I just read we have almost reached the physical reach of our technology, there's a reason why our PC chips don't go higher than 4 ghz processing power, its because you can't cram more layers into them without going bigger in size. Its the same reason why we will never reach near-light speeds, there is no material strong enough to prevent that spaceship from disentigrating from the particle bombardment at that speed.
Discuss your views.
People on ebay list 5,6,12ghz systems all the time.
Or do they just not know how to properly label what they're selling?
Can you post some examples? I couldn't find any but I didn't look very hard though.
Mostly they don't know how to label what they are selling. For example, that 12GHz system would probably be a quad-core CPU of some kind running at 3GHz - it's just that the person selling doesn't realize adding the cores together doesn't work.People on ebay list 5,6,12ghz systems all the time.
Or do they just not know how to properly label what they're selling?
If you count a home printer as something that can reasonably be expected to fit into someone's house:Are you following what I'm saying? I'm not talking about press-printing or photocopying, I'm talking about an actual PC printer that can print a full-color 11x8.5 page per second, a home PC printer, not a 250-ft-long industrial newspaper press
I'm happily awaiting from you guys a YouTube video of such a home printer, or a 25 Ghz chip installed on a home PC.
I'm talking about an actual PC printer that can print a full-color 11x8.5 page per second, a home PC printer,
Actually the OP does have a point and the responses do reflect the arrogance I see in views towards science. Because your cell phone can download and display porn due to faster and more power efficient chinese made electronic processors on a psuedo 4G network the human race is obviously on the virge of becoming trancendant. That's what you all are saying, correct?
Computational architectures stopped making significant evolutions about 20 years ago. Currently progress in this field is being driven almost entirely by consumer demands and product life cycle expectations; aka Intel's decision to hold off processor revisions based on profit cycles. It's not driven by science. You won't see true quantum state processors until there is a way for some group of share holders to make a profit or designed by a university science dept where the alumni aren't more concerned about BCS rankings.
When a computer does something that's been done by humans a billion times before, but simply does it faster then I'm not impressed. You guys can believe it, but it simply reflects more brain washing via a culture that masks true technological progress with consumer gadgets. Micro processors are stuck in the stone age because they are unable to process data unless it's in a state of 1, or 0. who cares how fast it can process ones and zeroes, it's still the same data.
Case in point: it's only relevant if it's convenient for Western Consumers. Otherwise, it might as well not exist. If we did find a way to make photo quality ink-jets at a rate of several per second think of all the profit that could be made on ink-jet cartridges.
When a computer does something that's been done by humans a billion times before, but simply does it faster then I'm not impressed. You guys can believe it, but it simply reflects more brain washing via a culture that masks true technological progress with consumer gadgets. Micro processors are stuck in the stone age because they are unable to process data unless it's in a state of 1, or 0. who cares how fast it can process ones and zeroes, it's still the same data.
If it doesn't impress you, then that's tough. Because that's what computers are designed to do.When a computer does something that's been done by humans a billion times before, but simply does it faster then I'm not impressed. You guys can believe it, but it simply reflects more brain washing via a culture that masks true technological progress with consumer gadgets. Micro processors are stuck in the stone age because they are unable to process data unless it's in a state of 1, or 0. who cares how fast it can process ones and zeroes, it's still the same data.
Fine, I'll be the one to say it. You need to read up more on technology.
Also, the reason why we will never travel at the speed of light is because as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases to infinity, requiring infinite power to accelerate.
Actually the OP does have a point and the responses do reflect the arrogance I see in views towards science. Because your cell phone can download and display porn due to faster and more power efficient chinese made electronic processors on a psuedo 4G network the human race is obviously on the virge of becoming trancendant. That's what you all are saying, correct?
Computational architectures stopped making significant evolutions about 20 years ago. Currently progress in this field is being driven almost entirely by consumer demands and product life cycle expectations; aka Intel's decision to hold off processor revisions based on profit cycles. It's not driven by science. You won't see true quantum state processors until there is a way for some group of share holders to make a profit or designed by a university science dept where the alumni aren't more concerned about BCS rankings.
