working out how to bring the payroll tax down, all in one relatively-simple move with low risks and good risk controls, without raising taxes in the first place, and creating enough of a reduction in tax burden to fund healthcare-for-all more than twice, due to an unusual approach to reorganizing the Federal tax and spending strategy and a couple hours one weekend with a spreadsheet?
That's not being smart; it's a lucky guess, followed by obsession.
Concise.
I'll keep the expanded definition (the part excluding campaigning).
Why would it telegraph? I'm just a politician, so I don't know much about these things.
One of a politician's jobs is to 'always be on' when in public. That means acting – specifically connecting with individuas quickly, to be simpatico with them, to learn their actual thoughts. Acting isn't necessarily lying––listen to campaign-stumping speeches for a given political candidate vs. who they are talking to at the moment.
A politician's job (1/2 of it) is to be consistently approachable and hopefully charismatic in some way (other 1/2 is issues, law, ranking priorities, and necessarily making some sausage on occasion. More so for the Democrats (US) because they are a coalition party, versus the Republicans who are more top-down in managing young politicians. (I didn't have time to write a shorter post.)
For smart scientists, engineers, programmers, or other smart people who are well-read. . . We might have an interesting contribution to a discussion (imagine cocktail party), but the mention of having observed something previously unrecognized by others despite your effort, and yet when you join the answer just pops out. Most of the group will be happy, but you will leave a couple with envy – the ones who were trying to 'look smart' or whatever.
"If you are rich, beautiful, or smart; you walk around with a target painted on your back." –– unknown
PS –– I've lived by the Grosvenor stop for a year, before moving to Chevy Chase proper for the next. Tiger mosquitoes!
How's that walled garden working out for you Apple fanbois? Pretty cool, huh, blocking a simple network health monitor App because it's "objectionable content." Who knew Truth was objectionable content?
Apple has been selling their iPhones unlocked and untethered to any certain carrier for about 6 years.
In any case this is but one App of many that can perform network analysis. Well, almost. No App did what the author wanted; so he wrote one himself that did it. That is, he programmed his own application!!111!!1 What a bizarre idea.
You can, too. So can everyone else. My BLIND neighbor makes a living writing them. Yes, really.
Meanwhile, Trump's a guy who bragged about passing his health exam. Dude recognized some animals from pictures and he know holds himself to be a certified genius that's 'like, really smart'. Because if there's one thing we know about smart people it's that they constantly tell everyone how really super duper smart they are.
The problem with being really smart is that one does not need to telegraph it. It telegraphs itself through their every action. Only a fool would become an actor full-time (having to act dumb to make manager) for a promotion. That's no promotion.
There is a simple answer to this: Non-Profit Company, or still better, a "Low-profit Entity (LPE)"
Numerous advantages to for an LPE to handle things that are best-handled with a small group of paid employees in that way. Most effort would proceed as any open-source effort, but the LPE would come in handy.
So Microsoft has out-of-band access to the CPUs of Windows users computers so that they can make updates to it? What in the world? Glad I don't use that operating system.
Indeed. MS has the ability to install, as root, changes to the OS on your computer (and presumably anything else on the HD).
That is the very definition of a Back Door.
This "out-of-band pushed hot-fix" only shows the fact in bright relief. Windows machines (on X86 at least) have been back-doored since 1995. Whether anyone put it there, or exploited it before the patch, is the unknown.
BTW, the last "out-of-band pushed update", the one about a month ago, between Thursday and Friday, played hell with my computer, and wrecked an overnight job. MS waited 5 days to bother announcing the fact. So, meanwhile, millions of people were trying to figure out why their systems had suddenly become flaky. Thanks, MS.
FTSubmission: WebAssembly, or wasm, is a bytecode format for the web, allowing developers to send JavaScript code to browsers in smaller sizes, but also to compile from C/C++/Rust to wasm directly.
[emphasis mine]
Who wants websites running arbitrary C code on their machines? C is a real programming language. Probably the flagship used for most of the software you buy. It is powerful and widely known. So why let any old website that you visit execute code, probably in the background, on their own machine?
I see lots more 'sploits coming down the pipe as wasm is implemented. With real languages at their fingertips, tons of unaware users who will effectively let anyone have access to their electricity and CPU time without even knowing.
