No one said anything about mass production in 1916, read the post again.
We started learning to purify it in the 1910's.
From Wikipedia:
The earliest method of silicon purification, first described in 1919 and used on a limited basis to make radar components during World War II, involved crushing metallurgical grade silicon and then partially dissolving the silicon powder in an acid. When crushed, the silicon cracked so that the weaker impurity-rich regions were on the outside of the resulting grains of silicon. As a result, the impurity-rich silicon was the first to be dissolved when treated with acid, leaving behind a more pure product.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
The first integrated circuits were manufactured independently by two scientists: Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments filed a patent for a "Solid Circuit" made of germanium on February 6, 1959. Kilby received several US patents.[4][5][6] Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor was awarded a patent for a more complex "unitary circuit" made of Silicon on April 25, 1961. (See the Chip that Jack built for more information.)
The first integrated circuits contained only a few transistors. Called "Small-Scale Integration" (SSI), they used circuits containing transistors numbering in the tens.
SSI circuits were crucial to early aerospace projects, and vice-versa. Both the Minuteman missile and Apollo program needed lightweight digital computers for their inertial guidance systems; the Apollo guidance computer led and motivated the integrated-circuit technology, while the Minuteman missile forced it into mass-production.
These programs purchased almost all of the available integrated circuits from 1960 through 1963, and almost alone provided the demand that funded the production improvements to get the production costs from $1000/circuit (in 1960 dollars) to merely $25/circuit (in 1963 dollars).[citation needed] They began to appear in consumer products at the turn of the decade, a typical application being FM inter-carrier sound processing in television receivers.
The next step in the development of integrated circuits, taken in the late 1960s, introduced devices which contained hundreds of transistors on each chip, called "Medium-Scale Integration" (MSI).
They were attractive economically because while they cost little more to produce than SSI devices, they allowed more complex systems to be produced using smaller circuit boards, less assembly work (because of fewer separate components), and a number of other advantages.
Further development, driven by the same economic factors, led to "Large-Scale Integration" (LSI) in the mid 1970s, with tens of thousands of transistors per chip.
Integrated circuits such as 1K-bit RAMs, calculator chips, and the first microprocessors, that began to be manufactured in moderate quantities in the early 1970s, had under 4000 transistors. True LSI circuits, approaching 10000 transistors, began to be produced around 1974, for computer main memories and second-generation microprocessors.
Another quote comes to mind: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
So far, Silicon is not broke, and is currently scaling pretty well, especially with advances in production, and additions, and compositions.
Examples: Gallium-arsenide, Silicon-carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)
We started learning how to refine, purify Silicon around 1915.
We started using Silicon in Integrated Circuits, Silicon Wafers, etc, around 1960. That's 48 years of mass production, with many iterations and refinements along the way.
We started learning about Carbon Nanotubes in the 1970s, and finally in 1993 started being able to produce them in any quantifiable measure. The production process that we have today is nowhere near the scale of Silicon in the 1960s. The CVD process we currently use to produce carbon nanotubes is slow, and not terribly cost effective, even with the recent advances in technology.
We are just in beginning stages of this process and 4 years is a terribly short sighted estimate of time to replace silicon as the IC of choice.
That may be true, but that isn't going to change in 4 years. The replacement ideas have been around for a good while now and still productions, repetition, and scalability are still very not cost effective or scalable to even minimal production needs.
And not to nitpick it's Silicon, not cone.
Wow who let Jack Thompson in.
What people find offensive is a very subjective thing.
The AO rating set forth by the ESRB is stupid, there are plenty of things more graphic and violent on national TV, just watch the news or some sort of cable television for 10 minutes.
The AO rating is a kiss of death for any game, and just an arbitrary way for the ESRB to push any developer down they think is getting to powerful or to popular for their seeming moral values.
The arbitrary stance from the console developers that no AO games will be licensed for there product is just a cop out to avoid undesirable attention from the worthless sloven moral sensors of our United States.
Just because you may think it's offensive, doesn't mean I will. And the ESRB shouldn't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot play on my console, and that is exactly what they are doing right now, in a very round-about way.
I respect your opinion.
I haven't purchased any of the 3 systems because I currently feel all of them are lacking in games and none of them have really pushed themselves to the lead as the one to get.
The Wii, although Novel is a glorfied repackages Game cube, good for a 5 year old and it has a couple of interesting titles, but to me it's just another gimick that is part of a Uni-tasker system that makes it a poor investment.
The Xbox 360 is nice, but there are only a couple games I would play, but I can get them elsewhere should I so choose, be it my computer or the 360 that is collecting dust in my buddies entertainment center. The interesting extension of support to 3 years is nice of microsoft, but the expandability at such a high cost makes me shudder. Wifi Card, Bigger HD, controller charger, XBL, all of that other good stuff that makes the Xbox worthwhile also make it cost a boat load more. It begins to become a good multitasker, but you pay for it.
The PS3 is nice, but is too expensive. With this price drop it is still too expensive. The Blue Ray feature for the same price as a stand alone blue ray play is enticing. PS3 needs more games, 99% of the games that it has are terrible or mediocre at best. The interoperability with the PSP is really nice, the free online features are nice, the WIFI included is nice, upscaling DVD's is nice. This makes it the best multi-tasker of the bunch.
IF I was going to buy one right now, (which I am not) I would go with the PS3 based on it's functionality and multitasking capabilities beyond just being a gaming machine.
I am a PC gamer at heart and that's what I use for 90% of my entertainment. But if I was to move to an HD format TV and HD format player I would go Blue Ray for the standard and probably the PS3 for the price is the same as the current generation of Blue Ray players, and it can do all of the other crap I mentioned previously, and sooner or later I would hope it would get some more good games.
My
Your trolling attempt has failed.
Blue Ray is being supported by many manufacturers, movie companies, and retailers.
Blue Ray is a better standard with more current and potential storage.
Reading drivel like this makes me shudder....
Right, but we're trying to compare Apples to Apples, not 2-3 Apples to 1 Orange.
The PS3 is a gaming system with Hi-Def movie functionality.
Instead of Buying a 360 and a Toshiba HD-DVD player. We're comparing the 360 with the addons to make it comparable to the PS3.
We will copy your every move, we want to be you!!
Seriously though, if these were people, Microsoft would be arrested for stalking Google and trying to copy cat every move they make.
They are wanting to buy yahoo, which now, looks exactly like google.
Microsoft getting desperate.
By Dabbling I mean dabbling enthusiast, not a power user or hardcore enthusiast... The person like me that doesn't have $2500 to throw at a new computer.
I may however splurge on a $400 video card, when I build my new system.
But I do not have $600-$1100 to spend on some water cooled monstrosity of a video card.
That is why I agree with ATi's move in the market, it's a great idea for them to push more into the normal user market not the hyper bleeding edge bragging rights only game where the risk is no where near worth the reward.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
the 8800gtx series is about 2% of the market for video cards. The bleeding edge, pretty not worth the reward other than for bragging rights. Especially for a company working getting back on it's feet.
I really doubt it, Look at there product line.
All of it is consumer looking not enthusiast looking.
There top end card cuts out at $400 not $850+ like nvidia.
They are pushing the media center, home user, dabbling user market. Not the ultra hardcore market (which is always a risk and is always very fast moving, where one thing is the best today may not be tomorrow), the risk versus reward of the ultra hard core market isn't worth the risk to a company that just came off a 600 million dollar loss.
AMD has not released and probably will not release for some time a direct competitor to the 8800gtx or the 8800ultra.
The 2900XT is a competitor to the 2 8800GTS models.
They are avoiding the top end market because more often then not the risk of that market does not meet the reward.
They are playing little ball to compare to base ball, trying to manufacture base hits and runs not home runs.
Offering 3 Cards starting at less than $100 and going to $400ish is a good strategy for the main stream market.
The HDMI dongle innovation (carries video and audio on the video card because all of the new cards have an audio processor on them) is a boon for them as well, helping carry the image of media center capable video cards, for a newer computer user age.
These will help push down prices on all of the cards within that price range. And possibly help push innovation in the marketplace.
I play wow seriously, I raid, 3 days a week =)
I turn if off, I work 40+hrs a week and go to see my friends when I have time, I also play 20+hrs a week if given the opportunity, but it's pretty easy to turn off.
All you have to have is some will power and priorities.
My point is, that if you cancel her subscription she will not have a medical shock where her heart beats erratically, her whole body dry heaves and she cannot function at all. (Physical Addiction).
If she is still playing WoW and wants the marriage to work, she needs to force herself to stop.
Other than that she seems to prioritize the game over you, and that after 7 months should tell you and her that this isn't going to work as long as she cannot control herself. And work out a better schedule and priorities.
Sir, it sounds like to me, you did this to yourself. You allowed it to happen, you allowed yourself to not seek help until it was too late.
Don't cop out and say the game did it or the drugs did it. OMG the drugs told me to take them over and over I needs them...
There is no physical addictive qualities you immersed yourself into the game to avoid RL problems, but instead it caused them.
I play WoW, I know it can cause a desire to play, but if I don't play I don't feel sick and lose my ability to operate as person.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much, that's pretty heady for a Music exec to say though, better watch out or he might get it cut off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon
No one said anything about mass production in 1916, read the post again.
We started learning to purify it in the 1910's.
From Wikipedia:
The earliest method of silicon purification, first described in 1919 and used on a limited basis to make radar components during World War II, involved crushing metallurgical grade silicon and then partially dissolving the silicon powder in an acid. When crushed, the silicon cracked so that the weaker impurity-rich regions were on the outside of the resulting grains of silicon. As a result, the impurity-rich silicon was the first to be dissolved when treated with acid, leaving behind a more pure product.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
The first integrated circuits were manufactured independently by two scientists: Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments filed a patent for a "Solid Circuit" made of germanium on February 6, 1959. Kilby received several US patents.[4][5][6] Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor was awarded a patent for a more complex "unitary circuit" made of Silicon on April 25, 1961. (See the Chip that Jack built for more information.)
The first integrated circuits contained only a few transistors. Called "Small-Scale Integration" (SSI), they used circuits containing transistors numbering in the tens.
SSI circuits were crucial to early aerospace projects, and vice-versa. Both the Minuteman missile and Apollo program needed lightweight digital computers for their inertial guidance systems; the Apollo guidance computer led and motivated the integrated-circuit technology, while the Minuteman missile forced it into mass-production. These programs purchased almost all of the available integrated circuits from 1960 through 1963, and almost alone provided the demand that funded the production improvements to get the production costs from $1000/circuit (in 1960 dollars) to merely $25/circuit (in 1963 dollars).[citation needed] They began to appear in consumer products at the turn of the decade, a typical application being FM inter-carrier sound processing in television receivers.
The next step in the development of integrated circuits, taken in the late 1960s, introduced devices which contained hundreds of transistors on each chip, called "Medium-Scale Integration" (MSI).
They were attractive economically because while they cost little more to produce than SSI devices, they allowed more complex systems to be produced using smaller circuit boards, less assembly work (because of fewer separate components), and a number of other advantages.
Further development, driven by the same economic factors, led to "Large-Scale Integration" (LSI) in the mid 1970s, with tens of thousands of transistors per chip.
Integrated circuits such as 1K-bit RAMs, calculator chips, and the first microprocessors, that began to be manufactured in moderate quantities in the early 1970s, had under 4000 transistors. True LSI circuits, approaching 10000 transistors, began to be produced around 1974, for computer main memories and second-generation microprocessors.
