The highest efficiency LED's tend to be unusabe in most applications-- they use very bluish LED's, which are unappealing, and there is no diffusion, so the light is harsh and shadowy.
A better comparison to CFL's would be LED's that emit warm light, or at least comparable to CFL phosphors, and with diffusion, so you can stand to use them in the typical home.
And LED's have to come way down in price, like at least a factor of ten, before they're economically viable.
Uh, no. I looked at your link and I see 10 to 30 lumens per watt-- flourescents are in the range of 50 to 100.
And the 30 lumens/watt LED's are not comparable-- that's for "cool white" (read as, "annoyingly blueish"), "directed" (read as, "casts harsh shadows").
Here I am writing code, where the smallest slip can cause serious damage to our company, our customers, and my paycheck.
When instead I could be writing *pure quasi-random blather*, with no consequences even if the stuff is pure blue-sky speculation, and unlikely for a multitude of reasons.
( *must* *get* *job* *at* *gartner* *group* )
( writing sample: )
"Huge monopoly software company will screw their own pooch and dump their cash cows for no visible reason and instead (mumble) (not clear who) will use (completely different type of technology with not much in common with previous sentence) or (hot new buzzword that hasnt been seen-thru yet) to completely bypass all the laws of human ignorance, inertia, established base, software trends, and economics. "
There, that should move me right to the top of their hiring list.
I didnt wet my pants when I read the original article, but that's only due to a recent potty call. But enough about me.
One has to have massive reserves of touching faith to think LBO MBA witnits know more about the value of "research" than Microsoft.
It's probably true that Microsoft has shown very little from their research, that doesnt mean it has no value. About 77% of all the good ideas I've had came up while noodling around doing "nonproductive research".
Goverment regulation can do great things, like reduce the number of hospital bed sizes from 53 to 1.
It can also guarantee a chicken in every pot, or fat data pipes into every hovel. Even for vegans or uninhabited caves.
If you don't get my point, even the gov't cant push more bits thru a cable than is theoretically possible, or lay string, copper, glass fiber, or semaphore towers at negligible cost. In fact, govt mandates oten end up building bridges to nowhere and fiber bundles to Baudette.
I don't see anything intrinsic to government that can give us all cheap wideband connectivity. Someone, please tell me how I'm wrong and how I can get hi-res pr0n faster by calling my alderman.
Problem is, there are some gadgets that people insist must work every time, and the current versions ARE very cheap, simple, and reliable. Things like: light switches, automobile brakes, and toilets.
Which explains why fancy light switches, computerized brakes, and I daresay, computerized toilets, tend to be rejected by the populance. The first time a smart light-switch does something unexpected, or a toilet doesnt flush, people tend to get irate, or worse.
You can buy switchable magnetic hold-down devices from any good industrial supply catalog. They've been around and patented for over 60 years.
Shielding a magnetic field has been exhaustively studied, both theoretically and practically, for over 130 years.
Not a sliver of a chance of making energy this way.
If there was the slightest possibility this could fly, not only would it have been discovered eons ago, there would be venture capitalists throwing bucketfuls of shekels at these guys--- As differentiated from their making sensational and incomplete pleas for publicity.
One should distinguish between therapeutic uses and abusive doses.
Millions of people get theraputic doses every year and don't get addicted-- reason being they associate morphine with PAIN and bad times, not fun times.
So the basic premise behind this research seems a bit misguided.
Somewhere in my armchair physics wrangling, I read that you can't identify an individual electron, as they're all identical, and magic markers don't stick to them.
How did these guys know they had a single electron, and it was always the same electron?
>My title is Sr. IC Mask Layout Designer / CAD Engineer, I'm sorry what was yours again??
My Title is "Friend of Bob Pease", the guy that designed several LMXXX chips in the early 70's, many still in production after 30 years. He's checking with his buddies to figure out the origin of the term.
I have no problem believing that after the days of rubylith tape and Mylar, the term "taped out" migrated to writing out the data onto mag tape.
We'll know better once Bob gets back with some of the straight poop.
OS 360 !!! How could this ever get on the list? Anybody that's tried to use OS-360, especially in its first decade, is likely to disagree. OS-360 had very very very many totally brain-damaged features. LIke the command language "JCL", which required a ton of cryptic control cards, (yes, cards) to do the simplest thing. For example, renaming or copying a file could take 5 or six complex cards. Compiling or linking a program would look something like://OSTGLK EXEC PGM=IEWL,REGION=9M,// PARM='XREF,DCBS,LIST,LET,SIZE=(300K,30K)'//OBJLIB DD DSN=TPF.BASE.RLSE.OB,DISP=SHR//SYSLMOD DD DSN=TPF.BASE.RLSE.LK,DISP=OLD//SYSUT1 DD UNIT=SYSDA,SPACE=(CYL,(9,2))//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*//STGPILOT DD DSN=OSTGGDS,DISP=(NEW,KEEP),UNIT=SYSDA,// SPACE=(TRK,(10,1)),VOL=SER=PILOTB//SYSIN DD DSNAME=dsname,UNIT=SYSSQ,// VOLUME=(subparms),DISP=SHR//OSTGLKGO JOB//SYSLIN DD *
INCLUDE OBJLIB(OSTGRT40) The Root Phase
INCLUDE OBJLIB(OSTGIP40) The Input Phase
INCLUDE OBJLIB(OSTGUP40) The Update Phase
INCLUDE OBJLIB(OSTGOT40) The Output Phase
INCLUDE OBJLIB(OSTGP240) The Error Phase
INCLUDE OBJLIB(JULTOACT) Convert date subroutine
And every SPACE and COMMA and SLASH is significant, and must be there, or the job gets aborted.
And if your data file contains any lines with// in column 1, those may get interpreted as job control cards (talk about a security hole!).
And files have to be explicitly laid out, with file size, record lengths, record counts, starting size, size increment, in tracks and/.or sectors. And files have to be PRE-FORMATTED, just like floppies, before you can write to them. And Files are not automatically listed in a directory, you have to go out of your way to "catalog" them with a name.
And the standard base OS has no multi-tasking, or time-sharing, or background tasks, or remote access, or load-balancing, or networking, or compatibility with any other computer in the universe.
And your choices for programming languages are IBM FORTRAN, IBM COBOL, IBM assembler, and IBM assembler.
And to add device drivers, or define a new terminal, or increase any system parameter, you have to re-assemble the whole OS, which takes 8 to 12 hours, and usually ends in pages of unintelligible macro error messages that only remotely hint at the actual problem.
I bet nearly nobody knows what "taped out" means. Or why it's so funny.
Way back in the 1960's the way you designed a printed circuit board, or an integrated circuit, was to get a big piece of clear plastic and lay out the lines with red tape. They used red tape so you could see through it, in order to align the tape exactly over the layer below ( most PC boards use at least two layers, IC's at least 5 layers.)
As you can imagine, a rather tedious, error-prone process.
When you were done with the tape and exacto knifes, you'd hand the plastic over to the foundry guys, who would photographically reduce each layer to the appropriate microscopic masks.
Sometime in the mid 70's, computers and optical printers got cheap and good enough so you could actually design the lines and layers on a COMPUTER SCREEN. Sales of red tape went way down. Nobody missed the red-tape days.
Nowdays just about everything is computerized in this process. THere's never a plastic sheet or tape or paper stage-- the bit images go directly form the design mprogram to the foundry.
it would be a little easier to apply if there were some absolute way to determine "harm".
Some people might say that it causes harm to use computers to store and distribute images that gross me out. Which seems to include about 80% of net pron and advertising.
Then again, there might be whole lot less harm to anybody if the US military could, say, spot bad guys and discourage their plans.
I'd surmise the writers of this new license are under age 30, have never been outside their native country, and are at least nominally vegan.
There's quite a few gotchas in this sniffing idea:
One common ingredient in many liquid explosives is acetone. It's also an ingredient in nail-polish and nail-polish remover. So you can't sniff for acetone without getting waay too many false positives.
Another common ingredient in explosives is nitrogen compounds. Unfortunately, so do fertilizers, sausages, and beef jerky. So there will be too many positives on tennis shews, golf shoes, and snacks.
Somedays I wonder if I've fallen through the looking-glass.
A high-altitude nuke blast will scrable the ionosphere pretty good. The one the US tested in 1962 shut down the HF radio bands for many hours. That much is known.
Using big conductive hair-nets to discharge the ionization is a blue-sky, well, black-sky speculation.
It involves a lot of non-existent hardware and techniques.
Among the many unknowns are : how to orbit a many kilowatt 200Kv power source.
how to deploy up to 100Km of fishnet stockings.
and how to keep these satellites and stockings deployed as they plow through electrostatic and magnetic fields.
And oh, it's unclear how much of the ionization will be affected by a pair of ho-net stockings approximately the size of New Jersey.
So IMHO it's way too early to worry about the existence, magnitude, or net benefit of the side-effects.
TOtally unnecessary, as in addition to the bio machine, you need a trained interrogator, who could just as easily notice sweating, blushing, trembling, and in addition will notice a bunch of other facial and body language clues that the machine cant.