This just swings the door wide-open for a flood of Trojan code, actual code, not JS, all over the web running who-knows-what bit-miner, or distributed child-porn torrent node, or who knows what? It's like a giant, anonymous Beowulf cluster capability (where you lose). . . on top of all of those "Punch the Monkey" Ads suddenly freed to fly around over the text you're trying to read... or constantly right under you pointer, like a big Ad-flag hanging there permanently while on the offending site.
Wait, Tabs aren't sand-boxed similarly to browser windows... Are they? I hope so.
Many people think that the browser IS the internet!
My 10.12 machine was stolen, so I couldn't check it. But I'll bet it's still in there, even if only as a 'hidden' preference, like so many other OS X tweaks. Headphone-less FaceTime/video chat/ voice chat works fine -- with no feedback or hums -- and iPhones on speaker-phone exclude ambient noises very effectively. Either is good enough to serve as an 8-person video conference with no yelling required. Plugging in a quality microphone, say a $150 pro-(con)sumer mic and the difference on a laptop is astounding, especially if you separate the speakers from the mic by a couple of feet.
Other brands of laptop and cell phone undoubtedly employ similar technologies.
Ever notice that, about 12-14 years ago, cell phone providers in the US started having the phones play a light hiss when there was silence? That was, to save bandwidth on the upstream side, the cell phone would noise-filter before compression and broadcast to a cell tower. People kept thinking that the line was dropped when it was actually just silent, causing complaints because consumers "just stopped hearing anything and would hang up or ask, "Are you still there?"
Recording studios prefer to reduce ambient noise physically, for a cleaner original signal, of course. But, every DAW or audio manipulation tool has some kind of de-noiser effect in it, even if only a moving box-car average of neighboring points---this works if you have a cheap mic but high sampling depth and rate (32-bit or better, and probably at least 98 kHz if you don't want to lose your high end. (Fourier-based filters are far better than the algebraic box-car method, and these days are more commonly used.)
Sound signal noise-reduction is especially important at music concerts. With any recorded music, really. Anyone who has ever picked up an electric guitar will be familiar with the ground-loop 120 Hz hum, tweaking the settings on their noise gate, and basically learning to only touch a string that you are using at any given point (mostly).
Public speeches, maybe radio communications. . . any audio signal that is going to be amplified 10's of times could benefit from this.
Last, this approach could be applicable to other signal recording, processing, and transmission. Non-voice radio communications? Images -- as a form of compression by de-noising -- or just to clean up low-light (low signal) digitals with color noise and such. (There are many implementations w/images.) How about video, which has heavily optimized compression in most CODECS, especially if they are 'talkies' (video + sound).
I tried to donate noise; using a mac under 10.12.6. Mic is working fine. Safari asks if it can use the mic. The record button stays in for 60 seconds. The playback produces nothing.
I have great noise sources, and would not mind contributing.
Go to System Preferences | Sound. Select the 'Input' Tab, and de-select the button at the bottom, next to where it says, "Use ambient noise reduction."
Otherwise, you get two seconds of noise recorded, before the MacOS noise reduction on the Mic kicks in. It happened on my first recording.
But with a few companies having a quite complete picture about everything you are up online, it will be more and more difficult to develop something revolutionary (pardon: disruptive) without them noticing. And with their superior manpower they might be able to beat any small group of developers to market. [bold mine]
This is why I have convinced countless colleagues to STOP using DropBox for Group-sharing on projects. DropBox indexes every file and its contents. Why should they get to spy on my R&D? Imagine that you're a researcher or small-business owner, with 'Trade Secret' or Patentable stuff that you want to keep private... Your patent-able ideas could be easily stolen. Or if you have a small-business grant (SBIR/STTR), it is quite likely that the funding agency has required some kind of information control. For example your final report might not be approved for public distribution. Or parts of the work itself.
If info is for your team members only (secret or private), then DO NOT use Dropbox. Dropbox has publicly confirmed that they index every file that crosses their servers. That is, Dropbox is one huge opportunity for industrial espionage. If even one individual at Dropbox decided to go sifting through their full "customer base's" documents using keywords like "patent", "disclosure", or "SECRET" – well, then they could beat a lot of people to the Patent Office (with stolen ideas). Or get you in trouble with your funding agency.
If you are using Dropbox to store any project or government-sensitive files, please STOP IMMEDIATELY. Their CEO is Condoleeza Rice – an architect of the privacy-invasive shift of the US Govt during the Bush years. She hates privacy.
