That isn't true. Square makes a chip card reader that plugs into the headphone socket. There is nothing about a headphone socket that makes it magstripe only. YOU are behind the curve. By the way, we aren't behind the curve: we lead it.
I didn't say it stopped. I am saying you will see small incremental improvements. Maybe 20-30% every 5 years like we have for the last 10 years. There is a reason Intels processors are only 30% faster then they were 5 years ago.
No. We really are near the limit. There are physical limits to how small you can get the process down to. Physics doesn't lie. Sorry about that. There is a reason your processor five years ago was only slightly slower than the one you have today.
The market is always looking for faster too. They are just limited by physics by making things faster. It isn't like Intel can only do one thing at once. If they could make much faster chips they would.
It isn't an excuse. It is physics. I am sure Intel wants to make faster and faster chips like they used to. But due to physics that is coming to an end.
They get incrementally faster, for small amounts of increment. But Intel chips haven't been getting much faster lately. You won't see much change between your computer you buy now, and what you buy in 5 years. We are reaching an end.
Captain: "Siri, how many times have the Romulans violated the neutral zone?"
Siri: "The Romans were from Italy and had big noses. Here are some results I found for 'Romans" on the web"
This isn't a surprise. The next Intel chip won't be much different than the last one either. The next computer you own will be very similar to the one you owned 5 years prior. We have really reached an end of the digital road now. You won't likely see huge progress like we have seen in the past due to limitations of physics and power concerns. I know people will scream "Moores Law!!!" but that doesn't apply in 2016. It looks like the Star Trek type future won't be happening.
What problem? Hijacking of ships happens but is very rare. In some areas the ships do have escorts or an armed crew. There is a much higher risk of ships sinking then being hijacked. Local production is very inefficient and causes more environmental problems. How are container ships environmentally a problem opposed to other types of shipping? One larger ship is much more environmentally sound than 10 smaller ships. The same concept applies to long trains. Bigger is more efficient. More efficient means it is better for the environment.
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be joking. The IRS doesn't care about the cost of pursuing tax cheats.
Uber never said they made $100k a year. It is in the first sentence.
How is it possible that manishs doesn't know the difference between code and cache?
That isn't true. Square makes a chip card reader that plugs into the headphone socket. There is nothing about a headphone socket that makes it magstripe only. YOU are behind the curve. By the way, we aren't behind the curve: we lead it.
I didn't say it stopped. I am saying you will see small incremental improvements. Maybe 20-30% every 5 years like we have for the last 10 years. There is a reason Intels processors are only 30% faster then they were 5 years ago.
No. We really are near the limit. There are physical limits to how small you can get the process down to. Physics doesn't lie. Sorry about that. There is a reason your processor five years ago was only slightly slower than the one you have today.
Yes we are close to the limit. Physics. Learn it. Technological progress is not inevitable.
30% in 5 years isn't so great. They are getting faster, but in very small increments.
No they couldn't make it a lot faster. Moores Law hasn't been accurate for about 10 years.
The market is always looking for faster too. They are just limited by physics by making things faster. It isn't like Intel can only do one thing at once. If they could make much faster chips they would.
I must have the wrong phone. If I say "search the database for Darmok and Jalad" it gives me a recipe for beet salad.
It isn't an excuse. It is physics. I am sure Intel wants to make faster and faster chips like they used to. But due to physics that is coming to an end.
Bump in what? More memory? Doubtful. Even if that were so, that isn't much of a change.
Even Steve Jobs was limited by physics and power concerns.
They get incrementally faster, for small amounts of increment. But Intel chips haven't been getting much faster lately. You won't see much change between your computer you buy now, and what you buy in 5 years. We are reaching an end.
OK. Name one.
No wireless and less space than a Nomad? Lame.
Captain: "Siri, how many times have the Romulans violated the neutral zone?"
Siri: "The Romans were from Italy and had big noses. Here are some results I found for 'Romans" on the web"
So you are saying that 256GB should be enough for everyone?
Samsung and LG and Koreans and Japanese and Americans all are bound by the laws of physics. Not sure what your rant is about.
This isn't a surprise. The next Intel chip won't be much different than the last one either. The next computer you own will be very similar to the one you owned 5 years prior. We have really reached an end of the digital road now. You won't likely see huge progress like we have seen in the past due to limitations of physics and power concerns. I know people will scream "Moores Law!!!" but that doesn't apply in 2016. It looks like the Star Trek type future won't be happening.
That shooter took away my freedoms! Thank you politicians for doing the right thing. Freedoms!
What problem? Hijacking of ships happens but is very rare. In some areas the ships do have escorts or an armed crew. There is a much higher risk of ships sinking then being hijacked. Local production is very inefficient and causes more environmental problems. How are container ships environmentally a problem opposed to other types of shipping? One larger ship is much more environmentally sound than 10 smaller ships. The same concept applies to long trains. Bigger is more efficient. More efficient means it is better for the environment.
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.
I agree. Population is out of control. We should commit suicide. You first. Oh wait, you meant OTHER people. Of course.