Finally, someone with a reasonable perspective! Thank you for your post. For all of you who don't know, autism--as far as we can tell-- involves the inability of the prefrontal cortex to integrate perception properly. This leads to difficulty in language to the point that most if not all autistic people do not think in linguistic fashion, but rather think visually. Furthermore, the obsession with specific details arises from this; it is as if an autistic individual sees all of what is in his or her visual field, unlike the rest of us who tend to filter out unimportant details. While we think autistic individuals are "in their own little worlds," in reality, their inability filter stimuli results in them being far more aware of the real world than any "normal" person could be. It's no wonder they have trouble developmentally. I have a migraine disorder that manifests in some very bizarre fashions (migraine != VERY BAD HEADACHE; in fact, I almost never have headaches with migraines) including extremely heightened visual and auditory perception. However, whenever I have this heightened perception it is as if I can only perceive the very small details, textures, and contrasts. Let me tell you, IT IS SCARY. Little things become extraordinarily agitating. I honestly don't know how autistic people deal with it. If I had to live my entire life like that, I'd be sitting in a rubber room wearing a soiled diaper with drool dripping down my face as I stared at one spot without moving my gaze until "snow blindness" kicked in rendering my vision useless. Simply changing the neurological structure of someone who has lived with autism will not undue the mechanisms they have learned to compensate with, nor will it automatically restore normal language functioning. You might be able to teach someone these new skills, but you will not have cured them. You will merely have changed them. As to whether that change is for the better or worse I have no answer--the only person who could answer that is the changed individual. Finally, saying a cure for Rett's is a cure for Autism would be like saying a cure for Rett's is a cure for Cerebral Palsy, since Rett's is about as similar to Cerebral Palsy in terms of movement disorders as it is similar to Autism in terms of developmental disorders.
On one last note, do not attack this poster for the clarity of this post as he is moderately inebriated.
There will be plenty of swapping, as program designers will bare witness to the multitudes of available RAM by creating ever bloating application code and useless background services! At least with solid state there will not be much weeping and thrashing of disks!
Even if this is true, with solid state you can pack more storage units in a given volume--thanks to the lack of motor, read/write heads, etc. This fact only makes storage per unit area unimportant. All one need to do is check out the current 16 GB USB flash drives to see that storage density is quite decent. Strip away the casing and any other extraneous parts from those things an look at just how small the actual flash chips are. You'll quickly realize you could cram at least 10 of those in 2.5" form-factor drive, if not 2 or 3 times that. So lets see, 10 chips gives us 160 GB, not bad for a modest estimate. A 20 chip package, also quite plausible, yields 320 GB--just larger than the largest announced 2.5" drive. If drive makers really got crazy and jammed a 3.5" drive full of the stuff. Now we're easily talking 4 to 5 times the storage, or 640GB on the low end of the estimate to 1620 GB on the upper (yet reasonable) end. Now, considering flash devices are almost guaranteed to shrink with process shrinks, and not to mention new solid state memory technologies such as Phase change RAM, non-volatile memory solutions look to a have a pretty bright future when it comes to competing with magnetic storage.
Just how exactly is space exploration going to make us all realize how similiar we are? If you knew half as much about human psychology as your replies to your on post indicate you think you do (which you admit isn't much), you would be aware that most people have a very strong external locus of control. This isn't going to disappear the second we get to space and look at the planet. We're not all going to stand up and say, "Hey, you know what, all the crap that has happened in my life may actually be at least partially my fault, maybe I should have done something different." Perhaps you have an internal locus of control, good for you, but the rest of humanity is more likely to say its all your fault and want to harm you for it. I personally prefer the ability to defend myself from such attacks, which is exactly the point in the referenced document.
Furthermore, you may have rtfa, but did you rtfpda containing the document in question? Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in the document is the use of nuclear weapons discussed. Nuclear energy != nuclear weapons. For example radioisotope thermoelectric generators [wikipedia] are considered nuclear power and are likely one of the major technologies the document is refering to. As far as nuclear space propulsion, while it is true that one form of nuclear propulsion involves detonating nuclear and thermonuclear devices and riding their shock waves, it is not very likely to ever be used. Nuclear space propulsion is more likely to exist in the form of nuclear rocket engines [wikipedia] of various types. Constructed in space and used for interplanetary travel, these could be safe and effective at reaching such destinations as Mars in a matter of months versus years (and likely are the only practical methods to achieve this in the near future). This article is not about nuclear war. I am sick of hearing all you trolls saying OMFG!!1!!!!1 teh Bush sed NUcular, every1 panic!!1!!!
Wouldn't it be most meaningful to define a gallon of electricity in terms of a gallon of hydrogen in its most compressed form? After all, hydrogen is the simplest electron carrying element. Or perhaps one could create a device with a volume of one gallon that can store free electrons compressed to the limits imposed by the Pauli Exclusion Principal?
In much the same way CD's failed because of their Sony link? Excluding Sony's more recent behavior in CD releases, everyone seems to forget they were one of companies responsible for the success of the CD format. Your reasoning seems faulty, but that doesn't mean I think your prediction is wrong (or right).
