Or I could be just talking out of my ass, the optical frequencies are actually almost into the petahertz range. Sorry 'bout that, the "(gigahertz range)" thingy fooled me. Should've checked the actual figures first.
...Which is precisely why, in my first post, I said "...all the electricity that is actually used by the computer...". I was also implicitly referring to same in my second post, and thus it should be taken as meaning that a computer is just as efficient as a heater that actually *uses* the same amount of wattage. Perhaps I should've been clearer.
Re:Jesus this is scary.
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Potential for evil? Big Check.
Umm, not more so than any other new tech. It's not like we'll be growing huge living sentient overlord brains anytime soon, this is basically just neural network software research, on a new kind of hardware. Sure, it has some heavy ramifications, but so does a lot of other technology, and you don't go around making supposedly insightful comments about their bloody 'potential for evil', now do you?
Yeah, but where do we draw the line? As far as we know, the human brain (and that of any animal) reacts to information in much the same way, if perhaps with quite a bit more sophistication and complexity. Of course, in systems this simple the distinction is quite clear, but as the technology evolves, the things they do with it are bound to get more and more complex. I'm thinking the internal workings of biological neurons are quite different from those of traditional hardware, so there's really no telling what will happen with enough of this stuff, especially with multiple inputs from and outputs to the actual physical world (or, if you want to go all matrix, to a simulated yet sufficiently complex one).
Propably, but most of them don't read slashdot (or similar news sources), meaning that this kind of stuff doesn't usually reach them. Ignorance is bliss.
'Kay, true, but this is all just semantics. A computer does take longer to heat up a room than an electrical heater of equivalent wattage specifically designed for the purpose, but that's ultimately irrelevant for long term heating since all the heat will, eventually, get to the room and thus, the computer will keep the room at the same temperature as an electrical heater would. So, in the long run, it is in fact just as efficient.
You, on the other hand, apparently do not know that all the electricity that is actually used by the computer, or any electrical appliance for that matter, eventually turns into heat. This means that it is physically impossible to have an inefficient electrical heater. Which, in turn, means that you're an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Ion rockets can't generate very high accelerations. They can, however, keep going for a long time.
Sorta figured, but still too annoying to pass up, especially since it was, in fact, being modded insightful.
Or I could be just talking out of my ass, the optical frequencies are actually almost into the petahertz range. Sorry 'bout that, the "(gigahertz range)" thingy fooled me. Should've checked the actual figures first.
Means the clock frequencies of modern processors are approaching the frequency range of visible light.
...Which is precisely why, in my first post, I said "...all the electricity that is actually used by the computer...". I was also implicitly referring to same in my second post, and thus it should be taken as meaning that a computer is just as efficient as a heater that actually *uses* the same amount of wattage. Perhaps I should've been clearer.
Yeah, but where do we draw the line? As far as we know, the human brain (and that of any animal) reacts to information in much the same way, if perhaps with quite a bit more sophistication and complexity. Of course, in systems this simple the distinction is quite clear, but as the technology evolves, the things they do with it are bound to get more and more complex. I'm thinking the internal workings of biological neurons are quite different from those of traditional hardware, so there's really no telling what will happen with enough of this stuff, especially with multiple inputs from and outputs to the actual physical world (or, if you want to go all matrix, to a simulated yet sufficiently complex one).
Propably, but most of them don't read slashdot (or similar news sources), meaning that this kind of stuff doesn't usually reach them. Ignorance is bliss.
'Kay, true, but this is all just semantics. A computer does take longer to heat up a room than an electrical heater of equivalent wattage specifically designed for the purpose, but that's ultimately irrelevant for long term heating since all the heat will, eventually, get to the room and thus, the computer will keep the room at the same temperature as an electrical heater would. So, in the long run, it is in fact just as efficient.
You, on the other hand, apparently do not know that all the electricity that is actually used by the computer, or any electrical appliance for that matter, eventually turns into heat. This means that it is physically impossible to have an inefficient electrical heater. Which, in turn, means that you're an idiot.