If you've ever seen a 6-foot tall crew cut tough as nails El Al employee ask you about your luggage, you know what I mean. They'll paw thru yuour luggage, pull out an orange, shove it one half inch from your nose and ask:
"AND *WHAT* is *THIS*!??"
History seems to show that when it comes to actual implementations, stack machines are slow. Perhaps this is jsut a coincidence, or they may be various factors at play:
The folks that implement stack machines are trying for simplicity rather than speed.
The allure of stacks leads implementors to other fancy fribbles, such as:
separate segments for each major data item (Burroughs)
implementation thru microcode (LSI-11 with P-Code Microcode)
The strain of implementing a stack machine (whatever that may be) leads implementors to poop out before they get to the point of implementing optimizations and paralelism.
My point is, there may be some sub-surface reasons why stack machines have tended to be slow.
Ivory-tower types LOVE stack computers. No messy "addresses". No messy "registers". Nice and simple. Many an undergrad has written a stack machine emulator. An occasionally a stack machine makes it to the market. A few old Burroughs mainframes. The HP 3000 series. oops, that one had to be recalled cause it was so ungodly slow. Lots of software virtual stadck machines:: The Pascal P-machine. UCSD P-code. FORTH. PostScript. Java byte code (I think). All kinds of weird and wonderful and generally SLOW languages.
As others have undoubltedly mentioned, there's not much concurrency you can do with a stack. The top of stack operation has to finish before the next op can pop anything off.
Slashdot Mirror
A better comparison to CFL's would be LED's that emit warm light, or at least comparable to CFL phosphors, and with diffusion, so you can stand to use them in the typical home.
And LED's have to come way down in price, like at least a factor of ten, before they're economically viable.
And the 30 lumens/watt LED's are not comparable-- that's for "cool white" (read as, "annoyingly blueish"), "directed" (read as, "casts harsh shadows").
You can certainly use quantum "noise" to generate high-entropy keys, but how does that prevent evesdropping on a public network? It can't.
And since novbody has been able to get even two quantum gates to work, they can't be using "quantum computing" in any real sense of the word.
Or perhaps TFA is the high-entropy key? More details, or ANY details, would have been useful.
That should be "affected", not "effected". There's a difference.
I wish you were right, but LED's are still far less efficient and much mor expensive than flourescents.
Here I am writing code, where the smallest slip can cause serious damage to our company, our customers, and my paycheck.
When instead I could be writing *pure quasi-random blather*, with no consequences even if the stuff is pure blue-sky speculation, and unlikely for a multitude of reasons.
( *must* *get* *job* *at* *gartner* *group* )
( writing sample: )
"Huge monopoly software company will screw their own pooch and dump their cash cows for no visible reason and instead (mumble) (not clear who) will use (completely different type of technology with not much in common with previous sentence) or (hot new buzzword that hasnt been seen-thru yet) to completely bypass all the laws of human ignorance, inertia, established base, software trends, and economics. "
There, that should move me right to the top of their hiring list.
One has to have massive reserves of touching faith to think LBO MBA witnits know more about the value of "research" than Microsoft.
It's probably true that Microsoft has shown very little from their research, that doesnt mean it has no value. About 77% of all the good ideas I've had came up while noodling around doing "nonproductive research".
Or economics either.
Goverment regulation can do great things, like reduce the number of hospital bed sizes from 53 to 1.
It can also guarantee a chicken in every pot, or fat data pipes into every hovel. Even for vegans or uninhabited caves.
If you don't get my point, even the gov't cant push more bits thru a cable than is theoretically possible, or lay string, copper, glass fiber, or semaphore towers at negligible cost. In fact, govt mandates oten end up building bridges to nowhere and fiber bundles to Baudette.
I don't see anything intrinsic to government that can give us all cheap wideband connectivity. Someone, please tell me how I'm wrong and how I can get hi-res pr0n faster by calling my alderman.
Which explains why fancy light switches, computerized brakes, and I daresay, computerized toilets, tend to be rejected by the populance. The first time a smart light-switch does something unexpected, or a toilet doesnt flush, people tend to get irate, or worse.
You can buy switchable magnetic hold-down devices from any good industrial supply catalog. They've been around and patented for over 60 years.
Shielding a magnetic field has been exhaustively studied, both theoretically and practically, for over 130 years.
Not a sliver of a chance of making energy this way.
If there was the slightest possibility this could fly, not only would it have been discovered eons ago, there would be venture capitalists throwing bucketfuls of shekels at these guys--- As differentiated from their making sensational and incomplete pleas for publicity.