Of course, you are just joking and reallizes that an accelerometer senses not an impact (which produces sound through energy loss to the air) but how much an objects on a single axis or in any direction (when multiple devices are used), thus making them much more useful for useless purposes than a built in microphone.
I don't think it has anything to do with laptop drives being of lower quality than their desktop counterparts, they are just subject to more forces more often. How many g's (other than that of earth) does your average desktop hard drive see while it's reading and writing away? Probably orders of magnitude less than laptop drives being used on ones lap, particularly if the user is, umm... admiring some fine photo-journalism.
I'm renting out space in my giant 5 petabyte personal area strorage network I've got in my boxers to good looking women. (After all, we need to have compatible hardware!)
Poor analogy, or even invalid analogy. A bug trap may "work", but it does no work. Even if you are discussing work in this sense, then fine, but you are still just transferring energy from the fly to a trap, or heat from one body to another. A bug trap is fine catching bugs, but you still have to create it (i.e., not free) and maintain it or repair it when it breaks (i.e., adding energy to any system leads to increased entropy which leads to mechanical failure, which has an associated cost to reverse). Simply transferring energy (usually heat) is good and all that, but the question of how we transform it into a useful form remains, and all known answers add some level of energy loss. It is true that you can build extremely efficient technology to harness energy gradients and such (e.g., sterling cycle devices), but none are 100 percent efficient, so while the "fuel" would be free, extracting useful energy never is free. (Unfortunately, in your latter example, the room's perspective is irrelevant, since the room is not trying to do any useful work, and even if it were, the changes in pressure would eventual cause the room itself to fail.)
Actually, it's more accurate to say that under any given set of operating parameters core temp and core frequency are positively correlated. Remember, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Perhaps what you meant is that maximum attainable core frequency is negatively correlated with operating environment temperature or, in other words, positively correlated with removal of heat from the core?
Slashdot Mirror
No, if one was to RTFA they would see the big break through is in creating eDRAM with SOI
Finally, someone with a reasonable perspective! Thank you for your post. For all of you who don't know, autism--as far as we can tell-- involves the inability of the prefrontal cortex to integrate perception properly. This leads to difficulty in language to the point that most if not all autistic people do not think in linguistic fashion, but rather think visually. Furthermore, the obsession with specific details arises from this; it is as if an autistic individual sees all of what is in his or her visual field, unlike the rest of us who tend to filter out unimportant details. While we think autistic individuals are "in their own little worlds," in reality, their inability filter stimuli results in them being far more aware of the real world than any "normal" person could be. It's no wonder they have trouble developmentally. I have a migraine disorder that manifests in some very bizarre fashions (migraine != VERY BAD HEADACHE; in fact, I almost never have headaches with migraines) including extremely heightened visual and auditory perception. However, whenever I have this heightened perception it is as if I can only perceive the very small details, textures, and contrasts. Let me tell you, IT IS SCARY. Little things become extraordinarily agitating. I honestly don't know how autistic people deal with it. If I had to live my entire life like that, I'd be sitting in a rubber room wearing a soiled diaper with drool dripping down my face as I stared at one spot without moving my gaze until "snow blindness" kicked in rendering my vision useless. Simply changing the neurological structure of someone who has lived with autism will not undue the mechanisms they have learned to compensate with, nor will it automatically restore normal language functioning. You might be able to teach someone these new skills, but you will not have cured them. You will merely have changed them. As to whether that change is for the better or worse I have no answer--the only person who could answer that is the changed individual. Finally, saying a cure for Rett's is a cure for Autism would be like saying a cure for Rett's is a cure for Cerebral Palsy, since Rett's is about as similar to Cerebral Palsy in terms of movement disorders as it is similar to Autism in terms of developmental disorders.
On one last note, do not attack this poster for the clarity of this post as he is moderately inebriated.
Dude, ANY concept is enough to make a manga or anime. You must not watch much anime or read much manga to not know that.
Ummm... cite your source please (if only so some of us can figure out what you're talking about).
I did not know Ferarris' had electric meters! COOL!
There will be plenty of swapping, as program designers will bare witness to the multitudes of available RAM by creating ever bloating application code and useless background services! At least with solid state there will not be much weeping and thrashing of disks!
Definitely not a fan of the the Peoples' Rebulic of Taxachusetts
Amen, Preach it, Brother!!
Even if this is true, with solid state you can pack more storage units in a given volume--thanks to the lack of motor, read/write heads, etc. This fact only makes storage per unit area unimportant. All one need to do is check out the current 16 GB USB flash drives to see that storage density is quite decent. Strip away the casing and any other extraneous parts from those things an look at just how small the actual flash chips are. You'll quickly realize you could cram at least 10 of those in 2.5" form-factor drive, if not 2 or 3 times that. So lets see, 10 chips gives us 160 GB, not bad for a modest estimate. A 20 chip package, also quite plausible, yields 320 GB--just larger than the largest announced 2.5" drive. If drive makers really got crazy and jammed a 3.5" drive full of the stuff. Now we're easily talking 4 to 5 times the storage, or 640GB on the low end of the estimate to 1620 GB on the upper (yet reasonable) end. Now, considering flash devices are almost guaranteed to shrink with process shrinks, and not to mention new solid state memory technologies such as Phase change RAM, non-volatile memory solutions look to a have a pretty bright future when it comes to competing with magnetic storage.
Dude, I think with the various packet headers etc., 100Gbit isn't all that much faster than a 16x PCI express slot. And then there is latency...
Just how exactly is space exploration going to make us all realize how similiar we are? If you knew half as much about human psychology as your replies to your on post indicate you think you do (which you admit isn't much), you would be aware that most people have a very strong external locus of control. This isn't going to disappear the second we get to space and look at the planet. We're not all going to stand up and say, "Hey, you know what, all the crap that has happened in my life may actually be at least partially my fault, maybe I should have done something different." Perhaps you have an internal locus of control, good for you, but the rest of humanity is more likely to say its all your fault and want to harm you for it. I personally prefer the ability to defend myself from such attacks, which is exactly the point in the referenced document.
Furthermore, you may have rtfa, but did you rtfpda containing the document in question? Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in the document is the use of nuclear weapons discussed. Nuclear energy != nuclear weapons. For example radioisotope thermoelectric generators [wikipedia] are considered nuclear power and are likely one of the major technologies the document is refering to. As far as nuclear space propulsion, while it is true that one form of nuclear propulsion involves detonating nuclear and thermonuclear devices and riding their shock waves, it is not very likely to ever be used. Nuclear space propulsion is more likely to exist in the form of nuclear rocket engines [wikipedia] of various types. Constructed in space and used for interplanetary travel, these could be safe and effective at reaching such destinations as Mars in a matter of months versus years (and likely are the only practical methods to achieve this in the near future). This article is not about nuclear war. I am sick of hearing all you trolls saying OMFG!!1!!!!1 teh Bush sed NUcular, every1 panic!!1!!!
As a current slashdot reader I take offense to this statement; I had a girlfriend, once.
Wouldn't it be most meaningful to define a gallon of electricity in terms of a gallon of hydrogen in its most compressed form? After all, hydrogen is the simplest electron carrying element. Or perhaps one could create a device with a volume of one gallon that can store free electrons compressed to the limits imposed by the Pauli Exclusion Principal?
In much the same way CD's failed because of their Sony link? Excluding Sony's more recent behavior in CD releases, everyone seems to forget they were one of companies responsible for the success of the CD format. Your reasoning seems faulty, but that doesn't mean I think your prediction is wrong (or right).
Of course, you are just joking and reallizes that an accelerometer senses not an impact (which produces sound through energy loss to the air) but how much an objects on a single axis or in any direction (when multiple devices are used), thus making them much more useful for useless purposes than a built in microphone.
...which will likely cause significant acceleration.
I'd go for a crazy Portnoy drum solo... but I'd never be able to login.
Or perhaps they just think more.
That could be a problem for many women laptop users.
Sorry, I didn't mean it but someone had to say it.
Where, from hitting your wives or the 70's? I'm interested from a purely psychological perspective, of course.
I don't think it has anything to do with laptop drives being of lower quality than their desktop counterparts, they are just subject to more forces more often. How many g's (other than that of earth) does your average desktop hard drive see while it's reading and writing away? Probably orders of magnitude less than laptop drives being used on ones lap, particularly if the user is, umm... admiring some fine photo-journalism.
genius! thanks for the laugh.
I'm renting out space in my giant 5 petabyte personal area strorage network I've got in my boxers to good looking women. (After all, we need to have compatible hardware!)
Poor analogy, or even invalid analogy. A bug trap may "work", but it does no work. Even if you are discussing work in this sense, then fine, but you are still just transferring energy from the fly to a trap, or heat from one body to another. A bug trap is fine catching bugs, but you still have to create it (i.e., not free) and maintain it or repair it when it breaks (i.e., adding energy to any system leads to increased entropy which leads to mechanical failure, which has an associated cost to reverse). Simply transferring energy (usually heat) is good and all that, but the question of how we transform it into a useful form remains, and all known answers add some level of energy loss. It is true that you can build extremely efficient technology to harness energy gradients and such (e.g., sterling cycle devices), but none are 100 percent efficient, so while the "fuel" would be free, extracting useful energy never is free. (Unfortunately, in your latter example, the room's perspective is irrelevant, since the room is not trying to do any useful work, and even if it were, the changes in pressure would eventual cause the room itself to fail.)
Actually, it's more accurate to say that under any given set of operating parameters core temp and core frequency are positively correlated. Remember, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Perhaps what you meant is that maximum attainable core frequency is negatively correlated with operating environment temperature or, in other words, positively correlated with removal of heat from the core?
Perhaps you should upgrade your friends and family to more intelligent models.
(Just kidding...of course.)