Nothing gets really interesting until Skymont. Because after that, we're forced into quantum computing by the laws of physics.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era. We have been building chips with one hand tied behind our backs. There are 4 basic circuit building blocks and to date we have only used 3 of the 4 electrical elements + transistors. Well memristors make the full scope of theoretical EE available, finally.
Memristors will lower power requirements and raise speed because they are faster than a series of transistors and can natively maintain state power off. HP and IBM both made significant production related advances in the past year, as in finding repeatable ways to actually make them in quantity. Because they can often be combined in ways to eliminate transistors while also taking up less real estate than the transistors you can get denser circuits with lower power requirements for the same functionality.
And there are even magnetic quantum scale technologies like spin memristors that don't depend on misguided probability density functions to generate results, just definitive atomic magnetic polarities displayed via spin states.
I would be very surprised if there aren't a good 30-40 years of solid computational speed and throughput advances to go as the new circuit designs are optimized. That's a long tome before we have to worry about feature scale and betting the farm on PFM q-bits.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era. We have been building chips with one hand tied behind our backs. There are 4 basic circuit building blocks and to date we have only used 3 of the 4 electrical elements + transistors. Well memristors make the full scope of theoretical EE available, finally.
Memristors will lower power requirements and raise speed because they are faster than a series of transistors and can natively maintain state power off. HP and IBM both made significant production related advances in the past year, as in finding repeatable ways to actually make them in quantity. Because they can often be combined in ways to eliminate transistors while also taking up less real estate than the transistors you can get denser circuits with lower power requirements for the same functionality.
And there are even magnetic quantum scale technologies like spin memristors that don't depend on misguided probability density functions to generate results, just definitive atomic magnetic polarities displayed via spin states.
I would be very surprised if there aren't a good 30-40 years of solid computational speed and throughput advances to go as the new circuit designs are optimized. That's a long tome before we have to worry about feature scale and betting the farm on PFM q-bits.
The future's gonna be so much weirder than we can imagine. None of the functions project straight-line. The delta of change and the ubiquity of hardware and software at decreasing $/unit of computation makes every trend exponential in its compounding effects. And that's in computational science alone..... ...the rippling effects in the biological sciences, physics, engineering and material sciences, etc. will further transform the landscape of human reality.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era.
Oh, good. I know nothing about this. Happy to be proven wrong because the Skymont release date doesn't jive with what I've read about the timeframe of an operational quantum computer.
Four thirds is the sensor size ( 1.33" diagonal), not the aspect ratio. And it's not terribly much smaller than the size as Super 35 film frame. There are pro video cameras that have 1/3" (0.33") sensors, some have 1/2" sensors and they've proven to be very popular.
seems to me that "four thirds" may refer both to the aspect ratio and size of the sensor.
it should be noted that 4/3" is the nominal 'vacuum tube equivalent' size of the sensor, not the actual diagonal measurement.
the actual diagonal of the sensor (d) is found from the nominal tube size (n) by the forumla:
d [mm] = 16 [mm/inch]*n [inch].
(where the factor 16 mm/inch has some archaic origin)
this works out to approx 21.3mm for 4-3rds, which is pretty close to the specified 21.6 mm.
At which point Apple will own our music, files, browsing history, location data, and various other scary tidbits. NTM, Apple was recently the highest valued company on Earth. Yes, Earth .... Apple is growing into a daunting size and sitting on more cash than the U.S. Government. This is all coming from a 20 year Apple user and shareholder that has benefited greatly from their growth. I love them and appreciate what they have done but they're starting to frighten me a bit.
I'm not interested in iSkyNet. The day Apple goes 100% iCloud is the day I go 100% linux.
Hear! Hear!
I have been entertaining that idea since Apple introduced the walled garden in earnest. And the moment for the switch is getting closer it seems.
(Looked at Linux UIs lately? They have improved vastly!)
So it kinda makes you guys look kinda silly with all this hand wringing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck O. Jones
Hear! Hear!
I have been entertaining that idea since Apple introduced the walled garden in earnest. And the moment for the switch is getting closer it seems.
What really has you so worried? Frankly technology changes too fast to even remotely believe all the guesses about the future. Besides you have to balance positives and negatives here.
For example some people call the iPhone a walled garden. It is in some ways, but not excessively so as their is a huge stockpile of apps for the device. In the end you have to balance the positives against the negatives. Frankly my iPhones reliability as a phone is paramount thus the limitations are welcomed.
On Mac OS/X there are a different set of "rules" when it comes to what is acceptable on the platform. Apples intentions here are not written in stone and thus subject to fear and speculation. However things like App Store can be likened to Linux package managers. Linux package managers done right from the users perspective. So far I like what I see.
Quote:
(Looked at Linux UIs lately? They have improved vastly!)
Listen I understand Linux really well, having run it as a primary OS since fedora/redhat 5. That includes various distributions on both desk top and laptop hardware. I really like Linux but on the other hand have grown to really hate the organization responsible for the GPL. Still when I bought my first Mac in 2008 I've not looked back. For general user needs a Mac simply beats every other platform out there. Throw in technical usage such as software development and it gets even better.
Now from the users perspective iCloud really has some impressive potential. If it works as described and matures well I can see the service becoming a huge sales driver for Apple. In a way your documents become virtual and not stuck to one device. I don't want to yell victory yet but I think you have to look at this from the perspective of a user. Many will trip over themselves to get the features promised, and likely demand even more afterward.
