Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:This question (Score 1) 362

I have a fairly solid physics background and I understand that there is a physical limit for a reliable transistor. The problem is that it's not the same thing as the theoretical limit we currently have, nor is it the same as the physical limit for the size of a usable transistor. Our understanding of the science continues to progress and as we learn more and more about the principles we discover reasons why the the theory is wrong. Additionally, there are some very clever engineers working on the project who prove over and over again that they can improve on their current techniques, fabrication tools, and materials to push the theoretical limit. Then, where these things fail, there are even more folks standing by with ever more sophisticated error correction techniques to efficiently and consistently use transistors that are not physically reliable. Don't get me wrong, there will be a time when the our current transistor model will stop advancing. What I'm saying is that until the point where advances have actually ground to a halt, or hell, markedly slowed down, I don't want science and tech writers cramming stories down my throat about how we'll never see another significant advance in computing power.

Comment This question (Score 2, Interesting) 362

I think there has been a major article asking this question every six months for the last decade. Then: surprise surprise, there's a new tech development that improves the technology. We've been "almost at the physical limit" for transistor size since the birth of the computer, why will it be any different this time?

Comment Re:Worst idea ever? (Score 0) 698

Well, first off, my experience with public transit is that the reduction of capacity to meet "demand" is one of the contributing factors to decreases in demand. However, that aside, I'm more curious as to whether the reduced amount of time the train operates makes up for the fact that it has to drag around an enormous amount of mass (though I could also see the argument that the material of the sidewalk is equally as massive). As to the energy that could be used elsewhere: if a substantial amount of the energy running the sidewalk were to be provided by integrated solar cells (I'm envisioning the sidewalk being in an enclosed tube out of necessity to protect it from the elements), then at least during daylight hours you aren't using very much energy that would otherwise be used elsewhere.

Comment Worst idea ever? (Score 0) 698

When stated as an urban walkway, it's a fairly awful idea. The reduction in physical activity coupled with the amount of effort that would go into keeping these things working (people complain about road construction)! However, this could work if used on a larger scale. Moving sidewalks constructed with heavy duty materials between urban area could be powered in part by solar panels. The amount of energy savings for getting people from place to place without the use of cars would be remarkable. The entry/exit method would need some engineering, but imagine it: a train that runs on almost no energy that you can hop on any time you want. Wow.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...