Now that we've reached the limit on CMOS die shrink, perhaps it's time to revisit the big chip approach.
I tend to agree. Amdahl tried to develop multilayer chips (essentially a three dimensional layer-cake approach) but failed, for a variety of reasons, although I remember reading that it was a complexity issue (inadequate design tools) as much as failure rate.
That's probably a logical way to continue increasing complexity: just stack extra circuitry vertically. Discards don't matter much if you have several hundred CPU's worth of logic in your part. Just test them all and disable the ones that don't work.
Of course, how to really use that much VLSI is another matter entirely.
Where is the Constitution wrong when it comes our current needs? Any specifics? It's really a very minimalist document, you know, deliberately so. It can be Amended, and has been... but that process was made intentionally difficult.
... and so they need to be understood as intended...
Correct
... but overridden when outdated.
No, that's where you and a lot of other people got it wrong.
Look, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Land. There is no other. Consequently, if you want to "override" it you must Amend it... and that can only be done by "process contained within itself." To do otherwise is to pay lip service to the Constitution, while doing whatever you damn well please. That way leads to a government far more powerful than the Founders wanted, or We the People need. I might add that's exactly what our various governments have been doing for some time now. Mostly, I suppose, that's because obeying the law is, well, inconvenient for some people (and a darn sight less profitable.)
If you look at where America has been going wrong for the past fifty years, it's generally in areas where we decided to "override" the Constitution, because somebody felt it was "outdated". That in spite of the fact that it is the Supreme Law of These United States.
Don't underrate the Founders and their accomplishment. Their words are no less true today, and all the more valuable because the combined wisdom of Congress and every Administration for the past half century don't hold a candle to the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.
For the past thirty years I've been hearing about the "ultimate limits" of silicon-based technology, and the various advancements using {insert favorite exotic material here} that were going to supplant it. I have some history on my side when I say that predictions of silicon's demise have always proven premature, and I'm not convinced that this time is any different. If I'm wrong, great... we'll all have terahertz processors in our Playstations. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think most people see it that way, they would probably be more interested in gadgets than in a near-super computer.
Well, now that depends. If you mean a supercomputer whose only function is to run Microsoft Office faster... you're right. Not much point in that. However, if we did have that kind of power in a sub-$1000 computer system, odds are we'll find something way cool to do with it. Something on the order of useful AI, for example.
Well, as everyone on Slashdot surely knows, E=MC^2. Therefore, since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed in form, it follows that the letter "E" cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed in form. Which would probably Txplain this sTntTncT.
I doubt silicon will be going anywhere anytime soon - its simply too affordable.
Yes, and we're so damned good at manipulating it. All this newfangled stuff is pie-in-the-sky at this point. Yes, I suppose we'll eventually replace it for the likes of high-end processors, as you say, but everything else out of silicon for a long time to come.
People keep bring up Moore's Law, as if it's some immutable law of physics. The reality is that we've invested trillions of {insert favorite monetary unit here} in silicon-based tech. Each new generation of high-speed silicon costs more, so that's a lot of inertia. Furthermore, if Guilder's Rule holds true in this case (and I see no reason why it shouldn't) any technology that comes long to replace silicon will have to be substantially better. Otherwise, the costs of switching won't make it economically viable.
[R]esearchers speculate that the silicon chip will be unable to sustain the same pace of increase in computing power and speed as it has in previous years.
In the meantime, other researchers will figure out ways to make silicon work smarter, not harder.
You must be from England. There's no flat tax to pay for TV programming here in the U.S.... most television programs are advertiser-supported, except those that are produced by cable outfits like HBO and Showtime.
The plaintiffs cite three possible 'doomsday' scenarios which might occur if the LHC becomes operational: the creation of microscopic black holes which would grow and swallow matter, the creation of strangelets which, if they touch other matter, would convert that matter into strangelets or the creation of magnetic monopoles which could start a chain reaction and convert atoms to other forms of matter.
It was a stupid flick with Adrian Paul and what's-her-name from Stargate SG-1 and a completely wasted Ben Kingsley. Netflix should have warned me how stupid it was.
The thing here is that the studios were, for decades, accustomed to dealing with record stores and other relatively small-time operators who could be pressured successfully. Now that the bulk of music sales are through two channels (Wal-Mart and iTunes) which are not controlled by or in any way beholden to the music companies, they're finding themselves in a difficult position. We consumers don't have a collective voice loud enough to be heard, smaller brick-and-mortar stores and chains have no power... but the likes of Wal-Mart and Steve Jobs have put the fear of God into the music outfits.
