What can a search engine possibly compute anything other than the ridiculous 2^2^2^2...?
Who would type that question to a search engine anyway? No, no, Microsoft is confused, you use Mathematica 7.0 for that kind of computation.
The best today's idiotic search engines could possibly hope to do is to add/subtract some numbers, provide unit/currency conversions and that's all. Google is already doing all that.
Unless Bing servers are some clever cousins of HAL, adding some funky math skills to them won't do a bit of a difference. It's a loooong shot before the search engine actually gathers unrelated information and connects it to the actual query, doing some useful computation in between.
Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.
Oh I am sorry! It is completely MY fault! Next time I'll use Windows Ultra-Deluxe SpyWare Cleaner. Too bad it lets 9 out of 10, instead of all.
This pleasant but naive analogy doesn't work. Because it is not the same thing. You are supposed to be protected after all that BS with UAC, Windows Defender, Active Defense, etc...
The real question is: Why would I have to put up with ridiculous functions like UAC and still have to pay for anti-virus software?
Graphene has been studied extensively in the last few years. Carbon Nanotubes were on the rise (which are just rolled up sheets of single layer graphite) but the current difficulties to manipulate those to create devices staggered their advance. Graphene ( or Graphite for that matter) is a little easier to manage because it's like a 2 -D sheet and it can be laid/printed off a substrate more easily.
The current major problem of graphene is the lack of a sizable band-gap which is typically required for semiconductor modulation. We may see a breakthrough in the following years if people figure out a way to overcome this barrier.
Just to give an idea for us to see the colossal difference between the 'everyday experience' and the atomic world.
There's really no difference between Hydrogen (Z=1) and Ununoctium (Z=118) when you peek at them from a dimension that is 10 billion times (say the inter-atomic distance is about 1 Angstroms and we live in the meters range) larger than those.
My point is sustainable, it is at least consistent.
Your efforts of constantly showing it as simple as the writing a book-demanding money example are insufficient. It's just looking at the problem at a narrow angle, and it's, to me, being an ethical pussy.
You are claiming that our crusade against the big companies hurt the artists as well, huh? Oh, I am sorry to hear that but you are missing this : I am not hurting someone who has written a pathetic e-book and who tries to earn a few bucks by the help of a big company through that. Because he's not very popular in the first place. And as you might guess, unpopular information is uncommon on the internet. What's really common is "wildly popular" information. And most importantly, you can't claim that you should make money for your idea 25 years. You must be kidding me. So you would make millions of dollars because you come up with a mediocre idea under a grand company name? You can't do that. Get used to the idea.
Can't you really see the correlation between big companies (or super-famous artist, take Metallica-Napster conflict for example) and high download rates ?
We are really not hurting small business, because I (and a couple hundred million people who think like me) don't care about that work in the first place! A very few of us might be interested in your e-book (for which you've spent the last three years of your life) and that really won't hurt you. If you really get to be a famous guy and that your idea is really unique, then don't worry. You'll get your share. It'll just not be some imaginary number you are dreaming of. You'll get what you deserve.
I am still paying for books I like in the bookstore. I am just not paying for Metallica. They are already rich. And ironically, they are the biggest pussies in this world.
About that idea of reaching the artists and paying for them... That falls under the same terittory I've just described. If you are big enough to be taken care of a big-daddy company, your work will be ripped, shared and mercilessly freeloaded. Sorry about that. We are not killing you. You won't starve.
And that average guy won't be hit as much as you think. Try a rapidshare (or torrent) search on a very specific book. You can't reach it. IF you reach it, stop worrying.
Good luck with your absolute thinking. That doesn't help much in life. There are gray zones. Beware of that.
I am, actually, really not close-minded, I was pretending to be one. Since you are not listening to what I say, what others are trying to say, what all these high-tech, high-education people ( I am by the way a Ph.D student) are crying out loud.
Let me first reply to your question.
1) First, I would never work on an e-book project just to charge anyone who happens to read it, since I know in the first place that, I can't stop people sharing it. Sharing isn't necessarily downloading. You can buy the book and share it with your wife. Should I come along and whine about it? You can buy it and give it to a friend. Now what? Should I charge you for that?
2) What we are really focusing on here is BIG companies, the big assosications that are going after people one by one. These are the guys that are hated. I would really not want to kill a pathetic guy who works in Quickie Mart and comes home to write a few pages.
IF you are really asking my opinion, he should find some other way to get rich. You can't be, by an e-book. Someone will share it, and I'll read it. Sorry about that. Find some other way to charge people forever. If you think that's logical.
I took the time to get to you this message everybody's been trying to convey. I hope you get it this time. IT's not stealing because they have already millions of dollars in their pockets (big companies) and they are really surviving this by making some of us pay. For example universities, other companies, instituitions! They are paying for every bit of software.
So why are these people making such a big deal about copyright? Because they are greedy, with their greasy hands, they wanto to squeeze every single penny from our pockets. From ordinary guys like you and me.
And I really find it difficult to understant why you are being such a.ussy about it.
I think you really did not understand the crux of this puzzle by directly relating my example to 'stealing' is just like to hear a 10-year-old comment on the injustice of the world.
What I, along with a thousand of my slashdotter friends, believe is the following:
1. You can produce a novel by spending a part of your life on it. ( Wow!Thanks for spending a part of your life, you can be sure that's really gonna be important for me...)
2. You can claim that it is your book ( intrinsically selfish and ignorant) and that you must be paid for it whenever it's used/shared literally for-e-v-e-r.
3. You can go and whine for the rest of your life because some other people (like me and my million friends) don't respect the fact that "you have been spending a part of your life" on the product.
Guess what: Your expectations will change. The actual value of your product will balance itself with respect to the rules of internet.
Because information is so common, so easily accessed, and so less valuable (because there's more than plenty of it)
you will have to "understand" that your work will not be worth "the millions of dollars" you are imagining to make.
So let's make sure you really understand this :
I, with a number of people who think like me, will continue to share information until all the software/music/film industries understand that what they're doing is not only ridiculous but also selfish and ignorant.
First everybody will believe that IP doesn't exist. Even now many people (including reasonable nerds such as we are) believe that IP does not exist in the form it struggles to exist today.
The context of IP is changing and it has to change according to Internet rules. People think that it might seem unethical but the availability of sharing (especially when there is more than a single network node for each human being) cannot be just neglected by the trivial assumption that people should respect for IP.
I don't believe in IP and I don't think they deserve it. Is the amount of effort they are putting to produce a song, really worth the millions of dollars they are claiming that they must make? No way.
That's why they will lose. That's why they are losing every second. And at some point, they will really understand that resistance is futile.
Amazing news! One step further will be exacting the analysis and actually telling the person about how his ancestors looked like, what color his children's eyes are gonna be, and whether he will die due to pancreatic cancer and etc =)
Why don't we all support the research in biology (to create intelligent machines) and we are starting from Silicon and basically from nothing.
While reading this, it occured to me that making a living organism more intelligent can be an alternative way to silicon-based AI, what's your opinion?
When you read it, it seems like some genious kid could be able to create dinasour like creautures out of a bunch of fundamental molecules.
I think open-source like genetic engineering must be much more different. Though being no expert on this, I really don't believe what they can synthesize is not much more than the simple (and boring) organic molecules, I needed to memorize in high-school. ( Yeah, they were teaching organic chemistry in high-school back then)
If they were so cabaple of playing with the source code of biology, I bet they could have beaten the little, evil, less than a bacteria-sized virus called the HIV.
Of course they understood what they were designing. Just because they had not developped the sophicticated mathematics that we did right now does not mean that they were unaware of what they were doing.
Math is just projecting some kind of light to nature, and wait for its reflection to understand and appreciate nature. Sometimes, the beauty or the simple truth might be equally clear to the naked eye.
Therefore, it is really irrelevant to ask whether they could mathematically show what they did. They designed something that is visible to us by another means.
I think this is a pretty cool idea. Most of the time, I am sure, most of us try (while watching a film we adore maybe for the 5th time ) to look through the glasses of the director(of an impressive film). I don't think that this will apply to mediocre action films or romantic comedies, however imagine that there is a thorough documentation by Kubrick ( with his lively and agressive style) while you are wathcing Clockwork Orange. OR imagine what Lynch had to say about the bizarre final of Mulholland Drive. And furthermore, imagine you have free access to these after you watch an amazing film, just as the ones described above.
and I am pretty sure that we all prefer DVDs to junky VCDs or poor quality records, not only regarding the quality but also the commentaries, deleted scenes and director's opinions.
I hope it works very well and we have that option for the movies we enjoy
Maybe it is the Iraqi petroleum that puts the real science equipment into space.
America has lovable and detestable feautures in it, I agree with that but I really don`t think that it is the American people who put the equipment there.
Whenever I think of the galaxies, outer space or human observation to these I cannot help the feeling of awe and admiration. I checked out the pictures on the web-site and I felt like I was watching Kubrick`s Oddysey. I imagine and see ( thanks to 10 times more powerful Hubble`s objectives ) the vast galaxies, millions of stars and the light reflected from them and converted to miliwatts of electrical energy in the human brain. I see the real physics out there, intersecting its ways with philosphy. That is really something different from what they do in solid state, or applied physics.
Hubble and its even more powerful descendants will enlighten the secrets of universe,....and before I get even more theological , let me get out of here
Firstly, I have to say that, what they claim to serve as a >novel> technique is not completely novel. Of course, it was known that SiO2 could be formed by other means then sintering ( heating the silicon and letting the oxygen atoms dissolve in silicon ) but the problem has always been the purity.
