Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:To everyone whining about the title... (Score 1) 109

What about the "Independence Party of Georgia"? As far as I can tell, this list is the only evidence of their existence (unless the State of Georgia is sending personal information to a political party in the Republic of Georgia, which would be an interesting development).

Comment Re:Space stations (Score 1) 378

"Earths space and resources will deplete, and we could build a large rotating space station even with today's technology."

Sure, we *could*. But are you willing to pay for it? Personally I think there are better things to spend a few trillion on down here on earth. And no, I'm not a luddite going down the "there's starving kids and yet we spend money on space" argument. But an orbiting station is not an end in itself - it needs a purpose other than just being the worlds most expensive funfair ride , and until we come up with a better space motor than chemical rockets humans ain't going anywhere further than the moon anytime soon.

It is becoming clear that going to Mars will require the development of some sort of resource infrastructure in the near-Earth asteroids (as well as at Phobos). The travel times to Mars are so long and the demands of space travel so hard that going there means you are going to stay (or maintain a more or less permanent base) and that will require a supply chain that extends off our planet.

Now, another way to say that is that the economy will have to extend off of the planet for us to go to Mars at all. Once you do that, people will follow. I see that as inevitable - they will have the technology to do so, there will be economic reasons to do so, it will happen. But, spreading economies open up even more economic potential. Once it starts, it will not just spread, it will start increasing exponentially. After a while, it becomes its own justification, in much the same way that the economic viability of New York no longer depends on what raw materials it can provide Great Britain.

Comment Re:AMD's response? (Score 2) 167

We have microfluidics for stacking dies and removing heat. We do it on p-n junctions on some of the latest LEDs (which are fucking MASSIVE at nearly 7mm x 7mm on just the die alone, not including any mount, circuitry, etc.) to keep them very cool.

I don't speak of ideas unless I already know we've got the technology to handle it.

Comment AMD's response? (Score 3, Interesting) 167

Assuming Intel doesn't go Xeon-scale in pricing for this CPU (who am I kidding, of course they will) I wonder how AMD plans to respond to this.

For now, they've got the consoles holding them afloat. And while I am an AMD fan, I see they are rapidly losing out on the desktop space when it comes to performance (despite both companies having rather meager performance gains for the past several years.)

They'd better figure out what the fuck they're doing, and come up with some competing responses, quickly. Hell, I've got ideas for them, all involving that HBM tech.

1. Use a modified version of that HBM tech to stack their CPU cores and load it up with tons of cache memory (for their non-APU line.) And don't forget to drop a process node, for fuck's sake.
2. Use modified HBM tech to create stacked CPU/GPU/RAM/CACHE on the same die (for their APU line.)
3. Use modified HBM to create stacked single-die CrossFire GPUs that don't consume gobs of power (GPU line.)
4. Use modified HBM tech to create a true monolithic SOC package that integrates EVERYTHING, thus eliminating the need for motherboards - at that point and time, it just becomes a breakout board with a socket. They could probably do away with the interposer as well if They were clever enough in the design.

Comment Re:Information is lost (Score 1) 152

I don't follow that - I interpret "issue of information loss" as meaning that it is happening - i.e., that there is loss to worry about. Read at the bottom of page 1

Furthermore, the entanglement implies that the outgoing Hawking particles cannot be entangled with one another at various times. This shows
that there is indeed an issue of information loss in a black hole, within the semiclassical approximation

Entanglement survives across the event horizon (at least, in this analogue). It would be presumably destroyed at the singularity. There is (at least, in this analogue) no black hole firewall, no entanglement with previously emitted particles, no wormholes or other such exotica.

As for the frequency dependence, I will wait on that. That may be profound, or it may be an experimental error or some restriction imposed by the black hole analog setup. We should know soon enough.

Comment Re:According to the one that left (Score 1) 152

This i understand this far.

So now, i have this black hole that i can't see. I send an object toward it. From my perspective, time slows to a halt on the sent objective at the event horizon, so it looks like it never enters. So it actually stays visible, right? Over time, the black hole would look like a big ball of stuff frozen in time? What am i missing here?

The red shift. Drop a flashlight down into a black hole (you'l need a big black hole so that tidal forces don't destroy the light on the way in). As it falls, the red shift increases rapidly and so the flashlight both reddens and dims rapidly. (That is, fewer photons per second AND each photon has lower energy.) After a short time near the event horizon, you will receive the last photon you will ever get from the flashlight - and the same is true no matter how bright the light. So, no, it is no longer visible as it falls in.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb