Power comes in two varieties: violence and threatening violence. Power is not measured by money, power is measured by injury and death.
Money is a store of value, traded for production in order to be able to later trade it for different production. Money measures production; money measures wealth. Money is the reward for the virtue of production.
It might be perfectly acceptable for some part of society to have to work less, or perhaps not to have to work at all.
The measure of a person's value is what they produce. A person who does not ever work is literally worthless. Worse, a person who never works is a burden on everyone else. At the very least, every human has a moral responsibility to try not to be a net burden on others. Failing in that effort is sad, but it's not evil. What is evil is forcing workers to support the worthless people who refuse to work.
Stringing together words does not necessarily make sense.
Moral behavior consists of doing good things. A person who consistently does good things is better than a person who consistently does nothing, who in turn is better than a person who consistently does bad things. Good is better than bad. A person who does good things is better than a person who does bad things. It's so obvious that it's almost a tautology.
..
If working solely for the benefit of somebody else makes you good, that makes the person receiving the fruits of your labor bad by comparison (furthermore, since you can't read his mind, you don't know that he actually wants what you're doing for him or that it actually helps him.) Restating that in fewer words, being good by working only for the benefit of another both creates badness and is ineffective. The basis of your whole moral system is self-contradictory.
Working for your own benefit is the surest way to get what you want; freely trading your surplus with the surplus of another worker further benefits you, and has the additional but morally less significant benefit of making the other guy's life better also.
People proud to work don't try to force lazy strangers to work, workers just want the non-workers not to steal and not to have the government steal for them. Stealing is forcing rightful owners to give up their own property. Letting people who refuse to work die of starvation does not involve force. Justice in action.
There's a lot more going on than just ionization. High energy particles can transmute elements and disrupt crystal structure. This means permanent cumulative damage to delicate semiconductor devices.
All the iron ever produced is sufficient to kill every human, cow, and horse now alive, if distributed one bullet per heart. So what? It isn't distributed that way, and most stored nuclear waste isn't going to float around in the atmosphere even if it does escape, because it's heavy.
The largest nuclear weapon ever exploded was about 2*10^17 J. All nuclear bomb devices ever exploded comes to about 2*10^18 J. The largest nuclear power facility will generate about 7.5*10^18 J over a 30 year lifespan. Assuming waste is proportional to energy, a single nuclear facility can be 4 times more waste than all the nuclear weapons ever detonated.
On the other hand, carefully disposing of nuclear plant waste is far superior to spreading it all over the planet.
Worst case: any form of electrical power generation makes an area more pleasant. This attracts a third world slut with an incurable fatal contagious disease. Everyone on the continent is killed.
See why it's not rational to consider the worst case? The likelihood of plausible costs and benefits is what needs to be considered.
With regard to your sig, MLK's method involved highlighting the moral standards of his opponents. Since Trump's actions imply a desire to improve the lives of productive US citizens, highlighting Trump's moral standards will make him more popular.
Fukushima appears to be a continuing disaster. The radioactivity is still very high after all these years and some of it is leaking out, including possibly into the groundwater. (Fortunately, the groundwater flow is toward the ocean.) Because of leakage, it isn't adequate to just wall the area off and wait a century or so until the intensity is much lower.. The highly radioactive stuff has to be moved to a place where it can be completely controlled. Then the moderately bad stuff can be dealt with, perhaps by completely containing it in place.
Nuking it would spread large amounts of deadly stuff for hundreds of miles, causing a great number of additional premature deaths. A really, really bad idea.
LEDs are the size they are for economic reasons and to get a reasonable amount of light out of a single die. They can be made smaller, or multiple independently addressable LEDs made on one die.
"no one has any idea" and "those are estimates based on eyewitness accounts and examination of the area long after the event." are contradictory statements.
No reason for the CPU temperature to ever reach the solder. Tungsten is a better conductor of electricity than iron (steel) and has a higher melting point. Some forms of carbon are superb heat conductors - How'd you like to have a diamond heat spreader?