Semiconductors, especially devices in nanometer scaling need to be extremely pure. Their lattice structure -hence their electrical effects- can easily be distorted or failed by very little deviations, say, in dopant concentrations random dopant fluctuations. This is shortly called , RDF.
RDF has become a major concern especially for the newcoming generations because basically when you scale down the channel length, the channel lengths are becoming so narrow (and small) that only about 100 hundred dopant atoms fall inside the channel volume. This , obviously, increases the sensitivity and failure rate of these transistors, let alone their variations (like threshold voltages) in a single die.
From a mass production point of view, we want to get as uniform parameters as we can from a complete die. The ratio of successful ( uniform and working ) transistors to the total die area divided by a single transistor area ( which means the total number of transistors we wanted to harvest from that die ) gives us the `yield`.
Now, taking into account the fact that even a failure of a single transistor, could lead to the failure of an entire word line of an SRAM , the yield strongly influences the SRAM or chip reliability.
And for the companies, it does not matter whether you prepare the chip at room temperature but in a more sloppy way, because ultimately it is going to cost more !
Of course the need for extreme purity in nanoscale devices is not realized completely. The reason is that we have not produced those chips yet. However, these issues ( especially RDF and process variations- you can google these and see yourself) are very hot topics in LOW POWER VLSI design.
The people who work in these fields are surely aware of the need for an accurate fabrication and will just ignore this kind of work. There are some papers that try to reduce these effects only to succeed in a relatively low way.
In modern research, you can easily publish a paper by changing the slightest detail of a published paper or you can slightly vary this known application and claim that you have come up with a totally novel ida. This is a draw-back.
In short, they are not going to make anything green, UNLESS of course, they find a better and reliable method satisfying the needs of the upcoming nanoscale devices.
In theory, metallic nanotubes can have an electrical current density more than 1,000 times greater than metals such as silver and copper. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotubes]
So imagine that in a single pentium processor chip, there lies miles of carbon nano-tubes with excellent electrical properties that minimize their capacitive effects. This would definitely make a revolution on semiconductor fabrication, because in theory their[the nanotubes'] would be one hundredth of a 90 nm IC device. Translating this into our lives would mean to be able to play Battlefield for a duration of 24 hours in our one time charged lap-top. Or imagine palm computers that could beat the best GMs of chess today.
Anything would be more scalable than ever if they could really make something of these nano-tubes rather than playing with them and sorting them.
They say ninety nine percent of the research is just trash, but at one point, when the one percent succeeds then comes the breakthrough.
We hope to see carbon nanotubes in our computers, maybe our children will do that.
The thing that is constantly misleading you is that you are not fully aware of what Moores Law is about.
I respect your comments and arguments but sometimes the factual accuracy is more important than pure logic.
I am going to try to explain to you, some basics of Digital Design and semiconductor businesses, and I am pretty sure that your major is not electronics. I am by no means trying to degrade your knowledge or rationale but only trying to clarify some points. Therefore please do not get offended. My major, Electronics Engineering is closely related to the issue. And I do research on Power Efficient Digital ICs and more generally ULSI (Ultra Large Scale Integration)
1.) First of all , when Moore predicted this trend in semiconductors, there was no Intel. Actually he was just a scientist, trying to make a projection of LSI (it was called Large Scale Integration that time) because there had seemed a long way ahead. When they actually scaled 100 micron devices to 75 micron, the pioneers of the time, like always, tried to see what was coming next. Moore along with many others who founded the companies which constitute a large portion of the semiconductor industry now tried to foresee the eventual scaling. Of course, he could not then talk about interconnect problems, Short Channel Effects ( SCEs were later discovered when this trend continued) but he made a projection in 1965. And just after 10 years, he MODIFIED the projection because there was another discovery and they found other diffuculties and Moore made his projection a bit looser. What is known today as Moore's Law is this modified version in 1975. Now the whole point of this paragraph is things were really not very organized. He was just a senior research engineer in Bell Labs by that time. He could not of course have organized the future market of the prospective company he would found. No, noone can do that, sorry.
2.) Second of all, there IS really good reason for other companies ( there is a big race among the semi-conductor companies. This race is so fierce that they can do whatever they can to eliminate the others,or to reduce their profit margins, please check their revenues and statistics from Google or Wikipedia if you are further interested ) to find novel changes in device scaling. Everyone works independently in this field, and thus they have to be very efficient and careful since if one of the others discovers or invents a novel technique that plans to control a huge market (newly created) it would be very hard to catch later then. SO what they do is constantly to work with universities which are the institutions with avant-garde research techniques and philosophies to keep themselves up to date.
For over 40 years, every SC company was producing its own IC, independent of the others. And noone , until there were complications like short channel effects, interconnect problems, area problems, heating problems and etc... , could not find a better way than the one predicted by Gordon Moore in 1965. This is something about history and it is a factual observation.