Millions of people get theraputic doses every year and don't get addicted-- reason being they associate morphine with PAIN and bad times, not fun times.
So the basic premise behind this research seems a bit misguided.
BTW all circuits on the lowest level are "quantum" circuits, so maybe he's just trying to pass off his Packard-Bell 66MHz PC as a quantum computer?
How did these guys know they had a single electron, and it was always the same electron?
My Title is "Friend of Bob Pease", the guy that designed several LMXXX chips in the early 70's, many still in production after 30 years. He's checking with his buddies to figure out the origin of the term.
I have no problem believing that after the days of rubylith tape and Mylar, the term "taped out" migrated to writing out the data onto mag tape.
We'll know better once Bob gets back with some of the straight poop.
And every SPACE and COMMA and SLASH is significant, and must be there, or the job gets aborted.
And if your data file contains any lines with // in column 1, those may get interpreted as job control cards (talk about a security hole!).
And files have to be explicitly laid out, with file size, record lengths, record counts, starting size, size increment, in tracks and/.or sectors. And files have to be PRE-FORMATTED, just like floppies, before you can write to them. And Files are not automatically listed in a directory, you have to go out of your way to "catalog" them with a name.
And the standard base OS has no multi-tasking, or time-sharing, or background tasks, or remote access, or load-balancing, or networking, or compatibility with any other computer in the universe.
And your choices for programming languages are IBM FORTRAN, IBM COBOL, IBM assembler, and IBM assembler.
And to add device drivers, or define a new terminal, or increase any system parameter, you have to re-assemble the whole OS, which takes 8 to 12 hours, and usually ends in pages of unintelligible macro error messages that only remotely hint at the actual problem.
Do a google search for an image of "widlar" to see the guy that designed many an early Ic, and he's got his cigar resting on a "tapeout".
Way back in the 1960's the way you designed a printed circuit board, or an integrated circuit, was to get a big piece of clear plastic and lay out the lines with red tape. They used red tape so you could see through it, in order to align the tape exactly over the layer below ( most PC boards use at least two layers, IC's at least 5 layers.) As you can imagine, a rather tedious, error-prone process.
When you were done with the tape and exacto knifes, you'd hand the plastic over to the foundry guys, who would photographically reduce each layer to the appropriate microscopic masks.
Sometime in the mid 70's, computers and optical printers got cheap and good enough so you could actually design the lines and layers on a COMPUTER SCREEN. Sales of red tape went way down. Nobody missed the red-tape days.
Nowdays just about everything is computerized in this process. THere's never a plastic sheet or tape or paper stage-- the bit images go directly form the design mprogram to the foundry.
But they still say "The design got "taped out"."
it would be a little easier to apply if there were some absolute way to determine "harm".
Some people might say that it causes harm to use computers to store and distribute images that gross me out. Which seems to include about 80% of net pron and advertising.
Then again, there might be whole lot less harm to anybody if the US military could, say, spot bad guys and discourage their plans.
I'd surmise the writers of this new license are under age 30, have never been outside their native country, and are at least nominally vegan.
So IMHO it's way too early to worry about the existence, magnitude, or net benefit of the side-effects.
If you've ever seen a 6-foot tall crew cut tough as nails El Al employee ask you about your luggage, you know what I mean. They'll paw thru yuour luggage, pull out an orange, shove it one half inch from your nose and ask: "AND *WHAT* is *THIS*!??"
History seems to show that when it comes to actual implementations, stack machines are slow. Perhaps this is jsut a coincidence, or they may be various factors at play:
My point is, there may be some sub-surface reasons why stack machines have tended to be slow.
As others have undoubltedly mentioned, there's not much concurrency you can do with a stack. The top of stack operation has to finish before the next op can pop anything off.
Forget stacks.
Someone please tell me:
If the bad guys are supposed to be hand-carrying liquid explosives, what's to prevent them from putting the stuff in their checked luggage?
Don't they already make you take a gulp from your water-bottle, JIC it's full of bleached nitroglycerin?
What's to stop the bad guys from just going to the beach for a few weeks until the hubbub subsides?
The trick is to be a bit smarter, and thinking ahead of the Ali BAbas, not reacting to reported threats in both over and under thorough ways.
Of all the things a spiffy network card could do, reducing latency is just about the least likely.
They could have put 20mb of buffers on it.
They could buy glow-in-the-dark pc board material.
They could have put a handful of bright blinky led's on it.
They could even put on a 12AX7 vacuum tube to do something useful.
They could put built-in auto ping.
But what do they do? Put another layer of OS glop in the way. Big laffs!!