Comments
Nothing gets really interesting until Skymont. Because after that, we're forced into quantum computing by the laws of physics.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era. We have been building chips with one hand tied behind our backs. There are 4 basic circuit building blocks and to date we have only used 3 of the 4 electrical elements + transistors. Well memristors make the full scope of theoretical EE available, finally.
Memristors will lower power requirements and raise speed because they are faster than a series of transistors and can natively maintain state power off. HP and IBM both made significant production related advances in the past year, as in finding repeatable ways to actually make them in quantity. Because they can often be combined in ways to eliminate transistors while also taking up less real estate than the transistors you can get denser circuits with lower power requirements for the same functionality.
And there are even magnetic quantum scale technologies like spin memristors that don't depend on misguided probability density functions to generate results, just definitive atomic magnetic polarities displayed via spin states.
I would be very surprised if there aren't a good 30-40 years of solid computational speed and throughput advances to go as the new circuit designs are optimized. That's a long tome before we have to worry about feature scale and betting the farm on PFM q-bits.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era. We have been building chips with one hand tied behind our backs. There are 4 basic circuit building blocks and to date we have only used 3 of the 4 electrical elements + transistors. Well memristors make the full scope of theoretical EE available, finally.
Memristors will lower power requirements and raise speed because they are faster than a series of transistors and can natively maintain state power off. HP and IBM both made significant production related advances in the past year, as in finding repeatable ways to actually make them in quantity. Because they can often be combined in ways to eliminate transistors while also taking up less real estate than the transistors you can get denser circuits with lower power requirements for the same functionality.
And there are even magnetic quantum scale technologies like spin memristors that don't depend on misguided probability density functions to generate results, just definitive atomic magnetic polarities displayed via spin states.
I would be very surprised if there aren't a good 30-40 years of solid computational speed and throughput advances to go as the new circuit designs are optimized. That's a long tome before we have to worry about feature scale and betting the farm on PFM q-bits.
The future's gonna be so much weirder than we can imagine. None of the functions project straight-line. The delta of change and the ubiquity of hardware and software at decreasing $/unit of computation makes every trend exponential in its compounding effects. And that's in computational science alone..... ...the rippling effects in the biological sciences, physics, engineering and material sciences, etc. will further transform the landscape of human reality.
No. Memristors will provide a significant lengthening of the pre-quantum computing era.
Oh, good. I know nothing about this. Happy to be proven wrong because the Skymont release date doesn't jive with what I've read about the timeframe of an operational quantum computer.
Four thirds is the sensor size ( 1.33" diagonal), not the aspect ratio. And it's not terribly much smaller than the size as Super 35 film frame. There are pro video cameras that have 1/3" (0.33") sensors, some have 1/2" sensors and they've proven to be very popular.
seems to me that "four thirds" may refer both to the aspect ratio and size of the sensor.
it should be noted that 4/3" is the nominal 'vacuum tube equivalent' size of the sensor, not the actual diagonal measurement.
the actual diagonal of the sensor (d) is found from the nominal tube size (n) by the forumla:
d [mm] = 16 [mm/inch]*n [inch].
(where the factor 16 mm/inch has some archaic origin)
this works out to approx 21.3mm for 4-3rds, which is pretty close to the specified 21.6 mm.
At which point Apple will own our music, files, browsing history, location data, and various other scary tidbits. NTM, Apple was recently the highest valued company on Earth. Yes, Earth .... Apple is growing into a daunting size and sitting on more cash than the U.S. Government. This is all coming from a 20 year Apple user and shareholder that has benefited greatly from their growth. I love them and appreciate what they have done but they're starting to frighten me a bit.
I'm not interested in iSkyNet. The day Apple goes 100% iCloud is the day I go 100% linux.
Hear! Hear!
I have been entertaining that idea since Apple introduced the walled garden in earnest. And the moment for the switch is getting closer it seems.
(Looked at Linux UIs lately? They have improved vastly!)
Hear! Hear!
I have been entertaining that idea since Apple introduced the walled garden in earnest. And the moment for the switch is getting closer it seems.
What really has you so worried? Frankly technology changes too fast to even remotely believe all the guesses about the future. Besides you have to balance positives and negatives here.
For example some people call the iPhone a walled garden. It is in some ways, but not excessively so as their is a huge stockpile of apps for the device. In the end you have to balance the positives against the negatives. Frankly my iPhones reliability as a phone is paramount thus the limitations are welcomed.
On Mac OS/X there are a different set of "rules" when it comes to what is acceptable on the platform. Apples intentions here are not written in stone and thus subject to fear and speculation. However things like App Store can be likened to Linux package managers. Linux package managers done right from the users perspective. So far I like what I see.
(Looked at Linux UIs lately? They have improved vastly!)
Listen I understand Linux really well, having run it as a primary OS since fedora/redhat 5. That includes various distributions on both desk top and laptop hardware. I really like Linux but on the other hand have grown to really hate the organization responsible for the GPL. Still when I bought my first Mac in 2008 I've not looked back. For general user needs a Mac simply beats every other platform out there. Throw in technical usage such as software development and it gets even better.
Now from the users perspective iCloud really has some impressive potential. If it works as described and matures well I can see the service becoming a huge sales driver for Apple. In a way your documents become virtual and not stuck to one device. I don't want to yell victory yet but I think you have to look at this from the perspective of a user. Many will trip over themselves to get the features promised, and likely demand even more afterward.