Your theory could have been accurate if Moore had been controlling all the SC marken before he made his projection, and he should have been a very clever and organized guy to manipulate all the other companies or researchers or scholars in the universities NOT to surpass his ultimate observation.
Therefore, I think you should have a better picture of what happened in these 4 decades and what Moore's law is in this era. From an academic point of view,
he is not only a succesful academician, but a very clever businessman. But just that, no manipulation, no tricks.
He just made a VERY accurate observation.
Evaluating sentences one by one and changing their meanings is not fair-play. I see your so-called insightful comment(!)...
1st of all, you should understand this > PRIORITIES.
In everything in science, daily life, health, insurance, things to do OR equivalently data storage has priorities. You can look it up if you do not grasp the meaning.
---Absent other data, it only denotes frequency of use, period---- Frequency of use HAS nothing to do with period. Period is inverse of frequency.
Frequency stands for the NEED of that information here. This means NECCESSITY. You are right that playboy.com gets a lot of hits. Then IT SHOULD HAVE PRIORITY THAT MUST BE FAST. Even to your use. It is PRIORITY. IT is NEEDED. Can you understand that ?
Let me deliver the coup-de-grace :
---There is actually very little correlation between what the average user wants and what s/he needs, as is empirically obvious.---
IF the user does not know what he needs; or he cannot correlate his needs with his PRIORITIES then it is an ineffective user and it REALLY his problem.
Oh; then we should accomodate DATA STORAGE SPEED vs. PERFORMANCE according to the grandnannies who can't seperate their needs with their wishes. Then they complain just like the comment posted by the guy who does not , unfortunately, understand statistics.
QED.
Frequency of use DOES denotes importance, at the very least STATISTICALLY.
Just because you want "that special little something" once a year; does not mean you can degrade the speed of information which is instantly needed.
This is an obvious fact
This scheme reminded me of low power optimization in circuit level.
The critical pahts in the circuit are governed by low threshold transistors ( ensuring high performance, i.e speed )
The non-critical paths are governed by high threshold transistors ( ensurin low leakage in stand-by mode with no particular degradation of speed since they sit on non-critical paths, that is the idle paths.
It is nice to see the core of this idea in a macro-scale.
`Twelve hours of slow agony is transformed into an almost pleasant experience. When you can email and IM friends and family; check all your regular sites; search and read up on research you didn't have time for earlier; check out an endless variety of flash-games and other trivia.`
I do not consider to fly in the air a slow agony. Internet in the air may seem to be a great service, but it is not something crucial that would change the essence of the flight. From torture to bliss !
Come on ! Maybe in ten years; when internet becomes something inseperable from our daily lives only then this premium(!) service is to be a great one.
PS: People just don't have to waste time by either `mediocre in-flight movies` or `wifi connexion`... you can read, listen to music and just relax; without EM Interference on your head...
That is completely a wrong statement of yours; based on a simple logic.
Gordon Moore may have founded the company INTEL; but this, at least in academic world, has nothing to do with scaling factors by time. ACtually what he predicted was what the technology, or companies so to speak, could do without SPENDING MUCH EFFORT.... This is the key point here. If you can scale the transistors without needing too much concern on low power techniques or interconnect wires, and this was the case for the last 30 years, then this is nice.
All the semiconductor firms used this fact as a basis eventhough some of them tried to surpass it without much success !
Consequently; what Moore suggested was a simple IEEE paper and it turned out to be amazingly accurate. This has in fact nothing to do with Intel or its success.
Intel is founded by two traitors of the 8 traitors ( Google this a little bit and you are going to find out who founded what; and who these traitors were ) under brilliant ideas waiting to be realized.
That is why, your argument is false and misleading.
Finally; just for the record : Moore has no organic bond with Intel anymore.
I think an algorithm that results in a very complicated operation like this should definitely not be the best way to solve the problem. I mean ; you can calculate the exact node voltages in a 6th order system by numerically solving the integro-differential equations using an IBM average computer.
But an average school kid can also solve that system ( if the numbers are not too cumbersome ) by transforming everything into s-domain rather impressively !
Mathematical models are what we invent for theoretical solutions; but I do not think those electrons need to evaluate terabits of information to move. OF course; observing a physical system consumes entropy, i.e we have to pay to observe or simulate an electron, but the mathematical models should , among infinitely many solutions, and/or can be made simpler.
If physicists tell these computer virtuosos to solve 1000th order integro-differential equations containing transcendental functions; they should be replied :
Go find a simpler model for your freaky system ! =)
Slashdot Mirror
What can a search engine possibly compute anything other than the ridiculous 2^2^2^2...?
Who would type that question to a search engine anyway? No, no, Microsoft is confused, you use Mathematica 7.0 for that kind of computation.
The best today's idiotic search engines could possibly hope to do is to add/subtract some numbers, provide unit/currency conversions and that's all. Google is already doing all that.
Unless Bing servers are some clever cousins of HAL, adding some funky math skills to them won't do a bit of a difference. It's a loooong shot before the search engine actually gathers unrelated information and connects it to the actual query, doing some useful computation in between.
Sorry Microsoft, this doesn't fly.
Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.
Oh I am sorry! It is completely MY fault! Next time I'll use Windows Ultra-Deluxe SpyWare Cleaner. Too bad it lets 9 out of 10, instead of all.
This pleasant but naive analogy doesn't work.
Because it is not the same thing. You are supposed to be protected after all that BS with UAC, Windows Defender, Active Defense, etc...
The real question is: Why would I have to put up with ridiculous functions like UAC and still have to pay for anti-virus software?
Graphene has been studied extensively in the last few years. Carbon Nanotubes were on the rise (which are just rolled up sheets of single layer graphite) but the current difficulties to manipulate those to create devices staggered their advance. Graphene ( or Graphite for that matter) is a little easier to manage because it's like a 2 -D sheet and it can be laid/printed off a substrate more easily.
The current major problem of graphene is the lack of a sizable band-gap which is typically required for semiconductor modulation. We may see a breakthrough in the following years if people figure out a way to overcome this barrier.
Just to give an idea for us to see the colossal difference between the 'everyday experience' and the atomic world.
There's really no difference between Hydrogen (Z=1) and Ununoctium (Z=118) when you peek at them from a dimension that is 10 billion times (say the inter-atomic distance is about 1 Angstroms and we live in the meters range) larger than those.
My point is sustainable, it is at least consistent.
Your efforts of constantly showing it as simple as the writing a book-demanding money example are insufficient. It's just looking at the problem at a narrow angle, and it's, to me, being an ethical pussy.
You are claiming that our crusade against the big companies hurt the artists as well, huh? Oh, I am sorry to hear that but you are missing this : I am not hurting someone who has written a pathetic e-book and who tries to earn a few bucks by the help of a big company through that. Because he's not very popular in the first place. And as you might guess, unpopular information is uncommon on the internet. What's really common is "wildly popular" information. And most importantly, you can't claim that you should make money for your idea 25 years. You must be kidding me. So you would make millions of dollars because you come up with a mediocre idea under a grand company name? You can't do that. Get used to the idea.
Can't you really see the correlation between big companies (or super-famous artist, take Metallica-Napster conflict for example) and high download rates ?
We are really not hurting small business, because I (and a couple hundred million people who think like me) don't care about that work in the first place! A very few of us might be interested in your e-book (for which you've spent the last three years of your life) and that really won't hurt you. If you really get to be a famous guy and that your idea is really unique, then don't worry. You'll get your share. It'll just not be some imaginary number you are dreaming of. You'll get what you deserve.
I am still paying for books I like in the bookstore. I am just not paying for Metallica. They are already rich. And ironically, they are the biggest pussies in this world.
About that idea of reaching the artists and paying for them... That falls under the same terittory I've just described. If you are big enough to be taken care of a big-daddy company, your work will be ripped, shared and mercilessly freeloaded. Sorry about that. We are not killing you. You won't starve.
And that average guy won't be hit as much as you think. Try a rapidshare (or torrent) search on a very specific book. You can't reach it. IF you reach it, stop worrying.
Good luck with your absolute thinking. That doesn't help much in life. There are gray zones. Beware of that.
I am, actually, really not close-minded, I was pretending to be one. Since you are not listening to what I say, what others are trying to say, what all these high-tech, high-education people ( I am by the way a Ph.D student) are crying out loud.
Let me first reply to your question.
1) First, I would never work on an e-book project just to charge anyone who happens to read it, since I know in the first place that, I can't stop people sharing it. Sharing isn't necessarily downloading. You can buy the book and share it with your wife. Should I come along and whine about it? You can buy it and give it to a friend. Now what? Should I charge you for that?
2) What we are really focusing on here is BIG companies, the big assosications that are going after people one by one. These are the guys that are hated. I would really not want to kill a pathetic guy who works in Quickie Mart and comes home to write a few pages.
IF you are really asking my opinion, he should find some other way to get rich. You can't be, by an e-book. Someone will share it, and I'll read it. Sorry about that. Find some other way to charge people forever. If you think that's logical.
I took the time to get to you this message everybody's been trying to convey. I hope you get it this time. IT's not stealing because they have already millions of dollars in their pockets (big companies) and they are really surviving this by making some of us pay. For example universities, other companies, instituitions! They are paying for every bit of software.
So why are these people making such a big deal about copyright? Because they are greedy, with their greasy hands, they wanto to squeeze every single penny from our pockets. From ordinary guys like you and me.
