Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment transistor size is secondary (Score 1) 133

The limits for general purpose CPUs for the about a decade has been power/heat, not transistor size. In the 1990s-2000s, performance could be increased with faster clockrates and more on-chip caches. Since about 2005, when clockrates passed 3GHz, the CPU vendors embraced multiple cores and have cut power demands.

Moore's Law can continue with 3D chips. Maybe a CPU of 2025 will be built with a first layer of transistors that covers the entire areal plane just for caching and with additional layers built vertically for other uses. If so, the number of transistors per chip might be much higher than a CPU of 2016.


Submission + - Help fix patent (

bobdevine writes: "The US Patent and Trademark Office "would like to form a partership with the software community" to improve software patents.

Register by Feb 4th to attend a "roundtable" (yeah, government-speak for a meeting) at either coast.
There's also the opportunity to send in comments via mail.

Details at:"

Submission + - Why can't I merge cell and internet service? 1

coyoteworks writes: I can't find a single suitable way to merge my cellular and internet services. Presently, I have choices of ComCast (cable) or Windstream (DSL) for internet services, as well as a variety of carriers for cellular. Tethering blogs cellular service and adds caps. Laptops with embedded cellular antennas are expensive. Why doesn't a major wireless player offer a viable merged cellular / internet service? I would think that this would be eaten up by the public. I would go for it, but the bar is still too high. Any insight?

Journal Journal: Alice joined the game (6/11/2002) 2

About 20 years ago, frustrated that otherwise serious researchers and scientests seemingly thought they could program a computer to think, (without, of course, understanding what "thought" actually is; nobody knows that) I wrote a simulation that appears to think, in order to completely debunk the fools and those fooling them who think computers can think.
I wrote Artificial Insanity in less than 20K (that's Kilo, not mega) bytes- smaller than modern viruse


Submission + - Computers are better than humans at genomics? (

Shipud writes: Sequencing the genome of an organism is not the end of a discovery process; rather, it is a beginning. It's the equivalent of discovering a book whose words (genes) are there, but their meaning is yet unknown. Biocurators are the people who annotate genes — find out what they do — through literature search and the supervised use of computational techniques. A recent study published in PLoS Computational Biology shows that biocurators probably perform no better than fully automated computational methods used to annotate genes. It is not clear whether this is because the software is of high quality, or both curators and software need to improve their performance. The author of this blog post uses the concept of the uncanny valley to explain this recent discovery and what it means to both life science and artificial intelligence.

Submission + - Eric Raymond on why Stallman is a dangerous fanatic (

Frosty Piss writes: According to Eric Raymond, 'RMS made an early decision to frame his advocacy as a moral crusade rather than a pragmatic argument about engineering practices and outcomes. While he made consequentialist arguments against closed source (and still does) his rhetoric and his thinking became dominated by terms like “evil”, to the point where he repeatedly alienated potential allies both with his absolutism and his demand that anyone cooperating with him share it.' Raymond goes on to say, 'By the late 1990s, after having observed RMS’s behavior for more than a decade, I had long since concluded that the Free Software Foundation’s moralistic rhetoric was serving us badly. The problem with it is the same problem with messianic religions in general; for people who are not flipped into true-believer mode by any given one, it will come off as at best creepy and insular, at worst nutty and potentially dangerous (and this remains true even for people attached to a different messianic religion).'

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees