 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Another week, they had a plastic key with a microprocessor inside it.
> When you stick it in the lock, it transmits a code to the computer in
> the lock, which makes the door unlock. [Actually, it didn't. The key
> snapped off in the lock, leaving the presenter to tell us all how
> wonderful it is, and how this is only a prototype.] It seemed pretty
> stupid to me, but today electronic locks are all over the place. They
> just don't make them shaped like mechanical keys any more - because
> that's silly.
Actually, many modern cars in the US use microchipped mechanical keys -
makes them much more difficult to duplicate (also makes them a lot more
expensive).
On our recent holiday, though, we rented a Prius and it didn't have a
mechanical key at all.
So both models are in use.
> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?
It hasn't - some of it didn't work out. Novell had a product technology
called NEST (Novell Embedded Systems Technology) about 10-15 years ago
that aimed to network common appliances - I saw things like VCRs that
were network-enabled, even a coffee maker. That VCR technology is a
predecessor to current DVR technology (many DVRs can be programmed over
the network).
Others of it are in use, but maybe in different applications than were
presented. That's the challenge of predicting the future - you have to
analyse trends and make predictions based on what the current trends show
you.
It's not a very exact science, because it relies very heavily on
guesswork, and the further out you try to predict, the more inaccurate
the predictions become - partly because the trending only takes you so
far, and partly because you can't predict based on upcoming breakthroughs
(you don't know when there will be a breakthrough in nanotechnology for
example, though you might be able to predict that a breakthrough is
likely to happen) - especially breakthroughs that are completely
unexpected.
> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
Of course scepticism would be present in any area where one didn't have
expertise. I've heard of some of this type of thing being done
experimentally in academic settings. Quantum computing, OTOH, I'm not
sure anyone could have predicted because the behaviours of quantum
particles (and the discovery of certain particles) couldn't easily have
been predicted (but I'm no expert and it's possible/probable that someone
who is could've seen it coming from further off).
> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
> methods yet".
There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome - current
methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money,
especially when you start talking about large-scale production.
So in essence, you're correct. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:15:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> About minidisc by sony, it was nice but started to suck at DRM already.
>> (integrated copy protection: 1 generation numeric copy only, no way to
>> transfert from disk to PC in numeric). Same for DAT tape...
>
> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
> studio format.
That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended to
be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for backup
medium.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> > and flatscreen monitors:
> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs
Ironically, there exists a technology to make flatscreen CRTs, with all
the advantages of CRT (such as contrast) with less of the disadvantages
(such as distortion, misalignment, etc). The basic idea is that there's
one (static) electron ray per pixel. (Well, three, one for each color
component.)
For some reason the technology has never been commercialized, even though
it could potentially be feasible.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 04:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 7:15, Invisible wrote:
>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>> completely
>> vanished off the face of existence?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing
Oh, is that what they call it now?
>> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
>> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether that
>> could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
>
> The very effect that makes you not need wires means the entire IC can't
> work with nothing but light. You don't need wires because photons don't
> interact with each other - they only interact with electrons. Hence, you
> can't easily switch light without involving electricity.
The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
index" can be used to make signals interact. It also suggests that this
is much less efficient than semiconductors.
>> On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range
>> connections? That could *totally* work!
>
> You mean, like, microwave communication towers and fiber optic cable?
No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at
the other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather
than trying to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so
might be a big win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>
> It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.
I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more.
So what happened to it?
>> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
>> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
>> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
>> methods yet".
>
> There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome - current
> methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money,
> especially when you start talking about large-scale production.
>
> So in essence, you're correct. :)
Heh. Thought so.
In that case, presumably once current technologies start hitting
hard(er) limits, new ones will start to be viable.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I also remember something rather puzzling. Apparently somebody
> discovered that if you etch silicon with a certain kind of acid, it
> produces a special microscopic structure which has an unexpected
> property: it can transform electricity into like, and the reverse. This
> was hailed as the future of IC technology. In the future, we were told,
> interconnects on an IC would work using light rather electricity. For
> light has one really critical advantage: beams of light can pass through
> each other.
>
> By contrast, if you want to move signals around using wires, you either
> have to have extremely long and convoluted wire routes to get around all
> the obstacles in your way, or complex multiple-layer wiring designs. But
> with light, a signal can just go straight from A to B, intersecting as
> many other signal paths as you like.
>
> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>
> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
>
> On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range
> connections? That could *totally* work! By strategically using optical
> signals in place of electronic ones, you might be able to drastically
> reduce signal path lengths, which reduces propagation delays. More to
> the point, if I'm understanding this right, long traces have the problem
> of high capacitance too, which an optical signal path would seemingly
> also avoid.
>
> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
> methods yet".
>
For optical computers, there are several working prototypes in several labs.
The good:
Multiple parallel use of the same switch/circuit by using light of
different colours, over 100 simultaneous computing channels on 1
component at the same time! Brings up realy massive parallel
multiprocessing.
Digital circuits having 5 discreet stable signal level. Base 5 computing
anyone?...
No cross interference.
No capacitance nor inductance.
Capable of theoretical clock speed in the THz.
Capable of mixed digital and analogic processing.
Dirrect intercomponents data paths.
The bad:
Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to
electronic parts.
Mostly organic material based can compromise longevity and stability.
Non-organic based solutions tend to be very brittle and devlop faults
and minute cracks.
There are problems with the RAM side. Low capacity and retention time.
Refreshing dynamic RAM is difficult and static RAM not realy functional.
Storage loops have huge latency or very low capacity.
Nobody can yet take advantage of 5 digital states.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/12/2011 11:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
> index" can be used to make signals interact.
Guess what causes something to have a non-linear refractive index? Electrons.
> No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at the
> other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather than trying
> to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so might be a big
> win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.
Maybe. But you still have to convert it from electronics to light and back
again.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/12/2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> and flatscreen monitors:
>
> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs
There's also a version where the guns are at the bottom and the beam gets
curved as it passes up the back of the plate. IIRC, they had two guns, one
for purplish and one for greenish, so the colors weren't as good.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/12/2011 11:35, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more. So
> what happened to it?
I hear about it pretty regularly, as research. People are still trying to
figure out how to get it interfaced to the electronics efficiently and so on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/12 14:33, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
> index" can be used to make signals interact. It also suggests that this
> is much less efficient than semiconductors.
>
There are cases where an interface can switch from pass through to
reflective depending on a controll light beam.
You can selectively change the reflective capacity of very narow bands.
You can reflect at 952nm but not 950nm nor 954nm if you want to.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
