The phone itself, if ever created as such (and not just a dozen platform-compliant phones from different manufacturers) won't be revolutionary by and in itself.
It's the software it can come with that is the true revolution. You'll get a fully programmable, and EASILY programmable device providing you with mostly everything you desire. And because of the 'free software' idea, you won't be limited by silly patents.
Imagine this: Combine GPS capablity (positioning relative to specific BTS, not the satellites) with ringer phone settings: entering theatre or lecture hall turns "silent" on. Hack the GSM connection or even bluetooth, and you have a functional walkie-talkie for short-range talking for free. Port Gameboy, NES and some more emulators. Allow for morse code SMS text input (way faster than multitap, often faster than T9) and readout (read SMS without taking the phone off your pocket) Skype->VoIP could come cheaper than most mobile connection rates (especially interntational) GPS without GPS module - use BTS pings to triangulate your location and find yourself on Google Maps. All kinds of weird shit you can pull out with the multitap, including fingers-smearing OpenCanvas-like multiplayer painting. Combine a few of these for a bigger screen. Use a bluetooth full-size PC qwerty keyboard. Maybe somehow a 17" screen too. Emulate iPhone (and annoy the shit off Mac users) Combine it with some GPIO hardware and use it to drive stuff remotely (a car?) Get a handful of simple hardware (maybe Chineese will produce something that will plug into USB), run the emulator with modifications and change your laptop or even desktop into a (rather big) gPhone. Build your own. The specs are quite open. Run a modified manager process that keeps 95% of the phone's features powered down unless you specifically switch them on (including screen and most of the software) keeping the phone to run two weeks on a single charge (all power used by other chips goes to GSM). Stream mp3s from your home server. Use internal temp sensors and battery controller for a "hand warmer" function. Scanner, Mouse (using camera) or Trackpad (using touchscreen) for PC. Precisely tune the vibration motor timing, accelerometer input and the camera input and change the phone into an RC/autonomic vehicle moving using vibrations of precise waveform making it slide in a specific direction......and a thousand more which are just too difficult with Symbian and iPhone.
You still assume that: 1) You will keep pushing enemy back, leaving only allied forces and scorched earth behind you. (if that was true, you'd long be home from Iraq) 2) The enemy won't strike back, and if they strike, they won't get through your defenses. (they will.) 3) That the enemy, if they strike, will strike from the front line which is some 100 miles away from your vulnerable positions (no, they can safely lay in wait, let the front line move and then strike from behind) 4) If you deal damage high enough, the enemy won't have resources to attack (it takes really little of resources to get the target the size of the carrier destroyed, once you have a sure shot.)
Put several automated torpedo launchers on the bottom of the sea where you expect the carriers to appear. Say, vicinity of the entrance to the gulf. They will look about the same as junk - sunken ships etc. They are much cheaper and easier to make than submarines so the country may easily place hundreds of them. They won't be activated until the carrier is well within range. Then they can shoot torpedos straight up into the hull, maybe 200-500m away.
The other ships will have barely enough time to say "Oh shit". The planes will be totally useless. The carrier could try launching decoys - good luck decoying something that big. Or they could try some active defences - but they would need some 10-20s to get to the torpedo, and the game will be over in 5s.
Do you really believe Google (ad-supported company) would agree redirect money paid for redirects to their site (source of ad revenue) to a group of people writing Adblock (extension that causes ads aren't displayed)?
"Pay them? We'd better pay some goons to kill them!" "Remember! Do No Evil!" "Darn!"
The chance the lawyer is a he and not a she is well above 70%. Why do you expect us to specify an information that is most likely false (assume the lawyer is female) instead of one that is most likely true (lawyer=male)?
We are nerds. We aren't rascist, sexist or bigotted. We just strive to be as precise as we can be. Convince enough females to take up that work to throw the ballance over 50% and you may be sure we'll start saying 'she'.
They did. The trick is to get one with enough balls, to get the necessities of the -building- across despite the -artistic vision- of the architect. The asshole outright declined and cancelled any modifications requested by firms that foreseen the problems and modified the projects to mitigate them.
You can also get a pretty standard building wrapped in a neat package that doesn't hurt the functionality. But if you create a weird sculpture and start trying to stuff a building inside, things are getting ugly.