When a computer does something that's been done by humans a billion times before, but simply does it faster then I'm not impressed. You guys can believe it, but it simply reflects more brain washing via a culture that masks true technological progress with consumer gadgets. Micro processors are stuck in the stone age because they are unable to process data unless it's in a state of 1, or 0. who cares how fast it can process ones and zeroes, it's still the same data.
Case in point: it's only relevant if it's convenient for Western Consumers. Otherwise, it might as well not exist. If we did find a way to make photo quality ink-jets at a rate of several per second think of all the profit that could be made on ink-jet cartridges.
Yeah, yeah, capitalism has brainwashed us all, we are all tools of giant corporations, and we will never be able to throw off the chains of servitude unless we rise up against the oppressor. Wait a tick--how are you contributing to this thread? On your COMPUTER? Where was it built? Unless it was in your garage with raw materials dug out of the earth with your bare hands, and soldered using a bicycle (built by you) hooked up to a generator (also homemade), me thinks you need to check your reflection in the mirror and see if hypocrite is written on your forehead. Also, isn't your very involvement in this discussion tacitly supporting the evil design of a western consumer culture that seeks to keep us all occupied with shiny objects whilst emptying our wallets and our brains?
You're naive buddy, if you think "pure" research (not carried out with any kind of reward-benefit system expected by the participants) has ever existed in the world. Not saying the way things are is the best it could be, or that we wouldn't be even further if, for example, NASA didn't have to waste time and money proving to the idiots who comprise the masses that they are producing practical technology in Spinoff, but come on. Wake up and join the real world. If it pisses you off, become a lobbyist or start an independent research firm. I'll be the first to contribute. Just quit whining where it doesn't do anyone any good whatsoever.
Lack of ignorance is not the same thing as arrogance. I've seen absolutely no claims even resembling anything in your first paragraph. How would you drive innovation, comrade? We should all simply contribute everything we have to the greater good and expect nothing in return, huh?Actually the OP does have a point and the responses do reflect the arrogance I see in views towards science. Because your cell phone can download and display porn due to faster and more power efficient chinese made electronic processors on a psuedo 4G network the human race is obviously on the virge of becoming trancendant. That's what you all are saying, correct?
Computational architectures stopped making significant evolutions about 20 years ago. Currently progress in this field is being driven almost entirely by consumer demands and product life cycle expectations; aka Intel's decision to hold off processor revisions based on profit cycles. It's not driven by science. You won't see true quantum state processors until there is a way for some group of share holders to make a profit or designed by a university science dept where the alumni aren't more concerned about BCS rankings.
When a computer does something that's been done by humans a billion times before, but simply does it faster then I'm not impressed. You guys can believe it, but it simply reflects more brain washing via a culture that masks true technological progress with consumer gadgets. Micro processors are stuck in the stone age because they are unable to process data unless it's in a state of 1, or 0. who cares how fast it can process ones and zeroes, it's still the same data.
Case in point: it's only relevant if it's convenient for Western Consumers. Otherwise, it might as well not exist. If we did find a way to make photo quality ink-jets at a rate of several per second think of all the profit that could be made on ink-jet cartridges.
Your entire post indicates only that you have absolutely no idea what a free market is. Your examples are all market manipulation by government, yet you blame it on the free market running amok. In short, your examples actually support the exact opposite of your premise.There is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as it is controlled.
Runaway capitalism destroys progress. As does a not controlled free market destroys progress.
Your entire post indicates only that you have absolutely no idea what a free market is. Your examples are all market manipulation by government, yet you blame it on the free market running amok. In short, your examples actually support the exact opposite of your premise.
Your entire post indicates only that you have absolutely no idea what a free market is. Your examples are all market manipulation by government, yet you blame it on the free market running amok. In short, your examples actually support the exact opposite of your premise.