Another quote comes to mind: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
So far, Silicon is not broke, and is currently scaling pretty well, especially with advances in production, and additions, and compositions.
Examples: Gallium-arsenide, Silicon-carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)
We started learning how to refine, purify Silicon around 1915. We started using Silicon in Integrated Circuits, Silicon Wafers, etc, around 1960. That's 48 years of mass production, with many iterations and refinements along the way. We started learning about Carbon Nanotubes in the 1970s, and finally in 1993 started being able to produce them in any quantifiable measure. The production process that we have today is nowhere near the scale of Silicon in the 1960s. The CVD process we currently use to produce carbon nanotubes is slow, and not terribly cost effective, even with the recent advances in technology. We are just in beginning stages of this process and 4 years is a terribly short sighted estimate of time to replace silicon as the IC of choice.
That may be true, but that isn't going to change in 4 years. The replacement ideas have been around for a good while now and still productions, repetition, and scalability are still very not cost effective or scalable to even minimal production needs. And not to nitpick it's Silicon, not cone.
The issue of Carbon is the cost, scalability, accuracy, and timeliness/speed of nanotube production. Not the resource itself.
Wow who let Jack Thompson in. What people find offensive is a very subjective thing. The AO rating set forth by the ESRB is stupid, there are plenty of things more graphic and violent on national TV, just watch the news or some sort of cable television for 10 minutes. The AO rating is a kiss of death for any game, and just an arbitrary way for the ESRB to push any developer down they think is getting to powerful or to popular for their seeming moral values. The arbitrary stance from the console developers that no AO games will be licensed for there product is just a cop out to avoid undesirable attention from the worthless sloven moral sensors of our United States. Just because you may think it's offensive, doesn't mean I will. And the ESRB shouldn't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot play on my console, and that is exactly what they are doing right now, in a very round-about way.
Grrr it ate like 3 lines of text there. Now I can't remember what I wrote.
I respect your opinion. I haven't purchased any of the 3 systems because I currently feel all of them are lacking in games and none of them have really pushed themselves to the lead as the one to get. The Wii, although Novel is a glorfied repackages Game cube, good for a 5 year old and it has a couple of interesting titles, but to me it's just another gimick that is part of a Uni-tasker system that makes it a poor investment. The Xbox 360 is nice, but there are only a couple games I would play, but I can get them elsewhere should I so choose, be it my computer or the 360 that is collecting dust in my buddies entertainment center. The interesting extension of support to 3 years is nice of microsoft, but the expandability at such a high cost makes me shudder. Wifi Card, Bigger HD, controller charger, XBL, all of that other good stuff that makes the Xbox worthwhile also make it cost a boat load more. It begins to become a good multitasker, but you pay for it. The PS3 is nice, but is too expensive. With this price drop it is still too expensive. The Blue Ray feature for the same price as a stand alone blue ray play is enticing. PS3 needs more games, 99% of the games that it has are terrible or mediocre at best. The interoperability with the PSP is really nice, the free online features are nice, the WIFI included is nice, upscaling DVD's is nice. This makes it the best multi-tasker of the bunch. IF I was going to buy one right now, (which I am not) I would go with the PS3 based on it's functionality and multitasking capabilities beyond just being a gaming machine. I am a PC gamer at heart and that's what I use for 90% of my entertainment. But if I was to move to an HD format TV and HD format player I would go Blue Ray for the standard and probably the PS3 for the price is the same as the current generation of Blue Ray players, and it can do all of the other crap I mentioned previously, and sooner or later I would hope it would get some more good games. My
Forgot to mention you don't need to spend $100 for it to run on your wireless too.
Your trolling attempt has failed. Blue Ray is being supported by many manufacturers, movie companies, and retailers. Blue Ray is a better standard with more current and potential storage. Reading drivel like this makes me shudder....