And I really find it difficult to understant why you are being such a
I feel great, personally!
You don't just happen to possibly be willing to consider the idea that you're the one being selfish and ignorant?
NO.
I think you really did not understand the crux of this puzzle by directly relating my example to 'stealing' is just like to hear a 10-year-old comment on the injustice of the world.
What I, along with a thousand of my slashdotter friends, believe is the following:
1. You can produce a novel by spending a part of your life on it. ( Wow!Thanks for spending a part of your life, you can be sure that's really gonna be important for me...)
2. You can claim that it is your book ( intrinsically selfish and ignorant) and that you must be paid for it whenever it's used/shared literally for-e-v-e-r.
3. You can go and whine for the rest of your life because some other people (like me and my million friends) don't respect the fact that "you have been spending a part of your life" on the product.
Guess what: Your expectations will change. The actual value of your product will balance itself with respect to the rules of internet.
Because information is so common, so easily accessed, and so less valuable (because there's more than plenty of it)
you will have to "understand" that your work will not be worth "the millions of dollars" you are imagining to make.
So let's make sure you really understand this :
I, with a number of people who think like me, will continue to share information until all the software/music/film industries understand that what they're doing is not only ridiculous but also selfish and ignorant.
If they change, people will change too.
First everybody will believe that IP doesn't exist. Even now many people (including reasonable nerds such as we are) believe that IP does not exist in the form it struggles to exist today.
The context of IP is changing and it has to change according to Internet rules. People think that it might seem unethical but the availability of sharing (especially when there is more than a single network node for each human being) cannot be just neglected by the trivial assumption that people should respect for IP.
I don't believe in IP and I don't think they deserve it. Is the amount of effort they are putting to produce a song, really worth the millions of dollars they are claiming that they must make?
No way.
That's why they will lose. That's why they are losing every second. And at some point, they will really understand that resistance is futile.
Internet will prevail
I am really not concerned. As far as I know, nobody died in my family due to pancreatic cancer. But thanks for letting me know.
My brother and father are doctors. I don't believe these tests can yield accurate results though.
I feel that we still need time.
Thanks!
Amazing news! One step further will be exacting the analysis and actually telling the person about how his ancestors looked like, what color his children's eyes are gonna be, and whether he will die due to pancreatic cancer and etc =)
Why don't we all support the research in biology (to create intelligent machines) and we are starting from Silicon and basically from nothing.
While reading this, it occured to me that making a living organism more intelligent can be an alternative way to silicon-based AI, what's your opinion?
When you read it, it seems like some genious kid could be able to create dinasour like creautures out of a bunch of fundamental molecules.
I think open-source like genetic engineering must be much more different. Though being no expert on this, I really don't believe what they can synthesize is not much more than the simple (and boring) organic molecules, I needed to memorize in high-school. ( Yeah, they were teaching organic chemistry in high-school back then)
If they were so cabaple of playing with the source code of biology, I bet they could have beaten the little, evil, less than a bacteria-sized virus called the HIV.
Of course they understood what they were designing. Just because they had not developped the sophicticated mathematics that we did right now does not mean that they were unaware of what they were doing.
Math is just projecting some kind of light to nature, and wait for its reflection to understand and appreciate nature. Sometimes, the beauty or the simple truth might be equally clear to the naked eye.
Therefore, it is really irrelevant to ask whether they could mathematically show what they did. They designed something that is visible to us by another means.
I think this is a pretty cool idea. Most of the time, I am sure, most of us try (while watching a film we adore maybe for the 5th time ) to look through the glasses of the director(of an impressive film). I don't think that this will apply to mediocre action films or romantic comedies, however imagine that there is a thorough documentation by Kubrick ( with his lively and agressive style) while you are wathcing Clockwork Orange. OR imagine what Lynch had to say about the bizarre final of Mulholland Drive. And furthermore, imagine you have free access to these after you watch an amazing film, just as the ones described above.
and I am pretty sure that we all prefer DVDs to junky VCDs or poor quality records, not only regarding the quality but also the commentaries, deleted scenes and director's opinions.
I hope it works very well and we have that option for the movies we enjoy
Maybe it is the Iraqi petroleum that puts the real science equipment into space.
America has lovable and detestable feautures in it, I agree with that but I really don`t think that it is the American people who put the equipment there.
Whenever I think of the galaxies, outer space or human observation to these I cannot help the feeling of awe and admiration. I checked out the pictures on the web-site and I felt like I was watching Kubrick`s Oddysey. I imagine and see ( thanks to 10 times more powerful Hubble`s objectives ) the vast galaxies, millions of stars and the light reflected from them and converted to miliwatts of electrical energy in the human brain. I see the real physics out there, intersecting its ways with philosphy. That is really something different from what they do in solid state, or applied physics.