That's probably a good thing. Every king needs to be toppled from his throne now and then. It's good for the rest of us. Little rough on the kings, I suppose, but nobody cares much about them anyway.
China is a bully, but the USA engaged them as economic partners and things have changed, albeit very slowly.
Not at all. Let me rephrase your comment so that it is more closely aligned with reality:
China is a bully, and the USA foolishly engaged them as economic partners and now things have not only gone from bad to worse, but have done so with blinding speed. And China's government has not, by all accounts, been changed even a smidgen for the better.
Well, here's how one well-known character would have handled the question:
"Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5. Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself. But being this is a.44 Magnum - the most powerful hand gun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky. Well, do ya punk?"
Ask anyone in retail and they'll tell you most shrinkage comes from the employees.
Odd. I thought that came from getting out of the pool.
Yeah, shrinkage, pilferage, theft: it's a big problem for retailers and warehousers. I remember reading that onetime retailer Egghead Software was losing in incredible amount of money and couldn't figure out where it all was going, they were selling plenty on decent margins. So they did an investigation, put in some hidden cameras, etc. Turned out there was a group of people in the company that were forging purchase orders and delivery schedules: they'd just back a semi into a warehouse, load it up... and drive away!
Customers couldn't steal that much. To be a really successful thief, you have to steal from your employer.
Geez, lets all grow some thicker skin, and not be so quick to throw the racist card, and lets not be so scared of having it played, that we're scared to say something that might in some cases, happen to be true.
I agree. Of course, with certain ethnic groups, you'll need to grow bigger balls because they'll come after you when you make generalizations.
You all know who you are. Don't bother denying it.
Ultimately, the best idea is to eliminate software patents entirely. Our software industry grew hugely profitable without them, so there is no demonstrable need for software patents (unless, of course, you have some anticompetitive ideas in mind.) Fact is, they are not helping, and so far as the United States is concerned they're not fulfilling their Constitutional mandate (admittedly, not much of anything Congress passes lately does.) However, if you must have them, give the USPTO the funding it needs to be critical about what truly is worthy of protection (I agree with you there) and shorten the term.
Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret.
So what? If it's secret, I can't use it, and if it's patented I can't use it. If I make a derivative work based upon your disclosed, patented algorithm odds are you'll still sue me. Without software patents, companies which understand that the only real way to maintain a competitive edge is to keep investing in R&D will simply be encouraged to maintain that investment. Maybe then they'll starting hiring fewer IP lawyers and more scientists, engineers and programmers. I'd say the country would be a whole lot better off if that were to happen. Hell, if you want an argument against software patents (indeed, excessive IP law in general) just look at Asia's high-tech economies. They don't have draconian Intellectual Property laws and they're doing just fine, employing a hell of a lot of people manufacturing a lot of products.
When it comes to software, the reality is this: if there's a way of doing something, there's probably a better way and sooner or later someone will figure it out. Furthermore, if something is protected by trade secret law, it's only secret until someone figures it out. And, if they figure it out independently (or do come up with a better approach) there's no patent system getting the way of that technology being commercialized. Software patents have proven to be a millstone around the U.S. software industry's neck and the Patent Office is utterly incapable of managing them effectively. Given those facts, we're better off without them.
Keep in mind that part of the reason the International Olympic Committee gave China the games was to create international pressure for change... and not of the TOR variety.
That's wrongheaded, anyway. You don't give a bully what he wants and then tell him it's because you want him to stop being a bully. No, you tell him up front he won't get what he wants until he stops being a bully, and that only as long as he continues to play nice.
This had nothing to do with trying to encourage change in China's government and everything to do with trying to curry favor. We let that particular group of sociopathic leaders grab us by the short-and-curly (and by "us" I mean the entire industrialized world, if you think China is after the United States only you're not up to speed) and now we have to toady up to them. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're calling them "bungholes" nowadays.
Now that we've reached the limit on CMOS die shrink, perhaps it's time to revisit the big chip approach.
I tend to agree. Amdahl tried to develop multilayer chips (essentially a three dimensional layer-cake approach) but failed, for a variety of reasons, although I remember reading that it was a complexity issue (inadequate design tools) as much as failure rate.
That's probably a logical way to continue increasing complexity: just stack extra circuitry vertically. Discards don't matter much if you have several hundred CPU's worth of logic in your part. Just test them all and disable the ones that don't work.
Of course, how to really use that much VLSI is another matter entirely.
Microsoft may be down quite a bit, but Apple is not even on that list at all.