I've seen quite a few "late eastern bloc" eyesores that worked fine as buildings but were just that, zero care about appearances, "renovated" by putting a wrapping of glass, by adding some interesting extras here and there, making them quite interesting pieces of architecture without destroying the functionality.
Currently I'm working inside of a modern building which was built to the second paradigm. People are universally cursing it. The kitchen is so small only one person may use it at a time. The AC works ok, milling the same air, while air vents freeze people on ground floors while not bringing any air to the top. There are blood stains on a corner of one AC duct, the sharp corner placed just on people's forehead level in a quite frequently used passage. Windows don't open at all. And finishing of creation of the building was delayed by over a year... because it crosses the the law-regulated border height defining a "high building" by 25 centimeters, and as such had to be modified to conform to an entirely different and way more restrictive set of fire-prevention rules that it would have to conform had it been 25cm lower (including a special lift, extra construction layer, a room designated for a huge water tank on the last floor and so on).
Don't get the innards of the cards. Place slots on your board. 4 USB controllers, 16 readers, 1 PCI controller, support electronics. the device would cost some $30 to produce. Sell it empty, without the cards. And provide a good supply of bulk amount of the cards.
The user can replace a faulty card without scrapping the whole device. They can add or remove cards depending on the needs. They can replace cards with bigger ones when they want more space. They can physically write-protect chosen partitions of the drive.
If you don't worry about the speed much, you can use USB hubs instead of the controllers. Then the device plugs into USB.
Yeah it isn't. So tell me 1) How do I set the most basic type of network configuration - a static IP address for a network card? 2) Where do I learn how to convert the "friendly" (and completely meaningless to everyone, tech and non-tech alike) names Microsoft used to what at least tech people understand?
I was like WTF when I saw my choices. It was like since users might be confused with all these odd names, the choices were like "Connect to the Internet", "Connect to the Internet in a company" "Connect to the Internet in a small company or at home", "Connect using a wireless network", "Configure your network connections", "Create a new network connection", "Connect to your ISP", "Connect to your ISP using a modem", "Connection creation wizard" and "Setting up network"
1. Get refund for not working game. 2. Launch up eMule, grab the game + a crack. Comes with a No-Lockout Warranty. 3. Profit!!! (to you, not to Steam or Valve)
Distributors should realize that if they want the players to play fair and pay for the games, they must play fair themselves. Sorry, but most of the world's mentality (including mine) is it's not a crime to cheat scumbags of their money. The moment they start playing dirty on me, I start playing dirty on them.
...which are all obstacles and problems but not showstoppers.
Actually, I don't see any big problem using smaller wafers (say 8cm diameter) and filling them whole with the circuits in a circular pattern (nobody says a single core needs to be square!). Then make the CPU to be a cyllinder instead of a cube. No waste on the edges. The yield will never be real 100% but redefining the meaning of yield into "percentage of non-flawed parts of a single die" as opposed to "percentage of dies with no flaws at all" would be a significant boon for the industry. And given 'sufficient performance' you don't need '100% performance'. A demanding buyer may want a gfx card with all 16 out of its 16 vertex shader units working. But once you get 512 shader units on a single die, you may sell the "GT" version of a card defining it as "more than 500 shader units", "standard" as "with over 400", and "LE" with "Between 250 and 400 units working". You may even adjust the price to performance in semi-linear fashion, just like with CPU speeds.
Of course the approach "1 die = 1 wafer, 1 CPU = 100 dies", is far more expensive than current technology, but doesn't mean with technology getting cheaper it won't become affordable. Build assembly lines which produce assembly lines of CPUs, silicon is plentiful, you just need lots of power to purify it. The density of circuits is a barrier we are reaching rapidly, but the costs of the dies in current technology can still be pushed a long, long way down.
Compare costs of simple electronic gadgets like a hand watch from 20 years ago and now. The technology is still the same but you get the watches in cereal boxes. Technology goes ahead, price stays the same. Technology stays the same, price goes down, meaning you can simply load more pieces of the same technology into a larger volume for the same price. You don't need separate 1000 hand watches which currently cost what one did back then, but just imagine a beowulf cluster of these;)
The biggest silicon wafers are some 300mm. This would fit 4 units of 8x8cm, a core 1cm big, that is 4 arrays of 256 cores each. Stack 64 layers on top of each other. That makes it 16 wafers to produce one "brick" of 4096 cores. Manufacturing costs would scale up directly with CPU power delivered and down with technological progress and investment returns. Yield would be 100%. Efficiency of a single "brick" and its price would be a factor of the number of cores that are faulty and disabled in firmware - not all of the 4096 cores in the example would work. Expensive models would have over 4000 cores active. Cheap models would have less than half of them working.