As usual you assume you think you know everything.
But as usual you are like those people who when they hear the words "government" and "control" in one sentence, you as they scream fire and brimstone. While at the same time you hold your own government responsible for everything never looking in the mirror because of your own lifestyle. yawn...
In this particular case that i have mentioned, it is the lack of government control in the right way.
#The free market principle is promoted by the government, a good thing.
#But the principle is being pushed to hard. Meaning that as many companies are involved as the government sees fit. Or that healthy services are split up and rising in cost or are lowering in efficiency.
Now this is not an issue if there is a fundamental guide setup that covers the technical side, the financial side, the way to execute the plans. A set strategy that is tested against practice and is confirmed that it is executable nationwide by local native companies. Then when this strategy is complete, companies can start to offer there services and a selection is made. For example companies should be selected according to the quality of service and geological positions. When the selection is made, again the strategy is being discussed with all players(the companies) in the field to remove errors and set reliability and responsibility.
When implemented and real life problems arise for example, a swift action can be taken because of the latter. And this has the advantage of distributed offices, meaning that jobs are spread nation wide. This is long term planning and actually works. Keeping a lot of jobs and job security around.
If in this particular the government would control the issue even less then already is the case, numerous 100% not compatible systems from different companies would arise. This in your simple minded view is good for companies who want to earn a buck. But you forget that the money has to come from somewhere. In this particular case from the tax payer. Money that can be spent in a better way. When a country wide single system is used, it may seem to provide less jobs. And yes, some superfluous jobs would not exist but that is because there is no for it need in an efficient system. In the current situation the tco for the government increases and this results in higher taxes, because the money has to come from somewhere. I think it is better to spend taxpayers money on something more useful then keeping boneheads similar like you busy.
It is all about efficiency. Remember the "+costs" debacle in the US ? I am sure you do.
Another example is splitting up a company into separate companies to force the free market principle. While at the same time providing the same service. The increased administration and communication translates in higher costs and lower efficiency for the end user. And yes, still the same company, only higher tco. No rivaling companies to lower the price. Because the market is to small and to risky for another startup. In the end first the entire service must collapse leaving customers or citizens in the cold and with the problems before new players will jump onto a given market segment. And that is what boneheads like you always forget.
I have seen more problems arise from enforcing the free market principle on healthy markets then being solved. That is because there actually are in real life situations where the profits are low but the people depend on it. And when the people depend on it, the economy depends on it. And when the economy hurts, the entire country hurts. Maybe you should see a doctor or start to drink less with that tunnel vision/thinking of yours.
Dude, it's really hard, try as I might, to take anything you say seriously when you write "there" instead of "their" and "then" instead of "than." Just saying.
Agreed. As I sat there reading your post, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how what you were describing wasn't the opposite of a free market. You talk about the product being "chosen" to be developed independently. By whom? Shouldn't that tip you off that someone is trying to direct the economy by developing something internally because it helps the local economy when the free-market makes it cheaper to buy it from a third party...
And anyway, I never endorsed completely a unrestrained free market in my post. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the rise of Big Business in the late 1800s knows that expecting a free market to solve all of our problems without any kind of government involvement is a pipe dream. Sure, some Milton Freedman extremists will take it to the extreme and argue the gov't caused the Great Depression by tightening the money supply when they shouldn't have and thus the government should completely duck out of the ring, etc etc blah blah blah, and maybe they are right in that particular instance. But you need some kind of gov't participation in the economy. You can't compete production-wise in the world market without techniques of mass production, from which monopoly (almost always) inevitably follows, and the only body strong enough to regulate monopoly (as was the will of the people in the 1890s) is government.
I can not go into full detail and i understand this blurs the intention of my writings. But i agree with the point that unrestrained free market and unrestrained capitalism only results into dictatorship by those who live with the least amount of moral and honour. The same thing will happen when communism is chosen. It depends on you how to use a tool.