SOLUTION?: Box Sync You have to pay above the 5 GB level, or so, but it's worth it. They encrypt files client-side and decrypt the files on the recipient's end. Box Sync does not have the capability to examine your files – by design. They keep your file structure visible to anyone with your Group's password, of course, and provide granular control over who can up/download at the file or folder level.
There are many other companies with solutions of varying security. I only harped on Box Sync because I know all about it. Also, the entire University of California system has forbidden faculty and staff from using DropBox (for the reasons above), and at the time of the switch, Box Sync was the only analog on the market that had security. This was a year or so ago – every UC faculty & staff got an unlimited, or at least gigantic, Box Sync account.
That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.
Did anyone ever notice, back in 2001, that every group you communicated or traded with (as list-d above) – all suddenly wanted your cell phone number, when they never had before? Did anyone else notice this sudden change?
Consumer-data firms absolutely love cell phone numbers. They are a unique identifier that is not illegal to use (as SSN & CC# are). Cell phone numbers are an extremely powerful correlate to whatever other little scraps if data might accompany it.
I stopped giving my phone number out to anyone unless it was central to the relationship. For about 10 years. Well, now, big data is very big, and everybody and their mother is selling your info, which is later correlated with other data, and your cell phone number is one of the most high-confidence correlates. I have given up.
YOU DO HAVE A FB PROFILE, even if you never created one. They follow people around the web (via cookies, etc.), and build a profile of you whether you like it or not. Sign up, and you might see how creepy-much they have.
There are hundreds of these 'Consumer-behavior Aggregating Companies', and they are effectively uncontrolled. It is a new industry. Compare them to the three credit agencies are heavily regulated. See how it gets scary?
John Oliver did an informative piece on these shady companies within the last year. Very informative.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in the same space as flash, perhaps closer to XPoint, but doesn't really have the investment of either to bring it to market in quantity and then doesn't have the economies of scale to make it competitive. Last I heard, the biggest chips were 64MB. It's hard to compete with flash because of the incredibly high volumes of flash that can be used to amortise R&D costs. Last I heard, HP was hoping that flash would run into a wall in scalability and they'd get more investment for alternatives in the same space, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Intel has not revealed the mechanism of X-Point. It could be a special variant of flash storage (like Samsung also just announced).
64 MB sounds about right. The ones I know are ferroelectric RAM (Fe-RAM), another nonvolatile type of memory technology. RAMtron is the company who makes it, and yes, it is for specific-case niche markets like "high temperature operation" for engines and such. RAMtron was bought-out by a larger player a couple of years ago.
There is a solution to RAMtron's scaling problem (the polycrystalline active layer should be monocrystalline), but they didn't have the resources to do due diligence and check it back then. Nor the cash to license the IP. Maybe now their new owners do...
And immediately, 100 million programmers skills were rendered obsolete
With RAM == Storage, there will indeed be a paradigm shift. There will be plenty of more work for the programmers to do, such as implementing admin-space cron jobs to 'refresh' the NVRAM at 3:00 every Saturday. . . or something like that.
Also, Hardware Designers are in for a treat as well.
The whole paradigm will shift when we reach that stage. We (researchers) have been working on the physical realization of a CMOS-integrable memristor for about 20 years, so it's about time.
The biggest barrier was the CMOS industy's reluctance to allow any new chemical elements into their well-controlled processes. Well, with high-k gate oxide they let in a new element (it's in your computer) to stretch Moore's Law. That barrier has fallen, and the time is ripe.
No. The capacitor is not changed by the charge in it. Hence the capacitor itself does not have state. Given the same situation, it will always behave the same, no matter its history. (This is for an ideal capacitor of course.)
A capacitor is non-Markovian.
A memresistor is fundamentally different. Depending on its history, it will behave differently in the same situation. Here the device itself is changed, and hence the device has a state.
A memristor is Markovian. To what degree is what matters (in application).
Hysteresis, imprint, and the useful number of cycles (10^12 minimum) are also important. The potential to 'reset' a NV-RAM's bits, refreshing them to a predictably imprinted state would be useful. Indeed, it would probably be part of the implementation, perhaps as one of those 3:00 am cron jobs.
Except that a memresistor is not really a passive component as it has state. And there is no "missing" passive component either. I don't know why this obvious BS is being repeated and repeated all over the place. A great success for marketing nonsense, a great loss for actual truth in engineering.
The actual article was sensationalistic. All they did was implement a hybrid memristor (assumed, TL;DR) incorporated with a transistor. So they combined two of the four basic circuit components into one with two leads. Big deal --- Ancillary circuitry will be needed to send "write" currents sometimes, and "read" voltages other times. Those must be put somewhere on the die.
Call the memristor a passive component if you want. The fact is, though, that a memristor can be "set" to a certain resistance, meaning that this device has many, many possible states. . . as long as signal-read is by decade or so for ON/OFF voltage (or 10%-ON/OFF, etc.).
The paper's use of "monolayer" of amorphous MoS2 is a nonsense term, especially when they call it polycrystalline. Their ON/OFF was a measly 10x. There are materials with 10^5 ON/OFF ratios, at least in the bulk.
I need to get to campus to read this article. The Abstract sounds like many Nature Abstracts to unexciting work. You make it sound big to get it into Nature, and word-smith like crazy. But from the looks and smell of this abstract, I will be disappointed when reading the article.
Did they rule out an interfacial charge-trapping scenario as the mechanism of their charge storage? In a single monolayer, it would have nowhere else to go.
Yea I found this summary pretty sensational. I've heard the term you used, "memristors," and how HP was working on them a few years back. I might have understood the concept wrong though. Typically memory is where you store data and registers are units on the processor that act on that data (add, subtract, bitshift, or more complex instructions).
As I understood it, memristors would allow instructions to operate directly on memory without having to load or store. If you had enough memristors to load your program into them, you'd effectively run everything incredibly fast in place. However this would change the entire way we write programs and compilers.
You'd probably no longer have a stack, the purpose of a program counter would change entirely, and you'd start to get into the very gritty details of immutability and self modifying code. . .
Zero boot-up time! Zero program-loading time! Everything resident in storage is de facto resident in memory, if your Memristor storage is equal to your RAM in size, and are one and the same, then you can do general computing at closer to L3 to L1 cache speeds! Vroom!
Oh, this would open huge new security holes now, wouldn't it? Hmmn.
I imagine that there would be some kind of redundancy built-in --- You don't want your code or purchased apps being altered after installation! Pernicious worms/virii hidden away in some dark corner of resident, 'active' memory makes me a little nervous. NOTE that the split between storage and memory is not just a historical artifact --- It's also a security wall.
I read both of those. This is a logic gate, a resistor that looks like a standard logic element transistor. If you want to be less baffled, look into electronics engineering as it applies to both computing, and also the history of how microcomputers were originally designed against the state machine model(s).
CORRECT.
1T1C (or any two-terminal implementation of a non-volatile memory element) is a goal of extreme interest for the big CMOS foundries. Density!
I believe that it is still 2T2C available on the market, but RAMtron is likely to have fixed that a while ago. It was a hot topic in 2000.
Perhaps they're using a new server that runs on memristors.
"Okay, what's two plus two?"
-thinks- "... two."
"What happened to the other two?"
"... I forgot about it." [emphasis mine]
That sounds more like a quantum-computer's q-bit effect. Although, DRAM capacitors do indeed have to be re-written after their state is read, so I guess it applies in your example.
A memristor is a two-terminal device, and can be used in logic in this form, but with the added overhead of combining write-lines w/read-signal lines. . . and the same thing with reading it, ostensibly, is an oopsie could erase the persistent state of the memristor bit. I'm not a circuit designer, so can say nothing about which would have more overhead on the die -- an array of memristors incl. ancillary read/write circuit devices -- vs. an array of memtransistors?
Is this just taking a piece of circuit design and incorporating it into a hybrid circuit-component? The phenomenon relies upon point dislocation alignment under static DC pulse (probably), just like other memristors of this type? If so, then they are reporting a difference without any distinction -- it's 2 devices glommed together into one -- which is not a great feat. Lots of materials exhibit this behavior, and could alternately be used. Just don't bother rushing out to Patent, as memristors are all bottled-up already, except maybe for case-implementations. (Patents can be prophetic.)
Or are they trying to get away from the "1C1T" memristor layout (1 capacitor + 1 transistor) -- the simplest form -- by mating the (amplifying?) transistor output? It would still need three leads -- just like the 1T1C Memristor Layout.
What new thing does this article report, aside from my abstract-only readings' interpretation???
* DISCLAIMER: Why yes, I do work with 2D materials, and with non-volatile memory materials/devices, both in a university environment.
Because in general, the demand is higher for live action movies.