Sure computers with more than a hundred million logical gates are impossible because they would require over a billion of transistors (each about half a centimeter big) and require half the Sun's energy output to run... Therefore I predict the increase in computational power of the computers will stop around year 1970.
A 10,000mm^2 die would cost as much as 100 100mm (10x10) dies, and would have as many faulty cores as you get from a standard wafer. If I packed 10,000mm^2 with 65nm transistors and cut the frequency to 1/8, the thing would consume about 50 Amps (power is proportional to speed squared). Still giving some 10 times the CPU power of a single core, and scaling the power consumption down very gracefully.
Now start stacking these on top of each other, with a coolant gaps between them.
Sure these are problems to overcome. 1) Power. We are right at the beginning of the road of scaling power requirements down. So far the power per CPU kept going only up. It's only the last two or three years where we're counting MIPS per Watt, not just per dollar. There's still a long way for the power to go down. There's a lot of ways to aid power dissipation without actually wasting the power - imagine integrating CPUs with utility water heaters for example, and as computers become the commodity more and more, this isn't entirely as silly as it might sound. 2) Defects are not an accident, they are a business factor in nowadays computers. You get x% yield off a wafer, you get faster or slower CPUs from better or worse series of the same run, and in tests you discard the failing parts. Now imagine you're not getting a solid brick of, say, 4096 fully operational perfect cores. You get a stack of wafers, each with between 40% and 98% (depending on price) of the cores working. The broken cores are cut off by quite simple and fault-proof part of the electronics. Something very similar is going on with gfx cards nowadays. A "LE" version of a card has exactly the same core as a "GT" version, except it has some of its shader units disabled, because they are faulty.
As for the other problems - sure we will run into them. Doesn't mean we can't get through them. The ones you've listed aren't nearly close to showstoppers, merely obstacles.
If you consider 1 core being the size of 10cm, sure. But I assure you a nowadays cluster of 1024 CPUs has the cores way further than 10cm apart from each other. Sure the computational power doesn't scale up in direct proportion to the number of cores, but still the performance gain is significant.
The law speaks about number of transistors. Considering current size of a typical CPU die (about 1cmx1cmx1mm) and assuming a "reasonable" maximum size of some 10cmx10cmx10cm we have about 15 years of doubling the SIZE of the CPU (with some challenges like heat dissipation, but nothing nearly as difficult as increasing the density further) and that's not considering increasing the density any more. So even if the density reaches its limits, the CPUs may simply grow in size for a good while.
Western culture game addicts die in their basements and remain there unnoticed until the stench becomes unbearable for the family. By then the reason of death is unrecognizable.
(srsly, internet cafes are far less of a business in the west - they are much more often just cafes with internet option... 100 people left the cafe? Huh? How did they fit in there? Average internet cafe is about 5-10 places!)
Considering 16h being the normal waking time (with standard 8h of sleep), 24h is just 150% of the standard, well within limits of safety. 72h is 450% of the standard. That's a serious difference. Most of human constructions are overengineered to 200-300% nominal capacity, often used at 110-130%, sometimes at 150%, if the operators know their equipment well. You're pretty sure they will fail at 450% of the load though. There's no reason to believe any organism is more durable.
You can't easily apply gradually more power with high-power engines running on AC.
There are numerous tricks like switching configuration of the coils, using high-power thyrystors etc. You can't just put some resistance because it would be enormously wasteful. Some railway engines use "convert 1-phase AC from the wire to DC, then convert back to three-phase AC of desired frequency" making them actually more efficient than running on 1-phase AC straight from the wire.
But not in this case. The batteries produce DC. They can be switched one at a time to limit voltage(->torque) if it's a DC motor, or the conversion to AC can be freely configured providing frequency (->RPM) just as desired if the motor is AC.
(also note using all kinds of resistors, pots and other "power drains" for limiting current/voltage when such powers are in use, are useless - they would have to dissipate (and waste) enormous amounts of power. Devices that limit the "average" voltage by dutycycle method ( x% of a milisecond on, 100-x% of a milisecond time off => x% power) are much better but not every kind of end-target device can accept this kind of power, plus it generates lots of electromagnetic noise from all the instant on-off action )
Simply put, getting limiting voltage by a half in a 5V 10mA DC configuration is trivial - wasting 0.25W of power is not a problem. In 500V 10A DC configuration is very tricky. Dissipating 2500W is not really an option.
Not too well, considering it could run only certified software (unless you're into violating DMCA, which isn't recommended for scientific and enterprise applications)
Then enumerate all media you want to use, and put a clause about possibility of extending the list with prior notice. Enumerate the formats as well. Enumerate sublicensees. YouTube France is okay. MTV or record labels is not. Youtube needs only a tiny subset of the rights it grants itself. It is very easy to write a list of entries instead of 'all'. You may be a bit fuzzy in places (say, "all international units of YouTube") but if you blow the word "all" you're not being "a bit" fuzzy, you're just doing the "all your base are belong to us" routine. The language is not nearly reasonable: say, I'm selling you a car and the contract says you're obligated to pay me any arbitrary sum I mention at a later time, and keep paying it whenever I ask you. This is not reasonable and doesn't imply we've mutually agreed that it will be $5000, paid once. The result looks scary and is scary, because the context that provides limitation is very limited in scope, quite opposite to what the piece grabbing rights is. The lack of purpose and intent entry is omitted purposedly, so they could use and abuse your works as only they see fit.
Now, if they don't include in the terms something saying you give them the right to perform your video, how are they going to show it to others? On all media in all formats? Sublicenseable?
If there was a dog shit on Youtube's lawn, they wouldn't take a shovel and dump it in the trashcan. They would take a nuke and detonate it, thus making sure the dog shit is completely and entirely gone.
There MUST be NO network connectivity between the production systems and the Internet. If you really NEED a gateway, put a wetware firewall, reading off one screen, typing on a keyboard attached to the other. Then apply physical protection of the internal network. Employees inside might have a network access, say, on laptops with wireless, but the production network should be totally isolated.
Slashdot Mirror
The phone itself, if ever created as such (and not just a dozen platform-compliant phones from different manufacturers) won't be revolutionary by and in itself.
...and a thousand more which are just too difficult with Symbian and iPhone.
It's the software it can come with that is the true revolution. You'll get a fully programmable, and EASILY programmable device providing you with mostly everything you desire. And because of the 'free software' idea, you won't be limited by silly patents.
Imagine this:
Combine GPS capablity (positioning relative to specific BTS, not the satellites) with ringer phone settings: entering theatre or lecture hall turns "silent" on.
Hack the GSM connection or even bluetooth, and you have a functional walkie-talkie for short-range talking for free.
Port Gameboy, NES and some more emulators.
Allow for morse code SMS text input (way faster than multitap, often faster than T9) and readout (read SMS without taking the phone off your pocket)
Skype->VoIP could come cheaper than most mobile connection rates (especially interntational)
GPS without GPS module - use BTS pings to triangulate your location and find yourself on Google Maps.
All kinds of weird shit you can pull out with the multitap, including fingers-smearing OpenCanvas-like multiplayer painting.
Combine a few of these for a bigger screen.
Use a bluetooth full-size PC qwerty keyboard. Maybe somehow a 17" screen too.
Emulate iPhone (and annoy the shit off Mac users)
Combine it with some GPIO hardware and use it to drive stuff remotely (a car?)
Get a handful of simple hardware (maybe Chineese will produce something that will plug into USB), run the emulator with modifications and change your laptop or even desktop into a (rather big) gPhone.
Build your own. The specs are quite open.
Run a modified manager process that keeps 95% of the phone's features powered down unless you specifically switch them on (including screen and most of the software) keeping the phone to run two weeks on a single charge (all power used by other chips goes to GSM).
Stream mp3s from your home server.
Use internal temp sensors and battery controller for a "hand warmer" function.
Scanner, Mouse (using camera) or Trackpad (using touchscreen) for PC.
Precisely tune the vibration motor timing, accelerometer input and the camera input and change the phone into an RC/autonomic vehicle moving using vibrations of precise waveform making it slide in a specific direction...
You still assume that:
1) You will keep pushing enemy back, leaving only allied forces and scorched earth behind you.
(if that was true, you'd long be home from Iraq)
2) The enemy won't strike back, and if they strike, they won't get through your defenses.
(they will.)
3) That the enemy, if they strike, will strike from the front line which is some 100 miles away from your vulnerable positions
(no, they can safely lay in wait, let the front line move and then strike from behind)
4) If you deal damage high enough, the enemy won't have resources to attack
(it takes really little of resources to get the target the size of the carrier destroyed, once you have a sure shot.)
Put several automated torpedo launchers on the bottom of the sea where you expect the carriers to appear. Say, vicinity of the entrance to the gulf. They will look about the same as junk - sunken ships etc. They are much cheaper and easier to make than submarines so the country may easily place hundreds of them. They won't be activated until the carrier is well within range. Then they can shoot torpedos straight up into the hull, maybe 200-500m away.
The other ships will have barely enough time to say "Oh shit". The planes will be totally useless. The carrier could try launching decoys - good luck decoying something that big. Or they could try some active defences - but they would need some 10-20s to get to the torpedo, and the game will be over in 5s.
I bet a clone of Ubuntu, but what are the key differences, and why such a horrible name?
Do you say "he" when talking about a nurse or a secretary, to avoid the sexist stereotypes?
Do you really believe Google (ad-supported company) would agree redirect money paid for redirects to their site (source of ad revenue) to a group of people writing Adblock (extension that causes ads aren't displayed)?
"Pay them? We'd better pay some goons to kill them!"
"Remember! Do No Evil!"
"Darn!"
The chance the lawyer is a he and not a she is well above 70%.
Why do you expect us to specify an information that is most likely false (assume the lawyer is female) instead of one that is most likely true (lawyer=male)?
We are nerds. We aren't rascist, sexist or bigotted. We just strive to be as precise as we can be.
Convince enough females to take up that work to throw the ballance over 50% and you may be sure we'll start saying 'she'.
They did.
The trick is to get one with enough balls, to get the necessities of the -building- across despite the -artistic vision- of the architect. The asshole outright declined and cancelled any modifications requested by firms that foreseen the problems and modified the projects to mitigate them.
You can also get a pretty standard building wrapped in a neat package that doesn't hurt the functionality.
But if you create a weird sculpture and start trying to stuff a building inside, things are getting ugly.
I've seen quite a few "late eastern bloc" eyesores that worked fine as buildings but were just that, zero care about appearances, "renovated" by putting a wrapping of glass, by adding some interesting extras here and there, making them quite interesting pieces of architecture without destroying the functionality.
Currently I'm working inside of a modern building which was built to the second paradigm. People are universally cursing it. The kitchen is so small only one person may use it at a time. The AC works ok, milling the same air, while air vents freeze people on ground floors while not bringing any air to the top. There are blood stains on a corner of one AC duct, the sharp corner placed just on people's forehead level in a quite frequently used passage. Windows don't open at all. And finishing of creation of the building was delayed by over a year... because it crosses the the law-regulated border height defining a "high building" by 25 centimeters, and as such had to be modified to conform to an entirely different and way more restrictive set of fire-prevention rules that it would have to conform had it been 25cm lower (including a special lift, extra construction layer, a room designated for a huge water tank on the last floor and so on).
Don't get the innards of the cards. Place slots on your board.
4 USB controllers, 16 readers, 1 PCI controller, support electronics. the device would cost some $30 to produce. Sell it empty, without the cards.
And provide a good supply of bulk amount of the cards.
The user can replace a faulty card without scrapping the whole device. They can add or remove cards depending on the needs. They can replace cards with bigger ones when they want more space. They can physically write-protect chosen partitions of the drive.
If you don't worry about the speed much, you can use USB hubs instead of the controllers. Then the device plugs into USB.
Yeah it isn't.
So tell me
1) How do I set the most basic type of network configuration - a static IP address for a network card?
2) Where do I learn how to convert the "friendly" (and completely meaningless to everyone, tech and non-tech alike) names Microsoft used to what at least tech people understand?
I was like WTF when I saw my choices. It was like since users might be confused with all these odd names, the choices were like "Connect to the Internet", "Connect to the Internet in a company" "Connect to the Internet in a small company or at home", "Connect using a wireless network", "Configure your network connections", "Create a new network connection", "Connect to your ISP", "Connect to your ISP using a modem", "Connection creation wizard" and "Setting up network"
1. Get refund for not working game.
2. Launch up eMule, grab the game + a crack. Comes with a No-Lockout Warranty.
3. Profit!!! (to you, not to Steam or Valve)
Distributors should realize that if they want the players to play fair and pay for the games, they must play fair themselves.
