My guess, and it's only a guess, is the Mott transition.
I would ass-u-me that this would mean that over a period of time X, a current generation chip would process Y commands consuming N units of energy.
The new chip would perform 2Y commands over X time while only consuming
Or that each command execution would take 80% of the energy of a current gen chip, but that it could complete twice as many of them in the same time period, meaning a net increase of ~60% energy consumption at sustained max load.
Tons of ways to play with the statistics on this one, and the 100% performance improvement and 20% energy efficiency improvement are not mutually exclusive. But the summary doesn't give any context or detail, so without RTFA, it should be considered nothing more than marketing speak.
Could be the Mott transition. Could be filaments. Could be a different PCM method than what's been done before, although like you I have my doubts considering the durability claims. In any case, any of those resistive methods would by some definitions fit under "memristor".
Most of the devs here come from COBOL/Mainframe backgrounds. So capslock is heavily abused, as is 4 letter abbreviations for every word, and excessive use of underscores.
Depending on state and local ordinances, it may also fall under Aerial Trespass, the laws typically used to force telephone/cable/power companies to run their lines under ground or around property lines.
Or an under barrel mounted grenade launcher. check out the M-203
It honestly depends on how they measure endurance. If it's measured as 1000x the 3 million writes, then no. If it's 1000x the three-year estimated wear-out time under consumer conditions, then that's phenomenal.
Nanoscale slider switches?
Seriously, though, it's some sort of material change according to what little information has been released.:
These columns contain a memory cell and a selector, but the real innovation is that unlike other technologies, which store data by trapping electrons in insulators (and other electron trapping techniques), 3D XPoint stores data by using the property change of the material itself. This bulk material property change utilizes the entire portion of the memory cell, which increases scalability and performance.
What's really interesting is the PDF with one diagram showing Xpoint sooner and then 3D XPoint on the 2018-2019 timeline at Semicon Taiwan that later has a diagram much similar to Intel/Micron's diagram. It appears to be showing a variable resistor (potentiometer) then a diode between the word line and bit line crossbars.
If they are building a materials-based variable resistor that gets written to be more or less resistive based on voltage what are they calling that process? It needn't be chalcogenide, but it sure sounds like some other sort of phase change to change the resistance. If it is memory that adjusts its resistance based on past voltages and uses that resistance for reading the value, that sounds like a memristor. (According to Chua all PCM, ReRAM, and MRAM are memristors.)
I think perhaps Intel and Micron are saying it's not PCM and it's not memristors just so people don't confuse it with other attempts at similar but different approaches.
I would correct that even further.
It isn't about the fittest or death risk, it's about being able to procreate and survive.
In your species example of the 4, 6, and 10 mph creature. If the live birth rate of the creature declines as their speed increases (musculature takes energy/hormones away from breeding, high speed movements cause more lost pregnancies, etc...) than the 4mph species may actually be the winner as they will out-bread the 6 and 10mph variants.
Now, throw a 5 mph predator into the mix and the picture may change. If the 4mph variant can still breed fast enough to offset the deaths to the predator and out populate the higher speed variants, then it could still be the winner.
More likely though, the 6mph critter would win out as it is able to out breed the 10mph critter and would suffer significantly less losses than the 4mph critter to 5mph predators.
It all comes down to procreation. Which is the basic of the movie Idiocracy.
This bug is in the JIT optimizer of the 4.6 framework. For apps you are developing, it's absolutely no problem, you just go into the compiler settings and uncheck the 'optimize' setting.
The problem though, is that the 4.6 framework is an in-place replacement for the 4.5 framework, which was an in-place replacement for the 4.0 framework. And the JIT optimizer is on by default. So if you install the 4.6 framework, it could potentially introduce this bug into any application developed targeting the 4.0, 4.5, or 4.6 framework that is already distributed.
Luckily, it appears as though the issue is a combination of a nullable int that has a bug in the boxing/unboxing of it's operator when calling the
That said, MS better get this patch deployed ASAP. Or if you are in a critical hurry, the correction has already been committed to the
The fix is available in the
I'm afraid I don't know exactly what will fail without the libraries. I'd think if you've got your phone rooted you'd just want Google's patch that your carrier hasn't sent you yet.
The vulnerability isn't in Hangouts. It's in Stagefright, which is a media library. Hangouts is only important here because it uses Stagefright in a way that exacerbates the issue. You can't fix Stagefright by updating Hangouts. You have to update Stagefright, which is part of the OS rather than part of an app.
No. Just no. Providing the source TO THE CUSTOMER does not make it open source. Allowing the customer TO DISTRIBUTE THE CODE AND THEIR CHANGES makes it open source.
This doesn't sound like open source is your real desire. It's totally possible to have a proprietary license with source provided to the customer.
You could use something very similar to the pre-2007 qmail license. It allows people to download and use it. They can make any changes locally. They can redistribute the pristine sources or binaries made from them to others. They can't distribute their alterations. They can distribute patches against the pristine sources, but they can't call those part of the product.
The OSI has a whole list of licenses. I'd bet not one of these meets your requirements. You really shouldn't be saying it's "open source" unless you're using an OSI-approved license.
Software licensing is a legal issue. The people you really want to be talking to about what license language meets your exact needs in light of the laws where you operate are lawyers. More specifically, you want probably want people versed in both copyright and contract law to look into this.