Even after Moore's Law stops yielding smaller transistors there will be a drive to change fabrication technology so we can get faster chips that consume less power. I think the general idea behind his statement is a good one though even if it is covered with sound bytey BS. How long can we keep using the same X86 style architecture and expect to see huge advances in computing?

They are not being different. As soon as they own an Apple product they tend to go out of their way to stick it in people's faces to show them how awesome it is. I.e. they do exactly what the last douchebag they saw with an Apple product did.

I agree. This is absurd. I take it the blurb was written by a cult member.

The size of the chip on the actual wafer can be reduced with 3d chips giving more chips per wafer. The downside is that there are more process steps per wafer as a result. Overall I think the 3D chip design only makes sense if you get to do it with different materials like CNTs like in this article. I am so curious to see what happens in the next 10 years.

I assume you are being sarcastic. Intel gets high yields because the people in development work their collective arses off to decrease defects and improve yields. This has nothing to do with how the products are sold.

I'd like them to take it a step further and have it so the owner can see the error codes and refer to the manual. I got a check engine light on a 2 month old car while driving across country with no dealer for 800 miles. I chose to risk it rather than have to pay a local mechanic to look at it. As it turned out it was only a dirty fuel filter caused by crappy gas. Forcing me to worry and go to a dealer 700 miles before my destination is really a crappy way to squeeze money out of someone who just gave you 30 grand.

Just curious. How do they know this is the last mission to Hubble. The telescope was supposed to be set out to pasture before and recently got this reprieve. Even if we eventually have a bigger and better space telescope, Hubble is still a valuable instrument.

If there are billions of different ways then clearly most of these ways must be wrong on some level or another.

Most of the atheists I know, myself included, value life a great deal. I would argue that the pious are more afraid because they spend their whole life thinking the afterlife is where life truly begins that they fail to live it to the fullest. Whereas the accepting atheist knows he/she has only 70 or so years if they are lucky to have a personally meaningful existence.
 

I absolutely hate Apple and would love to boycott them, however their ipods are good products and I am considering getting an iphone to use as an alternative to satellite radio. In the end I am forced to go with the best option, and quality of the actual device is the prime concern. Now if Apple had no DRM, licensed their OS, and weren't so strongly supported by people who mainly buy their products for the image, then I would probably be an Apple fan.

On a semi related note My GF bought me a Zune for Xmas because my old ipod was dying and she knows how much I hate Apple. We had to trade it in for an ipod because the software will not install in XP 64 bit. Sorry MS, I am not upgrading to vista 64 so I can use the device we just paid $250 for. As for the other alternatives, well give me some extra cables in the box and a charger to offset the glut of ipod acessories I can no longer use. So how can one boycott apple when the top alternative doesn't even work?

But I will never buy a damn thing through itunes so that part of the boycott makes sense.

Ad revenue cannot and should not sustain newspapers or television. We really need to figure out what is important to have in our society and start ponying up money to support it. I would like to see more money going to services like PBS and NPR to expand that quality of programming into a local printed publication. I have to admit that I very rarely read a paper, but I do listen to NPR pretty much every time I am in the car and I recognize that the bulk of their programming comes from news discovered by print journalists.

Go ahead and tax people for it and give the papers away. If there are no reporters out there to dig up the interesting stories that don't qualify for the sensationalist 10PM news shows then we are in danger of losing that part of our history. It's time people stop thinking about themselves, and making a quick buck on ads by catering to the lowest common denominator and start thinking about what they can do to add value to the quality of life for the entire human race.