Sorry, but most of the world's mentality (including mine) is it's not a crime to cheat scumbags of their money. The moment they start playing dirty on me, I start playing dirty on them.
...which are all obstacles and problems but not showstoppers.
;)
Actually, I don't see any big problem using smaller wafers (say 8cm diameter) and filling them whole with the circuits in a circular pattern (nobody says a single core needs to be square!). Then make the CPU to be a cyllinder instead of a cube. No waste on the edges.
The yield will never be real 100% but redefining the meaning of yield into "percentage of non-flawed parts of a single die" as opposed to "percentage of dies with no flaws at all" would be a significant boon for the industry. And given 'sufficient performance' you don't need '100% performance'. A demanding buyer may want a gfx card with all 16 out of its 16 vertex shader units working. But once you get 512 shader units on a single die, you may sell the "GT" version of a card defining it as "more than 500 shader units", "standard" as "with over 400", and "LE" with "Between 250 and 400 units working". You may even adjust the price to performance in semi-linear fashion, just like with CPU speeds.
Of course the approach "1 die = 1 wafer, 1 CPU = 100 dies", is far more expensive than current technology, but doesn't mean with technology getting cheaper it won't become affordable. Build assembly lines which produce assembly lines of CPUs, silicon is plentiful, you just need lots of power to purify it. The density of circuits is a barrier we are reaching rapidly, but the costs of the dies in current technology can still be pushed a long, long way down.
Compare costs of simple electronic gadgets like a hand watch from 20 years ago and now. The technology is still the same but you get the watches in cereal boxes. Technology goes ahead, price stays the same. Technology stays the same, price goes down, meaning you can simply load more pieces of the same technology into a larger volume for the same price. You don't need separate 1000 hand watches which currently cost what one did back then, but just imagine a beowulf cluster of these
The biggest silicon wafers are some 300mm. This would fit 4 units of 8x8cm, a core 1cm big, that is 4 arrays of 256 cores each.
Stack 64 layers on top of each other. That makes it 16 wafers to produce one "brick" of 4096 cores.
Manufacturing costs would scale up directly with CPU power delivered and down with technological progress and investment returns.
Yield would be 100%. Efficiency of a single "brick" and its price would be a factor of the number of cores that are faulty and disabled in firmware - not all of the 4096 cores in the example would work. Expensive models would have over 4000 cores active. Cheap models would have less than half of them working.
Sure computers with more than a hundred million logical gates are impossible because they would require over a billion of transistors (each about half a centimeter big) and require half the Sun's energy output to run... Therefore I predict the increase in computational power of the computers will stop around year 1970.
A 10,000mm^2 die would cost as much as 100 100mm (10x10) dies, and would have as many faulty cores as you get from a standard wafer. If I packed 10,000mm^2 with 65nm transistors and cut the frequency to 1/8, the thing would consume about 50 Amps (power is proportional to speed squared). Still giving some 10 times the CPU power of a single core, and scaling the power consumption down very gracefully.
Now start stacking these on top of each other, with a coolant gaps between them.
Sure these are problems to overcome.
1) Power. We are right at the beginning of the road of scaling power requirements down. So far the power per CPU kept going only up. It's only the last two or three years where we're counting MIPS per Watt, not just per dollar. There's still a long way for the power to go down. There's a lot of ways to aid power dissipation without actually wasting the power - imagine integrating CPUs with utility water heaters for example, and as computers become the commodity more and more, this isn't entirely as silly as it might sound.
2) Defects are not an accident, they are a business factor in nowadays computers. You get x% yield off a wafer, you get faster or slower CPUs from better or worse series of the same run, and in tests you discard the failing parts. Now imagine you're not getting a solid brick of, say, 4096 fully operational perfect cores. You get a stack of wafers, each with between 40% and 98% (depending on price) of the cores working. The broken cores are cut off by quite simple and fault-proof part of the electronics. Something very similar is going on with gfx cards nowadays. A "LE" version of a card has exactly the same core as a "GT" version, except it has some of its shader units disabled, because they are faulty.
As for the other problems - sure we will run into them. Doesn't mean we can't get through them. The ones you've listed aren't nearly close to showstoppers, merely obstacles.