Hubble and its even more powerful descendants will enlighten the secrets of universe,
Firstly, I have to say that, what they claim to serve as a >novel> technique is not completely novel. Of course, it was known that SiO2 could be formed by other means then sintering ( heating the silicon and letting the oxygen atoms dissolve in silicon ) but the problem has always been the purity.
Semiconductors, especially devices in nanometer scaling need to be extremely pure. Their lattice structure -hence their electrical effects- can easily be distorted or failed by very little deviations, say, in dopant concentrations random dopant fluctuations. This is shortly called , RDF.
RDF has become a major concern especially for the newcoming generations because basically when you scale down the channel length, the channel lengths are becoming so narrow (and small) that only about 100 hundred dopant atoms fall inside the channel volume. This , obviously, increases the sensitivity and failure rate of these transistors, let alone their variations (like threshold voltages) in a single die.
From a mass production point of view, we want to get as uniform parameters as we can from a complete die. The ratio of successful ( uniform and working ) transistors to the total die area divided by a single transistor area ( which means the total number of transistors we wanted to harvest from that die ) gives us the `yield`.
Now, taking into account the fact that even a failure of a single transistor, could lead to the failure of an entire word line of an SRAM , the yield strongly influences the SRAM or chip reliability.
And for the companies, it does not matter whether you prepare the chip at room temperature but in a more sloppy way, because ultimately it is going to cost more !
Of course the need for extreme purity in nanoscale devices is not realized completely. The reason is that we have not produced those chips yet. However, these issues ( especially RDF and process variations- you can google these and see yourself) are very hot topics in LOW POWER VLSI design.
The people who work in these fields are surely aware of the need for an accurate fabrication and will just ignore this kind of work. There are some papers that try to reduce these effects only to succeed in a relatively low way.
In modern research, you can easily publish a paper by changing the slightest detail of a published paper or you can slightly vary this known application and claim that you have come up with a totally novel ida.
This is a draw-back.
In short, they are not going to make anything green, UNLESS of course, they find a better and reliable method satisfying the needs of the upcoming nanoscale devices.
Then I would shut up
In theory, metallic nanotubes can have an electrical current density more than 1,000 times greater than metals such as silver and copper. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotubes] So imagine that in a single pentium processor chip, there lies miles of carbon nano-tubes with excellent electrical properties that minimize their capacitive effects. This would definitely make a revolution on semiconductor fabrication, because in theory their[the nanotubes'] would be one hundredth of a 90 nm IC device. Translating this into our lives would mean to be able to play Battlefield for a duration of 24 hours in our one time charged lap-top. Or imagine palm computers that could beat the best GMs of chess today. Anything would be more scalable than ever if they could really make something of these nano-tubes rather than playing with them and sorting them. They say ninety nine percent of the research is just trash, but at one point, when the one percent succeeds then comes the breakthrough. We hope to see carbon nanotubes in our computers, maybe our children will do that.
The thing that is constantly misleading you is that you are not fully aware of what Moores Law is about. I respect your comments and arguments but sometimes the factual accuracy is more important than pure logic. I am going to try to explain to you, some basics of Digital Design and semiconductor businesses, and I am pretty sure that your major is not electronics. I am by no means trying to degrade your knowledge or rationale but only trying to clarify some points. Therefore please do not get offended. My major, Electronics Engineering is closely related to the issue. And I do research on Power Efficient Digital ICs and more generally ULSI (Ultra Large Scale Integration) 1.) First of all , when Moore predicted this trend in semiconductors, there was no Intel. Actually he was just a scientist, trying to make a projection of LSI (it was called Large Scale Integration that time) because there had seemed a long way ahead. When they actually scaled 100 micron devices to 75 micron, the pioneers of the time, like always, tried to see what was coming next. Moore along with many others who founded the companies which constitute a large portion of the semiconductor industry now tried to foresee the eventual scaling. Of course, he could not then talk about interconnect problems, Short Channel Effects ( SCEs were later discovered when this trend continued) but he made a projection in 1965. And just after 10 years, he MODIFIED the projection because there was another discovery and they found other diffuculties and Moore made his projection a bit looser. What is known today as Moore's Law is this modified version in 1975. Now the whole point of this paragraph is things were really not very organized. He was just a senior research engineer in Bell Labs by that time. He could not of course have organized the future market of the prospective company he would found. No, noone can do that, sorry. 2.) Second of all, there IS really good reason for other companies ( there is a big race among the semi-conductor companies. This race is so fierce that they can do whatever they can to eliminate the others ,or to reduce their profit margins, please check their revenues and statistics from Google or Wikipedia if you are further interested ) to find novel changes in device scaling. Everyone works independently in this field, and thus they have to be very efficient and careful since if one of the others discovers or invents a novel technique that plans to control a huge market (newly created) it would be very hard to catch later then. SO what they do is constantly to work with universities which are the institutions with avant-garde research techniques and philosophies to keep themselves up to date.