... well, for a couple of generations those three letters were synonymous with "computer" for most people. That's runs pretty deep, I think.
Which is hard to believe, given that people are referring to generic MP3 players as "iPods" nowadays.
IBM
The documents can't be right for all time ...
... but that process was made intentionally difficult.
... and so they need to be understood as intended ...
... but overridden when outdated.
... and that can only be done by "process contained within itself." To do otherwise is to pay lip service to the Constitution, while doing whatever you damn well please. That way leads to a government far more powerful than the Founders wanted, or We the People need. I might add that's exactly what our various governments have been doing for some time now. Mostly, I suppose, that's because obeying the law is, well, inconvenient for some people (and a darn sight less profitable.)
Where is the Constitution wrong when it comes our current needs? Any specifics? It's really a very minimalist document, you know, deliberately so. It can be Amended, and has been
Correct
No, that's where you and a lot of other people got it wrong.
Look, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Land. There is no other. Consequently, if you want to "override" it you must Amend it
If you look at where America has been going wrong for the past fifty years, it's generally in areas where we decided to "override" the Constitution, because somebody felt it was "outdated". That in spite of the fact that it is the Supreme Law of These United States.
Don't underrate the Founders and their accomplishment. Their words are no less true today, and all the more valuable because the combined wisdom of Congress and every Administration for the past half century don't hold a candle to the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.
No need to be snide.
... we'll all have terahertz processors in our Playstations. But I'm not holding my breath.
For the past thirty years I've been hearing about the "ultimate limits" of silicon-based technology, and the various advancements using {insert favorite exotic material here} that were going to supplant it. I have some history on my side when I say that predictions of silicon's demise have always proven premature, and I'm not convinced that this time is any different. If I'm wrong, great
I think most people see it that way, they would probably be more interested in gadgets than in a near-super computer.
... you're right. Not much point in that. However, if we did have that kind of power in a sub-$1000 computer system, odds are we'll find something way cool to do with it. Something on the order of useful AI, for example.
Well, now that depends. If you mean a supercomputer whose only function is to run Microsoft Office faster
Well, we use most silicon to display boobs, might as well repay the favour :)
Overclocking might be fun as well: "Hey, I managed a stable DD at room temperature!"
In that context, you probably should have said, "overcocking". I know I get enough emails on that subject every day.
Well, as everyone on Slashdot surely knows, E=MC^2. Therefore, since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed in form, it follows that the letter "E" cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed in form. Which would probably Txplain this sTntTncT.
I doubt silicon will be going anywhere anytime soon - its simply too affordable.
Yes, and we're so damned good at manipulating it. All this newfangled stuff is pie-in-the-sky at this point. Yes, I suppose we'll eventually replace it for the likes of high-end processors, as you say, but everything else out of silicon for a long time to come.
People keep bring up Moore's Law, as if it's some immutable law of physics. The reality is that we've invested trillions of {insert favorite monetary unit here} in silicon-based tech. Each new generation of high-speed silicon costs more, so that's a lot of inertia. Furthermore, if Guilder's Rule holds true in this case (and I see no reason why it shouldn't) any technology that comes long to replace silicon will have to be substantially better. Otherwise, the costs of switching won't make it economically viable.
[R]esearchers speculate that the silicon chip will be unable to sustain the same pace of increase in computing power and speed as it has in previous years.
In the meantime, other researchers will figure out ways to make silicon work smarter, not harder.
You must be from England. There's no flat tax to pay for TV programming here in the U.S. ... most television programs are advertiser-supported, except those that are produced by cable outfits like HBO and Showtime.
Just think of what Microsoft would like to do with UAC for your browser. "This website is not Microsoft signed, Cancel or Allow?"
I think this is how it would really be: "This website is not Microsoft signed."
you get your significant other to taste a little organic matter right here on Earth.
Slashdottian days.
The plaintiffs cite three possible 'doomsday' scenarios which might occur if the LHC becomes operational: the creation of microscopic black holes which would grow and swallow matter, the creation of strangelets which, if they touch other matter, would convert that matter into strangelets or the creation of magnetic monopoles which could start a chain reaction and convert atoms to other forms of matter.
It was a stupid flick with Adrian Paul and what's-her-name from Stargate SG-1 and a completely wasted Ben Kingsley. Netflix should have warned me how stupid it was.
... and give cheaper imports to Wal-Mart.
There you go.
That's hilarious. Really, you should send it in to Penn & Teller. They'd probably do an episode of Bullshit! around it.
The thing here is that the studios were, for decades, accustomed to dealing with record stores and other relatively small-time operators who could be pressured successfully. Now that the bulk of music sales are through two channels (Wal-Mart and iTunes) which are not controlled by or in any way beholden to the music companies, they're finding themselves in a difficult position. We consumers don't have a collective voice loud enough to be heard, smaller brick-and-mortar stores and chains have no power ... but the likes of Wal-Mart and Steve Jobs have put the fear of God into the music outfits.
That's probably a good thing. Every king needs to be toppled from his throne now and then. It's good for the rest of us. Little rough on the kings, I suppose, but nobody cares much about them anyway.
China is a bully, but the USA engaged them as economic partners and things have changed, albeit very slowly.
Not at all. Let me rephrase your comment so that it is more closely aligned with reality:
China is a bully, and the USA foolishly engaged them as economic partners and now things have not only gone from bad to worse, but have done so with blinding speed. And China's government has not, by all accounts, been changed even a smidgen for the better.
Well, here's how one well-known character would have handled the question:
.44 Magnum - the most powerful hand gun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky. Well, do ya punk?"
"Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5. Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself. But being this is a
Ask anyone in retail and they'll tell you most shrinkage comes from the employees.
... and drive away!
Odd. I thought that came from getting out of the pool.
Yeah, shrinkage, pilferage, theft: it's a big problem for retailers and warehousers. I remember reading that onetime retailer Egghead Software was losing in incredible amount of money and couldn't figure out where it all was going, they were selling plenty on decent margins. So they did an investigation, put in some hidden cameras, etc. Turned out there was a group of people in the company that were forging purchase orders and delivery schedules: they'd just back a semi into a warehouse, load it up
Customers couldn't steal that much. To be a really successful thief, you have to steal from your employer.
Geez, lets all grow some thicker skin, and not be so quick to throw the racist card, and lets not be so scared of having it played, that we're scared to say something that might in some cases, happen to be true.
I agree. Of course, with certain ethnic groups, you'll need to grow bigger balls because they'll come after you when you make generalizations.
You all know who you are. Don't bother denying it.
Or does Jobs rub some people the wrong way?
Jobs rubs everybody the wrong way. Then he activates the RDF generator and everybody loves him again. It's weird.
I disagree with you about the need for patents.
Ultimately, the best idea is to eliminate software patents entirely. Our software industry grew hugely profitable without them, so there is no demonstrable need for software patents (unless, of course, you have some anticompetitive ideas in mind.) Fact is, they are not helping, and so far as the United States is concerned they're not fulfilling their Constitutional mandate (admittedly, not much of anything Congress passes lately does.) However, if you must have them, give the USPTO the funding it needs to be critical about what truly is worthy of protection (I agree with you there) and shorten the term.
Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret.
So what? If it's secret, I can't use it, and if it's patented I can't use it. If I make a derivative work based upon your disclosed, patented algorithm odds are you'll still sue me. Without software patents, companies which understand that the only real way to maintain a competitive edge is to keep investing in R&D will simply be encouraged to maintain that investment. Maybe then they'll starting hiring fewer IP lawyers and more scientists, engineers and programmers. I'd say the country would be a whole lot better off if that were to happen. Hell, if you want an argument against software patents (indeed, excessive IP law in general) just look at Asia's high-tech economies. They don't have draconian Intellectual Property laws and they're doing just fine, employing a hell of a lot of people manufacturing a lot of products.
When it comes to software, the reality is this: if there's a way of doing something, there's probably a better way and sooner or later someone will figure it out. Furthermore, if something is protected by trade secret law, it's only secret until someone figures it out. And, if they figure it out independently (or do come up with a better approach) there's no patent system getting the way of that technology being commercialized. Software patents have proven to be a millstone around the U.S. software industry's neck and the Patent Office is utterly incapable of managing them effectively. Given those facts, we're better off without them.
Keep in mind that part of the reason the International Olympic Committee gave China the games was to create international pressure for change... and not of the TOR variety.
That's wrongheaded, anyway. You don't give a bully what he wants and then tell him it's because you want him to stop being a bully. No, you tell him up front he won't get what he wants until he stops being a bully, and that only as long as he continues to play nice.
This had nothing to do with trying to encourage change in China's government and everything to do with trying to curry favor. We let that particular group of sociopathic leaders grab us by the short-and-curly (and by "us" I mean the entire industrialized world, if you think China is after the United States only you're not up to speed) and now we have to toady up to them. It's ridiculous on the face of it.