I suppose liquid cooling - flowing right over the die - is the ultimate solution for heat dissipation.
There are many tradeoffs involved in RAM design, but one basic principle is this: this bigger it is, the slower it is. This cannot be escaped. Bigger RAM means more row drivers, and/or more levels of column multplexers. Faster RAM means bigger row drivers and bigger cells. Put it all together and speed*size = heat, and RAM already needs heat sinks to be able to respond in ~20 CPU cycles.
Basically, you're never going to see big RAM fast enough to respond in a single fast CPU cycle, not even cache does that now.
It's difficult. A manufacturer would have to see so obvious a business case for making a super-speed non-silicon processor that the worries about risk would be swept aside. (And from a paranoid viewpoint, the military might want to keep a super-speed process tightly under its own control.) That said, IBM has been working with SiGe for decades and may have a viable process. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/
Be aware that SiGe is mostly used for mixed signal devices, where the ability of Ge to make good bipolar devices is useful. The native oxide of germanium is not a good insulator like SiO2, which makes Ge FETs problematic. There are other challenges with making Ge FETs, discussed here: http://www.adsel.ece.vt.edu/files/journal/74.pdf.
It's going to take time, and when we get there, the processes with new materials or silicon hybrids are going to be more expensive.
Gallium Arsenide was useful down to the 0.35 micron node. Below that, other factors meant that it was no longer faster than silicon. ( I'm not knowledgeable about the details, but IIRC the superior transconductance available from GaAs was offset by an inability to develop high electron velocity over short distances.)
Part of the distance traveled by a UPS truck is going from the distribution center to the delivery area. If some trips are eliminated entirely, those parts of the trips come off the total even as mileage inside the delivery area increases slightly.
Slashdot Mirror
Power comes in two varieties: violence and threatening violence. Power is not measured by money, power is measured by injury and death.
Money is a store of value, traded for production in order to be able to later trade it for different production. Money measures production; money measures wealth. Money is the reward for the virtue of production.
The measure of a person's value is what they produce. A person who does not ever work is literally worthless. Worse, a person who never works is a burden on everyone else. At the very least, every human has a moral responsibility to try not to be a net burden on others. Failing in that effort is sad, but it's not evil. What is evil is forcing workers to support the worthless people who refuse to work.
Stringing together words does not necessarily make sense.
Moral behavior consists of doing good things. A person who consistently does good things is better than a person who consistently does nothing, who in turn is better than a person who consistently does bad things. Good is better than bad. A person who does good things is better than a person who does bad things. It's so obvious that it's almost a tautology.
..
If working solely for the benefit of somebody else makes you good, that makes the person receiving the fruits of your labor bad by comparison (furthermore, since you can't read his mind, you don't know that he actually wants what you're doing for him or that it actually helps him.) Restating that in fewer words, being good by working only for the benefit of another both creates badness and is ineffective. The basis of your whole moral system is self-contradictory.
Working for your own benefit is the surest way to get what you want; freely trading your surplus with the surplus of another worker further benefits you, and has the additional but morally less significant benefit of making the other guy's life better also.
"Together", "we" can kill those bastards. Join "us" in breaking them down.
How marvelously you twist words!
People proud to work don't try to force lazy strangers to work, workers just want the non-workers not to steal and not to have the government steal for them. Stealing is forcing rightful owners to give up their own property. Letting people who refuse to work die of starvation does not involve force. Justice in action.
There's a lot more going on than just ionization. High energy particles can transmute elements and disrupt crystal structure. This means permanent cumulative damage to delicate semiconductor devices.
What part of "at such a location" did you not understand?
You must really be afraid of potassium-40 with a half-life of 1.2 billion years.
Idiot.
All the iron ever produced is sufficient to kill every human, cow, and horse now alive, if distributed one bullet per heart. So what? It isn't distributed that way, and most stored nuclear waste isn't going to float around in the atmosphere even if it does escape, because it's heavy.
