Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:What took them so long? (Score 1) 120

Sure, but unless you've developed a superconducting substrate, or come up with a reliable, efficient 3D cooling system, or are willing to run the 3D transistors only at very low speed/power, you're going to run into serious heat dissipation problems.

Back then I was proposing a diamond semiconductor - supported and powered by water-cooled silver busbars. Diamond is extremely conductive thermally. The bandgap is 5.5V, corresponding to the deep ultraviolet, so you can run it very hot without fouling the electrical properties (though you have to keep; it below 752 F or it will gradually degrade.) I'd want to put it in a bottle with an inert atmosphere so it wouldn't oxidize at high temperature, either.

The flip side of the big bandgap is that it consumes more energy - and generates more heat - when switching than current silicon designs which run at about a third that voltage.

These days I'd probably go for layers of graphine, which conducts heat even better than diamond.

With a rectangular solid you can get a LOT of transistors (and their interconnects) into a few cubic feet. The original proposal was for a six-foot cube - 216 cubic feet. Powering and cooling on two faces gives you 72 square feet of heat and power transfer serice, with 432 square feet on the other two faces for optical I/O fibers. Nowadays I'd take a page from Gene Amdahl and go a tad smaller: so, like the 1960s-era cabinets for IBM compter components, the block of logic and its supporting structures would fit into a standard elevator.

Comment What took them so long? (Score 1) 120

The report adds that processors could still continue to fulfill Moore's Law with increased vertical density.

What took them so long?

I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.

Comment Re: Eugenics (Score 1) 92

As someone who lost two children to random genetic mutations during the 3rd trimester, I can say that I would have given anything be have been able to edit out those errors. Alas, thanks to piece of shit bible thumpers like OP, this was not to be.
There is no reason whatsoever to force babies to be born with disabilities simply because some asshat thinks god doesnt like it.

BTW, side note.. If your god allows such suffering, then gives you the knowledge and power to end it, but somehow makes it forbidden for you to actually end it, I would say you may want to think about what kind of God you are worshiping. Cuz, that would be a seriously dick move.

Comment You are the problem (Score 1) 92

Let me guess. All those people with cancer deserve to die because that is natures way? All those kids born with genetic diseases should be left to suffer because you think it is immoral to edit out those errors?

Why don't you get off your fucking high horse. People like you really grind my gears. The holier than tho crowd. You think you have the right to decide what is moral and what is not. I say, fuck you. You and your bible beating brethren are the reason medical progress has more or less come to a halt in the US.

Comment Re:How Much? (Score 1) 71

I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons.

Maybe four centuries for all sources of fossil carbon, hydrogenated or otherwise, depending on usage rate.

Remember that "reserves" means "the stuff we already found while exploring". Nobody with a financial clue spends today's private money exploring for stuff they won't be digging up and selling for decades. So you only have more than about 20 years of "reserves" when there have been giant finds, the known reserves are too expensive to exploit and there might be easier stuff out there, or too much of the known reserves are unexploitable due to things like government intervention. There's no doubt quite a lot more out there, though it's still finite.

Running out is not a disaster. We can easily make all the stuff that's made from oil and there are other energy sources - including more coming down the pipeline. We're only digging/pumping up most of our energy and much of our chemical feedstocks right now because it's CHEAPER than the alternatives.

But it's not cheaper by much. (Photovoltaic is now becoming competitive with grid power in many areas, even without government market distortions, and the tech just keeps improving.)

By the time the fossil fuels run out we'll have lots of alternatives, and they'll run out by gradually getting more expensive, so people will smoothly transition to alternatives (thanks to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"). The main problem (if the CO2->global warming conjecture is true and substantial) will be keeping the Earth from crashing into the next orbital-mechanics driven Ice Age (as humans MAY have been doing for about the last 10,000 years or so, as the orbital climate-forcing has been curving down steadily.)

Comment FCC regulates ISPs; let's have spam blocking, too! (Score 1) 120

tldr: Nobody wins an arms race. they just continue forever.

The USPS's primary customer is bulk mailers. Then a little package delivery. Individuals sending love letters or paying bills aren't even on the radar.
Each evening I pass by my trash can on the way from the mailbox to the house. Very rarely are my hands full at the back door (watch it).

Then email turned into a shitpile of spam and we have spam blockers that (kinda) work.

The web has been a swamp since the invention of the blink tag.
And we have adblockers and the incessant whining of users and advertisers who both think they're entitled to control what appears on a user's screen.

Somewhere Usenet became completely useless for its original purpose. Some of my friends say it's a cheap substitute for bittorrent, so maybe it has a new funciton.

Now, the phone. Do you think it will be *any* different?
Hey--if they come up with a free and effective solution, great--I'll take two and color me wrong.
But I ain't holding my breath!

Comment Caller id spoofing already broke that. (Score 1) 120

The real way to handle it is to create an open source shared black list, have people sign up for a service, and vote when they answer a call on whether or not it is a telemarketer or robo-call.

Caller ID spoofing already broke block lists. By the time a call gets to your local telco there is no way even for them to tell where it really came from. They regularly spoof their identity - often as others they're robo-calling, or even as the phone they are calling.

IMHO the only way available currently is to trace back a particular call, from telco to telco, to see where it DID come from - then go after the actual robocaller. (Good luck getting that implemented, though. Or getting it to work across all countries, rather than letting the spammers run from safe havens.)

Comment Re:I really don't understand this drone applicatio (Score 4, Insightful) 43

Why would you use a heavier-than-air craft to essentially hover? Wouldn't an aerostat accomplish the same goal at a much lower cost, and lower risk of bodily harm should it fall from the sky?

I don't know why they chose it. Here's my take:

An aerostat requires tethers, which are points of failure, and has enormous wind drag. Lose the tether(s) and you lose control. Then you have a large, failing, floating device at the mercy of the winds, dragging first broken tethers, then its own large structure, on an uncontrolled path along the ground, wreaking unknown havoc.

A powered heavier-than-air (but still ultralight) has little drag and can also be made to change locations easily. With good design, if it begins to accumulate failures that jeopardize its continued operational ability, it can be made to fly to a repair site and land - after its backup has arrived to take its place.

If you have catastrophic events - like huricaines, tornadoes, or forest firestoms - it can easily be moved away (to land for shelter or fly around or above the storm) and brought back when the environment is calmer. You don't even have to take it out of service. Just fly it above the tropopause. The stratosphere is probably a good place for it to operate anyhow: Negligible weather, no cloud shadows for solar-powered planes, and gives you a lot of coverage per drone. (Balloons can get there, too, easily. But 50,000 feet or so is a LOT of tether.)

Comment But will they play Badger Badger Badger? (Score 1) 156

Over the past few years, Firefox has implemented Web APIs to replace functionality that was formerly provided only by plugins.

But will they play Badger Badger Badger?

Until that can be emulated on the "replacement functionality", removing Flash is a fundamental impact on the Internet Experience. ;-)

Comment Why do we care that Facebook is doing this? (Score 2) 93

Freespace optical communication has been around for a long, long time. It's a problematic system to use in an atmosphere, since anything and everything can degrade the throughput. So, now we get to use a system the is horribly degraded whenever it's foggy, rains, or birds are flying around? No thank you.

Other systems have shown to achieve 10GB/s, so their test of 2GB/s isn't that revolutionary.

Let's stop the clickbait of *random famous company does something that other people have done before*.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If a computer can't directly address all the RAM you can use, it's just a toy." -- anonymous comp.sys.amiga posting, non-sequitir

Working...