They used to say that about prime-time TV shows and animated series . . . Then came The Simpsons for what, 30 years now? is in the teens of seasons. South Park is thriving in its 20's.
Hell, how many seasons did the original The Flintstones run for? It was a prime-time TV series first!
In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.
It really, really takes me out of the moment.
Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.
Totally! When The Hulk came out many years ago, I was turned-off by Hulk not leaning back when swinging a damned tank around by its main gun-turret.
I suspend disbelief to allow for superheroes in my movie. Now I want those superheroes' foes to follow simple Newtonian laws of momentum and motion when tossed around. If THAT PART doesn't look real, then the CGI money has been wasted.
Hell, even non-CGI can ruin it. In Mission Impossible (#1 w/T. Cruise), he jumps a motorcycle in a chase scene. OK -- I am suspending disbelief in that a human can make such unplanned maneuvers successfully. That's it. Then Tom's motorcycle follows a LINEAR PATH through the air, it being on a wire, which completely destroyed any action-excitement of the scene because it didn't 'look real'.
Mod up insightful. This is precisely why you'll see more CGI "extras"... you don't have to pay them, just render them. If you're rendering the scene, what's a few generic models?
It'd be fun to see if anyone can break down the actual cost to drop in a model versus a human.
--#
Well, someone has to model realistic movements, otherwise the CGI will look way-off. A guy in one of those ping-pong-ball suits, I mean. Motion must be captured.
A lone actor or a pair? Workable. A crowd? No. They are all reacting to each other around them, which changes their movements. So, unless for far-off shots like in Titanic, using real humans for a small crowd is still cheaper. Extras are often unpaid, too. . .
Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.
Some actor in a "male-model-saves-people-in-spare-time"-type of series, in the late 1980's or early 1990's, was goofing around on set with one. He held it to his temple and fired -- not thinking about the wadding in the barrel (or simply the air pressure wave of a shot) -- and killed himself right there on set, totally by (stupid) accident.
John Eric Hexam? Last name was Hexam or Hexham for sure.
Mod parent up !!!
but the mention of having observed something previously unrecognized by others despite your effort, and yet when you join the answer just pops out.
You mean like trivially ending poverty, guaranteeing Social Security's solvency, causing taxes to go down over time, putting a permanent end to the phenomena of poor inner cities and collapsed rural towns, preventing and rapidly-recovering recession, and working out how to bring the payroll tax down, all in one relatively-simple move with low risks and good risk controls, without raising taxes in the first place, and creating enough of a reduction in tax burden to fund healthcare-for-all more than twice, due to an unusual approach to reorganizing the Federal tax and spending strategy and a couple hours one weekend with a spreadsheet?
That's not being smart; it's a lucky guess, followed by obsession.
Concise.
I'll keep the expanded definition (the part excluding campaigning).
Why would it telegraph? I'm just a politician, so I don't know much about these things.
One of a politician's jobs is to 'always be on' when in public. That means acting – specifically connecting with individuas quickly, to be simpatico with them, to learn their actual thoughts. Acting isn't necessarily lying––listen to campaign-stumping speeches for a given political candidate vs. who they are talking to at the moment.
A politician's job (1/2 of it) is to be consistently approachable and hopefully charismatic in some way (other 1/2 is issues, law, ranking priorities, and necessarily making some sausage on occasion. More so for the Democrats (US) because they are a coalition party, versus the Republicans who are more top-down in managing young politicians. (I didn't have time to write a shorter post.)
For smart scientists, engineers, programmers, or other smart people who are well-read. . . We might have an interesting contribution to a discussion (imagine cocktail party), but the mention of having observed something previously unrecognized by others despite your effort, and yet when you join the answer just pops out. Most of the group will be happy, but you will leave a couple with envy – the ones who were trying to 'look smart' or whatever.
"If you are rich, beautiful, or smart; you walk around with a target painted on your back." –– unknown
PS –– I've lived by the Grosvenor stop for a year, before moving to Chevy Chase proper for the next. Tiger mosquitoes!
How's that walled garden working out for you Apple fanbois? Pretty cool, huh, blocking a simple network health monitor App because it's "objectionable content." Who knew Truth was objectionable content?
Apple has been selling their iPhones unlocked and untethered to any certain carrier for about 6 years.
In any case this is but one App of many that can perform network analysis. Well, almost. No App did what the author wanted; so he wrote one himself that did it. That is, he programmed his own application!!111!!1 What a bizarre idea.
You can, too. So can everyone else. My BLIND neighbor makes a living writing them. Yes, really.
Meanwhile, Trump's a guy who bragged about passing his health exam. Dude recognized some animals from pictures and he know holds himself to be a certified genius that's 'like, really smart'. Because if there's one thing we know about smart people it's that they constantly tell everyone how really super duper smart they are.
The problem with being really smart is that one does not need to telegraph it. It telegraphs itself through their every action. Only a fool would become an actor full-time (having to act dumb to make manager) for a promotion. That's no promotion.
C O N S U M E !
There is a simple answer to this: Non-Profit Company, or still better, a "Low-profit Entity (LPE)"
Numerous advantages to for an LPE to handle things that are best-handled with a small group of paid employees in that way. Most effort would proceed as any open-source effort, but the LPE would come in handy.
So Microsoft has out-of-band access to the CPUs of Windows users computers so that they can make updates to it? What in the world? Glad I don't use that operating system.
Indeed. MS has the ability to install, as root, changes to the OS on your computer (and presumably anything else on the HD).
That is the very definition of a Back Door.
This "out-of-band pushed hot-fix" only shows the fact in bright relief. Windows machines (on X86 at least) have been back-doored since 1995. Whether anyone put it there, or exploited it before the patch, is the unknown.
BTW, the last "out-of-band pushed update", the one about a month ago, between Thursday and Friday, played hell with my computer, and wrecked an overnight job. MS waited 5 days to bother announcing the fact. So, meanwhile, millions of people were trying to figure out why their systems had suddenly become flaky. Thanks, MS.
FTSubmission: WebAssembly, or wasm, is a bytecode format for the web, allowing developers to send JavaScript code to browsers in smaller sizes, but also to compile from C/C++/Rust to wasm directly.
[emphasis mine]
Who wants websites running arbitrary C code on their machines? C is a real programming language. Probably the flagship used for most of the software you buy. It is powerful and widely known. So why let any old website that you visit execute code, probably in the background, on their own machine?
I see lots more 'sploits coming down the pipe as wasm is implemented. With real languages at their fingertips, tons of unaware users who will effectively let anyone have access to their electricity and CPU time without even knowing.
This just swings the door wide-open for a flood of Trojan code, actual code, not JS, all over the web running who-knows-what bit-miner, or distributed child-porn torrent node, or who knows what? It's like a giant, anonymous Beowulf cluster capability (where you lose). . . on top of all of those "Punch the Monkey" Ads suddenly freed to fly around over the text you're trying to read... or constantly right under you pointer, like a big Ad-flag hanging there permanently while on the offending site.
Wait, Tabs aren't sand-boxed similarly to browser windows... Are they? I hope so.
Many people think that the browser IS the internet!
There will be chaos.
No, there is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. This is under OS X 10.12.6.
Here's the prefs panel
MacOS 10.10 has the checkbox.
My 10.12 machine was stolen, so I couldn't check it. But I'll bet it's still in there, even if only as a 'hidden' preference, like so many other OS X tweaks. Headphone-less FaceTime/video chat/ voice chat works fine -- with no feedback or hums -- and iPhones on speaker-phone exclude ambient noises very effectively. Either is good enough to serve as an 8-person video conference with no yelling required. Plugging in a quality microphone, say a $150 pro-(con)sumer mic and the difference on a laptop is astounding, especially if you separate the speakers from the mic by a couple of feet.
Other brands of laptop and cell phone undoubtedly employ similar technologies.
Ever notice that, about 12-14 years ago, cell phone providers in the US started having the phones play a light hiss when there was silence? That was, to save bandwidth on the upstream side, the cell phone would noise-filter before compression and broadcast to a cell tower. People kept thinking that the line was dropped when it was actually just silent, causing complaints because consumers "just stopped hearing anything and would hang up or ask, "Are you still there?"
Recording studios prefer to reduce ambient noise physically, for a cleaner original signal, of course. But, every DAW or audio manipulation tool has some kind of de-noiser effect in it, even if only a moving box-car average of neighboring points---this works if you have a cheap mic but high sampling depth and rate (32-bit or better, and probably at least 98 kHz if you don't want to lose your high end. (Fourier-based filters are far better than the algebraic box-car method, and these days are more commonly used.)
Sound signal noise-reduction is especially important at music concerts. With any recorded music, really. Anyone who has ever picked up an electric guitar will be familiar with the ground-loop 120 Hz hum, tweaking the settings on their noise gate, and basically learning to only touch a string that you are using at any given point (mostly).
Public speeches, maybe radio communications. . . any audio signal that is going to be amplified 10's of times could benefit from this.
Last, this approach could be applicable to other signal recording, processing, and transmission. Non-voice radio communications? Images -- as a form of compression by de-noising -- or just to clean up low-light (low signal) digitals with color noise and such. (There are many implementations w/images.) How about video, which has heavily optimized compression in most CODECS, especially if they are 'talkies' (video + sound).
I tried to donate noise; using a mac under 10.12.6. Mic is working fine. Safari asks if it can use the mic. The record button stays in for 60 seconds. The playback produces nothing.
I have great noise sources, and would not mind contributing.
Go to System Preferences | Sound. Select the 'Input' Tab, and de-select the button at the bottom, next to where it says, "Use ambient noise reduction."
Otherwise, you get two seconds of noise recorded, before the MacOS noise reduction on the Mic kicks in. It happened on my first recording.
But with a few companies having a quite complete picture about everything you are up online, it will be more and more difficult to develop something revolutionary (pardon: disruptive) without them noticing. And with their superior manpower they might be able to beat any small group of developers to market. [bold mine]
This is why I have convinced countless colleagues to STOP using DropBox for Group-sharing on projects. DropBox indexes every file and its contents. Why should they get to spy on my R&D? Imagine that you're a researcher or small-business owner, with 'Trade Secret' or Patentable stuff that you want to keep private... Your patent-able ideas could be easily stolen. Or if you have a small-business grant (SBIR/STTR), it is quite likely that the funding agency has required some kind of information control. For example your final report might not be approved for public distribution. Or parts of the work itself.
If info is for your team members only (secret or private), then DO NOT use Dropbox. Dropbox has publicly confirmed that they index every file that crosses their servers. That is, Dropbox is one huge opportunity for industrial espionage. If even one individual at Dropbox decided to go sifting through their full "customer base's" documents using keywords like "patent", "disclosure", or "SECRET" – well, then they could beat a lot of people to the Patent Office (with stolen ideas). Or get you in trouble with your funding agency.
If you are using Dropbox to store any project or government-sensitive files, please STOP IMMEDIATELY. Their CEO is Condoleeza Rice – an architect of the privacy-invasive shift of the US Govt during the Bush years. She hates privacy.
SOLUTION?: Box Sync You have to pay above the 5 GB level, or so, but it's worth it. They encrypt files client-side and decrypt the files on the recipient's end. Box Sync does not have the capability to examine your files – by design. They keep your file structure visible to anyone with your Group's password, of course, and provide granular control over who can up/download at the file or folder level.
There are many other companies with solutions of varying security. I only harped on Box Sync because I know all about it. Also, the entire University of California system has forbidden faculty and staff from using DropBox (for the reasons above), and at the time of the switch, Box Sync was the only analog on the market that had security. This was a year or so ago – every UC faculty & staff got an unlimited, or at least gigantic, Box Sync account.
The more you know...
That's not true. Sometimes you pay for the product but you are still the product.
True enough. Epson is the prime example. Its CEO called inkjets "vending machines for ink."
Asshole.
That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.
Did anyone ever notice, back in 2001, that every group you communicated or traded with (as list-d above) – all suddenly wanted your cell phone number, when they never had before? Did anyone else notice this sudden change?
Consumer-data firms absolutely love cell phone numbers. They are a unique identifier that is not illegal to use (as SSN & CC# are). Cell phone numbers are an extremely powerful correlate to whatever other little scraps if data might accompany it.
I stopped giving my phone number out to anyone unless it was central to the relationship. For about 10 years. Well, now, big data is very big, and everybody and their mother is selling your info, which is later correlated with other data, and your cell phone number is one of the most high-confidence correlates. I have given up.
YOU DO HAVE A FB PROFILE, even if you never created one. They follow people around the web (via cookies, etc.), and build a profile of you whether you like it or not. Sign up, and you might see how creepy-much they have.
There are hundreds of these 'Consumer-behavior Aggregating Companies', and they are effectively uncontrolled. It is a new industry. Compare them to the three credit agencies are heavily regulated. See how it gets scary?
John Oliver did an informative piece on these shady companies within the last year. Very informative.