For over 40 years, every SC company was producing its own IC, independent of the others. And noone , until there were complications like short channel effects, interconnect problems, area problems, heating problems and etc... , could not find a better way than the one predicted by Gordon Moore in 1965. This is something about history and it is a factual observation.
Your theory could have been accurate if Moore had been controlling all the SC marken before he made his projection, and he should have been a very clever and organized guy to manipulate all the other companies or researchers or scholars in the universities NOT to surpass his ultimate observation.
Therefore, I think you should have a better picture of what happened in these 4 decades and what Moore's law is in this era. From an academic point of view,
he is not only a succesful academician, but a very clever businessman. But just that, no manipulation, no tricks.
He just made a VERY accurate observation.
Evaluating sentences one by one and changing their meanings is not fair-play. I see your so-called insightful comment(!)... 1st of all, you should understand this > PRIORITIES. In everything in science, daily life, health, insurance, things to do OR equivalently data storage has priorities. You can look it up if you do not grasp the meaning. ---Absent other data, it only denotes frequency of use, period---- Frequency of use HAS nothing to do with period. Period is inverse of frequency. Frequency stands for the NEED of that information here. This means NECCESSITY. You are right that playboy.com gets a lot of hits. Then IT SHOULD HAVE PRIORITY THAT MUST BE FAST. Even to your use. It is PRIORITY. IT is NEEDED. Can you understand that ? Let me deliver the coup-de-grace : ---There is actually very little correlation between what the average user wants and what s/he needs, as is empirically obvious.--- IF the user does not know what he needs; or he cannot correlate his needs with his PRIORITIES then it is an ineffective user and it REALLY his problem. Oh; then we should accomodate DATA STORAGE SPEED vs. PERFORMANCE according to the grandnannies who can't seperate their needs with their wishes. Then they complain just like the comment posted by the guy who does not , unfortunately, understand statistics. QED.
Frequency of use DOES denotes importance, at the very least STATISTICALLY. Just because you want "that special little something" once a year; does not mean you can degrade the speed of information which is instantly needed. This is an obvious fact
This scheme reminded me of low power optimization in circuit level. The critical pahts in the circuit are governed by low threshold transistors ( ensuring high performance, i.e speed ) The non-critical paths are governed by high threshold transistors ( ensurin low leakage in stand-by mode with no particular degradation of speed since they sit on non-critical paths, that is the idle paths. It is nice to see the core of this idea in a macro-scale.
`Twelve hours of slow agony is transformed into an almost pleasant experience. When you can email and IM friends and family; check all your regular sites; search and read up on research you didn't have time for earlier; check out an endless variety of flash-games and other trivia.` I do not consider to fly in the air a slow agony. Internet in the air may seem to be a great service, but it is not something crucial that would change the essence of the flight. From torture to bliss ! Come on ! Maybe in ten years; when internet becomes something inseperable from our daily lives only then this premium(!) service is to be a great one. PS: People just don't have to waste time by either `mediocre in-flight movies` or `wifi connexion`... you can read, listen to music and just relax; without EM Interference on your head...
That is completely a wrong statement of yours; based on a simple logic. Gordon Moore may have founded the company INTEL; but this, at least in academic world, has nothing to do with scaling factors by time. ACtually what he predicted was what the technology, or companies so to speak, could do without SPENDING MUCH EFFORT.... This is the key point here. If you can scale the transistors without needing too much concern on low power techniques or interconnect wires, and this was the case for the last 30 years, then this is nice. All the semiconductor firms used this fact as a basis eventhough some of them tried to surpass it without much success ! Consequently; what Moore suggested was a simple IEEE paper and it turned out to be amazingly accurate. This has in fact nothing to do with Intel or its success. Intel is founded by two traitors of the 8 traitors ( Google this a little bit and you are going to find out who founded what; and who these traitors were ) under brilliant ideas waiting to be realized. That is why, your argument is false and misleading. Finally; just for the record : Moore has no organic bond with Intel anymore.
I think an algorithm that results in a very complicated operation like this should definitely not be the best way to solve the problem. I mean ; you can calculate the exact node voltages in a 6th order system by numerically solving the integro-differential equations using an IBM average computer. But an average school kid can also solve that system ( if the numbers are not too cumbersome ) by transforming everything into s-domain rather impressively ! Mathematical models are what we invent for theoretical solutions; but I do not think those electrons need to evaluate terabits of information to move. OF course; observing a physical system consumes entropy, i.e we have to pay to observe or simulate an electron, but the mathematical models should , among infinitely many solutions, and/or can be made simpler. If physicists tell these computer virtuosos to solve 1000th order integro-differential equations containing transcendental functions; they should be replied : Go find a simpler model for your freaky system ! =)