If you consider 1 core being the size of 10cm, sure.
But I assure you a nowadays cluster of 1024 CPUs has the cores way further than 10cm apart from each other. Sure the computational power doesn't scale up in direct proportion to the number of cores, but still the performance gain is significant.
The law speaks about number of transistors. Considering current size of a typical CPU die (about 1cmx1cmx1mm) and assuming a "reasonable" maximum size of some 10cmx10cmx10cm we have about 15 years of doubling the SIZE of the CPU (with some challenges like heat dissipation, but nothing nearly as difficult as increasing the density further) and that's not considering increasing the density any more. So even if the density reaches its limits, the CPUs may simply grow in size for a good while.
Western culture game addicts die in their basements and remain there unnoticed until the stench becomes unbearable for the family. By then the reason of death is unrecognizable.
(srsly, internet cafes are far less of a business in the west - they are much more often just cafes with internet option... 100 people left the cafe? Huh? How did they fit in there? Average internet cafe is about 5-10 places!)
Considering 16h being the normal waking time (with standard 8h of sleep), 24h is just 150% of the standard, well within limits of safety. 72h is 450% of the standard. That's a serious difference. Most of human constructions are overengineered to 200-300% nominal capacity, often used at 110-130%, sometimes at 150%, if the operators know their equipment well. You're pretty sure they will fail at 450% of the load though. There's no reason to believe any organism is more durable.
Yes and no.
You can't easily apply gradually more power with high-power engines running on AC.
There are numerous tricks like switching configuration of the coils, using high-power thyrystors etc. You can't just put some resistance because it would be enormously wasteful. Some railway engines use "convert 1-phase AC from the wire to DC, then convert back to three-phase AC of desired frequency" making them actually more efficient than running on 1-phase AC straight from the wire.
But not in this case. The batteries produce DC. They can be switched one at a time to limit voltage(->torque) if it's a DC motor, or the conversion to AC can be freely configured providing frequency (->RPM) just as desired if the motor is AC.
(also note using all kinds of resistors, pots and other "power drains" for limiting current/voltage when such powers are in use, are useless - they would have to dissipate (and waste) enormous amounts of power. Devices that limit the "average" voltage by dutycycle method ( x% of a milisecond on, 100-x% of a milisecond time off => x% power) are much better but not every kind of end-target device can accept this kind of power, plus it generates lots of electromagnetic noise from all the instant on-off action )
Simply put, getting limiting voltage by a half in a 5V 10mA DC configuration is trivial - wasting 0.25W of power is not a problem. In 500V 10A DC configuration is very tricky. Dissipating 2500W is not really an option.
Not too well, considering it could run only certified software (unless you're into violating DMCA, which isn't recommended for scientific and enterprise applications)
Then enumerate all media you want to use, and put a clause about possibility of extending the list with prior notice.
Enumerate the formats as well.
Enumerate sublicensees. YouTube France is okay. MTV or record labels is not.
Youtube needs only a tiny subset of the rights it grants itself. It is very easy to write a list of entries instead of 'all'. You may be a bit fuzzy in places (say, "all international units of YouTube") but if you blow the word "all" you're not being "a bit" fuzzy, you're just doing the "all your base are belong to us" routine. The language is not nearly reasonable: say, I'm selling you a car and the contract says you're obligated to pay me any arbitrary sum I mention at a later time, and keep paying it whenever I ask you. This is not reasonable and doesn't imply we've mutually agreed that it will be $5000, paid once. The result looks scary and is scary, because the context that provides limitation is very limited in scope, quite opposite to what the piece grabbing rights is. The lack of purpose and intent entry is omitted purposedly, so they could use and abuse your works as only they see fit.
Now, if they don't include in the terms something saying you give them the right to perform your video, how are they going to show it to others?
On all media in all formats? Sublicenseable?
If there was a dog shit on Youtube's lawn, they wouldn't take a shovel and dump it in the trashcan. They would take a nuke and detonate it, thus making sure the dog shit is completely and entirely gone.
Your money or your life!
Sure, the choice is yours.
There MUST be NO network connectivity between the production systems and the Internet. If you really NEED a gateway, put a wetware firewall, reading off one screen, typing on a keyboard attached to the other. Then apply physical protection of the internal network. Employees inside might have a network access, say, on laptops with wireless, but the production network should be totally isolated.