Right, but we're trying to compare Apples to Apples, not 2-3 Apples to 1 Orange. The PS3 is a gaming system with Hi-Def movie functionality. Instead of Buying a 360 and a Toshiba HD-DVD player. We're comparing the 360 with the addons to make it comparable to the PS3.
It's easily the equivalent of the XBOX 360 Premium with the HD-DVD Player attachment.
So, let's see.
$400 - Xbox 360 Premium
$200 - Xbox 360 HD DVD Player
$100 - Xbox 360 Wireless Adapter
so $700
versus $500 - PS3
Hrmmm
Schroedinger wasn't at the dump today.
We will copy your every move, we want to be you!! Seriously though, if these were people, Microsoft would be arrested for stalking Google and trying to copy cat every move they make. They are wanting to buy yahoo, which now, looks exactly like google. Microsoft getting desperate.
By Dabbling I mean dabbling enthusiast, not a power user or hardcore enthusiast... The person like me that doesn't have $2500 to throw at a new computer. I may however splurge on a $400 video card, when I build my new system. But I do not have $600-$1100 to spend on some water cooled monstrosity of a video card. That is why I agree with ATi's move in the market, it's a great idea for them to push more into the normal user market not the hyper bleeding edge bragging rights only game where the risk is no where near worth the reward.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. the 8800gtx series is about 2% of the market for video cards. The bleeding edge, pretty not worth the reward other than for bragging rights. Especially for a company working getting back on it's feet.
I really doubt it, Look at there product line. All of it is consumer looking not enthusiast looking. There top end card cuts out at $400 not $850+ like nvidia. They are pushing the media center, home user, dabbling user market. Not the ultra hardcore market (which is always a risk and is always very fast moving, where one thing is the best today may not be tomorrow), the risk versus reward of the ultra hard core market isn't worth the risk to a company that just came off a 600 million dollar loss.
AMD has not released and probably will not release for some time a direct competitor to the 8800gtx or the 8800ultra.
The 2900XT is a competitor to the 2 8800GTS models.
They are avoiding the top end market because more often then not the risk of that market does not meet the reward.
They are playing little ball to compare to base ball, trying to manufacture base hits and runs not home runs.
Offering 3 Cards starting at less than $100 and going to $400ish is a good strategy for the main stream market.
The HDMI dongle innovation (carries video and audio on the video card because all of the new cards have an audio processor on them) is a boon for them as well, helping carry the image of media center capable video cards, for a newer computer user age.
These will help push down prices on all of the cards within that price range. And possibly help push innovation in the marketplace.
This guy quit over his boss telling him not to write what he feels are the truth about the products he's reviewing.
They brought him back and demoted the guy that told him not to tell the truth.
This is about censorship and journalistic integrity
Integrity on the Product Review space is hard to find at any time. I think PC World did a good thing to bring this guy back.
I play wow seriously, I raid, 3 days a week =) I turn if off, I work 40+hrs a week and go to see my friends when I have time, I also play 20+hrs a week if given the opportunity, but it's pretty easy to turn off. All you have to have is some will power and priorities.
My point is, that if you cancel her subscription she will not have a medical shock where her heart beats erratically, her whole body dry heaves and she cannot function at all. (Physical Addiction). If she is still playing WoW and wants the marriage to work, she needs to force herself to stop. Other than that she seems to prioritize the game over you, and that after 7 months should tell you and her that this isn't going to work as long as she cannot control herself. And work out a better schedule and priorities.
Quoted for Emphasis:
Any argument where you can make yourself blameless makes it a win win for anyone looking to hide there addiction from themselves.
Sir, it sounds like to me, you did this to yourself. You allowed it to happen, you allowed yourself to not seek help until it was too late. Don't cop out and say the game did it or the drugs did it. OMG the drugs told me to take them over and over I needs them... There is no physical addictive qualities you immersed yourself into the game to avoid RL problems, but instead it caused them. I play WoW, I know it can cause a desire to play, but if I don't play I don't feel sick and lose my ability to operate as person.