The largest nuclear weapon ever exploded was about 2*10^17 J. All nuclear bomb devices ever exploded comes to about 2*10^18 J. The largest nuclear power facility will generate about 7.5*10^18 J over a 30 year lifespan. Assuming waste is proportional to energy, a single nuclear facility can be 4 times more waste than all the nuclear weapons ever detonated.
On the other hand, carefully disposing of nuclear plant waste is far superior to spreading it all over the planet.
Worst case: any form of electrical power generation makes an area more pleasant. This attracts a third world slut with an incurable fatal contagious disease. Everyone on the continent is killed.
See why it's not rational to consider the worst case? The likelihood of plausible costs and benefits is what needs to be considered.
With regard to your sig, MLK's method involved highlighting the moral standards of his opponents. Since Trump's actions imply a desire to improve the lives of productive US citizens, highlighting Trump's moral standards will make him more popular.
Fukushima appears to be a continuing disaster. The radioactivity is still very high after all these years and some of it is leaking out, including possibly into the groundwater. (Fortunately, the groundwater flow is toward the ocean.) Because of leakage, it isn't adequate to just wall the area off and wait a century or so until the intensity is much lower.. The highly radioactive stuff has to be moved to a place where it can be completely controlled. Then the moderately bad stuff can be dealt with, perhaps by completely containing it in place.
Nuking it would spread large amounts of deadly stuff for hundreds of miles, causing a great number of additional premature deaths. A really, really bad idea.
LEDs are the size they are for economic reasons and to get a reasonable amount of light out of a single die. They can be made smaller, or multiple independently addressable LEDs made on one die.
Here's some more scientific research on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckle_and_Jeckle
I will solve global warming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change. Give me all your money. I'll have the results for you in 150 years.
"no one has any idea" and "those are estimates based on eyewitness accounts and examination of the area long after the event." are contradictory statements.
There are different national versions of Scrabble. Here's Icelandic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble_letter_distributions#Icelandic
This is why concealed carry is a good thing.
No reason for the CPU temperature to ever reach the solder. Tungsten is a better conductor of electricity than iron (steel) and has a higher melting point. Some forms of carbon are superb heat conductors - How'd you like to have a diamond heat spreader?
I suppose liquid cooling - flowing right over the die - is the ultimate solution for heat dissipation.
Intel should never have hired Leroy Anderson.
There are many tradeoffs involved in RAM design, but one basic principle is this: this bigger it is, the slower it is. This cannot be escaped. Bigger RAM means more row drivers, and/or more levels of column multplexers. Faster RAM means bigger row drivers and bigger cells. Put it all together and speed*size = heat, and RAM already needs heat sinks to be able to respond in ~20 CPU cycles.
Basically, you're never going to see big RAM fast enough to respond in a single fast CPU cycle, not even cache does that now.
It's difficult. A manufacturer would have to see so obvious a business case for making a super-speed non-silicon processor that the worries about risk would be swept aside. (And from a paranoid viewpoint, the military might want to keep a super-speed process tightly under its own control.) That said, IBM has been working with SiGe for decades and may have a viable process. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/
Be aware that SiGe is mostly used for mixed signal devices, where the ability of Ge to make good bipolar devices is useful. The native oxide of germanium is not a good insulator like SiO2, which makes Ge FETs problematic. There are other challenges with making Ge FETs, discussed here: http://www.adsel.ece.vt.edu/files/journal/74.pdf.
It's going to take time, and when we get there, the processes with new materials or silicon hybrids are going to be more expensive.
Gallium Arsenide was useful down to the 0.35 micron node. Below that, other factors meant that it was no longer faster than silicon. ( I'm not knowledgeable about the details, but IIRC the superior transconductance available from GaAs was offset by an inability to develop high electron velocity over short distances.)
Part of the distance traveled by a UPS truck is going from the distribution center to the delivery area. If some trips are eliminated entirely, those parts of the trips come off the total even as mileage inside the delivery area increases slightly.